Category Archives: Telkom

Strategi Pengembangan Ekosistem

Tulisan di Complexity Center tentang Padi UMKM sebagai case sebuah strategi bisnis berbasis complexity mengundang beberapa rekan mengajukan pertanyaan menarik, khususnya dalam bridging dari perspektif tentang complexity yang dianggap sangat teoretis dan rumit ke implementasi real di dunia bisnis dan teknis. Kebetulan aku sedang tulis paper berkait hal itu, yang fokusnya bukan ke produknya, tetapi ke strategi perusahan dalam mengembangkan ekosistem: bagaimana ekosistem ini dikawal, oleh siapa, dan dengan modal apa.

Saat pengembangan awal Padi UMKM di tahun 2020 (masa awal pandemi Covid-19), pengembangan ekosistem bisnis di Telkom Group dipimpin oleh Subdit Sinergi, bagian dari Dit Strategic Portfolio (DitSP). Platform dan bisnis Padi UMKM sendiri dipegang oleh Divisi Digital Business & Technology (DBT), bagian dari Dit Digital Business (DitDB). Ini bukan redundancy atau kesalahan rencana koordinasi, melainkan desain yang dibuat saat DitDSP dipecah jadi DitSP dan DitDB. Dalam case Padi UMKM, Div DBT berfokus pada platform, produk, dan bisnis; termasuk pembangunan, pemeliharaan, pengembangan, dan ekspansi. Kualitas, kapasitas, experience, inovasi, dll dll. Subdit Sinergi bekerja di lapisan lain: membentuk dan menumbuhkan ekosistem.

Sepenting apa strategi ekosistem? Padi UMKM bukan marketplace. Telkom baru membunuh marketplace Blanja.com saat Padi UMKM dirancang. Platform baru ini dirancang sebagai arsitektur koordinasi, tempat BUMN yang memiliki operasi pengadaan, UMKM di berbagai tingkatan dan sektor, lembaga keuangan, komunitas pembina UMKM, kementerian, dan lembaga regulasi dapat berinteraksi di level policy, strategi, bisnis, dan teknis. Setiap agent yang berbeda ini tentu memiliki concern yang sangat berbeda. Perspektif Complexity Economics dari WB Arthur menunjukkan bahwa dalam sistem seperti ini para agen beroperasi dalam ketidakpastian fundamental: mereka tidak memiliki rasionalitas seperti yang dibayangkan dalam perspektif ekonomi klasik; melainkan bersifat adaptif dan tunduk pada irasionalitas kolektif, volatilitas, dan disrupsi yang tidak dapat diprediksi dari perilaku setiap agent. Nilai keseluruhan sistem (synergy value) merupakan emergence yang muncul dari interaksi dinamis antar agent, bukan dari value setiap agent, termasuk agent kunci seperti pemilik platform. Para BUMN yang dikoordinasikan oleh Kementerian BUMN secara kolektif diposisikan sebagai pemilik simbolik ekosistem ini. Platform dimiliki Telkom, tetapi ekosistemnya dimiliki bersama. Apa inovasi yang diciptakan dari kebersamaan ini? Saat pandemi Covid-19 baru melanda, aku baca buku Christensen tentang Prosperity Paradox: pertumbuhan bisnis yang sesungguhnya, yaitu market-creating innovation, bukanlah soal mendatangi dan mengembangkan pasar yang ada, melainkan justru dari menciptakan pasar baru dari nonconsumption, dalam hal ini dari jutaan UMKM yang sebelumnya aksesnya sangat lemah ke industri nasional termasuk BUMN. Dalam bahasa HBR: strategi follow the money itu kuno dan bodoh, dan harus digantikan oleh follow where the money goes, atau create the environment where the money will have to go. Kembali ke Christensen, ini yang disebutnya paradoks kemakmuran: keberpihakan pada ekonomi rakyat adalah strategi bisnis yang paling efektif.

Di Telkom, Subdit Sinergi menjalankan tugas ini nyaris tanpa otoritas pada unit produksi dan unit bisnis, tanpa team dan anggaran yang besar, dan tanpa kendali internal atau eksternal. Modalnya adalah tuntutan visi dan strategi perusahaan, kepemimpinan yang suportif, keterlibatan yang dalam dan detail dalam lanskap kelembagaan, dan kemampuan membangun jejaring lintas unit dan institusi, melalui pengembangan konteks, komunikasi dan negosiasi, hingga approach pada regulasi. Dalam praktiknya, kami mengkoordinasikan para BUMN, termasuk via PMO Padi dan via kepemimpinan KBUMN, untuk mengkonversi operasi procurement menjadi demand engine; bernegosiasi dan berkolaborasi di level policy, strategy, hingga event dalam kerangka BBI (Bangga Buatan Indonesia), PBJP (Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah), dan P3DN (Peningkatan Penggunaan Produk Dalam Negeri) yang saat itu dipimpin Kemkomarves bersama K/L/PD terkait; mengawal koordinasi program ekspor bersama berbagai kementerian untuk mendorong UMKM menembus pasar internasional; membangun dan merawat hubungan dengan komunitas pengembang UMKM, termasuk Pemprov, Pemkab, ormas, dan marketplace, agar suplai UMKM berkualitas terus mengalir; serta menstrukturkan kesepakatan dengan bank dan lembaga keuangan seperti BRI Group (termasuk Pegadaian, PNM, Bank Raya) untuk memastikan UMKM punya akses pembiayaan yang akan memperbesar volume pasar. Ini tidak bisa menggunakan akses komando, melainkan melalui yang dalam istilah CAS disebut interaction architecture: membangun konteks di mana para agent terdorong untuk berkoordinasi secara sukarela demi kepentingan masing-masing.

