APPLICATION OF FIVE-STREAM FRAMEWORK CONCEPT IN E- PROCUREMENT IMPLEMENTATION IN DEPOK: A REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In the current digital era, technology distribution in all sectors is crucial, no exception in the procurement of goods and services sector. Knowing this situation, the government then makes a policy that requires the process of procurement done electronically through the e-procurement application. By implementing this policy, the government expects an improvement of transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the process of procurement. To support this effort, in the year 2018 government also issued the Peraturan Presiden No. 16 Tahun 2018 on Public Procurement of Goods and Services, which provides an expansion of the role for stakeholders to engage in the process of procurement. One of the cities that implement e-procurement is Depok through its Working Unit for Procurement of Goods and Services (UKPBJ). This city even received numerous awards while implementing this policy. Nevertheless, there are many high fraud potential and corruption cases in this sector in the last few years. Through this research, the author seeks to provide recommendations of eprocurement implementation in Depok based on the public policy implementation concept from Howlett (2018), which does emphasize the importance of stakeholder role. The data on this research is gathered through the literature review methods while still paying attention to the credibility of data sources. The results of the analysis using this concept preceded by stakeholder mapping based on Emmy's (2015) explanation show that the stakeholder role is crucial and must be maintained. Besides, efforts to increase transparency are also needed to facilitate stakeholders doing their role.

tendering and e-purchasing. E-Tendering has to do with the procedures of choosing the goods and services provider that the process takes place openly. So, all registered providers in the electronic procurement system can deliver an offer at the appointed time. Meanwhile, E-purchasing is related to the procedure of purchasing goods and services conducted by the electronic catalog system (Eproc.lkpp.go.id, 2020).
The obligation to implement e-procurement in all government agencies began in the year 2011 based on the Peraturan Presiden No. 54 Tahun 2010 on Public Procurement of Goods and Services. This regulation has been changed several times until the latest version, the Peraturan Presiden No. 54 Tahun 2010 on Public Procurement of Goods and Services, released. There are ten crucial change points in this new regulation (Firdha, 2019). The two most relevant changes, which are the addition of self-management procurement and the merger of the procurement unit into UKPBJ, implicates the growing amount of space given for stakeholders to be involved in the procurement process. So that transparency in this sector can be achieved. This goal is in line with the objectives of e-procurement implementation, which are (1) increasing transparency and accountability in the procurement process; (2) improvement of market access and healthy business competition; (3) improvement of efficiency level in the procurement process; (4) monitoring and auditing processes support; and (5) meet the needs of real-time information access. These objectives are harder to achieve when still using manual systems (Eproc.lkpp.go.id). By implementing this application, various problems in the procurement sector, such as corruption, expected to be overcome.
The results of the research conducted by Jatnika (2017) with statistical data from the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) also showed that there is a decrease in the level of corruption in the procurement sector after the obligation to implement e-procurement in all government agencies applied. In the years 2005 to 2010, before e-procurement applied, the level of corruption in this sector reaches 84 cases. In the years 2011 to 2016, after e-procurement applied, the level of corruption in this sector is down to 73 cases. Although his research is limited to the year 2016, the same source statistical data, which means KPK, shows that the level of procurement corruption in the last three years is increasing. In 2017 there were 15 cases and in 2018 and 2019 increased each to 17 cases (Kpk.go.id, 2019).
This shows that e-procurement implementation has not been sufficiently minimized the fraud on the procurement process. Wibawa (2014) mentions some forms of fraud that are common in this sector. These are including: (1) the bribery conducted by individuals or groups to influence the decisionmakers (usually the government) to perform or not to perform specific actions with the reciprocal of giving money or certain goods that are considered valuable; (2) the merger or breakdown of the work package made intentionally for personal gain; (3) the price multiplier is done by manipulating the owner estimate (HPS) to make it higher than it should; (4) reduction of quantity or quality of goods/related services made by forging record of transfer; (5) direct appointment without permissible conditions; and (6) collusion carried out between procurement provider and manager by eliminating competition. These forms of fraud are possible because there are several instruments of procurement of goods and services that "support" it. As described by Movanita (2017), there are at least four instruments that vulnerable to be the source of fraud. The four instruments are: (1) the workflow template (KAK) document that often manipulated to make the budget larger; (2) the Owner Estimate Price (HPS) is deliberately arranged based on the price information of the provider that will become the winner of a tender; (3) Standard Bidding Document (SBD) which qualification of procurement can be manipulated; and (4) the procurement contract which the contract price in it is made higher than the market price.
This condition is not only found at the national level but also at the local level, one of them in Depok. The city received numerous awards during implementing e-procurement. Nevertheless, there is a potential for tender fraud and corruption in this sector.
