# Risk Assessment of Resources Factor in Affecting Project Time

Authors: Saiful Husin; Abdullah Abdullah; Medyan Riza; Mochammad Afifuddin
Journal: Advances in Civil Engineering
 (2018)

---

## Abstract

Some risk factors contribute to various adverse effects on project implementation, especially the construction project. Risk needs to be recognized by analyzing the relationship between frequency of risks occurrence and impacts that may arise regarding construction time completion. The superposition of frequency and impact will indicate the risk importance of various risk factors. This research, therefore, aimed to assess the risk importance in time aspects of construction implementation to the contractor as the project executor is associated with the project resource factors. The resource factors reviewed are related to construction labor, materials, and equipment. The object of the study observed is a large qualified contractor company in Aceh Province with experience in the construction field for more than 15 years. The selection of time constraints is linked to the conditions of the company under various situations in Aceh during this period, both during the period of political and military conflicts, in the postdisaster rehabilitation and reconstruction period, and in the post-rehabilitation and reconstruction period. Characteristics of contractors and risks emerging are observed from the results of questionnaires distributed as instrument of data collection. The three resource factors studied each consists of several risk variables. The use of variables in the questionnaire is determined from the test results related to the validity and reliability of these variables. Risk assessment results of the three factors in the research indicate that the frequency of events and the level of impact of each variable determine the magnitude of the risk importance value. The labor is a factor with higher frequency and intensity of impact than the other two factors of study. Therefore, these factors contribute significantly to the project’s completion time.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Implementing the construction projects is vulnerable to risks that affect project objectives. Some internal or external risk factors may affect project targets. Project risk can be sourced from resource factors, which includes labor, materials, and equipment.Risks are likely or no and, if they occur, will have an impact on the project [1–5]. In the opportunity theory, the risk is the probability of unexpected conditions and all of consequences possibility for project delays or project failures [6–11]. Risks are the variable of activities or factors and, if they occur, will decrease the achievement level of project objectives, i.e., cost and performance [12–15]. From the above definition, it can be concluded that the risk is an occurrence of uncertainty with an absolute chance of a condition that leads to unfavorable consequences of project objectives. Furthermore, risks in the project are a result in unfavorable physical, schedule, and financial consequences for the achievement of project objectives, i.e., cost, time, and project quality [12, 13]. Therefore, the risk is essential to manage risk project that can survive or perhaps optimize risk [12, 16–18].The construction project implementers in Aceh Province face various risks over the past 15 years, such as the military and political conflicts of 2000–2004, postearthquake and tsunami rehabilitation and reconstruction in 2005–2009, and postrehabilitation and reconstruction in 2010–present [19]. These three periods provide different risk characteristics, both concerning the probability of the occurrence [20–24] and the impact [25, 26] for the project implementer. The first period was the period when there was a conflict of interest between GAM (Free Aceh Movement) and the central government. In that period, many armed conflicts affected the security and safety [19]. Most contractors tend to refuse project work for security reasons. This condition could cause many projects, for both public and private sector investment running improperly. The second period is the period of rehabilitation and reconstruction, where the political conflict has decreased dramatically, and this was marked after signing peace memorandum on 15 August 2005 [19]. The number of construction works increased very high in this second period if compared to the previous period. The increase in employment is not proportional to the number of contractors and labors available in Aceh Province. The third period is the period in which the political and military conflicts have decreased, and the number of jobs declines drastically, or this condition is called as a normal condition until the current condition.Risk assessment can be attributed to some factors and targets of a construction project consisting of cost, time, and performance. Previous research has indicated that various risk factors including factors related to project resources [20], external factors [21], managerial and operational factors [22], contracting and design factors [23], and financial and construction methods [24]. The potential for risk occurrence tends to be seen in the project resource factors associated with labors, and external factors related to government policy.While associated with the impacts assigned to the project objectives, the studies that have been conducted are likely to see the impact on the cost aspects [25, 26]. The assessment of risks to project completion time has not been explained. The risk assessment of time is required given that this element is one of the success indicators of a project achieving its objectives. Analyzing the time risk impact on a construction project is required related to our previous risk factors as in paper [20–26]. Considering the abovementioned conditions, this study is aimed at assessing potential risks that may arise from the timing of completion of a construction project. The risk assessment focuses on project resource factors comprising labor, material, and equipment factors.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. Data Collection

This research uses primary data collected by using questionnaire instrument. The questionnaire contains some questions prepared to obtain information related to the characteristics of the respondent, the occurrence frequency rating, and the impact on the timing of completion of the construction. Risk factors associated with project resources include 7 variables of labor factor, 10 variables of material factors, and 17 variables of equipment factor (Table1).Table 1
List of factors and variables of project resources [20, 25].
Resources factors
Variable code
Variables
Labor
A1
Low labor availability
A2
The ability of the labor is lacking
A3
The discipline of unfavorable labor
A4
Low labor productivity
A5
Less solid teamwork
A6
Labor squabble
A7
Strike the labor
Material
B1
Increase in material prices
B2
Delay in material delivery
B3
Theft of material
B4
Material quality is below standard
B5
The type and quantity of material are not correct
B6
Damage of material on delivery and storage
B7
Limited material shelter
B8
The supplier cannot fulfill the material order
B9
Planning and management of good materials
B10
Material handling
Equipment
C1
Low capacity of equipment
C2
Displacement of equipment
C3
Late mobilization of equipment
C4
Equipment is incomplete
C5
Device damage
C6
Unqualified of equipment inspection
C7
Productivity and efficiency decreased
C8
The additional cost of equipment rental
C9
Fuel scarcity
C10
Difficult to access for heavy equipment
C11
Planning and equipment management is not good
C12
Equipment maintenance costs are high
C13
Do not understand the procedure of using equipment
C14
Not suitable equipment for working conditions/field
C15
Ownership of rental equipment
C16
Ownership of rental-purchase equipment
C17
Ownership of proprietary toolsThe selection of respondents is based on a contractor company that has been involved in construction work for the last more than 15 years. The number of companies involved in the questionnaire survey counted 15 companies out of a total population of 20 contracting companies with large qualifications. These data are based on the membership of the company at the Construction Services Development Agency 2016. The minimum respondent is the personnel of the company at the middle managerial level, such as the director, manager, and senior engineer.