Karena hal-hal ini merupakan implementasi dari complexity, banyak hal yang tampak kontraintuitif saat dilihat dari perspektif manajemen konvensional. Walau memiliki produk, platform, dan brand Padi UMKM, Telkom tidak mengklaim kepemilikan ekosistem. Padi UMKM diposisikan dalam narasi kepentingan nasional, bukan narasi korporat. Saat pemerintah pusat, dalam forum BBI/P3DN/PBJP meminta Padi UMKM diekspansi ke seluruh K/L/PD, Telkom mengusulkan agar pengadaan K/L/PD tetap dipegang entitas pemerintah, yaitu LKPP, dengan Telkom berlaku sebagai pengembang platform yang merupakan ekspansi dari Padi UMKM. Ini adalah ecological thinking: menjaga keberagaman dan modularitas agar sistem tetap adaptif, tidak terjebak dalam rigidity trap, di mana konektivitas yang terlalu tinggi tanpa keberagaman yang cukup membuat sistem justru menjadi rapuh. Telkom juga membangun path dependence: titik di mana ekosistem dapat tertanam dalam di berbagai lapisan institusional sehingga tak mudah dihentikan, kecuali oleh perubahan struktur yang massive oleh seluruh stakeholder. Ini adalah desain yang matang untuk keberlanjutan sistemik: memanfaatkan mekanisme increasing returns yang Arthur gambarkan, di mana setiap BUMN baru yang bergabung meningkatkan nilai platform bagi UMKM, dan setiap UMKM yang sukses bertransaksi memperkuat legitimasi politik ekosistem secara keseluruhan. Hasilnya terlihat nyata: per akhir 2024, ratusan ribu UMKM B2B terdaftar, 74.000 pembeli B2B, hampir 300.000 transaksi dalam setahun, dan GMV kumulatif melampaui IDR 28 triliun sejak peluncuran.

Dari sisi manajemen strategis, aku coba formulasikan narasi ini dalam paper Ecosystem Stewardship as Organisational Capability (masih ditulis). Hal yang dilaksanakan oleh Subdit Sinergi dalam kerangka Padi UMKM adalah sebuah kapabilitas organisasional yang nyata dan unik. Strategi di level ekosistem belum secara serius masuk ke dokumen strategi para BUMN. Ecosystem stewardship ini bukan platform management, bukan stakeholder management, dan bukan sekedar synergy program; melainkan sebuah kapabilitas untuk mengkatalisasi, mendukung, dan mengadaptasi sistem multi-aktor lintas batas kelembagaan, dimana para agent memiliki interdependensi dalam bentuk otoritas penuh untuk mengarahkan sistem secara sepihak. Tentunya cukup banyak narasi akademis yang mengimplementasikan CAS pada transformasi organisasi, supply chain, kesehatan, dan lain-lain. Namun bahkan belum banyak ditemukan narasi berisi formulasi eksplisit dan kohesif yang menyatukan complexity economics (Arthur), teori CAS (Holland), market ecology, dan kerangka ekosistem digital, lalu menerjemahkannya ke dalam desain dan implementasi kapabilitas organisasional lintas-institusi dalam skala nasional; dan kemudian bukan saja dijadikan kerangka teoretis, melainkan benar diimplementasikan dan menghasilkan dampak ekonomi yang terukur. Dalam pengertian itulah Padi UMKM, dan ecosystem stewardship sebagai kapabilitas yang menopangnya, menjadi inovasi yang layak mendapat perhatian lebih dari sekadar kisah sukses digital.

Ekosistem dalam konteks ini juga tidak selalu merujuk pada hubungan dengan pihak eksternal. Untuk perusahaan dengan grup yang besar, seperti holding, afiliasi, dan anak perusahaan, termasuk seperti Telkom Group, kita meyakini bahwa koordinasi dan kolaborasi yang paling efektif justru lahir ketika kita mengadopsi perspektif kompleksitas dan memperlakukan hubungan dalam grup sebagai ekosistem itu sendiri. Entitas-entitas dalam grup yang berbeda bukan sekadar unit yang perlu disinergikan secara administratif, tetapi dipandang sebagai agen-agen heterogen dengan visi misi, kapabilitas, dan dinamika adaptasi yang beragam. Mengelola mereka dengan prinsip ecosystem stewardship, bukan dengan pendekatan top-down yang mekanistik, adalah cara yang jauh lebih tepat untuk menciptakan nilai bersama. Dalam dunia yang semakin kompleks dan volatile, kemampuan semacam ini bukan kekenesan intelektual, melainkan telah menjadi prasyarat untuk bertahan dan tumbuh.

Padi UMKM

When I first designed what later became Padi UMKM, I did not do it in a boardroom. I did it at home, during long months of WFH in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic. I drew the system on papers spread on the floor. At that time, my head was full of ideas about ecosystems, complexity theory, and complexity economics. I was not thinking about building another digital platform. I was thinking about how economic coordination itself breaks down under systemic shock, and how new coordination patterns might emerge when old ones collapse. In that sense, Padi UMKM was born less from a product mindset than from an ecosystem mindset, with complexity theory consciously in the background.

When the pandemic hit, what collapsed was not only the economy. What collapsed was the coordination logic of the economy. Supply chains broke, demand evaporated, SMEs lost access to markets, and institutions discovered that their standard operating procedures were designed for stability, not for systemic disruption. Many organisations reacted by accelerating digital projects, launching platforms, and optimising internal processes. That helped, but it did not address the deeper problem. The economic ecosystem itself had lost its organising structure. Actors that were rational in isolation could no longer produce coherent outcomes collectively. This is how complex systems behave under stress: when established coordination patterns fail, local rationality no longer aggregates into systemic order.

