Submitted on 2/7/2019 for MOT1451 – Inter- and Intra- Organizational Decision Making. Grade: 9/10.

Co-written with Angginta Ramdani Ibrahim.

Word count: 3758.

1. Introduction

Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia, is the fastest-sinking city in the world (Lin, 2018). Currently, 40% of Jakarta is situated below sea level, and as a waterfront city, it is prone to coastal flood (Widodo, 2017). As the center of most economic activities, Jakarta’s population grows rapidly, leading to land scarcity and massive building construction that contributes to land subsidence (Widodo, 2017). The surface of Jakarta has sunk 4 meters in the last three decades (Tarrant, 2014), and the most recent data indicated that the land subsides at a rate of 15-25 cm/year (Waterstaat, 2012). In 2007, Jakarta was hit by the worst flood in the past three hundred years (WHO, 2007). After this disaster, the Indonesian government called the Dutch government for assistance to protect Jakarta from sinking. As a response to the call, the Dutch government formed a consortium of Dutch companies that came up with a strategic plan called National Capital Integrated Coastal Development (NCICD). The solution offers flood protection and major contribution to socio-economic development at a cost of US$40 billion (Kemenko Perekonomian, 2014).

The earliest concept of a coastal development plan was introduced in 1995 as a land reclamation project. Since then, it has undergone constant changes in the design and goals that resulted from multiple negotiations and interactions between the actors (Octavianti et al., 2018), until the plan transformed into a one-for-all answer to the problems of Jakarta. Although the massive coastal development will affect the livelihood of local fishermen, destroy the environment, and expose the government to financial risks caused by the preconditions of the project (Bakker et al., 2017), it is still being championed as the answer to save Jakarta from sinking. This situation leads to our research question: Why does the integrated coastal development project remain entrenched in the agenda of Indonesian government for more than two decades despite internal and public disapproval?

As a ‘wicked’ problem, the combination of problem-solution is a result of negotiations between actors (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Conflicting parties are equally capable in describing the problem, but the problem definition is greatly influenced by their power, interest, and their idea of an ideal solution. Multiple studies proposed different problems to be tackled; unregulated groundwater extraction, rapid urbanization, and pressure from excessive construction (Abidin et al., 2011; Mohsin, 2015; Bakker et al., 2017). There is also no immediate and ultimate test for the solution, because the effectiveness of this project can only be measured if a major flood or other disastrous event occurs. The consequences of this project will span over a long period of time, leaving irreversible traces (Bakker et al., 2017). Other than that, as a ‘wicked’ problem that has no stopping rule, even after NCICD is implemented, there is no guarantee that the problem will be solved and the search for solutions can be put to an end.

2. Analysis

In analyzing this case, the rounds model was chosen because it is suitable for analyzing decision-making process within complex network that involves many actors (Teisman et al., 2012), providing the contextual details on how the actors interacted and what were exchanged. We will also utilize the tracks model to comprehensively analyze the ambitions of the actors, knowledge dynamics, and framing processes. The key actors will be further assessed based on their judgements and interests, alongside with the notable negotiation and framing strategies used throughout the NCICD decision-making process between 1995 and 2018.

2.1 Round 1 (1995-1999)

Presidential decree on land reclamation

The key actors in this round are the central government, Jakarta provincial government (DKI), and private developers (e.g. Lippo). In 1995, a presidential decree on land reclamation was signed and DKI was appointed as the controlling body of the project. The hierarchical relationship between the central and local government is in contrast to the relationship between government and private developers that were built on the principle of reciprocity. Private developers are largely involved in the urban development in Jakarta, which subsequently contribute to the economic growth of the region. In return, the government issues regulations and permits (Herlambang et al., 2019).

By using the tracks model to interpret this decision, we argue that the main reason behind this plan is the ambition of private developers that wanted to expand their business. In the backstage, the private developers influence the decision-making processby utilizing their close relationship with the government officials, particularly Soerjadi Soedirdja, who was both a governor of Jakarta (1992-1997) and a vice president of Lippo Board of Commissioners (Herlambang et al., 2019)Meanwhile, in the frontstage, the project was communicated as a means to expand the economy of the capital city. In order to justify this decision, Soedirdja used the fact that North Jakarta was lagging behind the other four districts of Jakarta. It was also framed that the expansion towards the land was not feasible due to the established satellite cities surrounding Jakarta, leaving land reclamation as the only viable solution. This is an evidence of a process-based activities backstage, project-based communication frontstage strategy. In 1999, the existing spatial planning document of Jakarta was revised, opening a 2.700ha land reclamation opportunity to further accommodate the ambition of the private developers.

2.2 Round 2 (2001-2008)

The Dutch entrance to the decision-making process

The key actors in this round are the Dutch government, Ministry of Public Works (PU), Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK), and court. In 2001, four ministries of Indonesia and the Netherlands signed an MoU on water issues. The MoU was a result of the longstanding postcolonial relationship between Indonesia and the Netherlands, which is demonstrated by multiple development cooperation projects that dated back to the 1960s (Nobbe, 2018). The projects include development aid that amounts to hundreds of millions of euros per year. By maintaining the relationship with Indonesia, the Netherlands is able to simultaneously build a growing dependency and strategically position itself within the decision-making network of the Indonesian government. An example of a successful Dutch influence can be found on the construction of Eastern Flood Canal in Jakarta. The plan was first presented in 1973 but had only started construction in 2003 after PU collaborated with the Dutch government (Simanjuntak et al., 2012).

Meanwhile, the resistance towards the land reclamation project began to emerge. As a central government body, the KLHK has both the responsibility and the authority to maintain the sustainability of the environment, which was threatened by this project. In 2003, KLHK used the facts obtained from an environmental impact assessment (EIA) to construct a victim-villain-hero frame, positioning itself as the hero against the private developers (the villain) that will damage the marine ecosystem and hurt the fishermen income (Bakker et al., 2017), harming the environment and society (the victims). The facts were used as a basis to ban land reclamation, igniting a court war between the ministry and private developers. However, in 2007, the court ruled that private developers won the dispute.