### 2.2. Questionnaire Testing

This questionnaire testing is conducted to ensure the data collection is valid and reliable to answer the research objectives. The instrument testing uses the validity test and the reliability test. The need for the validity test is to show the validity levels of an instrument by using the Pearson product moment correlation [27]. Pearson product moment correlation (r) measures the linearity of two paired variables x and y for n number of respondents. To determine whether or not a valid variable item uses the criteria, the following conditions were assumed:(1)
Ift≥tsig, then the variables are declared as valid(2)
Ift<tsig, then the variables are declared as invalidThe correlation was analyzed by using the formula in the following equations:(1)r=n∑xy−∑x−∑yn∑x2−∑x2n∑y2−∑y2,(2)t=rn−21−r2.The reliability test (r) is performed to ensure the reliability of instrument as the data collection tool by using Cronbach’s Alpha (C-Alpha) analysis. An indicator of questionnaire feasibility is measured by the C-Alpha coefficient ≥0.6. The significance level for the statistical test used is 5%. The reliability test is performed using Equations (3)–(5) [28]:(3)r=kk−11−σb2σ12,where r = reliability of the instrument, k = the total of question items, σb2 = the variance of items, and σ12 = the total score variance. The variance of items and the total variance are calculated by using Equations (4) and (5):(4)σb2=Jkin−Jksn2,(5)σ12=∑xt2n−∑xt2n2,where ∑xt2 = the total response of the respondents, ∑xt2 = the square of total response, Jki = the sum of squares of whole items, and Jks = the total square of response.


### 2.3. Analysis

#### 2.3.1. Analysis of Frequency Index (FI)

Frequency index (FI) is used to assess the frequency of risk occurrences. The index is used as an indicator to explain the frequency of risk factors reviewed. The FI analysis is as follows [29]:(6)Frequency  indexFI=∑I=15aini5N,where i = the index of the category, ai = the weight of the i‐th response, ni = the total of respondent response for item i‐th, and N = the total number of respondents. The frequency index scale was made using a Likert scale with the criteria shown in Table 2.Table 2
Criteria and rating scale FI [30].
Qualification
Likert scale
Scoring scale
Very rarely
1
0.000≤ FI ≤ 0.125
Rarely
2
0.125 < FI≤ 0.375
Often enough
3
0.375 < FI≤ 0.625
Often
4
0.625 < FI≤ 0.875
Very often
5
0.875 < FI≤ 1.000


#### 2.3.2. Analysis of the Severity Index (SI)

The assessment results of risk impact on project completion time are presented in the form of the severity index (SI). The severity index shows the impact index of the emergence of internal risk factors [29]. The index is an indicator of the magnitude of the impact of resources risk factors reviewed. The classification of the risk impacts of the severity index scales used in this study can be seen in Table 3. The severity index analysis [29] is done by using the following calculation formula:(7)Severity  indexSI=∑I=15aini5N,where i = the index of the category, ai = the weight of the i‐th response, ni = the total of respondent response for item i‐th, and N = the total number of respondents. The severity index scale was made using the Likert scale with the criteria shown in Table 3.Table 3
Criteria and rating scale SI [30].
Qualification
Likert scale
Scoring scale
Very low
1
0.000≤ SI ≤ 0.125
Low
2
0.125 < SI≤ 0.375
Medium
3
0.375 < SI≤ 0.625
High
4
0.625 < SI≤ 0.875
Very high
5
0.875 < SI≤ 1.000


#### 2.3.3. Analysis of Risk Importance Index (RII)

The risk analysis is completed by using the risk importance index (RII) analysis, as it is formulated in Equation (8). Risk importance is one method to measure the importance of risk based on the amount of occurrence (frequency) and impact (severity) that can be caused. This risk importance will be analyzed against per variable of the resource risk factors:(8)RII=FI×SI,where FI = frequency index of each risk variable and SI = severity index of each risk variable.


## 2.1. Data Collection

This research uses primary data collected by using questionnaire instrument. The questionnaire contains some questions prepared to obtain information related to the characteristics of the respondent, the occurrence frequency rating, and the impact on the timing of completion of the construction. Risk factors associated with project resources include 7 variables of labor factor, 10 variables of material factors, and 17 variables of equipment factor (Table1).Table 1
List of factors and variables of project resources [20, 25].
Resources factors
Variable code
Variables
Labor
A1
Low labor availability
A2
The ability of the labor is lacking
A3
The discipline of unfavorable labor
A4
Low labor productivity
A5
Less solid teamwork
A6
Labor squabble
A7
Strike the labor
Material
B1
Increase in material prices
B2
Delay in material delivery
B3
Theft of material
B4
Material quality is below standard
B5
The type and quantity of material are not correct
B6
Damage of material on delivery and storage
B7
Limited material shelter
B8
The supplier cannot fulfill the material order
B9
Planning and management of good materials
B10
Material handling
Equipment
C1
Low capacity of equipment
C2
Displacement of equipment
C3
Late mobilization of equipment
C4
Equipment is incomplete
C5
Device damage
C6
Unqualified of equipment inspection
C7
Productivity and efficiency decreased
C8
The additional cost of equipment rental
C9
Fuel scarcity
C10
Difficult to access for heavy equipment
C11
Planning and equipment management is not good
C12
Equipment maintenance costs are high
C13
Do not understand the procedure of using equipment
C14
Not suitable equipment for working conditions/field
C15
Ownership of rental equipment
C16
Ownership of rental-purchase equipment
C17
Ownership of proprietary toolsThe selection of respondents is based on a contractor company that has been involved in construction work for the last more than 15 years. The number of companies involved in the questionnaire survey counted 15 companies out of a total population of 20 contracting companies with large qualifications. These data are based on the membership of the company at the Construction Services Development Agency 2016. The minimum respondent is the personnel of the company at the middle managerial level, such as the director, manager, and senior engineer.


## 2.2. Questionnaire Testing

This questionnaire testing is conducted to ensure the data collection is valid and reliable to answer the research objectives. The instrument testing uses the validity test and the reliability test. The need for the validity test is to show the validity levels of an instrument by using the Pearson product moment correlation [27]. Pearson product moment correlation (r) measures the linearity of two paired variables x and y for n number of respondents. To determine whether or not a valid variable item uses the criteria, the following conditions were assumed:(1)
Ift≥tsig, then the variables are declared as valid(2)
Ift<tsig, then the variables are declared as invalidThe correlation was analyzed by using the formula in the following equations:(1)r=n∑xy−∑x−∑yn∑x2−∑x2n∑y2−∑y2,(2)t=rn−21−r2.The reliability test (r) is performed to ensure the reliability of instrument as the data collection tool by using Cronbach’s Alpha (C-Alpha) analysis. An indicator of questionnaire feasibility is measured by the C-Alpha coefficient ≥0.6. The significance level for the statistical test used is 5%. The reliability test is performed using Equations (3)–(5) [28]:(3)r=kk−11−σb2σ12,where r = reliability of the instrument, k = the total of question items, σb2 = the variance of items, and σ12 = the total score variance. The variance of items and the total variance are calculated by using Equations (4) and (5):(4)σb2=Jkin−Jksn2,(5)σ12=∑xt2n−∑xt2n2,where ∑xt2 = the total response of the respondents, ∑xt2 = the square of total response, Jki = the sum of squares of whole items, and Jks = the total square of response.