E-procurement in Depok is implemented through UKPBJ. This procurement unit is a merger of the Procurement Services Department (BLP) and the Electronic Procurement Services (LPSE). This merger is based on the Peraturan Presiden No. 16 Tahun 2018 on Public Procurement of Goods and Services. During implementing e-procurement, there have been many awards received by the procurement unit of this city. In 2011 Depok received an award as a pioneer city in the formation of LPSE (News.detik.com, 2011). Furthermore, in the year 2012, the city received an award in the form of the LKPP Award with the citizen engagement category (Depok.go.id, 2012). Then, the Kominfo Award with the best LPSE category was achieved in 2015 (Uptd-lpse.depok.go.id, 2019). The following year, the award of the Kominfo Award was again accepted, this time with the category of the second-best city in organizing the LPSE (Uptdlpse.depok.go.id, 2019). The latest award was received in 2018 because it succeeded in fulfilling 17 standard services based on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001 and 27001 . Despite the achievement of e-procurement implementation, data from Opentender, an instrument developed by Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) with National Procurement Board (LKPP), showed that from the year 2015 to 2018 there is still a risk of fraud at in UKPBJ Depok tenders. In the years 2015 and 2016, there were eight tenders. Then, in the year 2017, there were three tenders. Finally, in 2018 there were four tenders (Opentender.net, 2020).
The risk of fraud seen from the five indicators, which are the contract value, the savings which are the value of contracts compared to HPS, the participation which is the number of tenders and competition levels, the monopoly which is the number of contracts won by the tender winner, and the time of the project. The maximum score as the summation of the entire indicator is 20. If the tender has a score above 15, then it is considered to have a high risk of fraud (Opentender.net, 2020).
Furthermore, there is a case of corruption in the process of procurement in this city. The latest case occurred in the year 2017, that is, on the road increase tender in Pasir Putih urban village, Sawangan sub-district, Depok. The case placed Hardiman, Head of the Road and Bridge of the Public of Works and Housing Agency Depok, and two contractors, as suspects. In this project, the winner of the tender was PT. Theriji Bonar with a ceiling of RP 3 billion and the final bid value worth RP 2.54 billion. However, after the project was carried out and checked by the police, it was known later that there were misspecifications on road construction. As a result, the country suffered a loss of Rp 121 million. Hardiman was sentenced to two years in jail (Beritasatu.com, 2017;Radardepok.com, 2017).
The existence of UKPBJ in Depok that expected to become the Center of Excellence (CoE) for the procurement sector must be a sufficient precondition of e-procurement implementation in Depok. This precondition allows for more significant stakeholder roles, as collaborative is one of the CoE characters (LKPP, 2018). Therefore, e-procurement should be implemented with more transparency, acceptably, and effectively. However, the high potential for fraud and corruption shows an excellent opportunity for cheating.
This research aims to provide a recommendation for e-procurement implementation in Depok by referring to the implementation of the public policy concept from Howlett (2018), which is the five-stream framework. The concept initiated by Howlett is considered relevant to the change points in the Peraturan Presiden No. 16 Tahun 2018 on Public Procurement of Goods and Services that extends the space for stakeholders to be involved in the procurement process. His concept emphasizes the importance of engagement of stakeholders at the implementation stage, that also done in the policy-making stage. This point is the novelty of his concept. Therefore, the use of this concept can enrich the results of the analysis and will provide a novelty for policy implementation studies. Above, there is currently not much similar research that also uses this concept.

B. LITERATURE REVIEW
There is a difference in problems that become the basis of research on the eprocurement theme in the previous studies. Identified previous studies focus on: (1) e-procurement implementation in local government (see Haryati et al., 2010;Azijah, 2015;Mulyono, 2017); (2) the prevention of corruption through eprocurement implementation (see Neupane et al., 2012;Shakya, 2015;Jatnika, 2017;Nayabarani, 2017;Akbar et al., 2019); (3) acceleration of the uptake of goods and capital expenditure budget through e-procurement implementation (see Hendarto, 2016); and (4) the implementation of e-purchasing as part of eprocurement (see Lestyowati, 2018).
The first sub-theme is e-procurement implementation in local government. Haryati et al. (2011) researched e-procurement implementation conducted by the local government of Yogyakarta. Through this research, the authors analyzed the efforts of the local government to improve the quality of procurement using eprocurement based on the Peraturan Walikota No.137 Tahun 2009. Meanwhile, Azijah (2017) researched the impact of e-procurement implementation in Tasikmalaya. This research seeks to uncover the influence of e-procurement implementation based on the Peraturan Presiden No. 4 Tahun 2015, both for stakeholders and clients. She dug the perception of parties involved in the process of procurement in this district. Similar to Azijah, Mulyono (2017), through his research, analyzed the e-procurement implementation in Gresik, based on the Peraturan Presiden No. 54 Tahun 2010. He wanted to see the impact of the eprocurement implementation, not only for the government but also for the provider and the society.