Padi UMKM did not start as a brilliant digital product idea. It started as a response to a coordination failure across a fragmented system of SOEs, SMEs, banks, regulators, ministries, and development agencies. All were acting with good intentions, yet through incompatible logics, timelines, and mandates. The system was not short of initiatives; it was short of coherence. In complexity terms, the economy had been pushed far from equilibrium, and the challenge was not optimisation but reorganisation. What was needed was not another tool, but a new pattern of interaction among heterogeneous agents.

The real innovation of Padi UMKM was therefore not the platform. The platform was the easy part. The digital workforce of Telkom Group can design platforms; that is an operational capability. The platform was necessary, and it became the core infrastructure of the ecosystem, but it was not the breakthrough. The breakthrough was the deliberate redefinition of roles within the economic system. SOEs must reposition their procurement operation into a capability of creating new market, i.e. an SME-based market structure. SMEs were not framed as beneficiaries of aid, but as economic agents that could be structurally integrated into formal procurement and value creation. Banks and financial institutions were not treated merely as lenders, but as part of an enabling architecture that combined financing with capability development and pathways to export. What changed was not a feature set. What changed was the pattern of interaction between economic actors.

The formal launching of Padi UMKM itself was not initiated by Telkom or by the Ministry of SOEs. It was planned within the nationwide BBI (Bangga Buatan Indonesia) program, because the central government needed a real, executable instrument to accelerate domestic economic circulation under crisis. Telkom showed a commitment to develop the platform, even though it was still imperfect at that time. The urgency was national, not corporate. This matters, because it positioned Padi UMKM from the beginning not as a corporate product launch, but as a systemic intervention embedded in a national recovery narrative. The early external promotion of Padi UMKM, beyond the internal SOE environment, was also driven by the BBI program. Over time, almost by systemic selection rather than by design, Padi UMKM became the de facto e-commerce infrastructure for BBI, as other platforms could not fit the specific institutional and ecosystemic roles required by the program.

From the beginning, we made a counterintuitive choice in the way the system was governed. Telkom deliberately limited its role to being the product and platform owner. The ecosystem itself was not branded as Telkom’s program. The community was symbolically owned by the Ministry of SOEs and by SOEs collectively. Even the name Padi UMKM did not originate from Telkom. This was not a political compromise; it was a strategic design choice grounded in complexity thinking. In complex systems, ecosystems tend to collapse when one actor over-claims ownership. When the platform owner also claims to own the ecosystem, other actors reduce their commitment, hedge their participation, or quietly resist. By stepping back from symbolic ownership, Telkom created space for other institutions to step forward. The platform provided the infrastructure, but the legitimacy of the ecosystem was deliberately distributed across actors.

At some point, something structurally interesting happened. The initiative crossed a threshold where no single actor could kill it anymore. The CEO of Telkom could not simply shut it down because the ecosystem had become institutionally embedded beyond Telkom. The Minister of SOEs could not dismantle it easily because it had become part of the official narrative of national economic recovery. The President could not disown it because it had been publicly positioned as a success story through BBI, PEN, and related programs. This was not political theatre. This was the moment when the system acquired path dependence. Once an initiative becomes embedded across multiple layers of institutional narrative and governance, it ceases to be a project and becomes part of the system itself. At that point, you are no longer managing a prograe. You are dealing with a living economic structure.

Value in Padi UMKM did not come from transactions alone. It emerged from the coupling of multiple layers of interaction. Transactions between SOEs and SMEs were reinforced by access to credit, by certification mechanisms that enabled formal participation, by development programmes that upgraded SME capabilities, and by pathways to export markets. None of these elements, on their own, would have been transformative. The transformation emerged from their interaction. This is how complex economies create value: not through linear pipelines, but through ecosystems in which different forms of capital, i.e. financial, institutional, social, and operational, reinforce one another over time.

Internally in Telkom, there was a structural separation of roles that proved critical. The Digital Business Directorate (DDB) operated at the product and business level. Its logic was operational: build, run, scale, monetise, and maintain the platform. Even as the platform owner and economic keystone, it remained only one agent within the broader ecosystem. In parallel, the Synergy Subdirectorate under the Strategic Portfolio Directorate worked at the ecosystem level. This role was not about features, roadmaps, or KPIs. It was about sensing emergent patterns of collaboration, mediating conflicts between institutions, and navigating collisions between policy signals and organisational incentives. In the early phase, the Synergy team also played a foundational role in organising cross-SOE agreements, preparing the multi-actor launch, embedding Padi UMKM within the BBI program, and connecting it with multiple SME build-up initiatives involving the Ministry of SMEs, the Ministry of Trade, and other institutions. This work was not linear project management; it was ecosystem orchestration under uncertainty.

In Indonesia’s context, the interaction between SOEs, SMEs, banks, and regulators is not merely complex; it is quasi-chaotic. Mandates overlap, incentives conflict, and policies evolve at different speeds and under different political pressures. In such an environment, precise prediction is an illusion. What becomes possible instead is navigation: sensing where constructive patterns of emergence are forming, dampening destructive feedback loops before they escalate, and shaping the boundaries within which the ecosystem evolves. This is not classical management. This is leadership under complexity.

As a result of its early success, there was a moment when the government, again through the BBI programme, asked to expand Padi UMKM to cover all government agencies (K/L/PD). On paper, this looked like success, with an enormous projected GMV. In reality, it carried a systemic risk. Full integration into the broader government procurement apparatus would have imposed rigid compliance structures and administrative constraints that could have frozen the adaptive dynamics that made the ecosystem work. The decision to return that expansion to LKPP, while positioning Telkom only as a platform provider for LKPP, was a deliberate choice to preserve modularity and flexibility over symbolic scale. In complex systems, scale without adaptability is not growth; it is fragility disguised as success.