## 2.3. Analysis

### 2.3.1. Analysis of Frequency Index (FI)

Frequency index (FI) is used to assess the frequency of risk occurrences. The index is used as an indicator to explain the frequency of risk factors reviewed. The FI analysis is as follows [29]:(6)Frequency  indexFI=∑I=15aini5N,where i = the index of the category, ai = the weight of the i‐th response, ni = the total of respondent response for item i‐th, and N = the total number of respondents. The frequency index scale was made using a Likert scale with the criteria shown in Table 2.Table 2
Criteria and rating scale FI [30].
Qualification
Likert scale
Scoring scale
Very rarely
1
0.000≤ FI ≤ 0.125
Rarely
2
0.125 < FI≤ 0.375
Often enough
3
0.375 < FI≤ 0.625
Often
4
0.625 < FI≤ 0.875
Very often
5
0.875 < FI≤ 1.000


### 2.3.2. Analysis of the Severity Index (SI)

The assessment results of risk impact on project completion time are presented in the form of the severity index (SI). The severity index shows the impact index of the emergence of internal risk factors [29]. The index is an indicator of the magnitude of the impact of resources risk factors reviewed. The classification of the risk impacts of the severity index scales used in this study can be seen in Table 3. The severity index analysis [29] is done by using the following calculation formula:(7)Severity  indexSI=∑I=15aini5N,where i = the index of the category, ai = the weight of the i‐th response, ni = the total of respondent response for item i‐th, and N = the total number of respondents. The severity index scale was made using the Likert scale with the criteria shown in Table 3.Table 3
Criteria and rating scale SI [30].
Qualification
Likert scale
Scoring scale
Very low
1
0.000≤ SI ≤ 0.125
Low
2
0.125 < SI≤ 0.375
Medium
3
0.375 < SI≤ 0.625
High
4
0.625 < SI≤ 0.875
Very high
5
0.875 < SI≤ 1.000


### 2.3.3. Analysis of Risk Importance Index (RII)

The risk analysis is completed by using the risk importance index (RII) analysis, as it is formulated in Equation (8). Risk importance is one method to measure the importance of risk based on the amount of occurrence (frequency) and impact (severity) that can be caused. This risk importance will be analyzed against per variable of the resource risk factors:(8)RII=FI×SI,where FI = frequency index of each risk variable and SI = severity index of each risk variable.


## 2.3.1. Analysis of Frequency Index (FI)

Frequency index (FI) is used to assess the frequency of risk occurrences. The index is used as an indicator to explain the frequency of risk factors reviewed. The FI analysis is as follows [29]:(6)Frequency  indexFI=∑I=15aini5N,where i = the index of the category, ai = the weight of the i‐th response, ni = the total of respondent response for item i‐th, and N = the total number of respondents. The frequency index scale was made using a Likert scale with the criteria shown in Table 2.Table 2
Criteria and rating scale FI [30].
Qualification
Likert scale
Scoring scale
Very rarely
1
0.000≤ FI ≤ 0.125
Rarely
2
0.125 < FI≤ 0.375
Often enough
3
0.375 < FI≤ 0.625
Often
4
0.625 < FI≤ 0.875
Very often
5
0.875 < FI≤ 1.000


## 2.3.2. Analysis of the Severity Index (SI)

The assessment results of risk impact on project completion time are presented in the form of the severity index (SI). The severity index shows the impact index of the emergence of internal risk factors [29]. The index is an indicator of the magnitude of the impact of resources risk factors reviewed. The classification of the risk impacts of the severity index scales used in this study can be seen in Table 3. The severity index analysis [29] is done by using the following calculation formula:(7)Severity  indexSI=∑I=15aini5N,where i = the index of the category, ai = the weight of the i‐th response, ni = the total of respondent response for item i‐th, and N = the total number of respondents. The severity index scale was made using the Likert scale with the criteria shown in Table 3.Table 3
Criteria and rating scale SI [30].
Qualification
Likert scale
Scoring scale
Very low
1
0.000≤ SI ≤ 0.125
Low
2
0.125 < SI≤ 0.375
Medium
3
0.375 < SI≤ 0.625
High
4
0.625 < SI≤ 0.875
Very high
5
0.875 < SI≤ 1.000


## 2.3.3. Analysis of Risk Importance Index (RII)

The risk analysis is completed by using the risk importance index (RII) analysis, as it is formulated in Equation (8). Risk importance is one method to measure the importance of risk based on the amount of occurrence (frequency) and impact (severity) that can be caused. This risk importance will be analyzed against per variable of the resource risk factors:(8)RII=FI×SI,where FI = frequency index of each risk variable and SI = severity index of each risk variable.


## 3. Results and Discussion

### 3.1. Respondents’ Characteristics

Respondents’ characteristics are divided into two, namely, the characteristics of personality and characteristics of the contractor, as shown in Tables4 and 5.Table 4
Characteristic of respondents.
Category of characteristic
Characteristic description
Frequency
Frequency relative (%)
Position in contractor firm
Director
5
33.3
Manager
7
36.67
Other
3
20.00
Personal experience
>2–4 years
1
6.67
>4–7 years
1
6.67
>7 years
13
86.67Table 5
Contractor firms characteristic of respondents.
Category of characteristic
Characteristic description
Frequency
Frequency relative (%)
Total of contractor’s projects handled
Period of conflict
1–3 projects
3
20.00
>3–6 projects
5
33.33
>6–10 projects
4
30.00
>10 projects
3
40.00
Period of rehabilitation reconstruction
1–3 projects
1
6.67
>3–6 projects
5
33.33
>6–10 projects
3
20.00
>10 projects
6
40.00
Period of post-rehabilitation reconstruction
1–3 projects
2
13.33
>3–6 projects
2
13.33
>6–10 projects
5
33.33
>10 projects
6
40.00
Types of projects ever handled
Building
11
73.33
Roads and bridges
14
93.33
Water constructions
9
60.00
Average of contract price yearly
<10 billion
2
13.33
10 billion–50 billion
8
53.33
>50 billion
2
13.33Data are collected from 15 respondents who were working in a contractor firm with great qualification domiciled in Aceh Province. Respondents of this study generally have a position as manager and director of the company with work experience between 2 and 4 years. Typically, the contractor has more than 15 years of experience in the field of construction and has handled a number of projects during the political conflict period, the rehabilitation and reconstruction period, and post-rehabilitation and reconstruction period, so it can be concluded that the contractors who are the respondents of this research understand project risks at all three periods.


