RISK MANAGEMENT
ANALYSIS OF TALUS DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Yeny
Putri Sindy
Univeritas Atma Jaya, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
|
KEYWORDS |
ABSTRACT |
|
development of talud, risk impacts, executor. |
The construction of the riprap in the
Kertosari area is divided into four segments with the length of the riprap
segment 1 STA i0+000 i – STA 1+600 with a riprap height of 2M, segment 2 STA
0+00 – STA 0 +200 with a riprap height of 2M, segment 3 STA 0+000 – STA 0+200
with a slope of 3M, segment 4 STA 0+000 – STA 0+200 with a slope of 3M and a
project value of Rp. 15,250,000,000. - (Fifteen Billion Two Hundred and Fifty
Million Rupiah). The objective of the research to be achieved from
implementing the thesis research conducted in this project is to identify the
impact of risks as a threat to the talus construction project and the
appropriate risk response to the talus construction project. The House of
Risk method has 2 stages of analysis, namely in the risk analysis process
using HOR phase 1, which focuses on the risk identification process,
including risk agents and events. The data obtained in this case study were
taken from the Kertosari, Bambar, and Ganefo Talus development projects
located in Sentani, Jayapura Regency which involved contractors, the three
projects as respondents. Executors and the smallest percentage is 12.1%, i.e., Director, Project Manager, and Site
Manager. The age of respondents who dominated this study was> 30 years.
The working period of the respondents who dominated in this study was 1-5
years with a total percentage of 87.9 %. |
|
DOI: 10.58860/ijsh.v2i2.25 |
|
Corresponding Author: Yeny Putri Sindy*
Email: Yenyputrisindy96@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
Kindly geographical position of
Jayapura Regency, especially Sentani City, is very strategic Because it becomes
a buffer to the main city of Jayapura, which is the capital of the province of
Papua (Sindy,
2022). Besides That, Jayapura
Regency became a door pool mainly in Papua because located at the airport
became a door entry from cities and others throughout Indonesia and also in the
districts in the province, especially those in the middle mountains (Laksmana,
2013). For area, this
transportation air becomes the leading choice. Remember Still limited access
through land.
Development of the Gap Jayapura
Regency, which is in the Kertosari Region shared into four segments with long
talud segment 1 STA 0+000 – STA 1+600 with tall 2M Salud, segment 2 STA 0+00 –
STA 0+200 with tall 2M Salud, segment 3 STA 0+000 – STA 0+200 with tall 3M
Salud, segment 4 STA 0+000 – STA 0+200 with tall 3 M talud and value project
15,250,000,000 IDR (Fifteen Billion Two Hundred Fifty Million Rupiah). On the
talus Bambar with long talud STA 0+000 – STA 0+238 with tall 2 M talud and
value project IDR 2,000,000,000 - (Two Billion Rupiah) and Projects Talud
Ganevo with long talud ST 0+00 – STA 0+ 300 with tall 2 M talud and value
project in the amount of IDR 1,721,274,000, - (One Billion Seven Hundred Two
Twenty-One Two Hundred Seven Tens Four Rupiah) located in Jayapura district is
one activity project construction in support development infrastructure in
Papua. Completion project This will be significantly affected by the
availability of local source power, conditions, weather, and natural ability
management company.
Some potential risks to the project
development are The Kertosari River/Calime Gap in Kertosari and the Bambara
River/Calime Gap in Bambara, Jayapura Regency. Due to That approach, management
risk is significant. That thing is mentally disabled back writer takes topic
Management Risks in the Development of Gaps Kertosari and Talud Bambar Jayapur
Regency. Study This uses the House Of Risk Analysis
method, which aims at action prevention. To determine which risk is being
prioritized, will give action mitigation (Princess,
2020) nor countermeasures risk.