The second sub-theme is the prevention of corruption through eprocurement implementation. Neupane et al. (2012) researched the evaluation of the anti-corruption capacity in e-procurement implementation in Nepal. In this research, he analyzed the relationship between several factors on the application of e-procurement. Meanwhile, Shakya (2015) researched the influence of egovernment procurement in encouraging the creation of good governance. One of the dimensions of good governance examined is corruption control. Another study by Jatnika (2017) focused on the ratio of corruption in the procurement sectors. He compared the number of corruption cases before and after the obligation to implement e-procurement. Slightly different from Jatnika, Nayabarani (2017) researched the efforts to build transparency on the procurement process. The authors of this study saw that the implementation of e-procurement could be seen as a corruption prevention effort. Lastly, Akbar et al. (2019) researched the influence of e-procurement implementation and the Government Internal Control System (SPIP) on fraud prevention in the procurement sector.
The third sub-theme is the acceleration of the uptake of goods and capital expenditure budget through e-procurement implementation. Hendarto (2016) researched the e-procurement implementation as the effort to accelerate the uptake of goods and capital expenditure budget in the Working Unit of the Presidential Military Secretariat in the Ministry of State Secretariat. Through this research, he analyzed the process of procurement using e-procurement, the factors affecting the implementation, and the impact on the acceleration of the uptake of goods and capital expenditure budget in this unit.
The fourth sub-theme is e-purchasing implementation as part of eprocurement. Lestyowati (2018) researched e-purchasing implementation in the government working unit. Through this research, the author analyzed the problems arising in e-purchasing implementation based on Presidential Regulation No. 16 of 2018 on Public Procurement of Goods and Services.
This research focuses on e-procurement implementation in Depok using a concept of public policy that has not been used in previous studies, namely the five-stream framework from Howlett (2018). This concept is viewed differently because other public policy implementation models are only suitable to be used in policy programs with specific objectives. These are such as the Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) models, the Korten models, and the Smith models, and only use top-down or bottom-up orientation, such as the Hogwood and Gunn (1978) models, the Mazmanian and Sabatier models (1983), and the Lipsky (1980) models (Yudiatmaja, 2016). Meanwhile, the concept from Howlett can be seen as comprehensive because it combines three public policy models. The use of these models has made the implementation stage seen as a result of a whole process of policy-making. This concept also emphasizes stakeholder engagement at the implementation stage, as can be seen in previous stages of the policy cycle. By using this concept, a new perspective on implementation studies will arise, and it can be seen as a novelty of this research.
Howlett, through his journal, introduced a new approach to understanding the stages of public policy implementation. He sought to incorporate various models of implementation stage from previous academics and developed them into a more comprehensive approach. Howlett mentioned that his new approach was an attempt to create a fourth generation in the study of public policy implementation. There are three models that he used in his approach, namely the policy cycle model, multiple streams framework, and advocacy coalition framework.
The first model is the policy cycle model. The policy cycle is one of the oldest models in public policy studies. This model has been widely adopted and is still continuously updated by academics as an effort to adjust the developing social conditions. This model manages to streamline the complexity of the policy process into several vital stages.
One of the main initiators of this model is Laswell (1956Laswell ( , 1971. This model has an essential contribution to public policy studies. This model seeks to streamline the overall policy process into five stages, namely agenda-setting, policy formulation, decision making, implementation, and evaluation. The downsizing goal is to leave fundamental and important stages amid the complexity of the policy process. The second model is the multiple streams framework. Kingdon (1984) is known well for the stream concept in explaining the public policy process. According to him, the progress of the policy does not exist immediately in response to social conditions. In contrast, Kingdon sees that the development of the policy was born from interactions and contact between problem streams, political streams, and policy streams.
Unlike Laswell, which focuses on the overall policy process, Kingdon pays special attention to the agenda-setting stage. In the model he made, he emphasized the role of the group of interests that originated from the government and beyond it to take advantage of opportunities, so that it can incorporate specific issues into the government's agenda. Kingdon (1984, in Howlett, 1998 named this condition as policy windows. This policy windows can be open or closed by being influenced by three streams, which are problem streams, policy streams, and politics streams (Kingdon, 1984, in Beland andHowlett, 2016). Kingdon divides policy windows into four types. First, routine political windows, which means events that occur routinely and institutions affect the opening of the predicted policy windows. Second, discretionary political windows meaning the behavior of political actors, affect its small predictions on the opening of policy windows. Third, spillover problem windows, which means the policy windows are always open for specific issues, such as the occurrence of a crisis. Fourth, random problem windows, which means certain events will open for unpredictable policy windows.

