Strategic Human Resource Management as an Evaluative Mechanism for Teacher Competency Development in Digitally Mediated Schools

Strategic Human Resource Management as an Evaluative Mechanism for Teacher Competency Development in Digitally Mediated Schools | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Strategic Human Resource Management as an Evaluative Mechanism for Teacher Competency Development in Digitally Mediated Schools Imron Fauzi, Moh. Khusnuridlo, St. Rodliyah This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9363533/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study examines how Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) operates as an evaluative mechanism for teacher competency development in digitally mediated educational environments. Using a qualitative design, data were collected from 30 participants (20 teachers and 10 school principals) through interviews, focus groups, observations, and document analysis. The findings indicate that national digital systems such as Dapodik, EMIS, and Simpatika primarily function as administrative infrastructures with limited evaluative integration, whereas practice-based platforms such as Learning Management Systems enable continuous feedback and reflection, thereby supporting competency development as an embedded process. However, infrastructure limitations, digital literacy disparities, and system fragmentation constrain integration. The study contributes by conceptualizing SHRM as an evaluative mechanism, introducing evaluative integration as a key mechanism linking digital systems and human resource practices, and extending the Resource-Based View by highlighting evaluation as the driver of human capital value. The findings suggest that effective teacher development depends on aligning data, practice, and decision-making within evaluative SHRM processes. Strategic Human Resource Management Evaluative Mechanism Teacher Competency Development Digital Transformation in Education Human Capital Learning Management Systems Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1 Introduction The governance of educational institutions is increasingly shaped by demands for quality, accountability, and continuous improvement. Within this context, teachers are positioned as strategic human capital whose competencies influence school effectiveness and organizational learning (Zerrad & Schechter, 2025). Consequently, human resource management in education has shifted from routine administration toward a strategic function linked to teacher quality and institutional performance [2]. Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) provides a framework for aligning human resource practices with organizational goals [3]. In educational settings, SHRM integrates recruitment, professional development, and evaluation to strengthen teacher competence and institutional outcomes within broader processes of school leadership and improvement [4]. While prior studies show that aligned SHRM practices enhance performance and effectiveness [5], they offer limited explanation of how SHRM operates as an evaluative mechanism in educational contexts [6]. This suggests that teacher competency development is contingent upon the alignment of evaluation, support, and evidence use within SHRM processes. Theoretically, SHRM emphasizes internally coherent HR systems as a basis for organizational effectiveness [7]. This perspective is reinforced by the resource-based view, which positions human capital as a source of sustained advantage [8], and by more recent work highlighting SHRM as a dynamic, context-sensitive system [9]. Together, these perspectives indicate that human capital becomes strategically valuable when recruitment, development, and evaluation are aligned. In education, this implies that teacher competency development is best understood as the outcome of coordinated institutional practices rather than isolated training activities. At the same time, digital transformation has reshaped educational governance and organizational processes [10]. Digital platforms support pedagogical innovation, professional learning, and data-informed decision-making by enabling interaction, reflection, collaboration, and knowledge sharing [11, 12]. Learning Management Systems further facilitate flexible and reflective teaching practices [13], aligning with research on professional digital competence that highlights the role of digital environments in fostering teachers’ reflective and adaptive practices [14]. However, existing studies remain focused on classroom applications, with limited attention to how digital systems shape human resource practices and teacher development at the organizational level [15]. As a result, digital systems are often treated as pedagogical or administrative tools rather than as components of an evaluative mechanism. Leadership research further highlights the importance of organizational conditions in shaping teacher development. Leadership for learning emphasizes that school leadership directly influences teaching quality and learning outcomes by shaping organizational conditions and instructional focus [16]. Digital and instructional leadership support knowledge sharing, professional collaboration, and adaptive work behavior [17–19]. However, these processes are often examined separately from SHRM, limiting understanding of how recruitment, development, evaluation, and digital systems can be integrated within a coherent framework. Cross-national evidence shows that HRM in education varies across contexts [20]. In advanced systems, HRM is positioned as a strategic mechanism supported by integrated digital infrastructures for recruitment, development, and evaluation [21, 22], enabling evidence use and continuous improvement [23]. In contrast, developing contexts tend to exhibit fragmented and compliance-oriented practices due to structural and technological constraints [24]. This fragmentation limits the alignment of digital systems and HR practices [25], and reflects broader organizational shifts toward more fluid structures [26]. These challenges are evident in Indonesian schools operating within value-based institutional environments, where formal accountability demands intersect with cultural and organizational values [27]. Although national digital platforms such as EMIS, Dapodik, and Simpatika are widely implemented, their use remains largely administrative and weakly connected to competency development [28]. This indicates a broader theoretical problem: SHRM in education must be understood as an evaluative mechanism linking professional standards, organizational values, and teacher development. Despite the increasing digitalization of educational systems and the growing adoption of data-driven management practices, a critical gap remains in understanding how SHRM functions as an evaluative mechanism for teacher competency development. Existing studies have largely examined SHRM, digital transformation, and teacher professional development as separate domains, often overlooking the processes through which evaluation connects these elements into a coherent system. As a result, digital platforms are frequently positioned as administrative or pedagogical tools rather than as integral components of evaluative processes that support continuous improvement. This fragmentation is particularly evident in developing and value-based educational contexts, where digital infrastructures coexist with compliance-oriented practices, limiting their contribution to competency development. Therefore, there is a need to reconceptualize SHRM not merely as a strategic or administrative function, but as an evaluative mechanism that aligns human resource practices, digital systems, and teacher development within a unified framework of accountability and organizational learning. Despite growing interest in SHRM, digital transformation, and teacher development, three gaps remain. First, these domains are often examined separately without explaining their integration within evaluative processes [23]. Second, empirical evidence remains concentrated in advanced systems, with limited insight from developing and value-based contexts [29]. Third, there is limited qualitative research examining how SHRM is enacted as an evaluative process in practice [30]. Addressing these gaps, this study examines how SHRM operates as an evaluative mechanism for teacher competency development in Indonesian schools. It assumes that teacher competence emerges from the alignment of recruitment, professional development, performance evaluation, and institutional support, with digital systems functioning as enabling infrastructures. The study is guided by three questions: (1) How are SHRM practices enacted to support teacher competency development? (2) How do digital systems support or constrain these practices? (3) How do SHRM practices and digital systems interact to shape teacher competency development within processes of accountability and school improvement? This study makes three key contributions to the literature. First, it reconceptualizes SHRM in education as an evaluative mechanism rather than a primarily administrative or strategic function, thereby extending existing SHRM theory into the domain of educational evaluation. Second, it introduces the concept of evaluative integration as a critical mechanism that links human resource practices, digital systems, and teacher competency development, addressing the fragmentation observed in prior research. Third, it provides empirical evidence from a developing and value-based educational context, offering new insights into how digital infrastructures and SHRM practices interact within processes of accountability and school improvement. Together, these contributions advance a more integrated and process-oriented understanding of how teacher competency development is shaped within digitally mediated educational systems. By doing so, this study responds to ongoing calls for more integrative and context-sensitive approaches to understanding the role of SHRM in educational transformation. 2 Conceptual Framework This study conceptualizes teacher competency development as the outcome of strategically coordinated institutional practices rather than isolated training or administrative compliance. It argues that Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) operates as an evaluative mechanism through which teacher development becomes visible, assessable, and continuously improved within processes of accountability and school improvement. This perspective builds on SHRM theory, which emphasizes internally coherent HR systems [7], the resource-based view highlighting human capital as a source of sustained advantage [8], and more recent work positioning SHRM as dynamic and context-sensitive [9]. Together, these perspectives suggest that human capital generates value when recruitment, development, and evaluation are strategically aligned. However, despite these theoretical advancements, existing SHRM frameworks remain insufficient in explaining how evaluation operates as a mediating mechanism linking human resource practices and competency development. While alignment is frequently emphasized, the processes through which competencies are continuously assessed, interpreted, and translated into organizational learning remain under-theorized. This limitation is particularly significant in educational contexts, where teacher development is inherently iterative and dependent on feedback-driven processes rather than static HR configurations. Applied to education, teacher competency development is understood as a system-level outcome shaped by interconnected practices. This study therefore reconceptualizes SHRM as an evaluative mechanism linking recruitment, professional development, performance evaluation, and institutional support. In this framework, evaluation connects teacher development with organizational learning and accountability. This argument is reinforced by the Resource-Based View, which emphasizes that organizational advantage depends on how resources are developed and deployed [8]. In schools, teachers become strategic assets when their competencies are systematically cultivated, assessed, and supported through coherent practices. Thus, teacher competency development is both pedagogical and strategic, requiring alignment across recruitment, development, evaluation, and support. The conceptual contribution of this study lies in integrating SHRM with educational evaluation. While prior research often treats professional development, performance appraisal, and accountability as separate domains, this study positions SHRM as the mechanism that aligns them into a continuous evaluative process. Recruitment defines entry points of competence, professional development strengthens capabilities, performance evaluation generates feedback, and institutional support ensures continuity. When aligned, these dimensions transform SHRM into an evaluative system that sustains teacher competency development. Within this framework, digital systems are positioned as enabling infrastructures rather than as the theoretical core. They support coordination, documentation, monitoring, and evidence use across HR practices. However, their contribution depends on their integration into recruitment, evaluation, and development processes. When weakly integrated, digital systems reinforce compliance; when aligned, they enhance evaluative capacity [12]. This highlights that digital transformation becomes meaningful only when embedded within evaluative SHRM processes. Building on this theoretical synthesis, SHRM is reconceptualized as an integrative evaluative system operating through five interrelated dimensions: strategic recruitment and placement, professional development, performance evaluation, institutional support, and digital enablement. Rather than functioning as discrete components, these dimensions operate as mutually reinforcing mechanisms within a continuous evaluative process that connects data, practice, and decision-making. The outcomes of this evaluative process are multi-level. At the individual level, aligned practices strengthen teacher competence through continuous feedback. At the organizational level, they enhance coherence between teacher development and school improvement. At the institutional level, they reinforce accountability through more transparent and evidence-based processes. This repositioning constitutes the central theoretical contribution: SHRM is not a background function but a core mechanism linking teacher competency development, accountability, and school improvement. Accordingly, this study advances the following proposition: SHRM functions as an evaluative mechanism for teacher competency development when recruitment, professional development, performance evaluation, institutional support, and digital enablement are strategically aligned to support continuous improvement and accountability. Figure 1 illustrates this framework by showing how SHRM operates as an evaluative system linking HR practices, digital infrastructures, and teacher competency development. It highlights that teacher development emerges from the integration of these dimensions rather than from isolated interventions. This framework therefore provides the basis for examining how SHRM is enacted as an evaluative process in specific institutional contexts. 