## 4 Discussion
### Data Collection for, and Analysis and Discussion of Research Question 2 (RQ 2)  
The preliminary phase of data collection is based on the results of the study conducted by [7] and other author's research. The data collecting process at this stage initiates with the gathering of information about research question 1 (RQ1), specifically focusing on 22 indicators of delay risk that may influence the delay of the Jakarta Central Railway project phase II. Utilizing historical and archival data from the case-study project schedule, each essential activity that may impact project delays is identified by the essential Path Method (CPM) in the MS Project. The case-study scheduling identifies nine essential tasks, as detailed in Table 2: Demolition Zone 1, Building Work Zone 1, Demolition Zone 2, Track Work Zone 2, Demolition Zone 3, Track Work Zone 3, Demolition Zone 4-Sub A, Building Work Zone 4-Sub A, and Safety Assessment. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline
**No. Activity** & **Critical Work Activity** & **Duration (in Days)** & **Risk ID** & **Dominant Risk** \\ \hline A & Demolition Zone 1 & 50.00 & R10 & Sequencing work activities must be adjusted to train operating patterns (switch over) \\ B & Building Work Zone 1 & 290.00 & R6 & Delay in issuing work permits \\ C & Demolition Zone 2 & 25.00 & R20 & Interfaces, dependencies between phases, and work packages \\ D & Track Work Zone 2 & 122.00 & R22 & Working on active train tracks \\ E & Demolition Zone 3 & 29.00 & R6 & Delay in issuing work permits \\ F & Track Work Zone 3 & 114.00 & R22 & Working on active train tracks \\ G & Demolition Zone 4-Sub A & 44.00 & R6 & Delay in issuing work permits \\ H & Building Work Zone 4-Sub A & 196.00 & R5 & The project owner’s time-consuming \\  & & & & decision-making process \\ I & Safety Assessment & 29.00 & R19 & There are complicated procedures \\  & & & & for permitting construction projects \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The dominant risk in critical work activities. Qualitative analysis is essential for identifying the most significant risk in each critical scheduling action. A focus-group discussion with five railway specialists was performed to identify the primary variables influencing the completion time of a project work activity. This study employed focus-group discussions (FGDs) to identify the primary risk indicators influencing scheduling, following these steps: (1) Experts were briefed on the overarching objectives, background, and research subjects, and allowed a question-and-answer session to synchronize research perspectives. (2) Experts were allotted time to review and complete the distributed questionnaire. (3) Discussions ensued regarding the responses from all experts. (4) Each expert elucidated their questionnaire responses and engaged with feedback from fellow experts. (5) All experts concurred on the outcomes regarding the predominant hazards associated with each essential activity of the Jakarta Central Railway Project Phase II. Furthermore, the experts were asked to identify the critical work activities, and those were paired with identified risks; hence, they were categorized as dominant risks, as shown in Table 2.  
According to Table 2, the predominant risk in each important work activity of the case study (Jakarta Central Railway Station Phase II) indicates, based on the FGD results, that there are six primary risk indicators in each critical schedule activity, with the most significant risk being R10. In (R1), there is one critical activity: Demolition Zone 1. In (R6), there are three critical activities: Building Work Zone 1, Demolition Zone 3, and Demolition Zone 4-Sub A. In (R20), there is one critical activity: Demolition Zone 2. In (R22), there are two critical activities: Track Work Zone 2 and Track Work Zone 3. In (R5), there is one critical activity: Building Work Zone 4-Sub A. In (R19), there is one critical activity: Safety Assessment.