In the study, this management
risk analysis is only on the project's development road. As for the formulation
problem, what impact risks have been identified, and how to respond to
risk To prevent or reduce impact risks that occur (Soputa
Soputan, Gabby EM, Sompie, Bonny F., & & & Mandagi, 2014). The study Analyzed management risk only on the project's
development road. So, discussion in writing is limited for discussion in
writing It Can be directed and systematic. This limitation problem that impacts
the risks studied is risk threat from the corner view contractor (Rahman,
2020) and methods research used in
the study. This is the House of Risk method. The
objective of research you want to be achieved from the implementation study of
the thesis carried out in the project. This identifies impact risk as
threats impacting the project development response and response appropriate
risk to the project development talud (Anwar
& Yulianto, n.d.) so that can become something
reference to handle risks that occur in other projects.
Definition Risk Need is a known
definition of risk based on researcher earlier that is as following risk is a
variation from the possibility happening something things or events outside engendered
hope to threat loss consequence the hazard occurred (Ruane,
2013) and By general risk
associated with the likelihood (probability) of occurrence incident beyond
expected (Enrico
Souhuwat & Dita Saputro, 2021). Define management risk is a method for identifying and
measuring absolute risk -ko inside something project or business so that one
can decide on How to manage risk (Febriansyah
& Hendy Ginting, 2020). Management risk is
something effort the application of policy regulations. It systematically
measures practical management in analyzing risk use and control to protect
workers, society, and the environment (Sepang
et al., 2013).
Related research on management risk
use of the House of Risk method has been carried out by (Ulfah
et al., 2016). HOR is a model based on the
needs of management action-focused risk prevention. To determine which risk to
prioritize, will be given action mitigation or countermeasures risk (Magdalena
& Vannie, 2019). The study aims to identify
incident and agent risks and determine priority action prevention (Kusnindah
et al., 2014) in handling risk in project
flyover construction in Indonesia.
METHODS
Respondents in the study This is the
perpetrator's construction where the respondent consists of the Director,
Project Manager, Site Manager, and executors who work in project development in
the talus Jayapura district. To help study this tool researchers used is form
questionnaire which is a tool for data collection for getting an answer from
respondents, that is, contractors (Hassan,
Mangare, & Pratasis, 2016), and computers as a tool For processing the existing data
obtained from the questionnaire. Variable study in study This is the
risks at the time of implementation of the basic construction process
consisting of impact risk and treatment risk.
The
House of Risk method is needed to manage risk. To identify risks that occur and
focus on following prevention risks, determine why the risk is prioritized and
given action mitigation or countermeasures risk. The House of Risk method has
two stages of analysis that are in the process of analysis risk. This uses HOR
phase 1, which focuses on identifying process risks, including agent and
incident risks. In the study, design mitigation risk is shown in HOR phase 2.
In phase this focuses on determining form response or mitigation suitable risk.
Where form mitigation the must characteristic easy For applied But can reduce
probability happening agent risk (Ronny,
n.d.).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Data obtained in studies case This is taken from
project development Talmud Kertosari, Bambar, and Ganefo located in Sentani
Jayapura Regency, which involves contractor, third project the as respondent.
Amount participating respondents in studies case This totals 33 respondents.
Following this are general data respondents, which include position respondents
regarding studies case. This is grouped in tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 into
six categories, namely, Director, Project Manager, Site Manager, Safety
Officer, executor, and supervisor.
Table 1. Position Respondents Contractor Gap Development Project
Kertosari Segment
|
Respondents |
Amount |
% |
|
Director |
1 |
11,11 |
|
ProjectManager |
1 |
11,11 |
|
SiteManager |
1 |
11,11 |
|
Safety Officer |
1 |
11,11 |
|
executor |
3 |
33,33 |
|
Supervisor |
2 |
22,22 |
|
Total |
9 |
100 |
There are nine respondents in the project development talud
kerosene segment 1, 8 respondents in the talus Kertosari segment 2-4, 8
responses to the slope geneva, and eight respondents in the talus Bambara.