3 Methodology This study employed a qualitative design to examine how Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) operates as an evaluative mechanism for teacher competency development. A qualitative approach was appropriate for exploring how SHRM is enacted in practice and for capturing organizational processes in depth [31–33]. The study focused on the interconnections among recruitment, professional development, performance evaluation, institutional support, and digital enablement. The study was conducted in selected schools across three Indonesian provinces representing urban and semi-urban contexts. These schools were chosen because they had implemented national digital education management systems in their administrative and teacher management processes. Data were collected between March and August 2025. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to include individuals directly involved in teacher management and digital system use [34]. The study involved 30 informants (20 teachers and 10 school principals). Teachers were included due to their engagement in instructional practice and professional learning, while principals were selected for their roles in strategic planning, teacher development, and performance evaluation. All participants provided informed consent, and confidentiality was maintained through anonymized coding. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, non-participant observations, and document analysis. Interviews explored participants’ experiences of SHRM practices [35], while focus groups captured shared perspectives on professional development and institutional support. Observations documented how SHRM and digital systems were enacted in practice, and documents included school policies, reports, and teacher development records. The use of multiple sources enabled triangulation and strengthened credibility [32, 33]. The digital systems examined included EMIS, Dapodik, Simpatika, and Learning Management Systems. These were treated as enabling infrastructures within SHRM processes rather than as the primary unit of analysis. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis through iterative stages of familiarization, coding, category development, and theme generation [36]. The analysis examined how participants described relationships among key SHRM dimensions. Informant codes were used to maintain analytic traceability and enable cross-case comparison. To ensure trustworthiness, credibility was enhanced through data triangulation, dependability through systematic documentation, confirmability through an audit trail, and transferability through detailed contextual description [37]. The interpretation of findings was guided by an analytical framework integrating SHRM, the Resource-Based View, and digital enablement, enabling analysis of how SHRM functions as an evaluative system in practice. 4 Results The findings demonstrate how Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) operates as an evaluative mechanism in digitally mediated school contexts. The findings further indicate that SHRM is enacted not as a fully integrated system, but as an uneven evaluative process through which schools attempt to organize and improve teacher competency development. Rather than operating as a coherent structure, SHRM emerges as a set of partially connected practices in which evaluation varies across organizational domains. This highlights that SHRM is better understood as a context-dependent process shaped by the interaction of administrative systems, professional practice, and structural conditions. Three interrelated patterns characterize this process. First, digital governance systems support administrative functions but show weak integration with evaluative SHRM. Second, teacher competency development is more strongly shaped by practice-based digital engagement. Third, structural constraints limit the alignment of these elements into a coherent evaluative system. Together, these patterns indicate that the effectiveness of SHRM depends on the integration of data, practice, and decision-making rather than the mere availability of digital systems. 4.1 Administrative Systems and the Limits of Evaluation The findings show that national digital systems—EMIS, Dapodik, and Simpatika—play a central role in school governance but function primarily as administrative infrastructures. These systems structure data recording and monitoring processes, yet they do not systematically support competency evaluation or development planning. Dapodik, for example, is used mainly to ensure data accuracy for policy implementation. Informants emphasized its compliance-oriented function: “If Dapodik data are not accurate, any policy can become problematic” (SP2) “We fill in Dapodik because it is required, not because it helps our development” (T14) This indicates a gap between data production and evaluative use within SHRM processes. Similarly, EMIS supports institutional reporting and accreditation, but does not facilitate analysis of teacher competencies: “The status of the school depends heavily on EMIS” (SP5) Simpatika introduces stronger monitoring through attendance and certification tracking: “Simpatika makes teacher activities more controlled” (SP7) “We become more disciplined because it affects our allowance” (T18) However, these data are rarely used for developmental purposes. Instead, evaluation is reduced to compliance and behavioral control. Table 1. Digital systems within SHRM as evaluative processes Digital System Dominant Function Evaluative Role Informant Codes Dapodik Administrative data management Data validation without developmental use SP2, T14 EMIS Institutional reporting Supports legitimacy without competency evaluation SP5 Simpatika Performance monitoring Behavioral control without developmental feedback SP7, T18 As summarized in Table 1, digital systems generate extensive data but remain weakly connected to evaluative SHRM processes. This reveals a structural gap between data production and meaningful use, where evaluation is limited to verification rather than development. Consequently, SHRM remains administrative rather than evaluative. Figure 2 further illustrates this distinction by contrasting administrative and evaluative functions of digital systems. It indicates that digital systems contribute to teacher competency development not by their presence, but by their integration into evaluative processes that connect data, feedback, and professional learning. This indicates that the absence of evaluative integration transforms digital systems into instruments of compliance rather than mechanisms for competency development, reinforcing the argument that data alone is insufficient without evaluative processes. 4.2 Practice-Based Competency Development In contrast, teacher competency development is more evident in platforms embedded in professional practice, particularly Learning Management Systems (LMS). These platforms enable continuous interaction, feedback, and reflection, thereby supporting more dynamic forms of evaluation. Teachers reported that LMS use enhances instructional design and adaptability: “The LMS pushes me to design learning more systematically” (T9) “I can adjust materials based on students’ needs” (T15) Observations further show that LMS use encourages variation in teaching strategies and ongoing reflection. It also contributes to increased technological confidence: “At first it was difficult, but now I am used to it” (T12) “Now I am more confident using digital tools” (T16) From an evaluative perspective, these findings suggest that competency development becomes meaningful when evaluation is embedded in practice. Teachers engage in continuous cycles of action, feedback, and adjustment, transforming evaluation from a control mechanism into a developmental process. School leaders also recognize the value of such data for identifying professional development needs: “With this data, we can identify teachers’ development needs more clearly” (SP6) Table 2 . Practice-based teacher competency development Competency Dimension Development Process Impact Informant Codes Pedagogical LMS-based instructional design More adaptive and structured teaching T9, T15 Technological Regular use of digital tools Increased confidence and skill T12, T16 Professional Reflection based on data Clearer identification of development needs SP6 As shown in Table 2, competency development emerges most strongly when evaluation is directly linked to practice. This indicates that SHRM begins to function as an evaluative system when data, feedback, and professional learning are integrated. These findings demonstrate that evaluative processes become effective when embedded within professional practice, suggesting that competency development is driven by iterative feedback loops rather than formal administrative systems. 4.3 Structural Constraints and Fragmentation Despite these developments, several structural constraints limit the integration of SHRM as a coherent evaluative system. These include infrastructure limitations, disparities in digital literacy, and fragmentation across systems. Infrastructure constraints restrict access to digital processes: “Devices and internet access are still problematic” (T6) “Facilities affect how policies can be implemented” (SP4) Digital literacy gaps create uneven engagement with SHRM practices: “Some teachers need more time to adapt” (T10) “Continuous mentoring is still needed” (SP6) In addition, system fragmentation increases administrative burden and reduces coherence: “We have to enter the same data repeatedly” (SP8) “Administrative tasks reduce teaching time” (T13) Table 3 . Structural constraints in SHRM implementation Challenge Impact on SHRM Informant Codes Infrastructure limitations Reduced effectiveness of digital processes T6, SP4 Digital literacy gaps Uneven participation in SHRM practices T10, SP6 System fragmentation Lack of integration across HR functions SP8, T13 As summarized in Table 3, these constraints are interconnected and collectively limit the integration of HR practices. This reveals that SHRM remains fragmented when digital systems, organizational capacity, and human capabilities are not aligned. Taken together, the findings indicate that SHRM operates along a continuum between administrative compliance and evaluative integration. Digital systems alone do not ensure effective teacher development. Instead, their impact depends on the extent to which they are embedded within evaluative processes that connect data, practice, and decision-making. When alignment is weak, SHRM remains administrative; when alignment begins to emerge, particularly in practice-based contexts, SHRM becomes more capable of supporting continuous teacher competency development. This fragmentation highlights that the effectiveness of SHRM is structurally constrained when digital infrastructures, organizational capacity, and human capabilities are not aligned within a coherent evaluative system. 