Figure 1 Four
Types of Policy Windows (Source: Howlett, 1998) The third model is the advocacy coalition framework. The initiator of this model is Sabatier as a critique of the policy cycle model. He focuses on the process of creating policy design, which is the agenda-setting and formulation stage. He gave special attention to the process of formulation and the role of actors who have the same understanding of a problem and a solution to overcome it. The existence of a specific attraction can create actors who share the same beliefs, values, and knowledge of how reality works. The formation of groups among these actors raises political competition in determining the form and content of the policy. Policy creation eventually became a "war zone" between groups in defining problems as well as policy solutions that wanted to be applied.
The three models above have their respective strengths and weaknesses in explaining the policy process. Some see it as a whole, but some are focused only on a specific stage. A force in one of the models can close other models ' weaknesses. Thus, merging these models can create a new, more comprehensive approach to understand the policy process. Although these models do not pay particular attention to the implementation stage, Howlett argues that the merger of the three can be a way to understand this stage better.
The five-stream framework and how this approach works to the implementation stage are as follows. First, process stream, this stream contains a set of tasks and events that take place through the policy cycle to produce the output of the policy. Second, problem stream, this stream focuses on determining issues to be raised into policy. This process involved academics, political figures, and other prominent figures. However, beyond this process, they are also involved in the implementation stage. Third, policy stream, these streams contain networks consisting of diverse actors, ranging from academics, policy consultants, government parties, representatives from the business sector, to civil society. They are instrumental in the development and implementation of policies. Fourth, politics streams, in this stream, there is competition among actors to have the issues they strive for and the solutions they offer and continue to the implementation stage. Fifth, the program stream, this stream is most closely related to the implementation stage. Actors involved in the implementation stage is different from the previous stage; for example, employees in the public sector and other stakeholders. These actors are coming from all levels, whether national, provinces, and regions. At this stage, they do the submission, distribution, and experience the outcome of a policy directly. Outside these actors, civil society also can involve. Besides, the actors involved in the previous stage can also give effect to this stage. In the five-stream framework, there are meeting points in each policy process that will bring novelty, new actors, strategies and tactics, and resources into the process of making the policy, through the process stream after an issue enters the government agenda. When each stream is in contact, the point of the connection will represent the policy windows, as described by Kingdon. Also, different alignment streams will result in different input configurations and policy patterns. According to Howlett, there are five critical points of streams. These include: (1) at the agenda-setting to the formulation stage; (2) at the end of the formulation stage and the transition to the decision stage; (3) at the end of the decision-making and in the transition to the implementation stage; (4) in the transition from the implementation to evaluation stage; (5) and at the end of the evaluation stage and return.
Howlett's depiction of the first critical point of flow-in-stream occurs at the stage of agenda-setting to the formulation stage. In this agenda-setting stage, problem stream, politics stream, policy stream met through the policy windows. The result is a new stream of the policy process that becomes the primary path for other streams to meet and create a critical point of stream-in-progress and be the preconditions for the next policy process. After the agenda-setting process completed, the political stream split from problem stream and policy stream. At the critical point of the second stream of alignment, the policy actors elaborated on a variety of issues and policy solutions. They resulted in a configuration of the policies within which include the alternative options. This condition is the basis for the next stage when the politics stream is reunited with the process stream and allows decision making. The third-stream critical point of contact occurs when taking the decision and prepare for the implementation process. At this point, policy streams split from the main-stream, which are process stream, politics stream, and problem stream, and eventually joined the program stream that consisting of actors working to produce new outputs. However, Howlett does not portray until the critical point of the fifth stream of alignment occurs, as he thinks that the critical point of the third-stream of contact is the most crucial for the implementation stage.
In line with Howlett's views on the importance of stakeholder involvement in the implementation of a policy, the Emmy (2015) explained that the use of a stakeholder-based approach in a public organization has several benefits, including (1) the importance of crucial stakeholder opinion in the early stages of change project formation; (2) the support of key stakeholders can help get more resources; (3) the communication with stakeholders will make them understand the project and its benefits; and (4) anticipate the reaction of the outside parties to the project. Besides, Emmy also mentions that it is crucial to know the position of stakeholders on the program, which is planned or implemented by a public organization. By knowing their position, whether it is supportive or precisely refused, their form of involvement will be known.