What this experience ultimately taught us is uncomfortable for traditional management thinking. In complex economic ecosystems, you cannot engineer outcomes. You can only design conditions: boundaries, incentives, roles, and narratives that make constructive emergence more likely than destructive collapse. The platform mattered. The technology mattered. But what mattered more was the humility to accept that once an ecosystem becomes alive, you are no longer the architect standing outside the system. You are one of the agents operating within it.

The strategic lesson for C-level leadership is this. In times of systemic disruption, competitive advantage no longer lies primarily in having the most sophisticated product or the fastest execution. It lies in the capability to shape interaction spaces across institutions, sectors, and policy domains. Leadership shifts from control to stewardship. Strategy shifts from optimisation to navigation. And success is no longer measured only by ownership, but by whether the system you helped catalyse can survive, adapt, and continue to create value even when you step back.

That, ultimately, is what Padi UMKM represents. Not a digital product success story, but a case of how leadership, strategy, and technology can be recomposed to operate effectively in a complex, adaptive economy under crisis. It is an ecosystem in motion. It is Synergy in action.

Note: This is a copy of my post at Complexity Center [LINK] and an update of my initial story about Padi UMKM written 5 years ago [LINK].

Padi UMKM — A Complexity Case

When I first designed what later became Padi UMKM, I did not do it in a boardroom. I did it at home, during long months of WFH in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic. I drew the system on papers spread on the floor. At that time, my head was full of ideas about ecosystems, complexity theory, and complexity economics. I was not thinking about building another digital platform. I was thinking about how economic coordination itself breaks down under systemic shock, and how new coordination patterns might emerge when old ones collapse. In that sense, Padi UMKM was born less from a product mindset than from an ecosystem mindset, with complexity theory consciously in the background.

When the pandemic hit, what collapsed was not only the economy. What collapsed was the coordination logic of the economy. Supply chains broke, demand evaporated, SMEs lost access to markets, and institutions discovered that their standard operating procedures were designed for stability, not for systemic disruption. Many organisations reacted by accelerating digital projects, launching platforms, and optimising internal processes. That helped, but it did not address the deeper problem. The economic ecosystem itself had lost its organising structure. Actors that were rational in isolation could no longer produce coherent outcomes collectively. This is how complex systems behave under stress: when established coordination patterns fail, local rationality no longer aggregates into systemic order.

Padi UMKM did not start as a brilliant digital product idea. It started as a response to a coordination failure across a fragmented system of SOEs, SMEs, banks, regulators, ministries, and development agencies. All were acting with good intentions, yet through incompatible logics, timelines, and mandates. The system was not short of initiatives; it was short of coherence. In complexity terms, the economy had been pushed far from equilibrium, and the challenge was not optimisation but reorganisation. What was needed was not another tool, but a new pattern of interaction among heterogeneous agents.

The real innovation of Padi UMKM was therefore not the platform. The platform was the easy part. The digital workforce of Telkom Group can design platforms; that is an operational capability. The platform was necessary, and it became the core infrastructure of the ecosystem, but it was not the breakthrough. The breakthrough was the deliberate redefinition of roles within the economic system. SOEs must reposition their procurement operation into a capability of creating new market, i.e. an SME-based market structure. SMEs were not framed as beneficiaries of aid, but as economic agents that could be structurally integrated into formal procurement and value creation. Banks and financial institutions were not treated merely as lenders, but as part of an enabling architecture that combined financing with capability development and pathways to export. What changed was not a feature set. What changed was the pattern of interaction between economic actors.

The formal launching of Padi UMKM itself was not initiated by Telkom or by the Ministry of SOEs. It was planned within the nationwide BBI (Bangga Buatan Indonesia) program, because the central government needed a real, executable instrument to accelerate domestic economic circulation under crisis. Telkom showed a commitment to develop the platform, even though it was still imperfect at that time. The urgency was national, not corporate. This matters, because it positioned Padi UMKM from the beginning not as a corporate product launch, but as a systemic intervention embedded in a national recovery narrative. The early external promotion of Padi UMKM, beyond the internal SOE environment, was also driven by the BBI program. Over time, almost by systemic selection rather than by design, Padi UMKM became the de facto e-commerce infrastructure for BBI, as other platforms could not fit the specific institutional and ecosystemic roles required by the program.

From the beginning, we made a counterintuitive choice in the way the system was governed. Telkom deliberately limited its role to being the product and platform owner. The ecosystem itself was not branded as Telkom’s program. The community was symbolically owned by the Ministry of SOEs and by SOEs collectively. Even the name Padi UMKM did not originate from Telkom. This was not a political compromise; it was a strategic design choice grounded in complexity thinking. In complex systems, ecosystems tend to collapse when one actor over-claims ownership. When the platform owner also claims to own the ecosystem, other actors reduce their commitment, hedge their participation, or quietly resist. By stepping back from symbolic ownership, Telkom created space for other institutions to step forward. The platform provided the infrastructure, but the legitimacy of the ecosystem was deliberately distributed across actors.

At some point, something structurally interesting happened. The initiative crossed a threshold where no single actor could kill it anymore. The CEO of Telkom could not simply shut it down because the ecosystem had become institutionally embedded beyond Telkom. The Minister of SOEs could not dismantle it easily because it had become part of the official narrative of national economic recovery. The President could not disown it because it had been publicly positioned as a success story through BBI, PEN, and related programs. This was not political theatre. This was the moment when the system acquired path dependence. Once an initiative becomes embedded across multiple layers of institutional narrative and governance, it ceases to be a project and becomes part of the system itself. At that point, you are no longer managing a prograe. You are dealing with a living economic structure.