5 Discussion 5.1 Repositioning Strategic Human Resource Management as an Evaluative Mechanism The findings require a reconceptualization of SHRM in education. Rather than functioning as an administrative or policy-driven system, SHRM emerges as an evaluative mechanism through which teacher competency development is organized, interpreted, and continuously improved. This extends SHRM theory, which has traditionally emphasized alignment between HR practices and organizational performance [7], by demonstrating that in educational contexts, SHRM also operates as a mechanism of evaluation and developmental coordination. The results indicate that SHRM operates along a continuum between administrative compliance and evaluative integration. This highlights the context-dependent nature of SHRM as an evaluative mechanism. Although digital systems such as EMIS, Dapodik, and Simpatika are institutionally embedded, their dominant function remains administrative. This finding reinforces prior arguments that digital transformation does not automatically generate strategic value [38]. However, this study extends that argument by identifying evaluative integration as the missing mechanism linking digital systems to teacher competency development. This finding challenges the assumption in digital governance literature that data availability leads to improved decision-making [39]. Instead, it suggests that data must be translated into evaluative processes to become meaningful. In this sense, SHRM functions as the mediating structure that determines whether digital systems reinforce compliance or enable development. Consequently, digital transformation in education should be understood not as a technological shift, but as an organizational process of integrating data, evaluation, and professional practice. 5.2 Extending the Resource-Based View through Evaluation Interpreted through the Resource-Based View (RBV), the findings reaffirm that teachers constitute a central strategic resource in educational organizations [8]. However, this study extends RBV by demonstrating that the value of human capital depends not only on development practices, but on the presence of evaluative mechanisms that enable continuous capability refinement. Consistent with RBV, digital-based SHRM enhances the potential value of human capital by supporting competency identification and performance monitoring [40]. However, the findings indicate that digital resources do not automatically produce strategic advantage. This supports the argument that competitive advantage depends on the organization’s ability to integrate and deploy resources effectively [8]. This study advances this perspective by specifying evaluation as the mechanism through which such integration occurs. Without evaluative integration, digital systems remain informational rather than transformational. This suggests that resource utilization in education requires not only capability development, but also institutionalized evaluation processes that connect data with professional practice. In this sense, SHRM becomes the mechanism through which human capital is continuously assessed, refined, and strategically deployed. 5.3 Practice-Based Evaluation and the Transformation of Professional Development A second contribution lies in reconceptualizing teacher professional development as a practice-based evaluative process. The findings show that platforms such as Learning Management Systems enable continuous interaction, feedback, and reflection, thereby embedding evaluation within everyday teaching practice. This aligns with prior research highlighting the role of digital platforms in professional learning [41]. However, this study extends this literature by showing that the significance of these platforms lies in their capacity to integrate evaluation into professional activity. Teachers are not merely recipients of training; they participate in continuous cycles of action, feedback, and adaptation. This highlights a shift from episodic training models toward continuous, practice-based evaluation. From an SHRM perspective, professional development becomes a sustained evaluative process aligned with organizational goals. From a digital transformation perspective, it reflects a move toward adaptive and data-informed learning systems. From an RBV perspective, it enhances the strategic value of human capital through ongoing capability renewal. 5.4 Structural Constraints and the Limits of Integration Despite this potential, the findings reveal structural constraints that limit the effectiveness of evaluative SHRM. Infrastructure limitations, disparities in digital literacy, and system fragmentation reduce the coherence of HR practices and constrain evaluative capacity. This confirms that digital transformation is not merely a technological process, but an organizational challenge requiring alignment between technological, human, and institutional dimensions [42]. These findings suggest that fragmented systems increase administrative burden and weaken the integration of evaluation into professional practice. From an RBV perspective, such fragmentation limits the effective utilization of human capital, thereby constraining institutional advantage. This highlights the importance of strategic coordination in ensuring that digital systems support development rather than compliance. This finding also resonates with distributed leadership theory, which emphasizes that organizational improvement depends on how leadership practices are enacted through interactions among actors rather than centralized authority [43]. Leadership emerges as a critical mediating factor in this process. Strategic leadership is required to align digital systems with pedagogical goals, support teacher capability development, and embed evaluation within organizational practices [44]. Without such alignment, digital-based SHRM remains procedural and fails to achieve its strategic potential. 5.5 Toward a Global Model of Evaluative SHRM Taken together, these findings support the development of a conceptual model in which SHRM is understood as an evaluative mechanism linking human resource practices, digital systems, and teacher competency development. This model suggests that effective teacher development depends on three conditions: the alignment of HR practices, the integration of digital infrastructures, and the institutionalization of evaluative processes. This contributes to international scholarship in three ways. First, it extends SHRM theory by incorporating evaluation as a core dimension of human resource management in education. Second, it bridges SHRM and educational evaluation by demonstrating that teacher development is shaped by institutional processes rather than isolated interventions. Third, it advances digital transformation research by showing that the impact of digital systems depends on their integration into evaluative and developmental processes. Importantly, while grounded in a specific context, this model offers broader applicability. Education systems globally face similar challenges related to digitalization, accountability, and teacher development. By conceptualizing SHRM as an evaluative mechanism, this study provides a transferable framework for understanding how schools can move from fragmented HR practices toward integrated and development-oriented systems. Taken together, these findings suggest that evaluation should be understood as the central organizing principle of SHRM in educational contexts, rather than a peripheral or supporting function. This reorientation shifts SHRM from a system of alignment to a system of continuous evaluative learning. 5.6 Theoretical and Practical Implications Theoretically, this study repositions SHRM as an evaluative mechanism that links human resource practices with continuous teacher development. It demonstrates that the strategic value of human capital depends not only on alignment with organizational goals, but on the capacity of institutions to evaluate and refine competencies over time. Practically, the findings suggest that schools should move beyond compliance-oriented uses of digital systems and integrate them into evaluative SHRM processes. Systems such as Dapodik, EMIS, and Simpatika should function as data infrastructures for competency mapping and development planning, while Learning Management Systems should be leveraged as platforms for continuous feedback and professional learning. Overall, the study highlights that the effectiveness of digital-based SHRM depends not on technology itself, but on the organization’s ability to align data, practice, and decision-making within a coherent evaluative framework. 6 Conclusion This study demonstrates that SHRM functions most effectively as an evaluative mechanism when digital systems are strategically integrated with human resource practices. The findings indicate that national digital platforms such as Dapodik, EMIS, and Simpatika predominantly operate as administrative tools, generating data without effectively supporting evaluative processes. In contrast, practice-based platforms such as Learning Management Systems enable continuous feedback and reflection, allowing evaluation to emerge as an embedded component of professional practice. Teacher development therefore depends on the alignment of digital systems with evaluative SHRM processes. The study makes three main theoretical contributions. First, it reconceptualizes SHRM in education as an evaluative mechanism rather than a purely administrative function. Second, it extends the Resource-Based View by identifying evaluation as the mechanism through which human capital generates sustained institutional value. Third, it advances digital transformation research by demonstrating that technological infrastructures become strategically meaningful only when embedded within evaluative and developmental processes. These contributions introduce the concept of evaluative integration as a critical condition linking human resource practices, digital systems, and teacher competency development. From a practical perspective, the findings highlight the need for schools and policymakers to move beyond compliance-oriented uses of digital systems. Administrative platforms should be repositioned as data infrastructures for competency mapping, performance feedback, and development planning, while practice-based platforms should be strengthened as spaces for continuous evaluation and professional learning. Such alignment is essential for transforming fragmented HR practices into coherent systems that support sustained teacher development. This study has limitations. It is based on a specific educational context, which may limit generalizability, and it employs a qualitative design that prioritizes depth over statistical inference. Future research should examine evaluative SHRM across diverse educational systems and use quantitative or mixed methods to further test the relationship between digital integration, evaluation, and educational outcomes. Overall, SHRM becomes effective when data, practice, and decision-making are aligned within an evaluative framework that supports continuous improvement. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards for research involving human participants. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Participants were assured of confidentiality and anonymity, and all data were anonymized during analysis. Formal ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve sensitive personal data or interventions beyond standard educational practices. Consent for publication : All participants provided informed consent for the use of anonymized data for research and publication purposes. Competing interests : The author declares that there are no competing interests regarding the publication of this article. Funding : This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Authors’ contributions : All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. All authors were involved in drafting and revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content and approved the final version for publication. Acknowledgements : The author would like to thank the participating teachers and school principals for their valuable contributions to this study. References Zerrad, H., Schechter, C.: Human capital development: Principals’ challenges in developing school staff. J. Prof. Cap. Community. 10, 503–517 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-09-2024-0159. Runhaar, P., Sanders, K., Yang, H.: Stimulating teachers’ reflection and feedback asking: An interplay of self-efficacy, learning goal orientation, and transformational leadership. Teach. Teach. Educ. 26, 1154–1161 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.011. Kure, T.G.: The strategic role of human resource managers in shaping decision-making in Ethiopia. PLoS One. 20, e0327296 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327296. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., Hopkins, D.: Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 40, 5–22 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077. Sánchez-Pérez, M., Revuelto-Taboada, L., Mas-Tur, A.: Addressing causal complexity in the drivers of teachers’ innovative behavior: a configurational qualitative comparative approach. Qual. Quant. 59, 5709–5736 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-025-02231-6. Jiang, K., Lepak, D.P., Hu, J., Baer, J.C.: How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? Acad. Manag. J. 55, 1264–1294 (2012). https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0088. Delery, J.E., Doty, D.H.: Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management. Acad. Manag. J. 39, 802–835 (1996). https://doi.org/10.2307/256713. Barney, J., Wright, M., Ketchen, D.J.: The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. J. Manage. 27, 625–641 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700601. Collins, C.J.: Expanding the resource-based view model of strategic human resource management. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 32, 331–358 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1711442. Instefjord, E.J., Munthe, E.: Educating digitally competent teachers. Teach. Teach. Educ. 67, 37–45 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.016. Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P.: What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ. 9, 60–70 (2009). Qazi, A.G., Pachler, N.: Conceptualising a data analytics framework to support targeted teacher professional development. Prof. Dev. Educ. 51, 495–518 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2024.2422066. Simon, P.D., Jiang, J., Fryer, L.K., King, R.B., Frondozo, C.E.: An assessment of learning management system use in higher education: perspectives from a comprehensive sample of teachers and students. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 30, 741–767 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09734-5. Brevik, L.M., Guðmundsdóttir, G.B., Lund, A., Strømme, T.A.: Transformative agency in teacher education: Fostering professional digital competence. Teach. Teach. Educ. 86, 102875 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.07.005. Jain, A., Naik, K.R., Kakade, K., Bhanot, S., Kulkarni, S.C.: Reimagining management education: navigating the shift to education 4.0 in the digital era. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 23, 101182 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2025.101182. Hallinger, P.: Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. J. Educ. Adm. 49, 125–142 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699. Anwar, S.: Digital leadership in the digital era of education: enhancing knowledge sharing and emotional intelligence. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 38, 1581–1598 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-11-2023-0540. Li, Y., Liu, S.: The relationship between teacher leadership and collective teacher efficacy in secondary schools. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 35, 394–410 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2020-0368. Mufic, J.: Unlocking the relationship between instructional leadership, psychological well-being and teacher job crafting. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 39, 1156–1174 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2024-0384. Gooderham, P.N., Mayrhofer, W., Sinha, P.N., Zheng, C.S., Brewster, C.: Continuity and change in national HRM – an overview and future research agenda. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 36, 1989–2017 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2025.2548041. Friesen, S.: The leadership of innovation in education: findings from an environmental scan. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2025.2602008. Shiferaw, R.M., Birbirsa, Z.A.: Digital technology and human resource practices: a systematic literature review. Heliyon. 11, e41946 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e41946. Tuytens, M., Vekeman, E., Devos, G.: A focus on students’ and teachers’ learning through strategic human resource management. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 34, 247–270 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2023.2172049. Wang, J.: Transnational education as ecosystem: rethinking sustainability and equity. High. Educ. Q. 80, e70099 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.70099. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L.: Teacher capacity for and beliefs about data-driven decision making. J. Educ. Chang. 17, 7–28 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9264-2. Matej, C., Amadeja, L.: Work has changed, has HRM? Designing for the distributed, fragmented, and fluid era. Hum. Resour. Manage. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.70028. Millie, J.: Limits of bureaucratisation in Islamic education. Relig. State Soc. 53, 188–201 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2025.2560226. Santoso, J.L., Khairina, N.N., Adi, W.H.: An Independent Verification of Education Sector Data in Indonesia. World Bank (2020). Roul, J., Mohapatra, L.M., Pradhan, A.K., Kamesh, A.V.S.: Analysing the role of modern information technologies in HRM: Management perspective and future agenda. Kybernetes. 54, 7409–7434 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1108/K-11-2023-2512. Rana, S., Kaur, D.: Exploring the challenges and facilitators in the adoption of e-HRM practices in Indian higher education institutions: a qualitative exploration. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 32, 1419–1439 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-05-2023-3745. Creswell, J.W., Poth, C.N.: Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE (2018). Tracy, S.J.: Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Wiley-Blackwell (2020). Yin, R.K.: Case study research and applications: Design and methods. SAGE (2018). Palinkas, L.A., Horwitz, S.M., Green, C.A., Wisdom, J.P., Duan, N., Hoagwood, K.: Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed-method implementation research. Adm. Policy Ment. Health. 42, 533–544 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y. Brinkmann, S., Kvale, S.: InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2015). Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage, London (2021). Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G.: Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE (1985). Aw, E.C.X., Tan, G.W.H., Cham, T.H., Ooi, K.B., Al-Busaidi, A.S., Dwivedi, Y.K.: Adapt or die! Embrace digital transformation for better firm performance: a causal recipe. Internet Res. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-05-2024-0726. Ruloff, M., Petko, D.: School principals’ educational goals and leadership styles for digital transformation: results from case studies in upper secondary schools. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. 28, 422–440 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.2014979. Xu, C., Hania, A., Waqas, M.: Guiding the digital generation: role of principals’ leadership, ICT competence, and teacher professional competence. Educ. Inf. Technol. 30, 1165–1189 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13180-2. Evenstein Sigalov, S., Cohen, A.: Leveraging Wikipedia for educational innovation: a higher education course model for enhancing students’ competencies. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 22, (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00518-0. Robertson, J., Botha, E., Oosthuizen, K., Montecchi, M.: Managing change when integrating artificial intelligence into the retail value chain. J. Bus. Res. 189, 115198 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115198. Spillane, J.P.: Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass (2006). Abbaspour, F.: Uncovering the role of principals in enhancing teacher professional learning in centralized education systems. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 38, 873–889 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2023-0435. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 20 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 12 Apr, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 12 Apr, 2026 First submitted to journal 09 Apr, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9363533","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":621851607,"identity":"c7f8b482-caeb-42e9-bf7d-9d144485ab5f","order_by":0,"name":"Imron Fauzi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Islam Negeri Kiai Haji Achmad Siddiq","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Imron","middleName":"","lastName":"Fauzi","suffix":""},{"id":621851609,"identity":"5c771f10-aab0-4a5f-aede-f89641e61126","order_by":1,"name":"Moh. Khusnuridlo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Islam Negeri Kiai Haji Achmad Siddiq","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Moh.","middleName":"","lastName":"Khusnuridlo","suffix":""},{"id":621851613,"identity":"1c66be29-68a5-47ba-9932-22cc0e6a752a","order_by":2,"name":"St. Rodliyah","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitas Islam Negeri Kiai Haji Achmad Siddiq","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"St.","middleName":"","lastName":"Rodliyah","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-09 05:38:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9363533/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9363533/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106949845,"identity":"6a8c2850-4231-48de-b9f6-cc1596630ef9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 07:15:59","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":75291,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual framework of SHRM as an evaluative mechanism for teacher competency development\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9363533/v1/1f308a9d6c769e3f0108835b.png"},{"id":106949844,"identity":"9aafd7ab-67d4-42e8-8409-cda227ef05f9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 07:15:59","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":55404,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAdministrative versus evaluative functions of digital systems in SHRM\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9363533/v1/d264bcdd5ecc3633a4ff4a47.png"},{"id":106961866,"identity":"421595cb-6fb7-4664-b508-c07235fa8b43","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 09:27:23","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":862883,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9363533/v1/6527e39c-1ba7-4f42-929f-edafd446027e.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Strategic Human Resource Management as an Evaluative Mechanism for Teacher Competency Development in Digitally Mediated Schools","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe governance of educational institutions is increasingly shaped by demands for quality, accountability, and continuous improvement. Within this context, teachers are positioned as strategic human capital whose competencies influence school effectiveness and organizational learning (Zerrad \u0026amp; Schechter, 2025). Consequently, human resource management in education has shifted from routine administration toward a strategic function linked to teacher quality and institutional performance [2].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStrategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) provides a framework for aligning human resource practices with organizational goals [3]. In educational settings, SHRM integrates recruitment, professional development, and evaluation to strengthen teacher competence and institutional outcomes within broader processes of school leadership and improvement [4]. While prior studies show that aligned SHRM practices enhance performance and effectiveness [5], they offer limited explanation of how SHRM operates as an evaluative mechanism in educational contexts [6]. This suggests that teacher competency development is contingent upon the alignment of evaluation, support, and evidence use within SHRM processes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTheoretically, SHRM emphasizes internally coherent HR systems as a basis for organizational effectiveness [7]. This perspective is reinforced by the resource-based view, which positions human capital as a source of sustained advantage [8], and by more recent work highlighting SHRM as a dynamic, context-sensitive system [9]. Together, these perspectives indicate that human capital becomes strategically valuable when recruitment, development, and evaluation are aligned. In education, this implies that teacher competency development is best understood as the outcome of coordinated institutional practices rather than isolated training activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the same time, digital transformation has reshaped educational governance and organizational processes [10]. Digital platforms support pedagogical innovation, professional learning, and data-informed decision-making by enabling interaction, reflection, collaboration, and knowledge sharing [11, 12]. Learning Management Systems further facilitate flexible and reflective teaching practices [13], aligning with research on professional digital competence that highlights the role of digital environments in fostering teachers’ reflective and adaptive practices [14]. However, existing studies remain focused on classroom applications, with limited attention to how digital systems shape human resource practices and teacher development at the organizational level [15]. As a result, digital systems are often treated as pedagogical or administrative tools rather than as components of an evaluative mechanism.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeadership research further highlights the importance of organizational conditions in shaping teacher development. Leadership for learning emphasizes that school leadership directly influences teaching quality and learning outcomes by shaping organizational conditions and instructional focus [16]. Digital and instructional leadership support knowledge sharing, professional collaboration, and adaptive work behavior [17–19]. However, these processes are often examined separately from SHRM, limiting understanding of how recruitment, development, evaluation, and digital systems can be integrated within a coherent framework.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCross-national evidence shows that HRM in education varies across contexts [20]. In advanced systems, HRM is positioned as a strategic mechanism supported by integrated digital infrastructures for recruitment, development, and evaluation [21, 22], enabling evidence use and continuous improvement [23]. In contrast, developing contexts tend to exhibit fragmented and compliance-oriented practices due to structural and technological constraints [24]. This fragmentation limits the alignment of digital systems and HR practices [25], and reflects broader organizational shifts toward more fluid structures [26].