These stakeholders divided into four quadrants to describe their magnitude of influence and interest in an activity involving them. First, promoters are a group of stakeholders who have a great interest in a change project and have the power to help achieve success. Second, defenders are a group of stakeholders who have personal attention and can voice their support in a community. Nevertheless, they only have a small force in influencing a change project. Thirdly, latent is a group of stakeholders who have no particular interest or are directly involved in a change project. Nevertheless, they have high power in influencing them. Fourth, apathetic is a group of stakeholders who lack interest and strength, and even they may not know of a change project (Emmy, 2015).

C. METHODS
The method used in this research is a review of the literature. This method can be seen as a systematic way to gather data and create synthesis from past studies (Baumeister and Leary, 1997;Tranfield, Denyer, andSmart, 2003, in Snyder, 2019). According to Webster andWatson (2002, in Snyder, 2019), a review of the literature is a research method that produces a solid foundation for scientific advancement, including theoretical development. Through a review of the literature, the integration of various findings from previous research will become an effort to answer research questions. Meanwhile, the approach used is the integrative review. According to Torraco (2005, in Snyder, 2019, the purpose of using this approach is to conduct assessments, giving criticism, and to synthesize previous studies on the subject of specific studies.
In this research, the author tries to explore relevant journal articles, books, government regulations, and internet sources. The author also synthesizes the essential findings so it can provide novelty to the study of e-procurement implementation and broadly on public policy studies, therefore, integrative review relevant to this research.
The research object of this study is UKPBJ Depok, where e-procurement being implemented. The existence of UKPBJ in Depok itself is based on several rules. One of them is Mayor Regulation No. 89 of 2018 on The Position, Organization, Duties, Functions, Work Procedures of Regional Secretariat of Depok, including all amendments (Ukpbj.depok.go.id, 2020).
According to Snyder (2019), to get high-quality data through library review, it is crucial to apply the appropriate writing selection as the reference. Besides, there must be an apparent reason when choosing writing as a reference. The selection of writing will affect the outcome and conclusion of the research. Therefore, the authors attempted to use credible sources, so that the results could be accounted for and can be a reference for other research with similar themes. Theory relating to the public policy implementation and procurement of goods and services are taken from books, journal articles, theses, dissertations, and other relevant documents. Meanwhile, data related to the conditions in UKPBJ Depok and other supporting data are taken from government regulations, government official websites, news websites, or other relevant internet resources that can be accounted for.

D. EXPLANATION
The Peraturan Presiden No. 16 Tahun 2018 on Public Procurement of Goods and Services, which became the latest primary regulation for eprocurement implementation in Depok, with various change points, provides a broader space for stakeholders to engage in the process of procurement. There are ten crucial change points in this new regulation, which are (1) a more concise and clear structure; (2) the plan to establish a new institution called The Procurement Agent; (3) the addition of self-management procurement type; (4) the plan to establish the contract dispute resolution service; (5) terms changing in the procurement process; (6) the establishment of Procurement Unit in the Ministry/Institution/Local Government (K/L/PD) into UKPBJ, (7) direct procurement restrictions; (8) focus on the value for money; (9) the enactment of the offer guarantee; and (10) the simplification of contract type. From the ten change points in the regulation, the addition of self-management procurement type and the merger of the procurement unit into UKBJP expands the space for the stakeholder engagement.
The first relevant change point is the addition of the self-management procurement type, from three to four types. These four types of self-management procurement are governed by article 3 of the Peraturan LKPP No 8 Tahun 2018 on Self-Management Procurement Guidelines, which is a derivative of the Peraturan Presiden No. 16 Tahun 2018 on Public Procurement of Goods and Services. The four types of self-management procurement are (1) type I, planned, implemented, and supervised by K/L/PD that is in charge of the budget; (2) type II, planned and supervised by K/L/PD that is responsible for the budget and its implementation is carried out by other K/L/PD that becomes the executor of the self-management procurement; (3) type III, planned and supervised by K/L/PD which responsible for the budget and the implementation carried out by community organization; and (4) type IV, proposing by the K/L/PD who is responsible for the budget based on the proposal from the community and carried out and supervised by community groups.
The new type of self-management procurement is type III and is an extension of type IV (Firdha, 2019).
The second relevant change points are the merger of the Procurement Services Unit (ULP) and Electronic Procurement Services (LPSE) into UKPBJ. The purpose of the merger is to avoid conflicts of interest between these agencies. Therefore, the UKBJP was formed to prevent competition between ULP and LPSE (Kurniawan, 2018). Fahrurrazi (2019), as the founding board of the Indonesia Procurement Center (P3I), explained that UKPBJ has a position as a modern organization that has a strategic task to realize development by giving support for procurement services in K/L/PD. In article 3 of LKPP Regulation No. 14 of 2018 on UKPBJ, explained that UKPBJ has five functions, which are (1) management of procurement; (2) management of electronic procurement services; (3) development of human resources and procurement institutional; (4) implementation of mentoring, consulting, and technical guidance of procurement; and (5) the implementation of other duties given by the Minister/Head of the Board/Head of the Area relating to its duties and functions.