Value in Padi UMKM did not come from transactions alone. It emerged from the coupling of multiple layers of interaction. Transactions between SOEs and SMEs were reinforced by access to credit, by certification mechanisms that enabled formal participation, by development programmes that upgraded SME capabilities, and by pathways to export markets. None of these elements, on their own, would have been transformative. The transformation emerged from their interaction. This is how complex economies create value: not through linear pipelines, but through ecosystems in which different forms of capital, i.e. financial, institutional, social, and operational, reinforce one another over time.

Internally in Telkom, there was a structural separation of roles that proved critical. The Digital Business Directorate (DDB) operated at the product and business level. Its logic was operational: build, run, scale, monetise, and maintain the platform. Even as the platform owner and economic keystone, it remained only one agent within the broader ecosystem. In parallel, the Synergy Subdirectorate under the Strategic Portfolio Directorate worked at the ecosystem level. This role was not about features, roadmaps, or KPIs. It was about sensing emergent patterns of collaboration, mediating conflicts between institutions, and navigating collisions between policy signals and organisational incentives. In the early phase, the Synergy team also played a foundational role in organising cross-SOE agreements, preparing the multi-actor launch, embedding Padi UMKM within the BBI program, and connecting it with multiple SME build-up initiatives involving the Ministry of SMEs, the Ministry of Trade, and other institutions. This work was not linear project management; it was ecosystem orchestration under uncertainty.

In Indonesia’s context, the interaction between SOEs, SMEs, banks, and regulators is not merely complex; it is quasi-chaotic. Mandates overlap, incentives conflict, and policies evolve at different speeds and under different political pressures. In such an environment, precise prediction is an illusion. What becomes possible instead is navigation: sensing where constructive patterns of emergence are forming, dampening destructive feedback loops before they escalate, and shaping the boundaries within which the ecosystem evolves. This is not classical management. This is leadership under complexity.

As a result of its early success, there was a moment when the government, again through the BBI programme, asked to expand Padi UMKM to cover all government agencies (K/L/PD). On paper, this looked like success, with an enormous projected GMV. In reality, it carried a systemic risk. Full integration into the broader government procurement apparatus would have imposed rigid compliance structures and administrative constraints that could have frozen the adaptive dynamics that made the ecosystem work. The decision to return that expansion to LKPP, while positioning Telkom only as a platform provider for LKPP, was a deliberate choice to preserve modularity and flexibility over symbolic scale. In complex systems, scale without adaptability is not growth; it is fragility disguised as success.

What this experience ultimately taught us is uncomfortable for traditional management thinking. In complex economic ecosystems, you cannot engineer outcomes. You can only design conditions: boundaries, incentives, roles, and narratives that make constructive emergence more likely than destructive collapse. The platform mattered. The technology mattered. But what mattered more was the humility to accept that once an ecosystem becomes alive, you are no longer the architect standing outside the system. You are one of the agents operating within it.

The strategic lesson for C-level leadership is this. In times of systemic disruption, competitive advantage no longer lies primarily in having the most sophisticated product or the fastest execution. It lies in the capability to shape interaction spaces across institutions, sectors, and policy domains. Leadership shifts from control to stewardship. Strategy shifts from optimisation to navigation. And success is no longer measured only by ownership, but by whether the system you helped catalyse can survive, adapt, and continue to create value even when you step back.

That, ultimately, is what Padi UMKM represents. Not a digital product success story, but a case of how leadership, strategy, and technology can be recomposed to operate effectively in a complex, adaptive economy under crisis. It is an ecosystem in motion. It is Synergy in action.

CIMA Strategic Leaders Talk

Within the global finance profession, CIMA (Chartered Institute of Management Accountants) has the responsibility for setting management accounting competency standards oriented towards business strategy. In alliance with the AICPA, CIMA facilitates the CGMA (Chartered Global Management Accountant) professional designation, ensuring that practitioners possess a universal business language for managing organisational performance. The Country Manager for CIMA in Indonesia is Mr Dwi Putra, a Coventry University alumnus who first identified me as a member of the ‘Order of the Phoenix’ because my iPhone lock screen displayed the classic Coventry University logo.

At CIMA’s invitation, on 12 February 2026, I delivered my presentation a CIMA Strategic Leaders Breakfast Talk at the Cyber 2 Building entitled “Leadership in the Age of Disruption — Strategic Leadership for Modern Finance Professionals”. The initial plan was for me to be the sole speaker; however, Mr M Fahmi El Mubarak, CEO of the BUMN School of Excellence, was later added to the programme. It was a real honour for me to share the stage with him.

As discussed at the briefing with CIMA, I explored disruption from the perspective of complexity. The discussion began with a deconstruction of neoclassical economic models, opening up insights into complexity economics. Business as a whole was reviewed as a Complex Adaptive System (CAS), i.e. a system comprising autonomous agents that interact and adapt without rigid, centralised control. The ecosystem is viewed as a dynamic interaction that generates new values non-linearly through the process of emergence.

From the perspective of complexity economics, disruption is not a nuisance but rather an engine of evolution, marking a qualitative shift in economic regimes. Strategy has moved from mere optimisation of old models towards a redesign of business architecture that prioritises learning speed and co-evolution with the ecosystem. Competitive advantage is no longer determined by scale or static efficiency, but by architectural flexibility in responding to internal and external feedback constantly.