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese challenges are evident in Indonesian schools operating within value-based institutional environments, where formal accountability demands intersect with cultural and organizational values [27]. Although national digital platforms such as EMIS, Dapodik, and Simpatika are widely implemented, their use remains largely administrative and weakly connected to competency development [28]. This indicates a broader theoretical problem: SHRM in education must be understood as an evaluative mechanism linking professional standards, organizational values, and teacher development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the increasing digitalization of educational systems and the growing adoption of data-driven management practices, a critical gap remains in understanding how SHRM functions as an evaluative mechanism for teacher competency development. Existing studies have largely examined SHRM, digital transformation, and teacher professional development as separate domains, often overlooking the processes through which evaluation connects these elements into a coherent system. As a result, digital platforms are frequently positioned as administrative or pedagogical tools rather than as integral components of evaluative processes that support continuous improvement. This fragmentation is particularly evident in developing and value-based educational contexts, where digital infrastructures coexist with compliance-oriented practices, limiting their contribution to competency development. Therefore, there is a need to reconceptualize SHRM not merely as a strategic or administrative function, but as an evaluative mechanism that aligns human resource practices, digital systems, and teacher development within a unified framework of accountability and organizational learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite growing interest in SHRM, digital transformation, and teacher development, three gaps remain. First, these domains are often examined separately without explaining their integration within evaluative processes [23]. Second, empirical evidence remains concentrated in advanced systems, with limited insight from developing and value-based contexts [29]. Third, there is limited qualitative research examining how SHRM is enacted as an evaluative process in practice [30].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAddressing these gaps, this study examines how SHRM operates as an evaluative mechanism for teacher competency development in Indonesian schools. It assumes that teacher competence emerges from the alignment of recruitment, professional development, performance evaluation, and institutional support, with digital systems functioning as enabling infrastructures. The study is guided by three questions: (1) How are SHRM practices enacted to support teacher competency development? (2) How do digital systems support or constrain these practices? (3) How do SHRM practices and digital systems interact to shape teacher competency development within processes of accountability and school improvement?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study makes three key contributions to the literature. First, it reconceptualizes SHRM in education as an evaluative mechanism rather than a primarily administrative or strategic function, thereby extending existing SHRM theory into the domain of educational evaluation. Second, it introduces the concept of evaluative integration as a critical mechanism that links human resource practices, digital systems, and teacher competency development, addressing the fragmentation observed in prior research. Third, it provides empirical evidence from a developing and value-based educational context, offering new insights into how digital infrastructures and SHRM practices interact within processes of accountability and school improvement. Together, these contributions advance a more integrated and process-oriented understanding of how teacher competency development is shaped within digitally mediated educational systems. By doing so, this study responds to ongoing calls for more integrative and context-sensitive approaches to understanding the role of SHRM in educational transformation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Conceptual Framework","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study conceptualizes teacher competency development as the outcome of strategically coordinated institutional practices rather than isolated training or administrative compliance. It argues that Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) operates as an evaluative mechanism through which teacher development becomes visible, assessable, and continuously improved within processes of accountability and school improvement. This perspective builds on SHRM theory, which emphasizes internally coherent HR systems [7], the resource-based view highlighting human capital as a source of sustained advantage [8], and more recent work positioning SHRM as dynamic and context-sensitive [9]. Together, these perspectives suggest that human capital generates value when recruitment, development, and evaluation are strategically aligned.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, despite these theoretical advancements, existing SHRM frameworks remain insufficient in explaining how evaluation operates as a mediating mechanism linking human resource practices and competency development. While alignment is frequently emphasized, the processes through which competencies are continuously assessed, interpreted, and translated into organizational learning remain under-theorized. This limitation is particularly significant in educational contexts, where teacher development is inherently iterative and dependent on feedback-driven processes rather than static HR configurations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eApplied to education, teacher competency development is understood as a system-level outcome shaped by interconnected practices. This study therefore reconceptualizes SHRM as an evaluative mechanism linking recruitment, professional development, performance evaluation, and institutional support. In this framework, evaluation connects teacher development with organizational learning and accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis argument is reinforced by the Resource-Based View, which emphasizes that organizational advantage depends on how resources are developed and deployed [8]. In schools, teachers become strategic assets when their competencies are systematically cultivated, assessed, and supported through coherent practices. Thus, teacher competency development is both pedagogical and strategic, requiring alignment across recruitment, development, evaluation, and support.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe conceptual contribution of this study lies in integrating SHRM with educational evaluation. While prior research often treats professional development, performance appraisal, and accountability as separate domains, this study positions SHRM as the mechanism that aligns them into a continuous evaluative process. Recruitment defines entry points of competence, professional development strengthens capabilities, performance evaluation generates feedback, and institutional support ensures continuity. When aligned, these dimensions transform SHRM into an evaluative system that sustains teacher competency development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin this framework, digital systems are positioned as enabling infrastructures rather than as the theoretical core. They support coordination, documentation, monitoring, and evidence use across HR practices. However, their contribution depends on their integration into recruitment, evaluation, and development processes. When weakly integrated, digital systems reinforce compliance; when aligned, they enhance evaluative capacity [12]. This highlights that digital transformation becomes meaningful only when embedded within evaluative SHRM processes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on this theoretical synthesis, SHRM is reconceptualized as an integrative evaluative system operating through five interrelated dimensions: strategic recruitment and placement, professional development, performance evaluation, institutional support, and digital enablement. Rather than functioning as discrete components, these dimensions operate as mutually reinforcing mechanisms within a continuous evaluative process that connects data, practice, and decision-making.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe outcomes of this evaluative process are multi-level. At the individual level, aligned practices strengthen teacher competence through continuous feedback. At the organizational level, they enhance coherence between teacher development and school improvement. At the institutional level, they reinforce accountability through more transparent and evidence-based processes. This repositioning constitutes the central theoretical contribution: SHRM is not a background function but a core mechanism linking teacher competency development, accountability, and school improvement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccordingly, this study advances the following proposition: SHRM functions as an evaluative mechanism for teacher competency development when recruitment, professional development, performance evaluation, institutional support, and digital enablement are strategically aligned to support continuous improvement and accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 1 illustrates this framework by showing how SHRM operates as an evaluative system linking HR practices, digital infrastructures, and teacher competency development. It highlights that teacher development emerges from the integration of these dimensions rather than from isolated interventions. This framework therefore provides the basis for examining how SHRM is enacted as an evaluative process in specific institutional contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3 Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a qualitative design to examine how Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) operates as an evaluative mechanism for teacher competency development. A qualitative approach was appropriate for exploring how SHRM is enacted in practice and for capturing organizational processes in depth [31–33]. The study focused on the interconnections among recruitment, professional development, performance evaluation, institutional support, and digital enablement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted in selected schools across three Indonesian provinces representing urban and semi-urban contexts. These schools were chosen because they had implemented national digital education management systems in their administrative and teacher management processes. Data were collected between March and August 2025.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were selected through purposive sampling to include individuals directly involved in teacher management and digital system use [34]. The study involved 30 informants (20 teachers and 10 school principals). Teachers were included due to their engagement in instructional practice and professional learning, while principals were selected for their roles in strategic planning, teacher development, and performance evaluation. All participants provided informed consent, and confidentiality was maintained through anonymized coding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were collected through semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, non-participant observations, and document analysis. Interviews explored participants’ experiences of SHRM practices [35], while focus groups captured shared perspectives on professional development and institutional support. Observations documented how SHRM and digital systems were enacted in practice, and documents included school policies, reports, and teacher development records. The use of multiple sources enabled triangulation and strengthened credibility [32, 33].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe digital systems examined included EMIS, Dapodik, Simpatika, and Learning Management Systems. These were treated as enabling infrastructures within SHRM processes rather than as the primary unit of analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were analyzed using thematic analysis through iterative stages of familiarization, coding, category development, and theme generation [36]. The analysis examined how participants described relationships among key SHRM dimensions. Informant codes were used to maintain analytic traceability and enable cross-case comparison.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure trustworthiness, credibility was enhanced through data triangulation, dependability through systematic documentation, confirmability through an audit trail, and transferability through detailed contextual description [37].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe interpretation of findings was guided by an analytical framework integrating SHRM, the Resource-Based View, and digital enablement, enabling analysis of how SHRM functions as an evaluative system in practice.