## 4 Discussion  
### Data Collection for, and Analysis and Discussion of Research Question 1 (RQ 1)  
The initial step of RQ1 data collecting is derived from the findings with additional data based on the research conducted by [7]. The data collection process at this stage begins with the gathering of both primary and secondary data from the case studies, and this process involves locating various literature articles concerning railway project delays globally and compiling historical and archival data from these case studies. The qualitative analysis was performed to identify 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 railway station project phase II. Table 1 shows the 22 validated risks from the previous study. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**Risk ID** & **Risk Factor** & **Risk Categories** & **Reference** \\ \hline R1 & Land acquisition delays & (I) Technical risk & [30; 31] \\ R2 & Delay in handover of work land & (I) Technical risk & [30; 31] \\ R3 & Many utilities are not detected at the start of work. & \\ R4 & Difficult and limited project road access & \\ \hline R5 & The project owner’s time-consuming decision-making process & (II) Project owner risk & [30; 32; 33; 34; 35] \\ R6 & Delay in issuing work permits & \\ R7 & Changes in scope of work & \\ R8 & Inaccuracy in predicting the budget & \\ R9 & Project delay by the owner & \\ \hline R10 & Sequencing work activities must be adjusted to train operating patterns (switch over) & (III) Construction risk & [24; 32] \\ R11 & Inconsistencies in the order of schedule priorities that can affect project execution & \\ \hline R12 & Many changes to the design of drawings, specifications, and scope-of-work packages during the project by the project owner/external methods risk & [5; 30; 32; 35; 36; 37] \\ R13 & Incomplete design from the planner & \\ R14 & Request for changes in work method /design from & \\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{clients/external parties during the construction period} & \\ R15 & Design inconsistencies and ambiguity & \\ R16 & Project complexity (design) & \\ \hline R17 & Lots of additional work & (V) Contract risk & [32; 36; 38] \\ \hline R18 & High indirect costs & (VI) Financial risk & [5; 30; 36] \\ \hline R19 & There are complicated procedures for permitting construction projects from various parties. & (VII) External risks & [5; 24; 30; 32; 33; 34] \\ R20 & Interfaces, dependencies between phases, and work packages & \\ \hline R21 & High-risk project location & (VIII) HSE and & [24; 30; 35] \\ R22 & Working on active train tracks & environmental risks & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Validation results of delay indicators by experts for the Jakarta Central Railway Station project phase II. According to the expert validation results in Table 1, there are eight risk category groupings derived from 22 validated risk variables about delays in the Jakarta Central Railway Station Project Phase II ([7] and author's Research), specifically (I) technical risk, (II) project owner risk, (III) construction risk, (IV) project design and methods risk, (V) contract risk, (VI) financial risk, (VII) external risks, and (VIII) HSE and environmental risks.