Table
2. Position
Respondents Gap construction contractor segment 2-4
|
Respondents |
Amount |
% |
|
Director |
1 |
12.50 |
|
ProjectManager |
1 |
12.50 |
|
SiteManager |
1 |
12.50 |
|
Safety Officer |
1 |
12.50 |
|
executor |
2 |
25.00 |
|
Supervisor |
2 |
25.00 |
|
Total |
8 |
100 |
Table 3. Position Respondents Gap construction contractor Ganevo
|
Respondents |
Amount |
% |
|
Director |
1 |
12.50 |
|
ProjectManager |
1 |
12.50 |
|
SiteManager |
1 |
12.50 |
|
Safety Officer |
1 |
12.50 |
|
executor |
2 |
25.00 |
|
Supervisor |
2 |
25.00 |
|
Total |
8 |
100 |
Table 4. Position
Respondents Gap construction contractor Bambar
|
Respondents |
Amount |
% |
|
Director |
1 |
12.50 |
|
ProjectManager |
1 |
12.50 |
|
SiteManager |
1 |
12.50 |
|
Safety Officer |
1 |
12.50 |
|
executor |
2 |
25.00 |
|
Supervisor |
2 |
25.00 |
|
Total |
8 |
100 |
Age respondents in studies
case This own various type age, there age 21 – 30 years own amount age the most
with a total of 29 respondents. Following this is age data for respondents in
the study's case.
Table 5. Age
Respondents
|
Age |
Amount |
% |
|
21–30 |
29 |
88 |
|
31–40 |
4 |
12 |
|
41–50 |
0 |
0 |
|
>50 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
33 |
100 |
Period of work on studies
case this grouped into four categories, namely:
Table 6. Working
Period Respondents
|
Long Working Time |
Amount |
% |
|
<1 Year |
0 |
0 |
|
1 – 5 Years |
29 |
88 |
|
6 – 10 Years |
4 |
12 |
|
>10 Years |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
33 |
100 |
The background behind respondents to the study case This has
four categories consisting _ of middle school or equivalent, high school or
equivalent, Master's Degree (S1), and Master's Degree (S2). Respondents with
background having a Bachelor's degree background amount most, totaling 32
respondents.
Table 7. Background Behind
Respondents
|
Education |
Amount |
% |
|
Middle school or
Equal |
0 |
0 |
|
High school or
Equal |
0 |
0 |
|
S1 |
32 |
97 |
|
S2 |
1 |
3 |
|
Total |
33 |
100 |
On the project construction development road Currently, there
are 26 impact items risk (Risk Event) that has been researcher identification
and results evaluation impact risk contractor project development talud
Kertosari segment 1, segment 2-4, talud geneva and talus Bambara. Evaluation
impact has done with fill in column questionnaire using numbers 1 = very small,
2 = small, 3 = moderate, and 4 = very large.