### 3.2. Result of the Validity Test and the Reliability Test

The validity test in this paper uses a confident level of 95% (5% significant level) bytsig obtained equal to 0.514. The test criterion is that if t≥tsig, then the instrument is declared valid, and vice versa. The results of the validity test for data of frequency index and severity index of each question are summarized in Tables 6 and 7.Table 6
Result of the validity test of FI data.
Variable code
Range oft
Information
Period I
Period II
Period III
A1-A7
0.590–0.934
0.590–0.934
0.729–1.176
Valid
B1-B10
0.579–0.870
1.489–2.258
0.556–0.913
Valid
C1-C17
0.544–0.946
0.544–0.947
0.139–0.939
ValidTable 7
Result of the validity test of SI data.
Variable code
Range oft
Information
Period I
Period II
Period III
A1-A7
0.536–0.831
0.566–0.950
0.775–0.951
Valid
B1-B10
0.558–0.879
0.529–0.863
0.573–1.000
Valid
C1-C17
0.517–0.919
0.535–0.880
0.578–0.948
ValidThe reliability test result for the frequency index and the severity index analyses indicate that theC-Alpha value for all risk factors (labor, materials, and equipment) is higher than 0.6, as summarized in Tables 8 and 9.Table 8
Result of the reliability test of data frequency.
Factors
Reliability test results
Information
Period I
Period II
Period III
Labor
0.89
1.14
1.15
Reliable
Material
0.93
5.97
0.83
Reliable
Equipment
1.08
0.98
0.87
ReliableTable 9
Result of the reliability test of data severity.
Factors
Reliability test results
Information
Period I
Period II
Period III
Labor
0.74
0.81
0.87
Reliable
Material
0.88
0.86
0.89
Reliable
Equipment
0.96
0.96
0.98
Reliable


### 3.3. Risk Assessment

In the case of frequency analysis of labor risk factors, there are no “often” variables with consistent occurrence in the three study periods, and only 4 (four) “often” variables appear consistently in Period I and Period II. These variables are A1 (poor labor availability), A2 (inadequate labor capacity), A3 (poor worker discipline), and A4 (low work productivity). Although consistently appearing in the first two periods, the variables A1, A3, and A4 show a declining pattern from the initial period to the next period, except A2. This condition is reasonable, while from the Period I to the next period, the threat to the lives of labors is more secure.In the material risk factor, there are 2 (two) “often” variables such as variable of B1 (material price increase) and B2 (material delivery delay). Only B1 variable consistently appears on all three periods, except B2 variable. Although B1 is consistent, B1 is not a variable that affects the time risk compared to B2, as its variable name.In the equipment risk factor, 3 (three) “often” variables appear in Period I, namely, C3 (delayed mobilization of equipment), C9 (fuel shortages), and C10 (difficult to access for heavy equipment). Variable B9 often occurs in Period I because of wars between parties (characteristics of conflict areas) that hinder the mobilization of heavy equipment. The results of FI analysis for three factors can be seen in Table10.Table 10
Result of frequency index (FI).
Resources factors
Variable code
Period I
Period II
Period III
FI
Scale
FI
Scale
FI
Scale
Labor
A1
0.667
Often
0.640
Often
0.547
Often enough
A2
0.667
Often
0.667
Often
0.547
Often enough
A3
0.653
Often
0.627
Often
0.573
Often enough
A4
0.640
Often
0.640
Often
0.560
Often enough
A5
0.493
Often enough
0.480
Often enough
0.480
Often enough
A6
0.427
Often enough
0.467
Often enough
0.453
Often enough
A7
0.387
Often enough
0.387
Often enough
0.360
Often enough
Material
B1
0.667
Often
0.693
Often
0.653
Often
B2
0.653
Often
0.493
Often enough
0.507
Often enough
B3
0.613
Often enough
0.493
Often enough
0.493
Often enough
B4
0.387
Often enough
0.387
Often enough
0.36
Rarely
B5
0.507
Often enough
0.427
Often enough
0.44
Often enough
B6
0.467
Often enough
0.467
Often enough
0.427
Often enough
B7
0.440
Often enough
0.373
Rarely
0.387
Often enough
B8
0.453
Often enough
0.413
Often enough
0.373
Rarely
B9
0.493
Often enough
0.453
Often enough
0.387
Often enough
B10
0.347
Rarely
0.32
Rarely
0.293
Rarely
Equipment
C1
0.413
Often enough
0.373
Rarely
0.373
Rarely
C2
0.427
Often enough
0.413
Often enough
0.347
Rarely
C3
0.640
Often
0.56
Often enough
0.413
Often enough
C4
0.480
Often enough
0.44
Often enough
0.387
Often enough
C5
0.573
Often enough
0.587
Often enough
0.56
Often enough
C6
0.480
Often enough
0.467
Often enough
0.4
Often enough
C7
0.493
Often enough
0.467
Often enough
0.427
Often enough
C8
0.480
Often enough
0.52
Often enough
0.453
Often enough
C9
0.627
Often
0.52
Often enough
0.52
Often enough
C10
0.680
Often
0.533
Often enough
0.533
Often enough
C11
0.453
Often enough
0.493
Often enough
0.427
Often enough
C12
0.493
Often enough
0.467
Often enough
0.427
Often enough
C13
0.467
Often enough
0.467
Often enough
0.467
Often enough
C14
0.480
Often enough
0.453
Often enough
0.48
Often enough
C15
0.480
Often enough
0.413
Often enough
0.373
Rarely
C16
0.440
Often enough
0.453
Often enough
0.387
Often enough
C17
0.427
Often enough
0.32
Rarely
0.373
RarelyIn case of the severity analysis for labor risk factors, only 1 (one) “high” variable and variable A1 appear only in Period I (poor workforce availability). In the case of the severity analysis for material risk factors, only 1 (one) “high” variable and variable B2 appear only in Period I (material delivery delay). While for the equipment risk factors, there is no “high” variable giving impact toward time severity. The results of SI analysis for three factors can be seen in Table11.Table 11
Result of the severity index (SI).
Factors
Variable code
Period I
Period II
Period III
SI
Scale
SI
Scale
SI
Scale
Labor
A1
0.650
High
0.570
Medium
0.490
Medium
A2
0.610
Medium
0.610
Medium
0.510
Medium
A3
0.560
Medium
0.530
Medium
0.510
Medium
A4
0.510
Medium
0.490
Medium
0.450
Medium
A5
0.490
Medium
0.450
Medium
0.450
Medium
A6
0.510
Medium
0.450
Medium
0.440
Medium
A7
0.430
Medium
0.400
Medium
0.350
Medium
Material
B1
0.440
Medium
0.410
Medium
0.410
Medium
B2
0.650
High
0.560
Medium
0.570
Medium
B3
0.470
Medium
0.450
Medium
0.450
Medium
B4
0.350
Low
0.370
Low
0.360
Low
B5
0.360
Low
0.350
Low
0.370
Low
B6
0.360
Low
0.400
Medium
0.390
Medium
B7
0.410
Medium
0.370
Low
0.360
Low
B8
0.440
Medium
0.410
Medium
0.400
Medium
B9
0.470
Medium
0.440
Medium
0.390
Medium
B10
0.310
Low
0.280
Low
0.370
Low
Equipment
C1
0.370
Low
0.370
Low
0.370
Low
C2
0.370
Low
0.330
Low
0.370
Low
C3
0.610
Medium
0.480
Medium
0.520
Medium
C4
0.400
Medium
0.370
Low
0.440
Medium
C5
0.530
Medium
0.530
Medium
0.490
Medium
C6
0.410
Medium
0.430
Medium
0.400
Medium
C7
0.470
Medium
0.430
Medium
0.400
Medium
C8
0.470
Medium
0.410
Medium
0.360
Low
C9
0.530
Medium
0.480
Medium
0.450
Medium
C10
0.490
Medium
0.450
Medium
0.470
Medium
C11
0.400
Medium
0.440
Medium
0.390
Medium
C12
0.470
Medium
0.400
Medium
0.390
Medium
C13
0.440
Medium
0.450
Medium
0.370
Low
C14
0.480
Medium
0.450
Medium
0.400
Medium
C15
0.350
Low
0.290
Low
0.350
Low
C16
0.370
Low
0.330
Low
0.330
Low
C17
0.330
Low
0.310
Low
0.310
LowIn the case of risk importance index, the analysis for three risk factors in all three periods analyzed is in the next section.


