User Experience Analysis of the Pertamina Investment Information System Using UEQ and Open-Ended Responses

Raditya Fausta Rizki; Zidny Ilma Hasan

doi:10.69693/ijmst.v4i3.13268

Authors

Raditya Fausta Rizki Universitas Padjadjaran
Zidny Ilma Hasan Universitas Padjadjaran

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.69693/ijmst.v4i3.13268

Keywords:

SIIP, User Experience, UEQ, Open-Ended Responses, Investment Information System

Abstract

The Pertamina Investment Information System (SIIP) is an internal enterprise application supporting project and investment management across PT Pertamina (Persero) Holding and six main Subholdings. Field observations and official internal meeting minutes identified recurring issues involving information accessibility, duplicate work, manual validation, and system response time. This study evaluates SIIP using the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) and optional scale-specific open-ended responses. A quantitative approach supported by qualitative data was applied to 62 active SIIP users. The 26-item UEQ measured Attractiveness, Perspicuity, Efficiency, Dependability, Stimulation, and Novelty. Quantitative data were analyzed using UEQ Data Analysis Tool version 14 and supported by Pearson item-to-total correlations and Cronbach's alpha in SPSS, while open-ended responses were grouped into recurring issue categories. Attractiveness obtained the highest mean (1.312), followed by Stimulation (0.927) and Novelty (0.907), whereas Perspicuity (-0.181), Dependability (-0.573), and Efficiency (-0.935) were weaker. At the dimension level, Attractiveness was 1.31, Hedonic Quality 0.92, and Pragmatic Quality -0.56. Benchmarking classified Attractiveness and Novelty as Above Average, Stimulation as Below Average, and Perspicuity, Efficiency, and Dependability as Bad. The results indicate a positive overall impression of SIIP but weak pragmatic quality, suggesting that development should prioritize clearer information, streamlined workflows, stronger validation and data-status feedback, and improved system stability.

References

1. Benesty, J., Chen, J., Huang, Y., & Cohen, I. (2009). Pearson correlation coefficient. In Noise reduction in speech processing (pp. 1-4). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00296-0_5

2. Colley, A., Mayer, S., & Häkkilä, J. (2023). Developing an emoji-based User Experience Questionnaire: UEQ-Emoji. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3626705.3627767

3. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

4. Google, Temasek, & Bain & Company. (2024). e-Conomy SEA 2024 report. https://economysea.withgoogle.com/report/2024

5. GoodStats. (2024). Indeks Pembangunan TIK Indonesia kembali meningkat. https://data.goodstats.id/statistic/indeks-pembangunan-tik-indonesia-kembali-meningkat-RnbEG

6. Guo, L., & Xu, L. (2021). The effects of digital transformation on firm performance: Evidence from China's manufacturing sector. Sustainability, 13(22), 12844. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212844

7. Hassenzahl, M. (2010). Experience design: Technology for all the right reasons. Morgan & Claypool. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00261ED1V01Y201003HCI008

8. ISO. (2019). ISO 9241-210:2019 Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. International Organization for Standardization. https://www.iso.org/standard/77520.html

9. Izah, S. C., Sylva, L., & Hait, M. (2023). Cronbach's Alpha: A cornerstone in ensuring reliability and validity in environmental health assessment. ES Energy & Environment, 23, 1057. https://doi.org/10.30919/esee1057

10. Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2020). Management information systems: Managing the digital firm (16th global ed.). Pearson.

11. Lewis, J. R. (1995). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 7(1), 57-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447319509526110

12. Manikandan, S. (2011). Frequency distribution. Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics, 2(1), 54-56. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-500X.77120

13. Micale, R., La Fata, C. M., Lombardo, A., & La Scalia, G. (2021). Project Management Information Systems (PMISs): A statistical-based analysis for the evaluation of software packages features. Applied Sciences, 11(23), 11233. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112311233

14. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. (2023). Indonesian energy statistics 2023. https://esdm.go.id/assets/media/content/content-handbook-of-energy-and-economic-statistics-of-indonesia-2023.pdf

15. OECD. (2022). The OECD Going Digital Measurement Roadmap. OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 328. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/bd10100f-en

16. Panggabean, R. P. (2018). Investment Information System: A breakthrough in monitoring and evaluation system of investment project in PT Pertamina. Offshore Technology Conference Asia. https://onepetro.org/OTCASIA/proceedings-abstract/18OTCA/4-18OTCA/179590

17. Pertamina. (2016). Pertamina Investment Information System (SIIP) [Video]. PT Pertamina (Persero). https://youtu.be/tsBvAUn7Aho?si=8lX_YqH_6DoXRlea

18. Pratama, A., Faroqi, A., & Mandyartha, E. P. (2022). Evaluation of user experience in integrated learning information systems using User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ). Journal of Information Systems and Informatics, 4(4), 1019-1029. https://doi.org/10.51519/journalisi.v4i4.394

19. Putro, S., Kusrini, K., & Kurniawan, M. P. (2020). Penerapan metode UEQ dan cooperative evaluation untuk mengevaluasi user experience Lapor Bantul. Creative Information Technology Journal, 6(1), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.24076/citec.2019v6i1.242

20. Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2023). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer interaction (6th ed.). Wiley.

21. Rondonuwu, Y. V., & Kurniawan, D. T. (2024). Evaluasi User Experience pada Sistem Informasi Perpustakaan menggunakan User Experience Questionnaire. Journal of Information System Research (JOSH), 5(4), 1500-1507. https://doi.org/10.47065/josh.v5i4.5296

22. Schrepp, M. (2023). User Experience Questionnaire handbook: All you need to know to apply the UEQ successfully in your projects. UEQ Research Group. https://www.ueq-online.org/Material/Handbook.pdf

23. Schrepp, M., Hinderks, A., & Thomaschewski, J. (2017). Construction of a benchmark for the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ). International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 4(4), 40-44. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2017.445

24. SKK Migas. (2024). Laporan tahunan SKK Migas 2023. https://www.skkmigas.go.id/publication?tab=laporan+tahunan

25. Suud, J. (2025). Evaluation of user experience in adaptive stick for blind society Sarawak Malaysia using User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ). Jurnal Kejuruteraan, Teknologi and Sains Sosial (JKTSS), 11(1), 41-55. https://jktss.puo.edu.my/jurnalpuo/index.php/jurnal/article/view/228

26. Sugiyono. (2019). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif dan R&D (2nd ed.). Alfabeta.

27. Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and reliability of the research instrument: How to test? International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 5(3), 28-36. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205040

28. Tullis, T., & Albert, B. (2013). Measuring the user experience: Collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.

29. Zhafirah, Y., & Kamal, I. (2023). User Experience (UX) analysis on New Livin' by Mandiri application in Jabodetabek using User Experience Questionnaire. International Journal of Management and Business Economics, 1(3), 148-154. https://doi.org/10.58540/ijmebe.v1i3.200