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":" 4 Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings demonstrate how Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) operates as an evaluative mechanism in digitally mediated school contexts. The findings further indicate that SHRM is enacted not as a fully integrated system, but as an uneven evaluative process through which schools attempt to organize and improve teacher competency development. Rather than operating as a coherent structure, SHRM emerges as a set of partially connected practices in which evaluation varies across organizational domains. This highlights that SHRM is better understood as a context-dependent process shaped by the interaction of administrative systems, professional practice, and structural conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThree interrelated patterns characterize this process. First, digital governance systems support administrative functions but show weak integration with evaluative SHRM. Second, teacher competency development is more strongly shaped by practice-based digital engagement. Third, structural constraints limit the alignment of these elements into a coherent evaluative system. Together, these patterns indicate that the effectiveness of SHRM depends on the integration of data, practice, and decision-making rather than the mere availability of digital systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1 Administrative Systems and the Limits of Evaluation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings show that national digital systems\u0026mdash;EMIS, Dapodik, and Simpatika\u0026mdash;play a central role in school governance but function primarily as administrative infrastructures. These systems structure data recording and monitoring processes, yet they do not systematically support competency evaluation or development planning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDapodik, for example, is used mainly to ensure data accuracy for policy implementation. Informants emphasized its compliance-oriented function:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;If Dapodik data are not accurate, any policy can become problematic\u0026rdquo; (SP2)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;We fill in Dapodik because it is required, not because it helps our development\u0026rdquo; (T14)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis indicates a gap between data production and evaluative use within SHRM processes. Similarly, EMIS supports institutional reporting and accreditation, but does not facilitate analysis of teacher competencies:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The status of the school depends heavily on EMIS\u0026rdquo; (SP5)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimpatika introduces stronger monitoring through attendance and certification tracking:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Simpatika makes teacher activities more controlled\u0026rdquo; (SP7)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;We become more disciplined because it affects our allowance\u0026rdquo; (T18)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, these data are rarely used for developmental purposes. Instead, evaluation is reduced to compliance and behavioral control.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u003c/strong\u003e Digital systems within SHRM as evaluative processes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDigital System\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDominant Function\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEvaluative Role\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformant Codes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDapodik\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdministrative data management\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eData validation without developmental use\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSP2, T14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEMIS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInstitutional reporting\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupports legitimacy without competency evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSP5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSimpatika\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerformance monitoring\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBehavioral control without developmental feedback\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSP7, T18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs summarized in Table 1, digital systems generate extensive data but remain weakly connected to evaluative SHRM processes. This reveals a structural gap between data production and meaningful use, where evaluation is limited to verification rather than development. Consequently, SHRM remains administrative rather than evaluative.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 2 further illustrates this distinction by contrasting administrative and evaluative functions of digital systems. It indicates that digital systems contribute to teacher competency development not by their presence, but by their integration into evaluative processes that connect data, feedback, and professional learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis indicates that the absence of evaluative integration transforms digital systems into instruments of compliance rather than mechanisms for competency development, reinforcing the argument that data alone is insufficient without evaluative processes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2 Practice-Based Competency Development\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, teacher competency development is more evident in platforms embedded in professional practice, particularly Learning Management Systems (LMS). These platforms enable continuous interaction, feedback, and reflection, thereby supporting more dynamic forms of evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeachers reported that LMS use enhances instructional design and adaptability:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The LMS pushes me to design learning more systematically\u0026rdquo; (T9)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I can adjust materials based on students\u0026rsquo; needs\u0026rdquo; (T15)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObservations further show that LMS use encourages variation in teaching strategies and ongoing reflection. It also contributes to increased technological confidence:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;At first it was difficult, but now I am used to it\u0026rdquo; (T12)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Now I am more confident using digital tools\u0026rdquo; (T16)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom an evaluative perspective, these findings suggest that competency development becomes meaningful when evaluation is embedded in practice. Teachers engage in continuous cycles of action, feedback, and adjustment, transforming evaluation from a control mechanism into a developmental process. School leaders also recognize the value of such data for identifying professional development needs:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;With this data, we can identify teachers\u0026rsquo; development needs more clearly\u0026rdquo; (SP6)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e. Practice-based teacher competency development\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompetency Dimension\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDevelopment Process\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImpact\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformant Codes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePedagogical\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLMS-based instructional design\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMore adaptive and structured teaching\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT9, T15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTechnological\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegular use of digital tools\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncreased confidence and skill\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT12, T16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProfessional\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReflection based on data\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClearer identification of development needs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSP6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table 2, competency development emerges most strongly when evaluation is directly linked to practice. This indicates that SHRM begins to function as an evaluative system when data, feedback, and professional learning are integrated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings demonstrate that evaluative processes become effective when embedded within professional practice, suggesting that competency development is driven by iterative feedback loops rather than formal administrative systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.3 Structural Constraints and Fragmentation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite these developments, several structural constraints limit the integration of SHRM as a coherent evaluative system. These include infrastructure limitations, disparities in digital literacy, and fragmentation across systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInfrastructure constraints restrict access to digital processes:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Devices and internet access are still problematic\u0026rdquo; (T6)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Facilities affect how policies can be implemented\u0026rdquo; (SP4)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDigital literacy gaps create uneven engagement with SHRM practices:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Some teachers need more time to adapt\u0026rdquo; (T10)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Continuous mentoring is still needed\u0026rdquo; (SP6)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, system fragmentation increases administrative burden and reduces coherence:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;We have to enter the same data repeatedly\u0026rdquo; (SP8)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Administrative tasks reduce teaching time\u0026rdquo; (T13)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cbr clear=\"all\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"center\"\u003e\n \u003ctable\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u003c/strong\u003e. Structural constraints in SHRM implementation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChallenge\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImpact on SHRM\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformant Codes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInfrastructure limitations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReduced effectiveness of digital processes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT6, SP4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDigital literacy gaps\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUneven participation in SHRM practices\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT10, SP6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSystem fragmentation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of integration across HR functions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSP8, T13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs summarized in Table 3, these constraints are interconnected and collectively limit the integration of HR practices. This reveals that SHRM remains fragmented when digital systems, organizational capacity, and human capabilities are not aligned.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, the findings indicate that SHRM operates along a continuum between administrative compliance and evaluative integration. Digital systems alone do not ensure effective teacher development. Instead, their impact depends on the extent to which they are embedded within evaluative processes that connect data, practice, and decision-making. When alignment is weak, SHRM remains administrative; when alignment begins to emerge, particularly in practice-based contexts, SHRM becomes more capable of supporting continuous teacher competency development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis fragmentation highlights that the effectiveness of SHRM is structurally constrained when digital infrastructures, organizational capacity, and human capabilities are not aligned within a coherent evaluative system.