## 4 Discussion
### Data Collection for, and Analysis and Discussion of Research Question 3 (Rq 3)  
In the third step of data collection, the preliminary phase is informed by the findings of the RQ 2 study conducted by [7] and the author's research, specifically identifying the most prevalent risk in every critical activity. The literature study, archival data, and historical data in case studies are employed to conduct a cause-and-effect analysis of the dominant risk in each activity. A focus-group discussion (FGD) was performed to ascertain the causal relationships associated with each dominant risk in the activities examined in the case study. FGD was undertaken to ascertain the suitable risk response approach by identifying preventative and corrective actions for each dominant risk associated with critical activities. The same approach was used, where confidence levels (\(\alpha\)) of 80%, 90%, and 95%, and 10000 iterations were selected as a basis for the simulation. The comprehensive simulation results are presented in detail in Table 5. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**No.** & **Schedule Model** & **Duration (in Days) 1** & **Completion Time (Pre-Risk Mitigation)** & **Comparison with Initial Duration (\%)** \\ \hline
1 & Initial contract & 674.00 days & 30 September 2021 & - \\ \hline
2 & PERT value & 1555.66 days & 16 April 2024 & 130.81\% \\ \hline
3 & Theoretical value (confidence level 80\%) & 1575.70 days & 6 May 2024 & 133.78\% \\ \hline
4 & Theoretical value (confidence level 90\%) & 1584.78 days & 15 May 2024 & 135.13\% \\ \hline
5 & Theoretical value (confidence level 95\%) & 1592.33 days & 23 May 2024 & 136.25\% \\ \hline
6 & Simulation value (confidence level 80\%) & 1575.70 days & 6 May 2024 & 133.78\% \\ \hline
7 & Simulation value (confidence level 90\%) & 1584.78 days & 15 May 2024 & 135.13\% \\ \hline
8 & Simulation value (confidence level 95\%) & 1592.33 days & 23 May 2024 & 136.25\% \\ \hline \end{tabular} Source: Author’s research. 1 The total duration is calculated using MS Project by entering the number of related activities identified in Table 2.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of duration and project completion time based on the Railway Station Phase II Project Implementation Schedule Model under inherent risk conditions (pre-risk mitigation). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**No. Activity** & **Duration** & **Risk** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Additional Days (Residual Risk)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**PEBT (Day)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Theoretical Value**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Simulation Value (\(\Gamma\))**} \\  & **(Days)** & **ID** & \(P\) **(in Days)** & **ML (in Days)** & **O (in Days)** & \(\alpha\) **= 80** & \(\alpha\) **= 90** & \(\alpha\) **= 95** & **\(\alpha\) **= 90** & \(\alpha\) **= 95** \\ \hline A & 50.00 & R10 & 550.00 & 500.00 & 470.00 & 503.33 & 516.80 & 523.85 & 529.15 & 516.80 & 523.85 & 529.15 \\ B & 200.00 & R6 & 500.00 & 250.00 & 20.00 & 25.00 & 26.73 & 27.53 & 28.11 & 26.73 & 27.53 & 28.11 \\ C & 25.00 & R20 & 35.00 & 25.00 & 20.00 & 25.83 & 28.31 & 29.67 & 30.70 & 28.31 & 29.67 & 30.70 \\ D & 122.00 & R22 & 30.00 & 25.00 & 25.00 & 25.83 & 26.84 & 27.25 & 26.38 & 26.84 & 27.25 \\ E & 25.00 & R6 & 35.00 & 25.00 & 20.00 & 25.83 & 28.31 & 29.67 & 30.70 & 28.31 & 29.67 & 30.70 \\ F & 114.00 & R22 & 40.00 & 35.00 & 30.00 & 35.00 & 36.73 & 37.53 & 38.11 & 36.73 & 37.53 & 38.11 \\ G & 44.00 & R6 & 35.00 & 25.00 & 25.00 & 26.67 & 27.75 & 28.70 & 29.51 & 27.75 & 28.70 & 29.51 \\ H & 190.00 & R5 & 40.00 & 30.00 & 25.00 & 30.83 & 33.31 & 34.67 & 35.00 & 33.31 & 34.67 & 35.50 \\  & 29.00 & R19 & 30.00 & 25.00 & 20.00 & 25.00 & 26.73 & 27.53 & 28.11 & 26.73 & 27.53 & 28.11 \\ \hline \(\Sigma\) (day) & 899.00 & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \(\Sigma\) (Month) & 29.97 & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Quantitative analysis of Monte Carlo Simulation using @Risk software with PERT distribution approach on residual risk conditions (post-risk mitigation).