In the same year, a major flood from the sea hit Jakarta and left it debilitated for 10 days. This disaster created a sense of urgency and the Indonesian government decided to call for the Dutch assistance in ‘protecting Jakarta from high water’ (Waterstaat, 2014). Aside from the fact that the Dutch is globally-known for its expertise in water management, its close relationship with Indonesia has positioned itself as a convenient and reliable emergency contact. We argue that the Dutch expertise results in power, which subsequently grant it a claim to hearings on Indonesia’s water issues, an essential factor for a policy entrepreneur. This round ended with a formal introduction of the Dutch actors to the decision-making process.

2.3 Round 3 (2009-2011)

The first conception of coastal development

In this round, two decision-making arenas were identified. The first arena centered on the land reclamation project, with KLHK and private developers as the main actors, and the second arena focused on the initial concept of coastal development. The key actors in the second arena consisted of Indonesia government bodies and a network of Dutch actors that were introduced in the preceding round.

The interactions in the first arena started in July 2009, when KLHK filed an appeal against the court’s 2007 decision that won private developers. The court ruled in favor of private developers, pushing KLHK to file for cassation. Supreme court granted the cassation and declared that reclamation violated EIA. However, in 2011, the supreme court issued a new ruling that legalized the reclamation, stating that the president is the only actor that has the power to stop it. The interactions in this arena were concluded with a green light for private developers to proceed with the project.

The interactions in the second arena started in November 2009 when the National Planning Agency (BAPPENAS) collaborated with the Dutch water sector to formulate a strategic plan for Jakarta coastal defense (van der Kerk et al., 2013). Between 2010-2011, the Jakarta Coastal Defense Strategy (JCDS) project was carried out, and the end-of-project report warned that North Jakarta will sunk 4 to 5 meters below sea level in the coming 15-20 years (Waterstaat, 2012). A massive infrastructural project was proposed as a solution. Framing the threat of sinking as an emergency was a negotiated knowledge established by the experts in charge of the project, thus justifying the neglect of the main cause of the problem (Waterstaat, 2012).

Using the tracks model, we argue that the proposed solution was heavily influenced by the ambition of the main entity that initiated and financed JCDS: the Dutch government. The fact that Dutch excels in water management was utilized to include a consortium of Dutch water organizations to develop JCDS proposal. This is an implementation of selective activation of actors strategy to secure the involvement of Dutch organizations, giving them the power to use their frame in constructing the problem-solution set. In July 2011, Dutch Ministry of Development Cooperation contributed €4 million to the project, followed by a meeting in the Hague between Dutch representatives and Indonesian authorities, preparing the terms of reference (Bakker et al., 2017). The persistence of the Dutch government to push through with the project demonstrates another important factor that affects its success as a policy entrepreneur.

2.4 Round 4 (2012-2015)

The introduction and evolvement of NCICD

This round started in 2012 when the End-of-Project review of JCDS was presented to Hatta Rajasa, CoordinatingMinister for Economic Affairs (Kemenko Perekonomian). As JCDS was related to the economic development of DKI, Rajasa decided to include it in the Master Plan for Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia Economic Development (MP3EI) 2011-2025 (Waterstaat, 2012). The presentation acted as a policy window that enabled the coastal defense design to be incorporated in a much bigger setting. The key actors in this round are Kemenko Perekonomian, DKI, the Government of the Netherlands, and the Dutch consortium.

DKI governor issued a decree on the construction of 17 artificial islands in 2012. In the following year, Jakarta was hit by another flood, resulting in US$3 billion of damage (APADM, 2013). This disaster further instilled a sense of urgency, proving that the existing flood prevention system was insufficient to guard the city from water. In November 2013, Dutch Prime Minister presented the first draft of National Capital Integrated Coastal Development (NCICD) master plan in Jakarta, and the final version was published in October 2014. The highlight of the proposal is a giant seawall constructed as a 1.250ha reclaimed island in the shape of garuda – Indonesia’s mythical bird (Kemenko Perekonomian, 2014).

We argue that the NCICD master plan is a result of a multi-issue game that accommodates different ambitions of actors within the network. Kemenko Perekonomian viewed JCDS as an essential instrument for the country’s economic development, an incentive for it to join the process. From this point onwards, it became the leading entity of the decision-making process, reconfiguring the coastal defense as just one part of a selective multi-issue portfolio. The focus shifted from Jakarta flood problem into an ambitious projection of urban development that includes waterfront real estate development, toll roads, and port expansion (Kemenko Perekonomian, 2014). The coastal defense project was no longer positioned as a solution to Jakarta flood problem, but a crucial means to achieve the government’s bigger goals. However, this project came with a staggering US$40 billion price tag, making it impossible to be realized without external sources of funding. This condition required a participation from another key actor: the private developers.

Using the tracks model, we observe that the master plan utilized the fact that private developers have been actively constructing private islands in Jakarta coast and frame it as a pre-existing solution for the financing needs of the giant seawall. This coupling acts an incentive for private developers to join the process, offering an opportunity to develop valuable real estate in Jakarta bay in exchange for covering 70% of the project costs (Wade, 2019). Other than that, this setup provides a narrative that could justify the presence of land reclamation and potentially reduce public resistance. Utilizing the victim-villain-hero frame, the land reclamation project was reframed from being a villainthat harms the environment and society (victim) into a hero that will save Jakarta (victim) from sinking (villain). This new frame presented NCICD as a win-win package for Indonesian government to realize its ambitious urban development while simultaneously guarding its capital from water, and for the private developers to continue with land reclamation and gain future real estate development opportunities.

On top of that, we argue that the NCICD master plan contained the Dutch actors ambitions as much as its Indonesian counterparts. The ambitions of the Dutch government could be translated from their ‘aid and trade’ policy agenda that utilizes development cooperation and close relationship to partner countries to open doors for Dutch business sector and promote their expertise (BZ, 2013). NCICD was designed to rely on the Dutch expertise in water management, hydraulic engineering, and other technical aspects, a strategy to ensure future dependency when the project progresses past the planning phase. This round ended in 2015 when Dutch government granted another €8.5 million to the same consortium for continuing the plan development. The final decision-making content in this round is an integrated coastal development plan.