### 3.3.1. Risk Importance Index for Labor Factor

Based on the calculation of the average RII (Table12) in each period, the highest rank of variable is A1 (low availability of labor) in Period I, variable A2 (the ability of labor is less) in Period II, and variable A3 (the discipline of unfavorable workers) in Period III. The risk of A1 variable tends to decrease over the three periods.Table 12
Result of the risk importance index (RII) for labor factor.
Variable code
Period I
Period II
Period III
RII
Rank
RII
Rank
RII
Rank
A1
0.434
1
0.365
2
0.268
3
A2
0.407
2
0.407
1
0.279
2
A3
0.366
3
0.332
3
0.297
1
A4
0.326
4
0.314
4
0.252
4
A5
0.242
5
0.216
5
0.216
5
A6
0.218
6
0.210
6
0.199
6
A7
0.167
7
0.155
7
0.126
7Generally, there are 3 (three) high-score variables of RII in the labor factors. This RII of the three variables is obtained of the relative frequencies of occurrences (FI) and impact of severity (SI). The RII of high-score variables is used to analyze time risk to achieve the completion of the contract time. The problem of A1 (low availability of labor) is commonly experienced in Period I (military and political conflict), in which laborers from outside Aceh do not dare to come to work in this area. When the conflict situation decreases, the problem of labor availability can be resolved, otherwise to A2 (the ability of labor is less).


### 3.3.2. Risk Importance Index for Material Factor

Based on the calculation of the average RII (Table13), the highest rank of the variable is B2 (material delivery delay) in Period I, variable B1 (material price increase) in Period II, and variable B2 (material delivery delay) in Period III. The risk of B2 variable tends to decrease over the three periods.Table 13
Result of the risk importance index (RII) for material factor.
Variable code
Period I
Period II
Period III
RII
Rank
RII
Rank
RII
Rank
B1
0.294
2
0.284
1
0.268
2
B2
0.425
1
0.276
2
0.290
1
B3
0.288
4
0.222
3
0.222
3
B4
0.136
10
0.143
9
0.130
10
B5
0.183
7
0.150
7
0.163
5
B6
0.168
9
0.187
5
0.167
4
B7
0.180
8
0.138
10
0.140
9
B8
0.199
6
0.169
6
0.150
8
B9
0.232
5
0.200
4
0.151
7
B10
0.108
11
0.090
11
0.108
11
B11
0.294
2
0.150
7
0.163
5The material factors also contribute to the completion of the project according to the time target. From the three periods of the study, the risks to completion times are determined by B1 (material price increase) and B2 (material delivery delays). B1 variable (the problem of price increase) in Aceh is determined by the supply and demand aspects influencing the time transportation. During the Period II (rehabilitation and reconstruction period), there is a high increase in material demand without the availability of adequate supply. Delivery delays are also a problem considering the distribution of separate project sites and not in the economic center of a region.


### 3.3.3. Risk Importance Index for Equipment Factor

Based on the equipment risk factor, the variable with the highest RII in Period I is C3 (delayed mobilization of equipment), while in Periods II and III, the C5 variable (tool breakdown). The risk of C3 variables tends to decrease from Period 1 (0.390) to the next periods (Period 2 (0.269) and Period 3 (0.215)). Based on this condition, it can be seen that these variables give an essential role in the delay of construction project work in the three phases of study in Aceh Province. The results of RII analysis can be seen in Table14.Table 14
Result of the risk importance index (RII) for equipment factor.
Variable code
Period I
Period II
Period III
RII
Rank
RII
Rank
RII
Rank
C1
0.153
16
0.138
14
0.138
13
C2
0.158
15
0.136
15
0.128
15
C3
0.390
1
0.269
2
0.215
4
C4
0.192
11
0.163
12
0.170
8
C5
0.304
4
0.311
1
0.274
1
C6
0.197
10
0.201
9
0.160
12
C7
0.232
5
0.201
9
0.171
7
C8
0.226
8
0.213
6
0.163
11
C9
0.332
3
0.250
3
0.234
3
C10
0.333
2
0.240
4
0.251
2
C11
0.181
12
0.217
5
0.167
9
C12
0.232
5
0.187
11
0.167
9
C13
0.205
9
0.210
7
0.173
6
C14
0.230
7
0.204
8
0.192
5
C15
0.168
13
0.120
16
0.131
14
C16
0.163
14
0.150
13
0.128
15
C17
0.141
17
0.099
17
0.116
17The delay problems in the project completion in this factor arise due to the variables of C3 (delayed mobilization of equipment) and C5 (tool breakdown). This delay mobilization due to limited access of contractor companies to project sites during this period is emerged during Period I (military and political conflict periods). In the two subsequent periods, the problems, generally, arise due to the inability of firms to overcome the equipment damage along with the increasing and workload of equipment need.


