PENGARUH KEAMANAN DAN PRIVASI TERHADAP NIAT ADOPSI BLOCKCHAIN PADA TATA KELOLA PERGURUAN TINGGI: MODEL SPT.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31849/hzaqtn08Keywords:
Blockchain, Keamanan, Privasi, Kepercayaan, Tata Kelola Perguruan TinggiAbstract
Kajian tentang faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi adopsi blockchain pada tata kelola perguruan tinggi di Indonesia masih sangat terbatas, berbeda dengan sektor bisnis dan keuangan yang telah banyak diteliti. Penelitian ini menganalisis pengaruh keamanan (security) dan privasi (privacy) terhadap niat adopsi teknologi blockchain, dengan kepercayaan (trust) sebagai variabel mediator, menggunakan model Security-Privacy-Trust (SPT Model). Penelitian dilaksanakan di Universitas Lancang Kuning, Pekanbaru, Riau, dengan pendekatan kuantitatif survei terhadap 187 responden civitas akademika (purposive sampling). Instrumen dikembangkan dengan 15 item tervalidasi dan dianalisis menggunakan SEM-PLS (SmartPLS 4.0). Keamanan berpengaruh positif terhadap niat adopsi (β=0,312; t=3,842; p<0,05) dan kepercayaan (β=0,544; t=7,126; p<0,05). Privasi berpengaruh positif terhadap niat adopsi (β=0,287; t=3,411; p<0,05) dan kepercayaan (β=0,401; t=5,283; p<0,05). Kepercayaan berpengaruh terhadap niat adopsi (β=0,356; t=4,915; p<0,05) dan terbukti sebagai mediator parsial. Nilai R² kepercayaan sebesar 0,61 dan niat adopsi sebesar 0,73 menunjukkan kemampuan penjelasan model yang tinggi. Penelitian ini berkontribusi pada pengembangan SPT Model sebagai kerangka konseptual adopsi blockchain pada tata kelola perguruan tinggi Indonesia
References
[1] A. Grech, A. F. Camilleri. Blockchain in education. Publications Office of the European Union. 2017.
[2] S. Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. 2008. [Online]. Tersedia: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
[3] M. Turkanovic, M. Holbl, K. Kosic, M. Hericko, A. Kamisalic. EduCTX: A blockchain-based higher education credit platform. IEEE Access. 2018; 6: 5112–5127.
[4] V. J. Morkunas, J. Paschen, E. Boon. How blockchain technologies impact your business model. Business Horizons. 2019; 62(3): 295–306.
[5] S. S. Kamble, A. Gunasekaran, R. Sharma. Modeling the blockchain enabled traceability in agriculture supply chain. International Journal of Information Management. 2022; 52: 101967.
[6] N. Kshetri. Blockchain and the economics of data privacy: A conceptual framework. Computer. 2021; 54(3): 80–85.
[7] D. Lizcano, J. A. Lara, B. White, S. Aljawarneh. Blockchain-based approach to create a model of trust in open and ubiquitous higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2020; 32(1): 109–134.
[8] R. Raimundo, A. Rosarío. Blockchain system in the higher education. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education. 2021; 11(1): 276–293.
[9] Y. Wang, J. H. Han, P. Beynon-Davies. Understanding blockchain technology for future supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. 2019; 24(1): 62–84.
[10] M. A. Hossain, M. Kim. Blockchain adoption in higher education: Impact of security and privacy perceptions on trust and adoption intention. Interactive Learning Environments. 2022; 31(4): 1824–1840.
[11] T. Dinev, P. Hart. An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research. 2006; 17(1): 61–80.
[12] D. H. McKnight, V. Choudhury, C. Kacmar. The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems. 2002; 11(3–4): 297–323.
[13] R. Heeks. Information and communication technology for development (ICT4D). Routledge. 2018.
[14] P. Beynon-Davies. Digital business: Palgrave insights into management. Palgrave Macmillan. 2019.
[15] Kemendikbudristek. Panduan implementasi PDDikti dan integrasi data perguruan tinggi. Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi. 2023.
[16] S. Wahyuni, Y. E. Fadrial, R. Novendra. Digital governance maturity assessment in Indonesian private universities. Journal of Applied Information Technology. 2023; 12(2): 88–97.
[17] Z. Zheng, S. Xie, H. N. Dai, X. Chen, H. Wang. Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey. International Journal of Web and Grid Services. 2018; 14(4): 352–375.
[18] G. Chen, B. Xu, M. Lu, N. S. Chen. Exploring blockchain technology and its potential applications for education. Smart Learning Environments. 2018; 5(1): 1–10.
[19] P. Bhaskar, K. Y. Cheng, S. N. Yuen, W. H. Ho. Blockchain adoption for education: Drivers, barriers, and future directions. Education and Information Technologies. 2022; 27(6): 7935–7959.
[20] A. F. Westin. Privacy and freedom. Atheneum. 1967.
[21] D. Gefen, E. Karahanna, D. W. Straub. Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly. 2003; 27(1): 51–90.
[22] F. D. Davis. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989; 13(3): 319–340.
[23] S. K. Kim, J. Bae. Blockchain-based secure education data management for online learning. Symmetry. 2021; 13(1): 25.
[24] R. M. Baron, D. A. Kenny. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986; 51(6): 1173–1182.
[25] J. F. Hair, J. Henseler, T. K. Dijkstra, M. Sarstedt. Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann. Organizational Research Methods. 2022; 17(2): 182–209.
[26] J. F. Hair, J. J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, C. M. Ringle. When to use and how to report results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review. 2019; 31(1): 2–24.
[27] V. Venkatesh, J. Y. L. Thong, X. Xu. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly. 2012; 36(1): 157–178.
[28] M. S. Alqahtani, E. H. Alkhammash. Factors influencing the adoption of blockchain technology for educational credential verification. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications. 2022; 13(8): 145–156.
[29] N. Kock. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration. 2015; 11(4): 1–10.
[30] J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2015; 43(1): 115–135.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 ZONAsi: Jurnal Sistem Informasi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
CC BY-SA 4.0
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