Table 8. Position Respondents Contractor Gap
Development Project Kertosari Segment 1
|
Respondents |
Amount |
% |
|
Director |
1 |
11,11 |
|
ProjectManager |
1 |
11,11 |
|
SiteManager |
1 |
11,11 |
|
Safety Officer |
1 |
11,11 |
|
executor |
3 |
33,33 |
|
Supervisor |
2 |
22,22 |
|
Total |
9 |
100 |
Table 9 Position Respondents Gap construction contractor
segment 2-4
|
Respondents |
Amount |
% |
|
Director |
1 |
12.50 |
|
ProjectManager |
1 |
12.50 |
|
SiteManager |
1 |
12.50 |
|
Safety Officer |
1 |
12.50 |
|
executor |
2 |
25.00 |
|
Supervisor |
2 |
25.00 |
|
Total |
8 |
100 |
Table 10. Position Respondents Gap construction contractor Ganevo
|
Respondents |
Amount |
% |
|
Director |
1 |
12.50 |
|
ProjectManager |
1 |
12.50 |
|
SiteManager |
1 |
12.50 |
|
Safety Officer |
1 |
12.50 |
|
executor |
2 |
25.00 |
|
Supervisor |
2 |
25.00 |
|
Total |
8 |
100 |
Table 11. Position Respondents Gap construction contractor Bambar
|
Respondents |
Amount |
% |
|
Director |
1 |
12.50 |
|
ProjectManager |
1 |
12.50 |
|
SiteManager |
1 |
12.50 |
|
Safety Officer |
1 |
12.50 |
|
executor |
2 |
25.00 |
|
Supervisor |
2 |
25.00 |
|
Total |
8 |
100 |
Table
12. Age Respondents
|
Age |
Amount |
% |
|
21–30 |
29 |
88 |
|
31–40 |
4 |
12 |
|
41–50 |
0 |
0 |
|
>50 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
33 |
100 |
Period
of work on studies case This grouped into four categories, namely:
Table
13. Working Period Respondents
|
Long Working Time |
Amount |
% |
|
<1 Year |
0 |
0 |
|
1 – 5 Years |
29 |
88 |
|
6 – 10 Years |
4 |
12 |
|
>10 Years |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
33 |
100 |
The background behind respondents to the study case This has 4 categories
consisting of middle school or equivalent, high school or equivalent, Master's
Degree (S1), and Master's Degree (S2) most respondents with a Bachelor's degree
background amount most, totaling 32 respondents.
Table
14. Background Behind Respondents
|
Education |
Amount |
% |
|
Middle school or Equal |
0 |
0 |
|
high school or Equal |
0 |
0 |
|
S1 |
32 |
97 |
|
S2 |
1 |
3 |
|
Total |
33 |
100 |
Identification impact risk on project construction development
road Currently, there are 26 impact items risk (Risk Event) that has been
researcher identification and results evaluation impact risk contractor project
development talud Kertosari segment 1, segment 2-4, talud geneva and talus
Bambara. Evaluation impact has done with fill in column questionnaire using
numbers 1 = minimal, 2 = small, 3 = moderate, and 4 = very large.
Table 15. Identification reason risk
|
Risk Events |
Code |
|
Earthquake Earth |
E1 |
|
Landslide _ |
E2 |
|
Change scope work/sports orders |
E3 |
|
Specification technical No fulfilled |
E4 |
|
Loss or lateness Because change in design/location |
E5 |
|
Materials delay |
E6 |
|
Material and equipment damage Work |
E7 |
|
Loss of materials and equipment Work |
E8 |
|
Loss or lateness Because change in design/location |
E9 |
|
Access to location project difficult |
E10 |
|
Error estimate cost and time |
E11 |
|
The estimation that the cost is too low |
E12 |
|
Expenditure cost Because lateness settlement project |
E13 |
|
Payment system/terms bad |
E14 |
|
Problems with quality Work |
E15 |
|
Loss or lateness Because of unrest |
E16 |
|
Problems with licensing |
E17 |
|
The low safety Work |
E18 |
|
Strike work |
E19 |
|
Losses and delays Because of equipment and methods of wrong construction |
E20 |
|
There are processing ulan on the construction process |
E21 |
|
Excessive water discharge problem Because Rain is not expected |
E22 |
|
Damage during maintenance |
E23 |
|
Subcontractor failure _ |
E24 |
|
Damage ecological |
E25 |
|
Illegal fees |
E26 |
Identification
reason risk (Risk Agent) stage identification reason risk is done
with the use questionnaire. Evaluation is done by filling in a table
questionnaire with information 1 = very rarely, 2 = rarely, 3 = often, and 4 =
very often.