2.5 Round 5 (2015-2016)

Period of turbulence

The key actors in this round are local fishing communities, Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (KKP), the Coordinating Minister of Maritime Affairs (Kemenko Maritim), President Jokowi, DKI, and private developers. This round started in 2015 when the local fishing communities sued DKI, claiming that land reclamation will block access to fishing grounds and cause them to lose significant income (Bakker et al., 2017). In April 2016, KPK arrested a local politician for accepting bribes from a developer involved in the construction of one of the islands: Island G. In May 2016, the fishing communities used the procedural accusation strategy and challenged the decision legitimacy on the grounds of exclusionas they were not properly involved in the decision-making process (Bakker et al., 2017), leading to the court decision to suspend the reclamation permit issued by DKI.

Moreover, the project is considered to be too “driven” by private companies. Thus, President Jokowi declared moratorium and instructed the governmental bodies to take over the process (Humas, 2016). In April 2016, DKI Governor (Ahok) stressed that the moratorium would not affect the continuation of the project, as it was only intended to sort coordination issues. President Jokowi also showed his support, presenting the coupling of land reclamation and giant seawall as inseparable elements of NCICD (Kuwado, 2016). He used the principle frame to highlight the core values of NCICD that are aligned with what the public needs: safety and economic growth.

Following the suspension, in June 2016, KKP utilized principle frame to uphold the values of environmental sustainability by announcing that island G had to be cancelled permanently due to the violation of regulations. The accusation was contested by the developer, reframing the case using the principle frame, referring to its value of rule compliance (Bakker et al., 2017). The promotion of the project was re-intensified after the replacement of the coordinating ministry of Kemenko Maritim, who stated that the development of all 17 reclaimed islands will continue (Affan, 2016). In October 2016, DKI won the appeal procedure against fishing communities, followed by the reissuance of reclamation permit for island G (Aziza, 2016).

The facts of bribery scandals, law violations, and negative environmental impacts of the project were utilized by different actors (KKP and fishing communities) to push their ambitions in stopping the project. They used the victim-villain-hero frame to depict the project as a villain that will harm the victims (fishing communities and environment), and framed themselves as the heroes. This round ended with re-intensification of the support for NCICD.

2.6 Round 6 (2016-2018)

A revised version of NCICD

The key actors in this round are Save Jakarta Bay coalition (KSTJ), Dutch actors (government, consortium, NGOs), Governor of DKI, and BAPPENAS. This round started in October 2016, when KSTJ requested a meeting with Dutch Prime Minister. They stressed that the Dutch involvement in NCICD disrespects the principles of sustainable policies and good governance as it will harm the environment and local community (KSTJ, 2016). However, the Dutch government insisted on continuing its involvement in this project, igniting critics and accusations from its own public about how it places business interests above commitment to sustainable development (Bakker et al., 2017). The Dutch NGOs saw this situation as an incentive to participate in the decision-making process because these issues have affected their core values. They implemented the explain and expose strategy by publishing an investigative report on the Dutch role in the project in April 2017, forcing the Dutch actors to moderate their behavior to avoid being perceived as opportunists.

In October 2017, a new DKI governor who promised the public to stop land reclamation was inaugurated. He decided to retract permits and halt 13 islands based on the factthat developers did not fulfil their obligations. However, the construction of the remaining four islands have already finished (Arbi, 2018). This could be seen as a successful implementation of the point of no return strategy by the private developers, allowing them to continue with the development. In response to this situation, the Head of BAPPENAS decided to uncouple the controversial land reclamation element from NCICD and stated that the giant seawall will still continue (Daud, 2018). This inconsistency demonstrated the government’s opportunistic way of dealing with a dilemma in the decision-making process, putting them at risk of being deemed as an unreliable partner. This decision also forced the actors to find other financial resources to fund the giant seawall because the private developers’ land reclamation project was dropped from the multi-issue portfolio. In July 2017, a revised design of NCICD was presented, where the iconic garuda-shaped seawall was replaced with ‘just a seawall’ (PMU NCICD, 2017).

Using the tracks model to analyze this round, the Dutch NGOs, government, and consortium have conflicting ambitions between business interests and sustainability that subsequently affected the facts and frames that were used. Inside Indonesian government, the ambition between DKI to stop land reclamation and BAPPENAS to proceed with NCICD also clashed, each utilizing favorable facts to frame different set of problem-solution (DKI: environmental damage – stop land reclamation, BAPPENAS: flood problem – construct giant seawall). This round concludes the two-decades long decision-making process with a final content that has evolved drastically compared to the beginning.


3. Discussion

3.1 Conclusion

Based on our analysis of the reconstruction of the decision-making process, we concluded that the integrated coastal development continued to be entrenched for several reasons. Firstly, the project is a result of a multi-issue game that incorporates interests and ambitions of an increasingly large number of actors. Each actor has invested a substantial amount of resources, and as the time elongates, the incentives to continue participating also increases. Everybody is still expecting the prospect of gain that will not be available until the project is successfully implemented. In addition, the actors cannot exit the process and bear the risk of being considered untrustworthy by the others. Secondly, the status of the project is volatile due to the interdependencies of the actors. The Indonesian government has the authority to decide and govern, but lacks the technical expertise and financial resources to realize the project. The Dutch actors has the expertise power needed to design and implement the project, but it needs financial resources. Both actors depend on private developers, the owner of the much needed production power. This could be illustrated by the dancing table where every actor pushes and pulls within the decision-making process without any outcome that could satisfy all of the actors involved. Thirdly, the presence of the opponents’ blockade power is an obstruction to the progress. Smaller players such as the fishing community has actually managed to won a court case against DKI, and contributed to the suspension of the construction of several islands. With the help of NGOs, they were able to exert ‘chaos power’ in order to threaten big players, enforcing their values and interests to be considered, thus creating hindrance to the overall implementation of the project.

3.2 Recommendations

NCICD forces the opposing parties (e.g. NGOs and the fishing communities) to face win-lose situation. Although these parties have exerted ‘chaos power’ against the supporters of NCICD in order to disturb the process, the development has already reached a point of no return where four artificial islands have been built. One way to minimize their loss is to recognize the winner’s need to respect the rules of the game and use it in their favorAs a loser, they have the right to extra negotiations and compensation (de Bruijn & Heuvelhof, 2018). For instance, the fishing community and other harmed parties should negotiate a compensation package with the winners, utilizing the help of NGOs to increase their leverage.

