## 4 Discussion
### Data Collection for, and Analysis and Discussion of Research Question 2 (RQ 2)
Following the study in Table 2, a subsequent FGD was performed with experts to ascertain the additional days required due to the predominant risk associated with each activity, utilizing quantitative PERT analysis. Each expert delivered an evaluation and elucidation of the delay in project completion (in days) attributable to the predominant risk, utilizing the PERT distribution approach across the pessimistic (\(P\)), most-likely (\(ML\)), and optimistic (\(O\)) categories. All experts concurred with the definitive conclusion, including the inclusion of days attributable to inherent risk (pre-risk mitigation). Adjusting the estimated results from PERT requires a conversion of the confidence level (\(\alpha\)). The estimated value at each confidence level varies according to its corresponding time value. Furthermore, the theoretical value is derived from the PERT number formula, whereas the simulation value is determined by the number of iterations conducted in the model. The simulation results are chosen and presented for the activity that had a substantial increase in duration. Utilizing Risk software for nine activities, A to I, as per Table 2, the Monte Carlo Simulation was performed, and the comprehensive simulation results are presented in detail in Table 3.  
Following the implementation of various distribution models based on data collected in stage 2, modeling was performed according to the number of iterations and confidence levels utilized in this study. Subsequently, the scheduling model was constructed using the Gantt chart approach in the MS Project scheduling case study. Multiple schedule estimates were conducted, using the number of additional days attributable to inherent risk (pre-risk mitigation), alongside the project's initial length and simulation findings, to derive an estimate for the completion time of the Jakarta Central Railway Station Phase II, as presented in Table 4. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**No. Activity**}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Duration**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Additional Days**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Theoretical Value**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Simulation Value (\(\tau\))**} \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Activity**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(Days)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Risk ID**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(Mnherent Risk)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**PET (Day)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(In Day)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(In Day)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(In Day)**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-13}  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline A & 50,00 & R10 & 720,00 & 700,00 & 680,00 & 700,00 & 706.94 & 710.13 & 712.44 & 706.94 & 710.13 & 712.43 \\ R & 290,00 & R6 & 450,00 & 30,00 & 30,00 & 35.50 & 34.13 & 35.53 & 36.76 & 34.13 & 35.53 & 36.76 \\ C & 25,00 & R20 & 45,00 & 30,00 & 30,00 & 32.50 & 34.13 & 35.53 & 36.76 & 34.13 & 35.53 & 36.76 \\ D & 122,00 & R22 & 40,00 & 35,00 & 30,00 & 30,00 & 36.73 & 37.53 & 38.11 & 36.73 & 37.53 & 38.11 \\ E & 750,00 & R6 & 45,00 & 35,00 & 30,00 & 35.83 & 37.78 & 38.31 & 39.67 & 37.78 & 38.31 & 39.67 \\ F & 114,00 & R22 & 45,00 & 35,00 & 30,00 & 35.83 & 38.31 & 39.67 & 40.70 & 38.31 & 39.67 & 40.00 \\ G & 44,00 & R6 & 45,00 & 35,00 & 30,00 & 35.83 & 37.78 & 38.31 & 39.67 & 37.78 & 38.31 & 39.67 \\ H & 196,00 & R5 & 50,00 & 40,00 & 30,00 & 40.00 & 43.47 & 45.07 & 46.21 & 34.47 & 45.07 & 46.21 \\ I & 29,00 & R19 & 45,00 & 35,00 & 25.00 & 35.00 & 38.47 & 40.07 & 41.21 & 38.47 & 40.07 & 41.21 \\ \hline \(\Sigma\) (day) & 899,00 & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \(\Sigma\) (Month) & 29,97 & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Quantitative analysis of Monte Carlo Simulation using 6 Risk software with PERT distribution approach on inherent risk conditions (pre-risk mitigation). Table 4 shows the duration and project completion time comparison of the Station Phase II Project Implementation Schedule Model under inherent risk conditions (pre-risk mitigation).