Table 16. Assessment Reason
Risk Contractor Gap
Development Project Kertosari
Segment 1
|
Risk Agent |
Code |
Occurrence |
|
Communication that is not smooth / lacking effective |
A1 |
3 |
|
Management less project good |
A2 |
3 |
|
Denning unfinished project |
A3 |
1 |
|
Scarcity of materials |
A4 |
2 |
|
Poor quality of materials |
A5 |
2 |
|
No set K3 |
A6 |
2 |
|
Witnesses that have not strict about violation fraud |
A7 |
2 |
|
Coordination with the owner is not Good |
A8 |
2 |
|
Execution time is not adequate |
A9 |
2 |
|
Procurement process source Power natural stop |
A10 |
1 |
|
No checking to equipment used |
A11 |
2 |
|
Addition scope Work |
A12 |
1 |
|
No guard sustainability natural |
A13 |
2 |
Table 17. Assessment Reason
Risk Contractor Gap
Development Project Kertosari
Segments 2-4
|
Risk Agent |
Code |
Occurrence |
|
Communication that is not smooth / lacking effective |
A1 |
3 |
|
Management less project good |
A2 |
3 |
|
Denning unfinished project |
A3 |
1 |
|
Scarcity of materials |
A4 |
2 |
|
Poor quality of materials |
A5 |
2 |
|
No set K3 |
A6 |
2 |
|
Witnesses that have not strict about violating fraud |
A7 |
2 |
|
Coordination with the owner is not Good |
A8 |
2 |
|
Execution time is not adequate |
A9 |
2 |
|
Procurement process source Power natural stop |
A10 |
1 |
|
No, do check to equipment used |
A11 |
2 |
|
Addition scope Work |
A12 |
1 |
|
No guard sustainability natural |
A13 |
2 |
Table
18. Assessment Reason Risk Contractor Gap Development Project Ganevo
|
Risk Agent |
Code |
Occurrence |
|
Communication that is not smooth / lacking effective |
A1 |
3 |
|
Management less project good |
A2 |
3 |
|
Denning unfinished project |
A3 |
1 |
|
Scarcity of materials |
A4 |
2 |
|
Poor quality of materials |
A5 |
2 |
|
No set K3 |
A6 |
2 |
|
Witnesses that have not been strict about violating fraud |
A7 |
2 |
|
Coordination with the owner is not Good |
A8 |
2 |
|
Execution time is not adequate |
A9 |
2 |
|
Procurement process source Power natural stop |
A10 |
1 |
|
No, do check to equipment used |
A11 |
2 |
|
Addition scope Work |
A12 |
1 |
|
No guard sustainability natural |
A13 |
2 |
Figure
19. Evaluation Reason Risk Contractor Gap Development Project Bambar
|
Risk Agent |
Code |
Occurrence |
|
Communication that is not smooth / lacking effective |
A1 |
3 |
|
Management less project good |
A2 |
3 |
|
Denning unfinished project |
A3 |
1 |
|
Scarcity of materials |
A4 |
2 |
|
Poor quality of materials |
A5 |
2 |
|
No set K3 |
A6 |
2 |
|
Witnesses that have not strict to violation fraud |
A7 |
2 |
|
Coordination with the owner is not Good |
A8 |
2 |
|
Execution time is not adequate |
A9 |
2 |
|
Procurement process source Power natural stop |
A10 |
1 |
|
No, do check to equipment used |
A11 |
2 |
|
Addition scope Work |
A12 |
1 |
|
No guard sustainability natural |
A13 |
2 |
Occurrence Value
This will be used in calculating Aggregate Risk 25 Potential (ARP), i.e.,
determining the most influential risk agent based on calculation.
Identification
Handling Risk At stage evaluation handling risk, respondents evaluate the
possibility of difficulty with fill-in-column questionnaires using numbers 1 =
accessible, 2 = little complex, 3 = complicated, and 4 = very difficult. The
evaluation results will correlate with the results evaluation reason risk for
look for mark Effectiveness to Difficulty (ETD).