The Indonesian government should also learn from this decision-making process. The government’s dependence on the Dutch expertise and private developers’ financial resources has created an increasing need to cooperate and negotiate, reducing its formal decision-making power and resulting in moderated behavior. To remain as the most powerful actor in the network and retain its system responsibility, the government has to build on competence, expertise, and resources that are relevant to solve its ‘wicked’ problems. Moreover, the government has to ensure the satisfaction of the actors, learning process, chances for future collaboration, and the fairness of the process (de Bruijn & Heuvelhof, 2018): the characteristics of a good decision-making process.



Abidin, H.Z., Andreas, H., Gumilar, I., Fukuda, Y., Pohan, Y.E. & Deguchi, T. (2011). Land subsidence of Jakarta (Indonesia) and its relation with urban development. Natural Hazards 59(3): 1753-1771.

Affan, H. (2016, September 14). Ditolak nelayan, reklamasi Teluk Jakarta ‘jalan terus’ (Fisherman rejected, the Jakarta Bay reclamation ‘go ahead’),” Retrieved from

Arbi, I. A. (2018, April 11). Anies reasserts he will stop Jakarta Bay reclamation, Retrieved from

Asia Pacific Alliance for Disaster Management (APADM). (2013, February 26). After the Jakarta Flood Response. Retrieved June 14, 2019, from

Aziza, K.S. (2016, October). Pemprov DKI kalahkan nelayan dalam Banding soal izin reklamasi Pulau G (Defeat of local fishermen in appeal procedure for reclamation permit of Island G), Retrieved from

Bakker, M. et al. (2017, April). Social justice at bay: The Dutch role in Jakarta’s coastal defence and land reclamation project, Retrieved from

de Bruijn. H. (2019). The Art of Framing. Etopia.

de Bruijn, H. & Heuvelhof, E.T. (2018). Management in Networks. Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs (Kemenko Perekonomian). (2014). Master Plan of National Capital Integrated Coastal Development. Jakarta: Ministry of Public Works of Indonesia, Retrieved from

Daud, A.. (2018, September). Anies Cabut Izin Reklamasi, Menteri PUPR: Tanggul Laut Terus Jalan (Anies Retracted Reclamation Permit, Ministry of PUPR: Sea Wall Will Continue), Retrieved from

Herlambang, S., Leitner, H., Tjung, L.J., Sheppard, E., Anguelov, D. (2019). Jakarta’s great land transformation: Hybrid neoliberalisation and informality. Urban Studies 2019, Bol. 56(4) 627-648.

Humas. (2016, April 2017). Moratorium untuk bereskan pemahaman, Ahok: Reklamasi Jakarta lanjut (Moratorium to resolve understanding, Ahok: Jakarta Reclamation continues), Retrieved from

van der Kerk, A., Westerweel, J. W., Havekes, H., & Bart, T. (2013). Opportunities for Water Governance in Indonesia: A governance quick scan under the Indonesian-Dutch water management cooperation.

Komisi Selamatkan Teluk Jakarta (KSTJ) (2016, October 28). Joint Letter of Concern on the Government of the Netherlands Support on Reclamation of 17 Artificial Islands and NC1CD Project in Jakarta Bay, Retrieved from

Kuwado, F.B. (2016, April). Reklamasi 17 Pulau Terintegrasi dengan NCICD, Bagaimana Nasib Swasta? (Reclamation of 17 islands integration with NCICD, How about the fate of private sector?), Retrieved from

Lin, M.M. & Hidayat, R. (2018, August). Jakarta, the fastest-sinking city in the world. BBC Indonesia, Retrieved from

Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken (BZ). (2013). A world to gain: A new agenda for Aid, Trade and Investment.

Mohsin A. (2015). Jakarta under water: The 2007 flood and the debate on Jakarta’s future water infrastructure. Jurnal Wilayah dan Lingkungan 3 (1), 39–58.

Nobbe, T. (2018). Dutch Development Cooperation with Indonesia: The Impacts of Dutch ODA on development in Indonesia from 1998 to 2016 (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from

Octavianti, O. & Charles, K. (2018). Disaster capitalism? Examining the politicisation of land subsidence crisis in pushing Jakarta’s seawall megaproject. Water Alternatives 11(2): 394-420

PMU NCICD. (2017, November). Draft Konsolidasi Road Map National Capital Integrated Coastal Development terintegrasi dengan Pulau Reklamasi (Consolidation Draft for Road Map of National Capital Integrated Coastal Development Integrated with Reclaimed Islands)(Presentation). Jakarta.

Rittel, H. & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4 (1973), 155-169.

Simanjuntak, I., Frantzeskaki, N., Enserink, B., Ravesteijn, W. (2012). Evaluating Jakarta’s Flood Defence Governance: The Impact of Political and Institutional Reforms. Water Policy 14 (2012) 561-580.

Tarrant, Bill. (2014, December 22). Special Report: In Jakarta, that sinking feeling is all too real. Retrieved from

Teisman, G. & van Buuren, A. (2012). Models for research into decision-making processes: On phases, streams, rounds and tracks of decision-making.

Wade, M. (2019). Hyper-planning Jakarta: The Great Garuda and planning the global spectacle. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 40 (2019) 158-172.

Waterstaat. (2012). Jakarta Coastal Development Strategy End-of-Project Review: Final Mission Report. Programme Partners voor Water.

Waterstaat. (2014, 2 April). Minister Schultz Presents Flood Protection Master Plan in Jakarta, Retrieved from

Widodo, A. (2017). Analyzing Indonesia’s NCICD Project to Stop the Capital City Sinking. Otoritas : Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan, 7(2), 54-66. Retrieved from

World Health Organization (WHO). (2007). Floods in Jakarta, Banten, and West Java Province, Republic of Indonesia. World Health Organization.



Dengan disubmitnya paper Decision Making hari Selasa kemarin, maka resmi selesailah sudah tahun pertamaku di TU Delft! Walaupun masih harus harap-harap cemas menunggu hasil exam dan group report Quarter 4 kemarin, paling nggak aku nggak perlu khawatir kalau (amit-amit) harus ikut resit Emerging Breakthrough Technology tanggal 16 Agustus nanti. Summer ini memang aku nggak akan pulang ke Indonesia karena Mama dan adik dan kakek-nenekku mau datang mengunjungi di akhir Juli nanti. Yay.