Disruption also represents the optimal point for innovation to occur. We refer to this as the Edge of Chaos, which is the transition zone between order (stagnation) and disorder (chaos). In this zone, the system possesses the precise balance required to trigger innovation without descending into anarchy. Excessive order leads only to organisational stagnation, while total chaos results in systemic failure. The duty of leadership is to keep the organisation at this threshold to ensure sustainability through adaptive experimentation.

In an ecosystem model, the role of leadership is that of an ecologist. Leaders no longer micromanage outputs; instead, they are tasked with fostering a culture and environment that enables teams to self-organise. This approach utilises simple rules to guide autonomous decision-making, replacing rigid SOPs that are often too brittle to face ambiguity. Leaders must be courageous enough to engage in safe-to-fail probing: launching multiple small experiments simultaneously to detect strategic opportunities that traditional analytical models might overlook.

Returning to CIMA’s focus on Management Accounting (MA), MA plays a crucial role in governing strategic planning in this exponential era through the SPX framework from the IEEE. MA must be capable of performing Strategic Cost Management to monitor future horizons, utilising Real Options Analysis to value investments as strategic options, and implementing Agile Capital Budgeting. By moving away from rigid annual budgets towards Rolling Forecasts and Throughput Accounting, MA ensures that resource allocation is based on real-time feedback and the velocity of value conversion.

In closing, it was conveyed that disruption must be managed as a catalyst for achieving sustainability and a better quality of life. We must stop viewing business as a machine to be controlled mechanistically and start managing it as a living ecosystem with the capacity to renew itself continually. Furthermore, the finest innovations are those capable of creating new markets and providing a tangible impact on strengthening the economy of society.

Navigasi di Edge of Chaos

Dalam profesi keuangan global, CIMA (Chartered Institute of Management Accountants) berperan sebagai penyusun standar kompetensi akuntansi manajemen yang berorientasi pada strategi bisnis. Beraliansi dengan AICPA, CIMA memfasilitasi gelar profesional CGMA (Chartered Global Management Accountant) yang memastikan para praktisi memiliki bahasa bisnis universal dalam mengelola kinerja organisasi. Country manager CIMA di Indonesia adalah Mas Dwi Putra, alumnus Coventry University yang pertama kali mengenaliku sebagai anggota Order of the Phoenix gegara layar Aifon-ku menampilkan logo klasik Coventry University.

Atas undangan CIMA, tanggal 12 Februari 2026 ini di Gedung Cyber 2 aku mengisi sesi CIMA Strategic Leaders Breakfast Talk dengan judul “Leadership in the Age of Disruption — Strategic Leadership for Modern Finance Professionals”. Plan awal, aku jadi pembicara tunggal. Namun kemudian ditambahkan Bapak M Fahmi El Mubarak, CEO BUMN School of Excellent. Wow, a real honour for me untuk sepanggung beliau.

Sesuai briefing dengan CIMA, aku mendetailkan disrupsi dari perspektif kompleksitas. Bahasan diawali dengan dekonstruksi terhadap model ekonomi neoklasik, dan membuka wawasan atas ekonomi kompleksitas. Keseluruhan bisnis ditinjau sebagai Complex Adaptive System (CAS), yaitu sistem yang terdiri atas agen otonom yang saling berinteraksi dan beradaptasi tanpa kontrol terpusat yang kaku. Ekosistem dipandang sebagai interaksi dinamis yang menghasilkan nilai-nilai baru secara non-linier melalui proses emergence.

Dari perspektif ekonomi kompleksitas, disrupsi bukanlah gangguan, melainkan mesin evolusi yang menandai pergeseran rezim ekonomi secara kualitatif. Strategi kini berpindah dari sekadar optimisasi model lama menuju desain ulang arsitektur bisnis yang mengutamakan kecepatan belajar dan co-evolution dengan ekosistem. Keunggulan kompetitif tidak lagi ditentukan oleh skala atau efisiensi statis, melainkan oleh fleksibilitas arsitektural dalam merespons umpan balik internal dan eksternal secara konstan.

Disrupsi juga merupakan titik optimal terjadinya inovasi. Kita menyebutnya the Edge of Chaos, yaitu zona transisi antara keteraturan (order) dan ketidakteraturan (chaos). Pada zona ini, sistem memiliki keseimbangan yang tepat untuk memicu inovasi tanpa terjatuh ke dalam anarki. Keteraturan yang terlalu kaku hanya akan membawa organisasi pada stagnasi, sementara kekacauan total akan berujung pada kegagalan sistemik. Tugas leadership adalah menjaga organisasi tetap berada di ambang ini untuk memastikan keberlanjutan melalui eksperimentasi yang adaptif.

Dalam model ekosistem, peran leadership adalah sebagai ecologist. Pemimpin tidak lagi mendikte output secara mikro, melainkan bertugas memfasilitasi budaya dan ekosistem agar tim bisa mengorganisir diri secara mandiri. Pendekatan ini menggunakan aturan-aturan sederhana (simple rules) untuk memandu pengambilan keputusan otonom, menggantikan SOP yang seringkali terlalu rapuh menghadapi ambiguitas. Pemimpin harus berani melakukan safe-to-fail probing: meluncurkan berbagai eksperimen kecil secara simultan untuk mendeteksi peluang strategis yang mungkin terlewatkan oleh model analisis tradisional.

Kembali ke CIMA yang berfokus ke management accounting (MA). MA memiliki peran krusial dalam mengendalikan perencanaan strategis di era eksponensial ini melalui kerangka SPX dari IEEE. MA harus mampu melakukan Strategic Cost Management untuk memantau horizon masa depan, menggunakan Real Options Analysis untuk menilai investasi sebagai opsi strategis, serta menerapkan Agile Capital Budgeting. Dengan meninggalkan anggaran tahunan yang kaku dan beralih ke Rolling Forecasts serta Throughput Accounting, MA memastikan bahwa alokasi sumber daya didasarkan pada umpan balik real-time dan kecepatan konversi nilai.