### 3.3.4. Risk Assessment of Resources Factor for All Periods in Aceh

In this subsection, risk assessment analysis in the three periods in Aceh Province is based on the resources factor of a combination of labor, materials, and equipment. In Table15, the top ten variables of 35 risk assessment variables are shown.Table 15
Ten potential rankings in all three periods.
Risk factors
Variable code
Period I
Period II
Period III
Top ten variables in all periods
RII
Rank
RII
Rank
RII
Rank
Labor
A1
0.434
1
0.365
2
0.268
5
1
Material
B2
0.425
2
0.276
7
0.290
2
2
Labor
A2
0.407
3
0.407
1
0.279
3
3
Labor
A3
0.366
5
0.332
3
0.297
1
4
Equipment
C10
0.333
6
0.240
10
0.251
8
5
Equipment
C9
0.332
7
0.250
9
0.234
9
6
Labor
A4
0.326
8
0.314
4
0.252
7
7
Equipment
C5
0.304
9
0.311
5
0.274
4
8
Material
B1
0.294
10
0.284
6
0.268
6
9
Material
B3
0.288
12
0.222
11
0,222
10
10The top ten variables are A1, A2, A4, B2, B3 [31], B3 [32], A2, B1, B2 [33], and A1, A2, A4, B1, B2, B3, C5 [34]. Based on these top ten variables, seven variables are related to variables in other studies from other regions or countries. While the rest three variables become the contractor’s risk characteristics from this research case study (A3, C9, and C10).


## 3.1. Respondents’ Characteristics

Respondents’ characteristics are divided into two, namely, the characteristics of personality and characteristics of the contractor, as shown in Tables4 and 5.Table 4
Characteristic of respondents.
Category of characteristic
Characteristic description
Frequency
Frequency relative (%)
Position in contractor firm
Director
5
33.3
Manager
7
36.67
Other
3
20.00
Personal experience
>2–4 years
1
6.67
>4–7 years
1
6.67
>7 years
13
86.67Table 5
Contractor firms characteristic of respondents.
Category of characteristic
Characteristic description
Frequency
Frequency relative (%)
Total of contractor’s projects handled
Period of conflict
1–3 projects
3
20.00
>3–6 projects
5
33.33
>6–10 projects
4
30.00
>10 projects
3
40.00
Period of rehabilitation reconstruction
1–3 projects
1
6.67
>3–6 projects
5
33.33
>6–10 projects
3
20.00
>10 projects
6
40.00
Period of post-rehabilitation reconstruction
1–3 projects
2
13.33
>3–6 projects
2
13.33
>6–10 projects
5
33.33
>10 projects
6
40.00
Types of projects ever handled
Building
11
73.33
Roads and bridges
14
93.33
Water constructions
9
60.00
Average of contract price yearly
<10 billion
2
13.33
10 billion–50 billion
8
53.33
>50 billion
2
13.33Data are collected from 15 respondents who were working in a contractor firm with great qualification domiciled in Aceh Province. Respondents of this study generally have a position as manager and director of the company with work experience between 2 and 4 years. Typically, the contractor has more than 15 years of experience in the field of construction and has handled a number of projects during the political conflict period, the rehabilitation and reconstruction period, and post-rehabilitation and reconstruction period, so it can be concluded that the contractors who are the respondents of this research understand project risks at all three periods.


## 3.2. Result of the Validity Test and the Reliability Test

The validity test in this paper uses a confident level of 95% (5% significant level) bytsig obtained equal to 0.514. The test criterion is that if t≥tsig, then the instrument is declared valid, and vice versa. The results of the validity test for data of frequency index and severity index of each question are summarized in Tables 6 and 7.Table 6
Result of the validity test of FI data.
Variable code
Range oft
Information
Period I
Period II
Period III
A1-A7
0.590–0.934
0.590–0.934
0.729–1.176
Valid
B1-B10
0.579–0.870
1.489–2.258
0.556–0.913
Valid
C1-C17
0.544–0.946
0.544–0.947
0.139–0.939
ValidTable 7
Result of the validity test of SI data.
Variable code
Range oft
Information
Period I
Period II
Period III
A1-A7
0.536–0.831
0.566–0.950
0.775–0.951
Valid
B1-B10
0.558–0.879
0.529–0.863
0.573–1.000
Valid
C1-C17
0.517–0.919
0.535–0.880
0.578–0.948
ValidThe reliability test result for the frequency index and the severity index analyses indicate that theC-Alpha value for all risk factors (labor, materials, and equipment) is higher than 0.6, as summarized in Tables 8 and 9.Table 8
Result of the reliability test of data frequency.
Factors
Reliability test results
Information
Period I
Period II
Period III
Labor
0.89
1.14
1.15
Reliable
Material
0.93
5.97
0.83
Reliable
Equipment
1.08
0.98
0.87
ReliableTable 9
Result of the reliability test of data severity.
Factors
Reliability test results
Information
Period I
Period II
Period III
Labor
0.74
0.81
0.87
Reliable
Material
0.88
0.86
0.89
Reliable
Equipment
0.96
0.96
0.98
Reliable