Jadi mungkin, untuk memperingati berakhirnya empat quarter pertamaku di Belanda ini, aku akan menulis tentang apa saja sih yang sudah kupelajari di sini, dan pengalaman-pengalaman non-akademik yang membuat kehidupanku yang jauh dari rumah ini tetap menyenangkan dan super bearable. Siapa tahu juga bisa memberikan sedikit gambaran mengenai kehidupan mahasiswa di sini!

Konteks: Aku menyelesaikan S1 di jurusan Teknik Industri Institut Teknologi Bandung, bulan Juli 2016. Lanjut kerja 2 tahun di inkubator bisnis ITB sebelum lanjut sekolah di jurusan Management of Technology (MoT), TU Delft, Belanda, September 2018.

Summary Academic Life – MoT specific

Di sini, sistem pendidikannya adalah 4 kuartal dalam setahun. 1 kuartal (quarter) terdiri dari 7 minggu, jadi pace-nya kerasa cepat banget kalau dibandingkan dengan sistem semesteran waktu S1 dulu. Rasanya kayak baru aja belajar bentar lalu tiba-tiba udah minggu tenang lanjut exam week. Tiap 1 kuartal ganti mata kuliah, jadi kalau nggak dicicil belajarnya mungkin bakal kerasa super keteteran. Kalau nggak lulus di first attempt exam, maka akan ada periode resit (remedial), seminggu sebelum exam di kuartal berikutnya.

Untuk MoT sendiri, bagiku, yang kemarin ambil S1 Teknik Industri, ini mostly terasa seperti pengulangan dari mata kuliah yang sudah pernah kuambil dulu. Jadi nggak terasa seberat itu. Ehe. Tapi untuk orang-orang yang dari jurusan teknik/sains murni, mungkin MoT akan terasa lebih challenging. Very social science-y dan perlu mengasah kemampuan untuk menghafal. I have gotten pretty good in using mnemonic devices to remember all of these blahshit.

Nggak deng nggak blahshit juga.

Yang paling kupelajari banget di MoT adalah skill untuk kerja kelompok (yang sudah sangat terasah selama 3 tahun di TI yang ISINYA KERJA KELOMPOK MULU sigh), membuat argumen yang solid, kemampuan untuk menulis (report, essay, argued essay). Writing section IELTS,  I am thanking you. Tentang gimana menulis secara komprehensif dan koheren, dan seperlunya saja karena tiap tugas biasanya ada jumlah halaman maksimum (gak kayak laporan PPST yang tebelnya naudzubillah dan isinya mostly adalah kopasan dari master tahun lalu). Di sini, kalau mau submit tugas bakal otomatis di-screen pake Turnitin, dan nanti dia akan ngecek similarity report dari tugas kita. Anything more than 20% would be considered as plagiarism. I’m pretty damn sure that my S1 reports similarity score would be somewhere around 80%.

Kalau dibandingkan sama teman-temanku yang ambil engineering di TU Delft, I’d say that MoT feels super easy breezy. Dan yang bilang itu gak cuma aku, tapi juga most of my other MoT friends. Sebenernya di bawah Faculty of TPM (Technology, Policy, and Management), ada tiga jurusan: Management of Technology (MoT), Complex System Engineering & Management (CoSEM), dan Engineering Policy Analysis (EPA). CoSEM dan EPA masih punya technical courses yang memerlukan kemampuan modelling, programming, dan quantitative analytics skills. Python? R? Yup. MoT? Nah. Zilch. Nada.

MoT, menurutku, didesain pada level yang lebih super strategic management. Meaning that you’re being positioned at the top of the company and not to do your own data analysis, which is like, a very important hard skill to be mastered at this very moment. So. If you’re reading this to convince yourself whether MoT is the right master’s program for you, then you should reconsider. CoSEM or EPA, I’d say go ahead. MoT? Only if you’re not paying for your own tuition fees (like me).

Don’t get me wrong. I like the courses. They’re very bearable. I like my friends. They’re sweet and kind. But I do not feel like I am really learning something new. You can reach me directly so we can discuss more about this. I just want to make a very realistic picture so you’re not being deceived by the super cool MoT brochure they’re putting online. My senior actually warned me about this whole MoT condition (he ended up taking another master’s on Strategic Management in Erasmus University Rotterdam) BUT I did not really have anywhere else to go because I got the scholarship for MoT and I can’t really complain.

Makanyaaaa aku berniat untuk mengambil paling nggak dua mata kuliah yang akan memberiku sedikit kemampuan teknikal, dan mungkin juga mulai menyentuh modul-modul edX yang sudah memenuhi inbox-ku. Sepertinya aku akan ambil Game Theory di Q1 tahun depan (dari Applied Mathematics), dan juga Statistical Analysis of Choice Behavior di Q2 (dari CoSEM). At least I can work on numbers.

I will make a dedicated post for my entire quarters, soon. I am planning to fill this WP during this summer break anyway.

Jadi, sebagai anak MoT kamu akan melatih skill membaca dan menulis. No kidding. But those are two very important skills, especially if you’re thinking of delving into academics life (which is what I am seriously considering right now). I enjoy both of them! You have to really spare your time to read the papers (we got buttloads of them), and revise on your report/essay/paper.

I managed to finish 75ECTS on my first year!

Summary Non-Academic Life

Berhubung kehidupan MoT tidak seberat itu, dimana biasanya kita cuma punya satu pertemuan per minggu untuk satu mata kuliah, jadi terasa ada begitu banyak kekosongan (yang seharusnya dipakai untuk nyicil belajar, membaca dan menulis, trust me), jadi sebenernya aku merasa bahwa I can take more things into my plate. Plus I need more money because I am such a gross spender.

Jadi aku apply jadi Board of Studies di Faculty of TPM. Aku merasa bahwa ini adalah tahap awal yang bisa kupakai untuk mendekati faculty di jurusan ini, karena paling nggak dosen-dosen MoT jadi kenal aku dan tahu namaku. Selain itu, karena kalau jadi anggota board doang itu adalah unpaid voluntary work, maka aku mengajukan diri untuk jadi notula. Mayan juga loh, rate-nya 14.5e/jam. Di akhir minggu kita bisa submit deklarasi jam mingguan dan akan dibayar hari Selasa depannya.