Sebagai penutup, disampaikan bahwa disrupsi harus dikelola sebagai katalis untuk mencapai keberlanjutan dan kualitas hidup yang lebih baik. Kita harus berhenti memandang bisnis sebagai mesin yang harus dikontrol secara mekanistis, dan mulai mengelolanya sebagai ekosistem hidup yang memiliki kapasitas untuk terus memperbarui dirinya sendiri. Juga, inovasi terbaik adalah inovasi yang mampu menciptakan pasar baru dan memberikan dampak nyata bagi penguatan ekonomi masyarakat.

Ayo Berlari

This morning, “Ayo Berlari” at GBK Senayan gathered Telkom Connect, Telkom Runner, Witel Jakarta Centrum, and an inspiring turnout that included the CEO, the Director of Digital IT, and the Director of Legal & Compliance of Telkom Group.

I opened the event in my role as Advisor to Telkom Connect, our volunteer alliance that strengthens collaborative engagement across the Group and with other SOEs. In my remarks, I underlined that in the midst of major and urgent challenges, we must continue to cultivate readiness, commitment, enthusiasm, and collaboration as we carry the nation’s transformation agenda and the company’s responsibilities forward.

As part of Earth Mission 2025: Mangrove Chapter, every kilometre run will translate into one mangrove seedling—up to 300 seedlings to be planted on 29 November 2025.

This activity extends Telkom Connect’s ongoing employee voluntrip initiatives throughout 2025, including Daging Qurban untuk Negeri, seagrass planting, turtle release, and coastal pandan planting—clear proof of our resolve to contribute meaningfully to society and the environment.

IEEE Day with Telkom Caucus

Happy IEEE Day! Started as professional collaborations in 1884, the IEEE expands to research & dissemination, to strategic global plan and standardization, to cutting-edge technology design & deployment, to the engagement of industry, universities, schools, students, and startups, and to humanitarian technology activities. IEEE: advancing technology for humanity.

In April 1884, a group of pioneers, including Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, George A. Hamilton, met in New York to form a professional body for the nascent field of electrical engineering, establishing the AIEE under Norvin Green. That same year, on 7–8 October, the AIEE held its first technical meeting at the International Electrical Exhibition in Philadelphia, an event widely regarded as the birth of organised electrical engineering in America. Among its early contributors were Nikola Tesla, Elihu Thomson, Edwin Houston, and Edward Weston, whose collective work later shaped the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

IEEE R10 HTC 2025

Minggu lalu, IEEE Region 10 menyelenggarakan Humanitarian Technology Conference (HTC) 2025 di Chiba University of Commerce, Jepang, 28 September hingga 1 Oktober, yang mempertemukan para visioner global dengan mengusung tema “Beyond SDGs, A New Humanitarian Era with Intelligent Partners.” Konferensi ini menyoroti sinergi antara intelektualitas manusia dan sistem cerdas yang berkembang dalam meningkatkan dampak kemanusiaan melalui teknologi.

Saat Pembukaan, Presiden IEEE Humanitarian Technologies Board (HTB) Grayson Randall menyampaikan speech yang menekankan peran istimewa profesi insinyur dalam meningkatkan kualitas hidup manusia. Pesannya menegaskan bahwa insinyur bukan sekadar pemecah masalah, melainkan arsitek harapan yang mampu menjembatani inovasi dengan tanggung jawab sosial. Ia juga memaparkan berbagai peluang baru dalam program-program HT untuk mendorong proyek yang inklusif dan berdampak luas di kawasan Asia-Pasifik. Pada hari kedua, IEEE President-Elect Mary Ellen Randall menyampaikan keynote speech yang visioner tentang roadmap IEEE dalam memajukan profesi rekayasa selaras dengan tujuan pembangunan manusia global. Ia menjelaskan bagaimana arah strategis IEEE, termasuk etika digital dan inovasi berkelanjutan, berfokus pada satu misi utama, peningkatan kualitas hidup manusia melalui kolaborasi yang cerdas.

Hari ke-3 (1 Oktober), aku berpresentasi dalam Program Khusus 15 dengan judul “Synergy for Sustainable Impact.” Sesi ini dimoderatori oleh Allya Paramitha, dengan para panelis Hidenobu Harasaki, Husain Mahdi, Agnes Irwanti, Bernard Lim, Chie Sato, Saurabh Soni, dan aku sendiri. Diskusi membahas mekanisme kolaboratif antara teknologi, kebijakan, dan inovasi sosial untuk mempercepat hasil kemanusiaan yang berkelanjutan. Aku nyaris selalu memulai presentasi tentang sinergi, ekosistem, dan kolaborasi industri dengan menempatkannya dalam framework teori kompleksitas, yang menunjukkan bagaimana sinergi dapat menghasilkan nilai emergence secara non-linear dalam ekosistem kompleksitas. Fenomena emergensi inilah yang menjadi kunci transformasi menuju pencapaian SDG, khususnya dalam memperkuat inklusivitas, ketahanan, dan keadilan.