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":" 5 Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.1 Repositioning Strategic Human Resource Management as an Evaluative Mechanism\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings require a reconceptualization of SHRM in education. Rather than functioning as an administrative or policy-driven system, SHRM emerges as an evaluative mechanism through which teacher competency development is organized, interpreted, and continuously improved. This extends SHRM theory, which has traditionally emphasized alignment between HR practices and organizational performance [7], by demonstrating that in educational contexts, SHRM also operates as a mechanism of evaluation and developmental coordination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results indicate that SHRM operates along a continuum between administrative compliance and evaluative integration. This highlights the context-dependent nature of SHRM as an evaluative mechanism. Although digital systems such as EMIS, Dapodik, and Simpatika are institutionally embedded, their dominant function remains administrative. This finding reinforces prior arguments that digital transformation does not automatically generate strategic value [38]. However, this study extends that argument by identifying evaluative integration as the missing mechanism linking digital systems to teacher competency development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis finding challenges the assumption in digital governance literature that data availability leads to improved decision-making [39]. Instead, it suggests that data must be translated into evaluative processes to become meaningful. In this sense, SHRM functions as the mediating structure that determines whether digital systems reinforce compliance or enable development. Consequently, digital transformation in education should be understood not as a technological shift, but as an organizational process of integrating data, evaluation, and professional practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.2 Extending the Resource-Based View through Evaluation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterpreted through the Resource-Based View (RBV), the findings reaffirm that teachers constitute a central strategic resource in educational organizations [8]. However, this study extends RBV by demonstrating that the value of human capital depends not only on development practices, but on the presence of evaluative mechanisms that enable continuous capability refinement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsistent with RBV, digital-based SHRM enhances the potential value of human capital by supporting competency identification and performance monitoring [40]. However, the findings indicate that digital resources do not automatically produce strategic advantage. This supports the argument that competitive advantage depends on the organization’s ability to integrate and deploy resources effectively [8]. This study advances this perspective by specifying evaluation as the mechanism through which such integration occurs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithout evaluative integration, digital systems remain informational rather than transformational. This suggests that resource utilization in education requires not only capability development, but also institutionalized evaluation processes that connect data with professional practice. In this sense, SHRM becomes the mechanism through which human capital is continuously assessed, refined, and strategically deployed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.3 Practice-Based Evaluation and the Transformation of Professional Development\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA second contribution lies in reconceptualizing teacher professional development as a practice-based evaluative process. The findings show that platforms such as Learning Management Systems enable continuous interaction, feedback, and reflection, thereby embedding evaluation within everyday teaching practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis aligns with prior research highlighting the role of digital platforms in professional learning [41]. However, this study extends this literature by showing that the significance of these platforms lies in their capacity to integrate evaluation into professional activity. Teachers are not merely recipients of training; they participate in continuous cycles of action, feedback, and adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis highlights a shift from episodic training models toward continuous, practice-based evaluation. From an SHRM perspective, professional development becomes a sustained evaluative process aligned with organizational goals. From a digital transformation perspective, it reflects a move toward adaptive and data-informed learning systems. From an RBV perspective, it enhances the strategic value of human capital through ongoing capability renewal.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.4 Structural Constraints and the Limits of Integration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite this potential, the findings reveal structural constraints that limit the effectiveness of evaluative SHRM. Infrastructure limitations, disparities in digital literacy, and system fragmentation reduce the coherence of HR practices and constrain evaluative capacity. This confirms that digital transformation is not merely a technological process, but an organizational challenge requiring alignment between technological, human, and institutional dimensions [42].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings suggest that fragmented systems increase administrative burden and weaken the integration of evaluation into professional practice. From an RBV perspective, such fragmentation limits the effective utilization of human capital, thereby constraining institutional advantage. This highlights the importance of strategic coordination in ensuring that digital systems support development rather than compliance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis finding also resonates with distributed leadership theory, which emphasizes that organizational improvement depends on how leadership practices are enacted through interactions among actors rather than centralized authority [43]. Leadership emerges as a critical mediating factor in this process. Strategic leadership is required to align digital systems with pedagogical goals, support teacher capability development, and embed evaluation within organizational practices [44]. Without such alignment, digital-based SHRM remains procedural and fails to achieve its strategic potential.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.5 Toward a Global Model of Evaluative SHRM\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these findings support the development of a conceptual model in which SHRM is understood as an evaluative mechanism linking human resource practices, digital systems, and teacher competency development. This model suggests that effective teacher development depends on three conditions: the alignment of HR practices, the integration of digital infrastructures, and the institutionalization of evaluative processes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis contributes to international scholarship in three ways. First, it extends SHRM theory by incorporating evaluation as a core dimension of human resource management in education. Second, it bridges SHRM and educational evaluation by demonstrating that teacher development is shaped by institutional processes rather than isolated interventions. Third, it advances digital transformation research by showing that the impact of digital systems depends on their integration into evaluative and developmental processes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, while grounded in a specific context, this model offers broader applicability. Education systems globally face similar challenges related to digitalization, accountability, and teacher development. By conceptualizing SHRM as an evaluative mechanism, this study provides a transferable framework for understanding how schools can move from fragmented HR practices toward integrated and development-oriented systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these findings suggest that evaluation should be understood as the central organizing principle of SHRM in educational contexts, rather than a peripheral or supporting function. This reorientation shifts SHRM from a system of alignment to a system of continuous evaluative learning.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.6 Theoretical and Practical Implications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTheoretically, this study repositions SHRM as an evaluative mechanism that links human resource practices with continuous teacher development. It demonstrates that the strategic value of human capital depends not only on alignment with organizational goals, but on the capacity of institutions to evaluate and refine competencies over time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePractically, the findings suggest that schools should move beyond compliance-oriented uses of digital systems and integrate them into evaluative SHRM processes. Systems such as Dapodik, EMIS, and Simpatika should function as data infrastructures for competency mapping and development planning, while Learning Management Systems should be leveraged as platforms for continuous feedback and professional learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, the study highlights that the effectiveness of digital-based SHRM depends not on technology itself, but on the organization’s ability to align data, practice, and decision-making within a coherent evaluative framework.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":" 6 Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study demonstrates that SHRM functions most effectively as an evaluative mechanism when digital systems are strategically integrated with human resource practices. The findings indicate that national digital platforms such as Dapodik, EMIS, and Simpatika predominantly operate as administrative tools, generating data without effectively supporting evaluative processes. In contrast, practice-based platforms such as Learning Management Systems enable continuous feedback and reflection, allowing evaluation to emerge as an embedded component of professional practice. Teacher development therefore depends on the alignment of digital systems with evaluative SHRM processes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study makes three main theoretical contributions. First, it reconceptualizes SHRM in education as an evaluative mechanism rather than a purely administrative function. Second, it extends the Resource-Based View by identifying evaluation as the mechanism through which human capital generates sustained institutional value. Third, it advances digital transformation research by demonstrating that technological infrastructures become strategically meaningful only when embedded within evaluative and developmental processes. These contributions introduce the concept of evaluative integration as a critical condition linking human resource practices, digital systems, and teacher competency development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a practical perspective, the findings highlight the need for schools and policymakers to move beyond compliance-oriented uses of digital systems. Administrative platforms should be repositioned as data infrastructures for competency mapping, performance feedback, and development planning, while practice-based platforms should be strengthened as spaces for continuous evaluation and professional learning. Such alignment is essential for transforming fragmented HR practices into coherent systems that support sustained teacher development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has limitations. It is based on a specific educational context, which may limit generalizability, and it employs a qualitative design that prioritizes depth over statistical inference. Future research should examine evaluative SHRM across diverse educational systems and use quantitative or mixed methods to further test the relationship between digital integration, evaluation, and educational outcomes. Overall, SHRM becomes effective when data, practice, and decision-making are aligned within an evaluative framework that supports continuous improvement.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards for research involving human participants. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Participants were assured of confidentiality and anonymity, and all data were anonymized during analysis. Formal ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve sensitive personal data or interventions beyond standard educational practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e: All participants provided informed consent for the use of anonymized data for research and publication purposes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e: The author declares that there are no competing interests regarding the publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors’ contributions\u003c/strong\u003e: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. All authors were involved in drafting and revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content and approved the final version for publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e: The author would like to thank the participating teachers and school principals for their valuable contributions to this study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZerrad, H., Schechter, C.: Human capital development: Principals\u0026rsquo; challenges in developing school staff. J. Prof. Cap. Community. 10, 503\u0026ndash;517 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-09-2024-0159.