Aku langsung teringat malam-malam dan puluhan jam per minggu yang kuhabiskan sebagai berbagai macam asisten di TI yang bayarannya adalah 300 ribu per semester sighhhhhh slavery.

Selain itu, aku juga apply untuk jadi member dari Student Ambassadors TU Delft. Lagi-lagi, kalau cuma jadi ambassadors doang itu adalah unpaid voluntary work, yang cuma dibayar dengan pizza ketika monthly meeting (yang lebih sering GOSONGNYA daripada enggak, males). Jadi aku jadi internal affairs coordinator, yang tugasnya sebenarnya lumayan bikin lelah hati karena harus kontakin semua orang dan berhubungan dengan manusia. Ter peer adalah waktu di awal harus mengatur waktu untuk foto session. Tapi yaudah it has passed. Rate gajinya adalah 11.5e/jam, tapi sampai detik ini aku udah declare lebih dari 16 jam sih yang adalah lumayan banget. Tapi highlightnya adalah employee card (!!) yang bisa kupakai untuk beliin minuman vending machine untuk teman-temanku.

Laluuuu selain itu aku juga kerja jadi tutor matematika buat anak SMP. Ini adalah hal yang super random. Dan mereka adalah anak-anak dan ibu-ibu yang agak shady. Tapi yaudah gapapa daripada aku cuma nonton Youtube di rumah mending aku belajar algebra lagi sambil melatih bahasa Inggris dan dapet extra pocket money. Tapi sejujurnya masih ada gajiku yang belum mereka bayar hiks semoga aku nggak ditipu.

Selain kehidupan yang berkaitan dengan per-pekerjaan sampingan-ini, kehidupan sosialku didominasi oleh teman-teman Indonesiaku. Maaf ya pergaulan kurang internasional, tapi ya gimana lagi. Aku males ngobrol pake bahasa Inggris, suka lost in translation. Terus selera humorku kan sepele, nanti kalau aku kasih lihat meme dari @mememekanlirik atau tahilalats nanti mereka nggak ngerti. Kontekstual sekali kehidupan humor ini.

Highlight utama kehidupan mahasiswa luar negeri ini adalah masak-masakan. Dan makan bareng. Dan berbagi makanan. Dan makan di Fat Kee. Dan belanja ke AO. Segala hal yang berkaitan dengan makanan. Aku cinta makanan.

Tapi aku juga punya teman non-Indonesia kok trust me. Dan udah beberapa kali juga aku dan temanku gantian masak. I cooked mie ayam dan pempek oplos ayam-ikan. He cooked chicken with white asparagus sauce. And he actually asked me to have some lunch again this lunch since both of us are gonna be staying in Netherlands! And we are also going to watch Hans Zimmer later this November. Super looking forward to that one.

Buttt anyway. That’s my life in a few paragraphs. Will probably write dedicated pieces for each of the topic I found interesting. And probably start recapping my whole traveling journey because I have traveled to A LOT of European countries (NL, I love you and your academic system and your endless holidays).

So this is me, signing out of my first year!


Submitted on 19/10/18 for the Technology Dynamics course. Grade: 8.5/10.

Big data analytics combines two concepts: big data and data analytics. Big data refers to an enormous amount of data, both structured and unstructured, which can produce valuable insights when combined with data analytics – a process of applying algorithms in examining data to find patterns, relationships, and information (Elgendy & Elragal, 2014). Big data analytics has various usage from predicting consumer’s shopping behavior, mitigating natural disasters, developing governmental programs, enforcing law, to preventing terrorism (Tene & Polonetsky, 2013). Big data analytics is a growing field of research, and with technological advancements and the ever-increasing size of data being produced every day, different tools and methods are still being developed by various innovation agents including private companies such as Microsoft, IBM, Tableau, and Palantir (SharesPost, Inc., 2017).

In order to increase efficiency and accuracy of big data analytics, different kinds of tools and methods have been developed, such as social media analytics, social network analysis (SNA), text mining, sentiment analysis, visual discovery and Advanced Data Visualization (ADV) (Elgendy & Elragal, 2014). Palantir, for instance, develops a platform that can integrate anydata sets from different types, visualize them in dynamic settings – helping human analysts analyze, find patterns, conclude, and create follow-up plans based on their findings (The Forward Operational Assessment (FOA) XVIII Team, 2012). The platform focuses on synergy between humans and computers, letting users ask relevant questions about the data using various analytical tools within the system – augmenting human intelligence instead of replacing it (Payne et al., 2008).

The benefits of big data analytics are not only being experienced by corporations (Davenport & Dyché, 2013), but also by the government (Morabito, 2015). However, it is argued that the benefits come at the cost of individuals’ privacy (Richards & King, 2013). The society has been increasingly aware of the importance of safeguarding data privacy, it is estimated that a total of 134 out of 195 countries will have data privacy laws that meet international standards by 2020, compared to 76 countries in 2011, and 109 countries in 2015 (Greenleaf, 2017). The rules and regulations regarding data privacy could hamper further development of big data analytics, making it the reverse salient of this technology. One of the function of reverse salient is that is pushes for continuous innovation (Dedehayir & Mäkinen, 2008), where in this context, the rules and regulations demand technology developers to ensure responsible usage of the data they gather and process.

The utilization of big data analytics in law enforcement has facilitated the shift of policing approach from reactive to preventive, an approach that is often associated with intelligence agencies (Završnik, 2013). Unlike the usage of big data analytics in corporations where data privacy can be safeguarded by anonymizing (or de-identifying) data to prevent tracing the original data owner (Duhigg, 2012), the analytics performed by law enforcement agencies rely on the attributes and personal information assigned on individuals, building a network of information on potential crime offenders (Brayne, 2017). This abstract will further discuss the implementation of big data analytics in law enforcement, and how it should be improved to avoid the risk of abuse and violation of privacy and civil liberty.