## 3.3. Risk Assessment

In the case of frequency analysis of labor risk factors, there are no “often” variables with consistent occurrence in the three study periods, and only 4 (four) “often” variables appear consistently in Period I and Period II. These variables are A1 (poor labor availability), A2 (inadequate labor capacity), A3 (poor worker discipline), and A4 (low work productivity). Although consistently appearing in the first two periods, the variables A1, A3, and A4 show a declining pattern from the initial period to the next period, except A2. This condition is reasonable, while from the Period I to the next period, the threat to the lives of labors is more secure.In the material risk factor, there are 2 (two) “often” variables such as variable of B1 (material price increase) and B2 (material delivery delay). Only B1 variable consistently appears on all three periods, except B2 variable. Although B1 is consistent, B1 is not a variable that affects the time risk compared to B2, as its variable name.In the equipment risk factor, 3 (three) “often” variables appear in Period I, namely, C3 (delayed mobilization of equipment), C9 (fuel shortages), and C10 (difficult to access for heavy equipment). Variable B9 often occurs in Period I because of wars between parties (characteristics of conflict areas) that hinder the mobilization of heavy equipment. The results of FI analysis for three factors can be seen in Table10.Table 10
Result of frequency index (FI).
Resources factors
Variable code
Period I
Period II
Period III
FI
Scale
FI
Scale
FI
Scale
Labor
A1
0.667
Often
0.640
Often
0.547
Often enough
A2
0.667
Often
0.667
Often
0.547
Often enough
A3
0.653
Often
0.627
Often
0.573
Often enough
A4
0.640
Often
0.640
Often
0.560
Often enough
A5
0.493
Often enough
0.480
Often enough
0.480
Often enough
A6
0.427
Often enough
0.467
Often enough
0.453
Often enough
A7
0.387
Often enough
0.387
Often enough
0.360
Often enough
Material
B1
0.667
Often
0.693
Often
0.653
Often
B2
0.653
Often
0.493
Often enough
0.507
Often enough
B3
0.613
Often enough
0.493
Often enough
0.493
Often enough
B4
0.387
Often enough
0.387
Often enough
0.36
Rarely
B5
0.507
Often enough
0.427
Often enough
0.44
Often enough
B6
0.467
Often enough
0.467
Often enough
0.427
Often enough
B7
0.440
Often enough
0.373
Rarely
0.387
Often enough
B8
0.453
Often enough
0.413
Often enough
0.373
Rarely
B9
0.493
Often enough
0.453
Often enough
0.387
Often enough
B10
0.347
Rarely
0.32
Rarely
0.293
Rarely
Equipment
C1
0.413
Often enough
0.373
Rarely
0.373
Rarely
C2
0.427
Often enough
0.413
Often enough
0.347
Rarely
C3
0.640
Often
0.56
Often enough
0.413
Often enough
C4
0.480
Often enough
0.44
Often enough
0.387
Often enough
C5
0.573
Often enough
0.587
Often enough
0.56
Often enough
C6
0.480
Often enough
0.467
Often enough
0.4
Often enough
C7
0.493
Often enough
0.467
Often enough
0.427
Often enough
C8
0.480
Often enough
0.52
Often enough
0.453
Often enough
C9
0.627
Often
0.52
Often enough
0.52
Often enough
C10
0.680
Often
0.533
Often enough
0.533
Often enough
C11
0.453
Often enough
0.493
Often enough
0.427
Often enough
C12
0.493
Often enough
0.467
Often enough
0.427
Often enough
C13
0.467
Often enough
0.467
Often enough
0.467
Often enough
C14
0.480
Often enough
0.453
Often enough
0.48
Often enough
C15
0.480
Often enough
0.413
Often enough
0.373
Rarely
C16
0.440
Often enough
0.453
Often enough
0.387
Often enough
C17
0.427
Often enough
0.32
Rarely
0.373
RarelyIn case of the severity analysis for labor risk factors, only 1 (one) “high” variable and variable A1 appear only in Period I (poor workforce availability). In the case of the severity analysis for material risk factors, only 1 (one) “high” variable and variable B2 appear only in Period I (material delivery delay). While for the equipment risk factors, there is no “high” variable giving impact toward time severity. The results of SI analysis for three factors can be seen in Table11.Table 11
Result of the severity index (SI).
Factors
Variable code
Period I
Period II
Period III
SI
Scale
SI
Scale
SI
Scale
Labor
A1
0.650
High
0.570
Medium
0.490
Medium
A2
0.610
Medium
0.610
Medium
0.510
Medium
A3
0.560
Medium
0.530
Medium
0.510
Medium
A4
0.510
Medium
0.490
Medium
0.450
Medium
A5
0.490
Medium
0.450
Medium
0.450
Medium
A6
0.510
Medium
0.450
Medium
0.440
Medium
A7
0.430
Medium
0.400
Medium
0.350
Medium
Material
B1
0.440
Medium
0.410
Medium
0.410
Medium
B2
0.650
High
0.560
Medium
0.570
Medium
B3
0.470
Medium
0.450
Medium
0.450
Medium
B4
0.350
Low
0.370
Low
0.360
Low
B5
0.360
Low
0.350
Low
0.370
Low
B6
0.360
Low
0.400
Medium
0.390
Medium
B7
0.410
Medium
0.370
Low
0.360
Low
B8
0.440
Medium
0.410
Medium
0.400
Medium
B9
0.470
Medium
0.440
Medium
0.390
Medium
B10
0.310
Low
0.280
Low
0.370
Low
Equipment
C1
0.370
Low
0.370
Low
0.370
Low
C2
0.370
Low
0.330
Low
0.370
Low
C3
0.610
Medium
0.480
Medium
0.520
Medium
C4
0.400
Medium
0.370
Low
0.440
Medium
C5
0.530
Medium
0.530
Medium
0.490
Medium
C6
0.410
Medium
0.430
Medium
0.400
Medium
C7
0.470
Medium
0.430
Medium
0.400
Medium
C8
0.470
Medium
0.410
Medium
0.360
Low
C9
0.530
Medium
0.480
Medium
0.450
Medium
C10
0.490
Medium
0.450
Medium
0.470
Medium
C11
0.400
Medium
0.440
Medium
0.390
Medium
C12
0.470
Medium
0.400
Medium
0.390
Medium
C13
0.440
Medium
0.450
Medium
0.370
Low
C14
0.480
Medium
0.450
Medium
0.400
Medium
C15
0.350
Low
0.290
Low
0.350
Low
C16
0.370
Low
0.330
Low
0.330
Low
C17
0.330
Low
0.310
Low
0.310
LowIn the case of risk importance index, the analysis for three risk factors in all three periods analyzed is in the next section.


## 3.3.1. Risk Importance Index for Labor Factor

Based on the calculation of the average RII (Table12) in each period, the highest rank of variable is A1 (low availability of labor) in Period I, variable A2 (the ability of labor is less) in Period II, and variable A3 (the discipline of unfavorable workers) in Period III. The risk of A1 variable tends to decrease over the three periods.Table 12
Result of the risk importance index (RII) for labor factor.
Variable code
Period I
Period II
Period III
RII
Rank
RII
Rank
RII
Rank
A1
0.434
1
0.365
2
0.268
3
A2
0.407
2
0.407
1
0.279
2
A3
0.366
3
0.332
3
0.297
1
A4
0.326
4
0.314
4
0.252
4
A5
0.242
5
0.216
5
0.216
5
A6
0.218
6
0.210
6
0.199
6
A7
0.167
7
0.155
7
0.126
7Generally, there are 3 (three) high-score variables of RII in the labor factors. This RII of the three variables is obtained of the relative frequencies of occurrences (FI) and impact of severity (SI). The RII of high-score variables is used to analyze time risk to achieve the completion of the contract time. The problem of A1 (low availability of labor) is commonly experienced in Period I (military and political conflict), in which laborers from outside Aceh do not dare to come to work in this area. When the conflict situation decreases, the problem of labor availability can be resolved, otherwise to A2 (the ability of labor is less).