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRunhaar, P., Sanders, K., Yang, H.: Stimulating teachers\u0026rsquo; reflection and feedback asking: An interplay of self-efficacy, learning goal orientation, and transformational leadership. Teach. Teach. Educ. 26, 1154\u0026ndash;1161 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.011.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKure, T.G.: The strategic role of human resource managers in shaping decision-making in Ethiopia. PLoS One. 20, e0327296 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327296.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeithwood, K., Harris, A., Hopkins, D.: Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 40, 5\u0026ndash;22 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026aacute;nchez-P\u0026eacute;rez, M., Revuelto-Taboada, L., Mas-Tur, A.: Addressing causal complexity in the drivers of teachers\u0026rsquo; innovative behavior: a configurational qualitative comparative approach. Qual. Quant. 59, 5709\u0026ndash;5736 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-025-02231-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJiang, K., Lepak, D.P., Hu, J., Baer, J.C.: How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? Acad. Manag. J. 55, 1264\u0026ndash;1294 (2012). https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0088.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDelery, J.E., Doty, D.H.: Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management. Acad. Manag. J. 39, 802\u0026ndash;835 (1996). https://doi.org/10.2307/256713.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarney, J., Wright, M., Ketchen, D.J.: The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. J. Manage. 27, 625\u0026ndash;641 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700601.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCollins, C.J.: Expanding the resource-based view model of strategic human resource management. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 32, 331\u0026ndash;358 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1711442.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInstefjord, E.J., Munthe, E.: Educating digitally competent teachers. Teach. Teach. Educ. 67, 37\u0026ndash;45 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.016.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoehler, M.J., Mishra, P.: What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemp. Issues Technol. Teach. Educ. 9, 60\u0026ndash;70 (2009).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQazi, A.G., Pachler, N.: Conceptualising a data analytics framework to support targeted teacher professional development. Prof. Dev. Educ. 51, 495\u0026ndash;518 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2024.2422066.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSimon, P.D., Jiang, J., Fryer, L.K., King, R.B., Frondozo, C.E.: An assessment of learning management system use in higher education: perspectives from a comprehensive sample of teachers and students. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 30, 741\u0026ndash;767 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09734-5.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrevik, L.M., Gu\u0026eth;mundsd\u0026oacute;ttir, G.B., Lund, A., Str\u0026oslash;mme, T.A.: Transformative agency in teacher education: Fostering professional digital competence. Teach. Teach. Educ. 86, 102875 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.07.005.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJain, A., Naik, K.R., Kakade, K., Bhanot, S., Kulkarni, S.C.: Reimagining management education: navigating the shift to education 4.0 in the digital era. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 23, 101182 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2025.101182.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHallinger, P.: Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. J. Educ. Adm. 49, 125\u0026ndash;142 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnwar, S.: Digital leadership in the digital era of education: enhancing knowledge sharing and emotional intelligence. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 38, 1581\u0026ndash;1598 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-11-2023-0540.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, Y., Liu, S.: The relationship between teacher leadership and collective teacher efficacy in secondary schools. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 35, 394\u0026ndash;410 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2020-0368.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMufic, J.: Unlocking the relationship between instructional leadership, psychological well-being and teacher job crafting. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 39, 1156\u0026ndash;1174 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2024-0384.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGooderham, P.N., Mayrhofer, W., Sinha, P.N., Zheng, C.S., Brewster, C.: Continuity and change in national HRM \u0026ndash; an overview and future research agenda. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 36, 1989\u0026ndash;2017 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2025.2548041.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFriesen, S.: The leadership of innovation in education: findings from an environmental scan. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2025.2602008.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShiferaw, R.M., Birbirsa, Z.A.: Digital technology and human resource practices: a systematic literature review. Heliyon. 11, e41946 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e41946.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTuytens, M., Vekeman, E., Devos, G.: A focus on students\u0026rsquo; and teachers\u0026rsquo; learning through strategic human resource management. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 34, 247\u0026ndash;270 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2023.2172049.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, J.: Transnational education as ecosystem: rethinking sustainability and equity. High. Educ. Q. 80, e70099 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.70099.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDatnow, A., Hubbard, L.: Teacher capacity for and beliefs about data-driven decision making. J. Educ. Chang. 17, 7\u0026ndash;28 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9264-2.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMatej, C., Amadeja, L.: Work has changed, has HRM? Designing for the distributed, fragmented, and fluid era. Hum. Resour. Manage. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.70028.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMillie, J.: Limits of bureaucratisation in Islamic education. Relig. State Soc. 53, 188\u0026ndash;201 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1080/09637494.2025.2560226.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSantoso, J.L., Khairina, N.N., Adi, W.H.: An Independent Verification of Education Sector Data in Indonesia. World Bank (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoul, J., Mohapatra, L.M., Pradhan, A.K., Kamesh, A.V.S.: Analysing the role of modern information technologies in HRM: Management perspective and future agenda. Kybernetes. 54, 7409\u0026ndash;7434 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1108/K-11-2023-2512.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRana, S., Kaur, D.: Exploring the challenges and facilitators in the adoption of e-HRM practices in Indian higher education institutions: a qualitative exploration. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 32, 1419\u0026ndash;1439 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-05-2023-3745.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J.W., Poth, C.N.: Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTracy, S.J.: Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Wiley-Blackwell (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYin, R.K.: Case study research and applications: Design and methods. SAGE (2018).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePalinkas, L.A., Horwitz, S.M., Green, C.A., Wisdom, J.P., Duan, N., Hoagwood, K.: Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed-method implementation research. Adm. Policy Ment. Health. 42, 533\u0026ndash;544 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrinkmann, S., Kvale, S.: InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2015).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun, V., Clarke, V.: Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage, London (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G.: Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE (1985).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAw, E.C.X., Tan, G.W.H., Cham, T.H., Ooi, K.B., Al-Busaidi, A.S., Dwivedi, Y.K.: Adapt or die! Embrace digital transformation for better firm performance: a causal recipe. Internet Res. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-05-2024-0726.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuloff, M., Petko, D.: School principals\u0026rsquo; educational goals and leadership styles for digital transformation: results from case studies in upper secondary schools. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. 28, 422\u0026ndash;440 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.2014979.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu, C., Hania, A., Waqas, M.: Guiding the digital generation: role of principals\u0026rsquo; leadership, ICT competence, and teacher professional competence. Educ. Inf. Technol. 30, 1165\u0026ndash;1189 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13180-2.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvenstein Sigalov, S., Cohen, A.: Leveraging Wikipedia for educational innovation: a higher education course model for enhancing students\u0026rsquo; competencies. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 22, (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00518-0.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobertson, J., Botha, E., Oosthuizen, K., Montecchi, M.: Managing change when integrating artificial intelligence into the retail value chain. J. Bus. Res. 189, 115198 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115198.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpillane, J.P.: Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass (2006).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbbaspour, F.: Uncovering the role of principals in enhancing teacher professional learning in centralized education systems. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 38, 873\u0026ndash;889 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2023-0435.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Strategic Human Resource Management, Evaluative Mechanism, Teacher Competency Development, Digital Transformation in Education, Human Capital, Learning Management Systems ","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9363533/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9363533/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"This study examines how Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) operates as an evaluative mechanism for teacher competency development in digitally mediated educational environments. Using a qualitative design, data were collected from 30 participants (20 teachers and 10 school principals) through interviews, focus groups, observations, and document analysis. The findings indicate that national digital systems such as Dapodik, EMIS, and Simpatika primarily function as administrative infrastructures with limited evaluative integration, whereas practice-based platforms such as Learning Management Systems enable continuous feedback and reflection, thereby supporting competency development as an embedded process. However, infrastructure limitations, digital literacy disparities, and system fragmentation constrain integration. The study contributes by conceptualizing SHRM as an evaluative mechanism, introducing evaluative integration as a key mechanism linking digital systems and human resource practices, and extending the Resource-Based View by highlighting evaluation as the driver of human capital value. The findings suggest that effective teacher development depends on aligning data, practice, and decision-making within evaluative SHRM processes.","manuscriptTitle":"Strategic Human Resource Management as an Evaluative Mechanism for Teacher Competency Development in Digitally Mediated Schools","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-15 07:15:55","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9363533/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-04-20T09:18:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-13T00:32:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-04-13T00:32:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2026-04-09T05:21:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"1c3cc379-61fd-4ca8-be96-6956aa13f6c3","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 15th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-13T18:23:53+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-15 07:15:55","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9363533","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9363533","identity":"rs-9363533","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}