According to Bergek et al. (2008), there are three components of a Technological Innovation Systems; actors, networks, and institutions. The analysis in this abstract would focus on the geographical area of Los Angeles, the U.S. State of California, where big data analytics platform Palantir has been used to aid the development of a predictive policing program called LASER (Los Angeles’ Strategic Extraction and Restoration Program) since 2011 (LAPD & Uchida, 2014). The actors involved in this system include Palantir as technology developer, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) as technology adopter, California Senate as a governing body, and LA citizens as the customer of both LAPD and California State Senate.

The actors are all connected in the network through interactions, where Palantir develop various analytical tools in accordance to the need of LAPD, and the development of new regulations by governing body concerning the technology pressured by public protests (Macias, 2018). The institutional component includes national law on data privacy and SB-21, a senate bill that was amended in August 2017. The bill requires each law enforcement agency to attend regular public hearing to propose the usage of surveillance technology and the collected information, and publish reports concerning the use of the technology. This bill increases the transparency of LAPD programs, as well as to include civilians as an actor that could actively shape the development of the technology, and not only be affected by it.

According to Value Sensitive Design (VSD) approach, a technology is greatly influenced by human values (Friedman et al., 2002), and that is why it is important to first identify values of different stakeholders before and during the development of the technology. The citizens of Los Angeles value both public and personal security, as well as their personal privacy and liberty. As a technology developer, Palantir values its ability to accommodate customers’ needs while maintaining privacy & liberty. LAPD aims to maintain public security, reduce crime rate, and serve the general public. As a governing body, California State Senate’s values are creating law and regulations according to public needs.

However, LAPD has been maintaining public security at the cost of individual privacy; using external data that were not collected for the purposes of criminal justice such as electronic toll pass data, address and usage from utility bills, and even pizza delivery orders (Brayne, 2017). The system is also connected to other local, state, and federal data sources such as the Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) (Palantir Technologies Inc., 2014). This creates problem, because the connection to ALPR database can put people with no criminal justice contact into the law enforcement database – putting them under the radar (Brayne, 2017). The usage of ALPR and external data sources by the LAPD violates the two main principles on analyzing data for the purpose of law enforcement, as proposed by Cocx (2009): data on unsuspected individuals should only be analyzed in exceptional situations, and that it should only be analyzed for the purpose it was collected for.

Although Palantir has embed built-in preventive measure regarding privacy (Palantir Technologies Inc., 2012), it still does not guarantee the responsible usage of the platform. Other than that, LAPD has a slow response rate of public request for information (LAPD, 2018). Accordingly, LA citizens demand an audit of the predictive policing program (Macias, 2018), indicating a distrust of the system. Different steps have been taken to create a more responsible usage of big data analytics in law enforcement in Los Angeles, but it is still hard for both the police and the citizen to fully embed their conflicting values into the technology. The police need data on its citizens to monitor and detect potential crime offenders in order to ensure public security, but the citizens also need their privacy and personal freedom to be guaranteed, as both are the responsibility of the state (Broeders et al., 2017). It is apparent that a compromise needs to be made between the two stakeholders, with the presence of governing body to facilitate interaction and construct laws.

The usage of big data analytics platform in law enforcement has several negative implications such as the violation of privacy and civil liberties. Sensitive data are being collected without consent, and the analysis are being used to label civilians as a threat to the society’s security – despite the fact that they are also a part of the entity whose security should be guaranteed by the police. Furthermore, the data were analyzed by human analysts, who might have their own personal prejudices towards people from certain ethnicity and race, resulting in biased analysis (Tene & Polonetsky, 2013; James, 2017). The nature of data collection of the system creates a self-perpetuating cycle, where past interactions with police further increases the probability of future interactions with police, resulting in a narrowing target of police operations and discomfort to the targeted population.

To ensure unbiased analysis, there needs to be an evaluation of all data that are being used by LAPD and possibly exclude racial information. Other than that, the transparency of the system needs to be increased to gain trust from the public. One possible solution is to add a real-time auditing process performed by artificial intelligence to avoid human intervention. It should be developed in-house by the government instead of a private company, to prevent conflict of interests. To further increase the benefit of big data analytics for the society, it should not only be used to create crime-preventive program in a coercive manner such as LASER, but also crime-preventive program that focuses more on helping people finding decent employment so they won’t resort to crime. Big data analytics can also be used to develop rehabilitative measures with a goal to reinstate the crime offenders back into the society and prevent future offense. Instead of perceiving people as potential offenders, big data analytics could be a means for the government to manage its citizens in a more agreeable way.


• An act to add Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 54999.8) to Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, relating to law enforcement agencies. (2017). SB-21.California.

• Bergek, A., Hekkert, M., & Jacobsson, S. (2008). Analyzing the Dynamics and Functionality of Technological Systems: A Manual. Research Policy , 37 (3), 407-429.

• Brayne, S. (2017). Big Data Surveillance: The Case of Policing. American Sociological Review , 82 (5), 977-1008.

• Broeders, D., Schrijvers, E., van der Sloot, B., van Brakel, R., de Hoog, J., & Ballin, E. H. (2017). Big Data and security policies: Towards a framework for regulating the phases of analytics and use of Big Data. Computer Law & Security Review 33 , 33, 309-323.

• Cocx, T. (2009). Algorithmic Tools for Data-Oriented Law Enforcement. NWO.

• Davenport, T. H., & Dyché, J. (2013, May). Big Data in Big Companies. Retrieved 2018, from

• Dedehayir, O., Mäkinen, S.J. (2008). Dynamics of Reverse Salience as Technological Performance Gap: An Empirical Study of the Personal Computer Technology System. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 3(3), 55-66.

• Duhigg, C. (2012, February 16). How Companies Learn Your Secrets. Retrieved 2018, from The New York Times Magazine:

• Elgendy, N., & Elragal, A. (2014). Big Data Analytics: A Literature Review Paper. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 214-227). Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

• Friedman, B., Kahn Jr., P. H., & Borning, A. (2002). Value Sensitive Design: Theory and Methods. Universtiy of Washington Technical Report , 02-12.

• Greenleaf, G. (2017, January 30). Global Data Privacy Laws 2017: 120 National Data Privacy Laws, Including Indonesia and Turkey. 145 Privacy Laws & Business International Report, 10-13.