The establishment of UKPBJ is also expected to be the center of the public procurement or Center of Excellence (CoE) in the local government (Pambudi, 2018;Lkpp.go.id, 2018). This implicates the expansion of the procurement unit, which is not only an organizer in the process of selecting the provider but also as a contractor of stakeholders (Wiraatmadja, 2018). LKPP mentions that there are five main characters of CoE, namely (1) strategic, which means creating a procurement function that plays an essential role in achieving the objectives of the organization by effectively planning and executing budget and resource management; (2) collaborative, which means cultivating collaboration and stakeholder synergy for optimal procurement function performance; (3) performance orientation, which means building a performance-based culture on the procurement function to increase added value at the time of processing, cost, quality, and level of procurement services; (4) proactive, which means creating a paradigm shift on the supply chain of goods and services to customer-oriented; and (5) continuous improvement, which means increasing the capability of procurement organization as a learning organization through the adoption of sustainably sourced best practices (LKPP, 2018).
Fahrurrazi (2018) made a mapping of stakeholders in UKPBJ generally by dividing it into four quadrants following the explanation from Emmy (2015) in the previous section. First, promoters, the head of the area, which is the leader with the highest responsibility for the governance of the procurement and play a role in realizing UKPBJ as CoE in this sector. Second, the latent, LKPP as the highest procurement institution, contributed to the success of CoE in each UKBJP. Third, defenders, the Budget User (PA), Proxy of Budget User (KPA), Commitment-Making Officer (PPK), and providers who act directly in the process of procurement. Fourth, apathetic, law enforcement officers, media, society, and other regional UKPBJ, although not always have a direct role. Fahrurrazi (2018), that officiates as the head of Procurement of Goods and Services Section (BPBJ) Sukabumi, also provides an example of mapping stakeholders in BPBJ Sukabumi. First, promoters, which are a group of leaders with the highest responsibilities and interests concerning the governance of procurement in Sukabumi. The stakeholders in this quadrant have a significant interest and strength to make BPBJ Sukabumi as CoE. The group consists of a Mayor, Vice-mayor, Regional Secretary, as well as Economic and Development Assistants. Second, latent, which are groups that do not have a particular interest in the effort to make BPBJ Sukabumi as CoE.
Nevertheless, this group has a high power to succeed in the implementation of this program. The group consists of LKPP and MCA-I. Third, defenders, which is a group that has a direct interest in the success of the work program in BPBJ Sukabumi. The group consists of the Budget User (PA), Proxy of Budget User (KPA), Commitment-Making Officer (PPK), Committee of Procurement Result Examination (PPHP), and the provider. Fourth, apathetic, which is a group that lacks interest and strength directly related to the work program in BPBJ Sukabumi. The group consists of law enforcement officers, media information, community, and other UKBJP (BPBJ Sukabumi, 2017). Based on the mapping, it is then described the work program and the involvement of each stakeholder. First, promoters have to convey routine and related reports, reviewing the staff performance, implement regional regulations on principal tasks, functions, and performance. Second, latent, have the responsibility of implementing the program provided, creating a Work Program Realization report, and implementing the guidelines, instructions, and directives that have been given. Third, defenders (PA/KPA, PPK, PPHP, and providers), generally tasked with providing mentoring, providing technical guidance, providing coaching clinics, and customer satisfaction surveys. Meanwhile, in particular, PA/KPA, PPK, and the provider are also tasked to serve in the process of selecting providers. Fourth, apathetic generally have to provide the information needed, obtain information relating to the organization, and provide technical guidance procurement. Meanwhile, in particular, the other UKPBJ is also in charge of doing sistering UKBJP (BPBJ Kota Sukabumi, 2017).
Stakeholder mapping is not a significant discussion in the study because the formation of the UKBJP that proclaimed as CoE is only a precondition for the growing opportunity of stakeholder involvement in the procurement sector. Nevertheless, this model and an example of its application in BPBJ Sukabumi can be emulated and applied in UKPBJ Depok. Stakeholder mapping is a tool to understand how far each stakeholder can be involved in the procurement process in UKPBJ Depok, especially directly related to the e-procurement implementation. This stakeholder mapping will facilitate analysis using the Howlett concept (2018) because it will clarify the involvement of each stakeholder.