Figure 1. Difficulty Level
Rating Handling Risk
Contractor
Gap Development Project Kertosari Segment 1
Figure 2. Difficulty Level Rating Handling Risk Contractor
Project Builder Talmud Kertosari Segments 2-4
Figure 3. Difficulty Level Rating Handling Risk
Contractor Project Builder Talmud Ganevo
Figure 4. Difficulty Level Rating Handling Risk
Contractor Project Builder Talmud
Bambar
From the results, that is
one handling possible risks a little difficulty happens, like sharing risk with
method divert work to sub-contractors because those who do project development
talud Bambara This only one contractor.
Rating top based
on mark highest ARP After calculation, Aggregate Risk Potential value between
Risk Event and Risk Agent is obtained furthermore, will take five per- level
top based on mark highest ARP.
Figure 5. Risks that need to be
handled by the Project
Contractor
Development Talud Kertosari Segment 1
Results in Figure 5 show five ratings based on the ARP value that has
been obtained. The risk Agent who has given ranking next will be given
handling.
Figure 6. Necessary risks
handled by the contractor
Gap Development Project
Kertosari Segments 2-4
The results are in Figure 6. show
five ratings based on the ARP value that has been obtained. The risk Agent who
has given ranking next will be given handling.
Figure 7. Necessary risks
handled by the contractor
Gap
Development Project Ganevo
The results in
Figure 7 show five ratings based on the ARP value that has been obtained.
The risk Agent who has given ranking next will be given handling.
Figure 8. Necessary risks
handled by the contractor
Gap
Development Project Bambar
The results in
Figure 8 show five ratings based on the ARP value that has been obtained. The
risk Agent who has given ranking next will be given handling.
Rating Top risk management strategies There are 11 risk management
strategies used as follows mitigation For reducing the impact from that risk
happens, then five rating top as a Risk Agent priority will be made a handling
strategy in accordance mark Effectiveness to Difficulty (ETD). With mark
Effectiveness to Difficulty (ETD), the largest will be used for treatment strategy based
on five risks top already elected.
Figure 13. Rating top
Treatment Strategy Risks to the
Contractor Gap Development
Project Kertosari Segment 1
Figure 14. Rating top
Treatment Strategy Risks to the
Contractor Gap Development
Project Kertosari Segments 2-4
Figure 15. Rating top
Treatment Strategy Risks to
the Contractor Gap
Development Project Ganevo
Figure 16. Rating top
Treatment Strategy Risks to
the Contractor Gap Development Project Bambar
From the analysis
of the results, House of Risk so can is known the risks and coping
strategies that will be used.
Analysis Results House
of Risk After getting 5 rating results as top Risk Agent
and five ratings as top Handling Risk, the Risk Agent will be given
handling / follow mitigation.
Figure
17. Results
of House of Risk Analysis on
Contractors
Gap Development Project Kertosari Segment 1
Figure 18. Results of House of Risk Analysis on
Contractors Gap
Development Project Kertosari Segments 2-4
Figure 19. Results of House of Risk Analysis on
Contractors Gap Development Project
Ganevo
Figure 20. Results of House
of Risk Analysis on
Contractors Gap Development Project Bambar
CONCLUSION
The conclusion of the risk management analysis research on
the Talud Kertosari Development Project Segment 1, Talud Kertosari Segment 2-4,
Talud Ganevo and Talud Bambar using the House of Risk method is that poor
project management can be carried out risk management by determining the
recruitment system, selection of workers and a good communication system,
adopting safety control programs, system management, appropriate supervision and prevention. In addition, risk management can
also be done by creating schedules and costs in clear and appropriate plans and
controls and transferring work to subcontractors, providing, and storing
material needs in advance, delaying projects, and determining
exceptions/clauses on payment contracts. The background of respondents in this
study was dominated by those who studied Strata 1 (S1) with the largest
percentage. The age and length of service of the respondents who dominated were
> 30 years and 1 - 5 years, respectively. The position of the respondent
with the largest percentage is the Executor.