• James, L. (2017). The Stability of Implicit Racial Bias in Police Officers. Police Quarterly, 21 (1), 30-52.

• LAPD, I. T., & Uchida, C. (2014). Smart Policing: Institutionalizing Operation LASER in The Los Angeles Police Department. LAPD.

• Los Angeles Police Department. (2018, March 9). Stop LAPD Spying. Retrieved 2018, from Stop LAPD Spying:

• Macias, J. M. (2018, August 14). Retrieved 2018, from Courthouse News Services:

• Macias, J. M. (2018, May 8). Retrieved 2018, from Courthouse News Services:

• Morabito, V. (2015). Big Data and Analytics – Strategic and Organizational Impacts. Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

• Palantir Technologies Inc. (2012). A Core Commitment: Protecting Privacy and Civil Liberties. Retrieved 2018, from Palantir:

• Palantir Technologies Inc. (2014). Palantir Audit Logging. Retrieved 2018, from Palantir:

• Palantir. (2014, 3). Reponding to Crime in Real Time: Palantir at the Los Angeles Police Department. Retrieved 2018, from Palantir:

• Payne, J., Solomon, J., Sankar, R., & McGrew, B. (2008). Grand Challenge Award:Interactive Visual Analytics. Palantir: The Future of Analysis. IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (pp. 201-202). Columbus: IEEE.

• Richards, N. M., & King, J. H. (2013). Three Paradoxes of Big Data. Stanford LawReview Online 41 , 41-46.

• SharesPost, Inc. (2017). Company Report Palantir: Redefining Analytics, Augmenting Intelligence, & Unlocking Secrets. SharesPost Research LLC.

• Tene, O., & Polonetsky, J. (2013). Big Data for All: Privact and User Control in the Age of Analytics. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 11 (5), 240-273.

• The Forward Operational Assessment (FOA) XVIII Team. (2012). Forward Operational Assessment. Palantir: Operational Assessment Report

• Završnik, A. (2013). Blurring the Line between Law Enforcement and Intelligence: Sharpening the Gaze of Surveillance? Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9 (1), 181-202.

Hai. Awalnya sih diniatkan akan mulai rutin menulis tentang informasi tentang fase baru kehidupanku yang dimulai setelah lanjut sekolah lagi di Belanda, tapi apa daya aku males nulis di WP wqwq. Tapi tetap harus ditulis sih biar aku juga nggak lupa. Sebagai anak rumahan yang belum pernah merantau keluar Bandung seumur hidupnya, ini adalah kali pertama aku pergi jauh dan tinggal sendiri, jadi bisa dibilang ini adalah momen penting yang sangat kutunggu-tunggu.

Bulan Februari ini aku sudah 6 bulan tinggal di Delft! Cepet banget deh, rasanya.

Pertama kali aku sampai di Delft adalah tanggal 12 Agustus 2018, cuma nginep semalam untuk titip koper raksasaku di tempatnya Ayu, lalu lanjut ke Antwerp, Brussels, Paris, Rotterdam, dan baru kembali lagi ke Delft tanggal 22 Agustus untuk ikut Introduction Programme, program orientasi yang diadakan oleh kampus. Kebetulan rumahku baru bisa kutempati tanggal 1 September, jadi dari tanggal 22 – 31 aku numpang dulu di tempatnya Ayu. Makasih ya hiks.

12 Agustus 2019

Foto pertama di Delft

Sesungguhnya merasa senang banget bisa ditampung di tempatnya Ayu, yang tinggal di satu koridor ber-9 dan isinya orang-orang Indonesia yang belajar di TU Delft juga. Selain aku, hampir semua penghuni lainnya juga lagi ditumpangin orang-orang yang sewa housingnya udah habis dan lagi nunggu-nunggu sidang. Agak chaos sih berhubung shared kitchen, tapi seru banget. Merasa mendapatkan jumpstart untuk tinggal di lingkungan baru ini.


Ini waktu Garage Sale di tempat 9-orang-Indo

Aku tinggal di Centrum, cuma 500 meter dari square, dan dekat juga dengan tram stop Nieuwe Plantage. Rumahnya 2 lantai dan sharing dengan 3 mahasiswi Indonesia lainnya, dan anak ITB semua juga haha. Yang 1 anak Sipil 2011, Kelautan 2011, dan FT 2009. Dan yang dua orang ini juga sesama orang Bandung yang pertamax merantau juga kayak aku. Jadi kalau ngegosip masih nyambung-nyambung deh karena selingkaran itu-itu juga.

Tanggal 31 Agustus aku mulai pindah ke rumahku, dan mulai mengeluarkan semua benda-benda dari koper dan merapikan kamar. Soksokan mau mengubah orientasi kasur yang besar banget, tapi terus pintunya jadi nggak bisa ditutup jadi aku balikin lagi deh ke pengaturan semula. Seneng banget rasanya waktu semua baju udah masuk organizer dan koper udah kosong. It’s my new room!


Kamarku di Delft


Dapur rumah

The People!

Aduh banyak banget deh orang Indonesianya. Wqwq. Alhamdulillah sih. Pokoknya kalau habis weekend otaknya suka agak loading kalau mau ngomong bahasa Inggris karena biasanya hiatus menggunakan bahasa Inggris. Batch Fall 2018 ini orang Indonesia yang start master di TU Delft cuma ~24 orang, dan kita lumayan sering banget kumpul-kumpul sih baik untuk bermain maupun belajar. Dan masak-masakan. Parah, kerjanya masak-masakan terus.


Meet n Greet PPI Delft

So far aku senanggggg dan bersyukur sekali bisa berkesempatan untuk lanjut sekolah di TU Delft. Di Belanda, dan bukan di Swedia (seperti yang selama ini kuimpi-impikan). Di Belanda yang meskipun dingin masih ada mataharinya (kemarin sempat 10 hari main ke Swedia dan Norwegia dan sedih banget rasanya nggak bisa lihat matahari), dan walaupun angin kencangnya suka bikin mau nangis waktu naik sepeda karena nggak maju-maju.

Yupsss sekian postingan agak tidak serius kali ini. Lain kali akan dilanjutkan dengan pembahasan mengenai kehidupan sehari-hari di Delft maupun hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan akademik. Ciao!