Aku mengacu pada visi nasional Indonesia, dengan menjelaskan pengembangan ekosistem komersialisasi UMKM sebagai model penerapan teknologi kemanusiaan. Melalui program-program yang meliputi juga pembiayaan mikro, platform digital, dan pemberdayaan koperasi, kita menunjukkan bagaimana teknologi dapat mengangkat pasar yang sebelumnya belum tergarap menjadi sistem yang produktif dan berkelanjutan. Aku juga memaparkan case dimana IEEE Indonesia SIGHT in Sociopreneurship and Sustainability melaksanakan program pengembangan kapasitas bagi Student Branch IEEE Indonesia, yang masing-masing merancang solusi lokal seperti sistem air tenaga surya, pemantauan berbasis IoT, dan inkubasi sosiopreneurship, sebagaimana sedang dijalankan oleh Universitas Gadjah Mada dan Universitas Udayana. Proyek-proyek ini menunjukkan bagaimana keterlibatan berbasis rekayasa dapat berkembang menjadi sociopreneurship yang digerakkan oleh komunitas, dengan menjamin keberlanjutan melalui kepemilikan, replikasi, dan dampak yang terukur.

Pada Hari ke-0 (28 September), aku juga menceritakan versi ringkas program-program ini ke IEEE President-Elect Mary Ellen Randall dan HTB President Grayson Randall. Diskusi ini menjadi landasan bagi pengembangan lebih lanjut program kemanusiaan IEEE di Indonesia dan kawasan Asia-Pasifik, dengan fokus pada ekosistem digital, sosiopreneurship, dan model inovasi berkelanjutan. Program ini juga aku sampaikan dalam Program Khusus 13 (30 September), “From Innovation to Impact: Advancing IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives”, dalam HTA Forum untuk membahas penyelarasan strategis antara kerangka kemanusiaan IEEE dan pengembangan ekosistem regional.

IEEE R10 HTC 2025 ini bukan hanya diskusi antara gagasan, tetapi lebih sebagai aktivitas dinamis dari sinergi, serta perpaduan antara intelektualitas, empati, dan teknologi. Konferensi ini menegaskan bahwa keinsinyuran bukan sekadar tentang mesin atau sistem, melainkan selalu tentang kemanusiaan. IEEE R10 HTC 2025 menjadi tonggak lain dalam perjalanan kolektif untuk membangun dunia yang lebih adil, tangguh, dan berkelanjutan, digerakkan oleh wawasan manusia dan inovasi cerdas.

Market-Creating Innovation

Ternyata aku pernah mèjèng di Instagram @TelkomIndonesia yang terkenal itu. Bagian kecil dari banyak kisah keberhasilan Padi UMKM di diprakarsai Telkom Indonesia dan ditumbuhkan para BUMN di bawah kepemimpinan Kementerian BUMN.

Cuplikan pada gambar di IG itu diambil dari sambutanku pada Padi Business Matching beberapa waktu lalu, yang juga sekaligus melaporkan interim report dari pencapaian total peran Padi UMKM memberikan transaksi sebesar 6 triliun rupiah selama 2024. Kutipan lengkapnya lebih jail dari yang tertulis: “Inovasi penciptaan platform itu soal kecil. Serahkan saja pada Telkom, pasti beres. Inovasi yang betul-betul hebat adalah inovasi penciptaan market, yang sudah dilaksanakan para BUMN dengan mengubah operasi procurement jadi kapabilitas penciptaan market, dan diakui sebagai inovasi yang berhasil.”

Fotonya sendiri diculik team Corcom (tanpa pemberitahuan sebelumnya, wkwk) dari foto bersama the Coventry Gang di TEMSCON ASPAC 2024 di Sanur.

Sambutan dalam kegiatan itu agak impromptu, disiapkan hanya beberapa menit sebelum naik, karena ternyata opening speech kegiatan ini dilakukan Telkom, bukan dari Kementerian BUMN. Jadi di dalamnya malah masuk teori kompleksitas, teori ekosistem, dan tentu inspirasi Clayton Christensen tentang inovasi.

Dalam bukunya yang terakhir sebelum beliau wafat, yaitu The Prosperity Paradox, Clayton Christensen menjelaskan bahwa inovasi penciptaan pasar (market-creating innovation) adalah jenis inovasi yang tidak hanya meningkatkan efisiensi atau mengoptimalkan pasar yang sudah ada, tetapi menciptakan pasar baru yang sebelumnya tidak ada. Inovasi ini berfokus pada penciptaan bisnis yang mengubah non-konsumen menjadi konsumen dengan membuka akses baru dan memberikan nilai bagi masyarakat. Konsep ini berbeda dengan inovasi efisiensi atau inovasi yang berorientasi pada pertumbuhan jangka pendek. Dalam konteks BUMN seperti di atas, mengubah operasi procurement menjadi kapabilitas penciptaan market sejalan dengan bagaimana perusahaan dapat menyusun inovasi lebih dari strategi pertumbuhan yang dangkal seperti follow the money dan low hanging fruit, atau hanya pada efisiensi biaya; tetapi justru dengan menggiring atau bahkan menciptakan pasar baru yang mendorong pertumbuhan ekonomi dan inklusi.

Padi UMKM diluncurkan sebagai bagian dari Gernas BBI di tahun 2020, pada saat negara sedang mendorong berbagai pihak menciptakan program untuk menghidupkan kembali ekonomi rakyat yang tenggelam akibat krisis Covid. Tahun itu, kami sempat dipanggil KSP. Di sana, disampaikan bahwa dari sekian proposal program pengembangan ekonomi berbagai K/L pada tahun krisis 2020 itu, hanya Padi UMKM (Telkom / Kementerian BUMN) yang betul-betul jalan dan memberikan nilai yang cukup besar. Banyak yang lain masih terhambat berbagai faktor. Program Bela Pengadaan di jalan, tapi valuenya kecil. Sepanjang 2021, kami kampanyekan Padi UMKM dalam arus utama program pemulihan ekonomi nasional melalui Gernas BBI. Dan pada tahun 2022, sebagai ekspansi program ini, negara memberikan kepercayaan kepada Telkom untuk menyiapkan platform pengadaan publik baru yang dikelola LKPP.