REFERENCES
Anwar, M. Z., & Yulianto, S. (n.d.). Geliat Negeri Menata Diri.
Enrico Souhuwat, N., & Dita Saputro, C. (2021). Analisis
Perbandingan Biaya Pekerjaan Kolom Antara Metode Beton Konvensional Dengan
Precast (Studi kasus Proyek Pembangunan Gedung Laboratorium Vokasi Kampus Wates
Tahap 1) Comparative Analysis Of Column Work Costs Using Conventional And
Precast Concrete Methods (Case study of Wates Campus Vocational Laboratory Building
Construction Project Phase 1). University Technology Yogyakarta.
Febriansyah,
H., & Henndy Ginting, P. (2020). Tujuh Dimensi Employee Engagement. Prenada Media.
Hassan, H., Mangare, J. B., & Pratasis, P. A. K.
(2016). Faktor–faktor penyebab keterlambatan pada proyek konstruksi dan
alternatif penyelesaiannya (Studi kasus: di Manado TOWN SQUARE III). Jurnal
Sipil Statik, 4(11).
Kusnindah,
C., Sumantri, Y., & Yuniarti, R. (2014). Pengelolaan Risiko pada Supply
Chain dengan Menggunakan Metode House of Risk (HOR)(Studi Kasus di PT. XYZ). Jurnal Rekayasa Dan Manajemen Sistem Industri,
2(3), 130218.
Laksmana, Y. (2013). Jelajah Jayapura. Gramedia
Pustaka Utama.
Magdalena,
R., & Vannie, V. (2019). Analisis Risiko Supply Chain Dengan Model House of
Risk (Hor) Pada Pt Tatalogam Lestari. J@ Ti Undip: Jurnal Teknik Industri,
14(2), 53–62.
Putri,
I. N. (2020). Analisis risiko kegagalan produk mempengaruhi kualitas pelayanan
menggunakan house of risk dan supply chain operations reference. Jurnal
Optimasi Teknik Industri (JOTI), 2(1), 19–23.
Rahman,
P. (2020). Analisa Resiko Pada Proyek Pembangunan Instalasi Pengolahan Air
Limbah Di Kota Pekanbaru. Universitas
Islam Riau.
Ronny, A. (n.d.). Implementasi Manajemen Risiko Proyek
Pada Pt. Xx Dengan Menggunakan Pendekatan House Of Risk (HOR)
Berdasarkan ISO 31000: 2018. Jurnal TIN
Universitas Tanjungpura, 4(2).
Ruane, J. M. (2013). Dasar-dasar metode penelitian:
Panduan riset ilmu sosial. Nusamedia.
Sepang, B. A. W., Tjakra, J., Langi, J. E. C., &
Walangitan, D. R. O. (2013). Manajemen risiko keselamatan dan kesehatan kerja
(K3) pada proyek pembangunan ruko Orlens Fashion Manado. Jurnal Sipil Statik,
1(4).
Sindy, Y. P. (2022). Analisis Manajemen Risiko Pada
Proyek Pembangunan Talud (Studi Kasus: Pembangunan Talud Kertosari–Kertosari,
Talud Ganevo–Depapre, Talud Bambar-Bambar Kabupaten Jayapura). Universitas
Atma Jaya Yogyakarta.
SoputaSoputan, Gabby E. M., Sompie, Bonny F., & Mandagi,
R. J. M. (2014). (2014). Manajemen Risiko Kesehatan dan Keselamatan Kerja
(K3)(Study Kasus Pada Pembangunan Gedung SMA Eben Haezar). Jurnal
Ilmiah Media Engineering, 4(4).
Ulfah,
M., Maarif, M. S., & Sukardi, S. R. (2016). Analisis dan perbaikan manajemen
risiko rantai pasok gula rafinasi dengan Pendekatan house of risk. Jurnal
Teknologi Industri Pertanian, 26(1).
|
|
|