UKPBJ Depok itself established with several basic rules, which are (1)  Tahun 2018 on the Position, Organization, Duties, and Functions and Governance of the regional secretariat of Depok, including all amendments. Furthermore, UKPBJ Depok has a primary task to conduct procurement support in Depok City. In carrying out the primary job, UKPBJ Depok has several functions, namely the management of goods procurement/services, management of electronic procurement services, the development of human resources and institutional procurement of goods/services, and the implementation of other significant tasks given by the leader following the field of duty. Based on the responsibilities and functions, UKPBJ Depok has the vision to become a professional UKPBJ and has integrity based on the value of procurement to support the concept of development of Depok. Meanwhile, the mission of UKPBJ Kota Depok is (1) to realize UKPBJ as CoE for the procurement in Depok; (2) improve the quality of goods/services in Depok by applying the principles of effective, efficient, transparent, open, competitive, fair/not discriminatory, and accountable and apply a code of ethics for procurement managers; (3) develop modern and integrated UKPBJ system and information systems; and (4) improve the quality of human resources procurement management of Depok. Then, the organizational structure in the UKPBJ Depok City consists of Head of BPBJ as the Head of UKBJP, sub-division of coaching and advocacy procurement, sub-division of procurement, sub-division of the electronic procurement services, Working Group (Pokja) of UKPBJ, and support staff (Ukpbj.depok.go.id, 2020). E-procurement implementation by UKPBJ Depok itself refers to the Peraturan Presiden No. 16 Tahun 2018 on Public Procurement of Goods and Services. Based on the Procurement of Goods and Services Module released by the Ministry of Education and Culture with LKPP (2018), the procurement process through electronic procurement system (SPSE) covering seven stages. First, procurement planning, done by making an offline general plan of procurement (RUP). After RUP is available, then PA/KPA will announce it through SPSE. Second, procurement preparation, done through the selfmanagement procurement and provider selection. The result of the preparation will be uploaded to SPSE. Third, the selection of the provider, consisting of announcements, explanations, the inclusion of offerings, evaluation, the announcement of winners, and rebuttal. Fourth, the implementation of the contract, comprising the application of the letter of appointment of goods and services provider and the signing of contracts relating to the drafting of contract design, the execution of the alliance, and the administration of contracts through e-contracts. Fifth, the handover of the results of the work is done electronically by storing the record of goods and services receipt. Sixth, provider management is carried out continuously or periodically. Seventh, the electronic catalog, contains important information relating to goods and services, such as lists, types, technical specifications, Domestic Component Level (TKDN), domestic products, products of the Indonesia National Standard (SNI), origin country, price, and the provider that can be accessed at any time to save time implementation of the procurement cycle. Throughout the K/L/PD, including Depok, the implementation of the seventh phase is carried out through the Electronic Procurement Service (LPSE). This service can be accessed by anyone, anytime, anywhere through https://lpse.depok.go.id/eproc4/. In this website, there is information about the procurement package with the stages implemented and its HPS, winners of procurement packages, regulations relating to the procurement of goods/services, black-list of providers, and provider registration mechanisms (Lpse. depok go.id, 2020). LPSE Depok also provides facilities in the form of bidding space. This room has a function as a place for providers to upload documents. By uploading in this room, the provider will connect directly with the SPSE server, so the risk of failure and the presence of fraud can be minimized. In this room, the provider will also be assisted by the officer who will provide services, such as technical assistance, assistance to conduct verification and registration, and helpdesk. Other LPSE users, such as PPK, Working Group, and Procurement Officials, can also come to this room to submit complaints relating to SPSE applications and receive training and technical assistance (Radardepok.com, 2017).