## 3.3.2. Risk Importance Index for Material Factor

Based on the calculation of the average RII (Table13), the highest rank of the variable is B2 (material delivery delay) in Period I, variable B1 (material price increase) in Period II, and variable B2 (material delivery delay) in Period III. The risk of B2 variable tends to decrease over the three periods.Table 13
Result of the risk importance index (RII) for material factor.
Variable code
Period I
Period II
Period III
RII
Rank
RII
Rank
RII
Rank
B1
0.294
2
0.284
1
0.268
2
B2
0.425
1
0.276
2
0.290
1
B3
0.288
4
0.222
3
0.222
3
B4
0.136
10
0.143
9
0.130
10
B5
0.183
7
0.150
7
0.163
5
B6
0.168
9
0.187
5
0.167
4
B7
0.180
8
0.138
10
0.140
9
B8
0.199
6
0.169
6
0.150
8
B9
0.232
5
0.200
4
0.151
7
B10
0.108
11
0.090
11
0.108
11
B11
0.294
2
0.150
7
0.163
5The material factors also contribute to the completion of the project according to the time target. From the three periods of the study, the risks to completion times are determined by B1 (material price increase) and B2 (material delivery delays). B1 variable (the problem of price increase) in Aceh is determined by the supply and demand aspects influencing the time transportation. During the Period II (rehabilitation and reconstruction period), there is a high increase in material demand without the availability of adequate supply. Delivery delays are also a problem considering the distribution of separate project sites and not in the economic center of a region.


## 3.3.3. Risk Importance Index for Equipment Factor

Based on the equipment risk factor, the variable with the highest RII in Period I is C3 (delayed mobilization of equipment), while in Periods II and III, the C5 variable (tool breakdown). The risk of C3 variables tends to decrease from Period 1 (0.390) to the next periods (Period 2 (0.269) and Period 3 (0.215)). Based on this condition, it can be seen that these variables give an essential role in the delay of construction project work in the three phases of study in Aceh Province. The results of RII analysis can be seen in Table14.Table 14
Result of the risk importance index (RII) for equipment factor.
Variable code
Period I
Period II
Period III
RII
Rank
RII
Rank
RII
Rank
C1
0.153
16
0.138
14
0.138
13
C2
0.158
15
0.136
15
0.128
15
C3
0.390
1
0.269
2
0.215
4
C4
0.192
11
0.163
12
0.170
8
C5
0.304
4
0.311
1
0.274
1
C6
0.197
10
0.201
9
0.160
12
C7
0.232
5
0.201
9
0.171
7
C8
0.226
8
0.213
6
0.163
11
C9
0.332
3
0.250
3
0.234
3
C10
0.333
2
0.240
4
0.251
2
C11
0.181
12
0.217
5
0.167
9
C12
0.232
5
0.187
11
0.167
9
C13
0.205
9
0.210
7
0.173
6
C14
0.230
7
0.204
8
0.192
5
C15
0.168
13
0.120
16
0.131
14
C16
0.163
14
0.150
13
0.128
15
C17
0.141
17
0.099
17
0.116
17The delay problems in the project completion in this factor arise due to the variables of C3 (delayed mobilization of equipment) and C5 (tool breakdown). This delay mobilization due to limited access of contractor companies to project sites during this period is emerged during Period I (military and political conflict periods). In the two subsequent periods, the problems, generally, arise due to the inability of firms to overcome the equipment damage along with the increasing and workload of equipment need.


## 3.3.4. Risk Assessment of Resources Factor for All Periods in Aceh

In this subsection, risk assessment analysis in the three periods in Aceh Province is based on the resources factor of a combination of labor, materials, and equipment. In Table15, the top ten variables of 35 risk assessment variables are shown.Table 15
Ten potential rankings in all three periods.
Risk factors
Variable code
Period I
Period II
Period III
Top ten variables in all periods
RII
Rank
RII
Rank
RII
Rank
Labor
A1
0.434
1
0.365
2
0.268
5
1
Material
B2
0.425
2
0.276
7
0.290
2
2
Labor
A2
0.407
3
0.407
1
0.279
3
3
Labor
A3
0.366
5
0.332
3
0.297
1
4
Equipment
C10
0.333
6
0.240
10
0.251
8
5
Equipment
C9
0.332
7
0.250
9
0.234
9
6
Labor
A4
0.326
8
0.314
4
0.252
7
7
Equipment
C5
0.304
9
0.311
5
0.274
4
8
Material
B1
0.294
10
0.284
6
0.268
6
9
Material
B3
0.288
12
0.222
11
0,222
10
10The top ten variables are A1, A2, A4, B2, B3 [31], B3 [32], A2, B1, B2 [33], and A1, A2, A4, B1, B2, B3, C5 [34]. Based on these top ten variables, seven variables are related to variables in other studies from other regions or countries. While the rest three variables become the contractor’s risk characteristics from this research case study (A3, C9, and C10).


## 4. Conclusions

This study shows the result of assessment related to risk assessment by using the indicator of frequency, severity, and risk importance index. The project risk is the superposition of RII on all risk variables. Each variable is a function of frequency and severity. Both frequency and severity influence high and low risks. The RII analysis is used as an input to assess the most dominant risk of cost, time, and quality.Based on the labor risk factors, the most dominant time risk variable occurring in Period I is the inadequate availability of labor; in Period II, the ability of the workforce is lacking; and in Period III, experience/expertise of the contractor is lacking. From the material risk factor, the most dominant time risk variable occurs in Period I, and Period III is the delay of material delivery, while in Period II, the material price increase. Based on RII analysis result from the equipment risk factor, it can be concluded that the most dominant time risk variable occurring in Period I is the delay in the mobilization of equipment, while in Period I and II, equipment malfunction.We have analyzed 35 variables which were categorized into three factors of variables which are tested in three periods providing different risk characteristics, both concerning risk probability and risk impact. Based on the variable, it has been concluded that ten variables as the most dominant risks that arise simultaneously in all three periods. Four variables, namely, low labor availability (A1), the ability of the labor is lacking (A2), the discipline of unfavorable labor (A3), and low labor productivity (A4), are derived from labor factors. Three variables, namely, the increase in material prices (B1), delay in material delivery (B2), and theft of material (B3), are derived from material factors. While the three variables are device damage (C5), fuel scarcity (C9), and the difference between difficulties to access heavy equipment (C10) come from the equipment factor. The ten dominant variables, three of which are A3, C9, and C10 are derived from the characteristics of the three periods in this study, while seven variables are also related to risk variables in other regions or countries, namely, A1, A2, A4, B1, B2, B3, and C5.



---

*Source: 6896141-2018-10-29.xml*