Furthermore, to find out who is the stakeholder in e-procurement implementation in Depok, stakeholder mapping, as described by Emmy (2015), becomes relevant. However, there are differences in stakeholder groups incorporated into the Defenders quadrant and latent when compared to the mapping by Fahrurrazi (2018). This is because of the different interpretations between the author and Fahrurrazi. The author translates that defenders are a party that executes direct implementation of the policy in the relevant area. At the same time, latent is the party that provides policy at the central level. First, promoters are a group that has great importance and strength to the success of the eprocurement implementation in Depok. Therefore, this group must ensure that the e-procurement implementation is running well and following the objectives specified. Promoters in Depok consist of a Mayor, Vice-mayor, Regional Secretary, and Economic and Development Assistants, Head of UKPBJ, Sub-Division of LPSE in UKPB. Second, the defender is a group that has a significant interest in the success of e-procurement implementation in Depok, but only has a small force to influence its implementation. Defenders in Depok consist of Working Group of UKPBJ, supporting staff, provider of goods and services, and the organization and community group that implement self-management procurement. Third, latent is a group that is not directly involved in e-procurement implementation in Depok but has high strength in influencing its implementation. Latent in Depok consist of LKPP, National Cyber and Crypto Agency (BSSN), and Finance and Development Audit Board (BPKP). Fourth, apathetic is a group that has no interest and high strength related to the implementation of eprocurement in Depok, but its existence is still needed. Apathetic in Depok consist of law enforcement officers, inspectorate, mass media, society, and other UKPBJ. Based on the stakeholder mapping, the task of each group can be identified. First, promoters tasked to ensure that the implementation of e-procurement in Depok is running following the prevailing regulations and not deviate from the functions that have been set. Second, defenders are responsible for directly involved in the e-procurement implementation in Depok. The role of this interest group is crucial because the success or absence of this policy implementation is very dependent on their performance. Third, latent, as the party that develops this policy should ensure that the e-procurement implementation in Depok goes according to the purpose and objectives set and the entire infrastructure of information and communication technology (ICT) that has been developed and provided used following the designation. Fourth, apathetic, specifically law enforcement officers, inspectorates, mass media, and the community, are tasked to supervise the implementation of e-procurement and report the fraud cases.
Meanwhile, the tasks of another UKPBJ are coaching, mentoring, knowledge transfer, as well as giving motivation to fellow UKPBJ (Lkpp.go.id, 2019). With stakeholder mapping based on Emmy's (2015) explanation, the analysis using Howlett models is easier to do. This is because the mapping helps us to identify the magnitude and interest of each of them.
The merger of BLP and LPSE into UKPBJ Depok implicates the consolidation of the general procurement function, and electronic procurement allows more stakeholders to involve. Especially with the addition of UKPBJ as CoE with one of its characters, which is collaborative, strongly emphasizing interstakeholder cooperation for the optimization of procurement functions. With the addition of self-management procurement, society, especially community organizations, can be increasingly involved in the process of procurement. Therefore, it becomes crucial for UKPBJ Depok to engage these stakeholders in the process of e-procurement implementation. This is in line with the Emmy statement (2015), which emphasizes the importance of establishing communication with stakeholders.
Expansion of stakeholder roles, which are the mandate of the Peraturan Presiden No. 16 Tahun 2018 on Public Procurement of Goods and Services and in line with the emphasis of concept from Howlett, does not necessarily make the eprocurement implementation in Depok fully transparent, accountable, and efficient. Gathered data showed that there still a lack of information about this. The website of UKPBJ Depok and LPSE Depok that supposed to be a significant source of stakeholders to obtain information about e-procurement implementation, in fact, still incomplete. For example, the absence of information about the selfmanagement procurement process and application and the annual report relating to the performance of the UKPBJ Depok even explicitly related to the implementation of e-procurement itself. This makes stakeholders, especially those in the quadrant of apathetic, challenging to perform a supervisory role. So, it is no surprise that cheating is still happening with ease. Therefore, the expansion of the stakeholder role needs to be coupled with the efforts to increase transparency from UKPBJ Depok itself.
Besides, based on this analysis can also be known that the other four streams mentioned by Howlett, which are process streams, problem streams, policy streams, and politics streams, are less relevant to the problems raised in this research. Furthermore, Howlett also mentions that the meeting points of streams will implicate on renewal, whether in the form of actors, strategies, and tactics, or new resources. One critical point of the streams occurs in the transition from implementation to the evaluation phase. Therefore, the evaluation stage carried out after the e-procurement implementation will affect the involvement of new stakeholders.

E. CONCLUSION
Implementing a policy requires the involvement of many stakeholders to achieve success. This is because each stakeholder has their role, and if the role is appropriately executed, it will contribute to the success of the policy implementation. This is also relevant to e-procurement implementation in Depok. The successful implementation of this policy depends heavily on the role of many parties. Therefore, the expansion of space for stakeholders in the process of procurement, in this case electronically, as stipulated in Presidential Regulation No. 16 of 2018 on Public Procurement of Goods and Services, became an essential precondition. To optimize the existence of these stakeholders, stakeholder mapping, as Emmy explained (2015) and studying using a concept initiated by Howlett (2018), will be helpful.
Nevertheless, both of these things are not a single factor in the successful implementation of a policy. The transparency of public organizations that become policy executor is also critical. This is because transparency will help stakeholders in carrying out their role, especially for stakeholders who are instrumental in supervising. Thus, the existence of fraud that interferes with implementation can be minimized. In the end, the expected results of the analysis that has been done can be input UKPBJ Depok to be able to implement the implementation of eprocurement with more optimal.