Risk Assessment of Resources Factor in Affecting Project Time.
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 . 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 . 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 . 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 , external factors , managerial and operational factors , contracting and design factors , and financial and construction methods . 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 (Table 1).
The 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 . 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) If t [greater than or equal to] [t.sub.sig], then the variables are declared as valid
(2) If t < [t.sub.sig], then the variables are declared as invalid
The correlation was analyzed by using the formula in the following equations:
[mathematical expression not reproducible], (1)
T = r[square root of n - 2]/[square root of 1 - [r.sup.2]]. (2)
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 [greater than or equal to] 0.6. The significance level for the statistical test used is 5%. The reliability test is performed using Equations (3)-(5) :
r = k/(k - 1) [1 - [[sigma].sup.2.sub.b]/[[sigma].sup.2.sub.1], (3)
where r = reliability of the instrument, k = the total of question items, [[sigma].sup.2.sub.b] the variance of items, and [[sigma].sup.2.sub.1] the total score variance. The variance of items and the total variance are calculated by using Equations (4) and (5):
[[sigma].sup.2.sub.b] = J[k.sub.i]/n - J[k.sub.s]/[n.sup.2], (4)
[[sigma].sup.2.sub.b] = [summation] [xt.sup.2]/n - ([summation] [xt.sup.2])/[n.sup.2], (5)
where [SIGMA] [xt.sup.2] = the total response of the respondents, [SIGMA] [xt.sup.2] = the square of total response, J[k.sub.i] = the sum of squares of whole items, and J[k.sub.s] = the total square of response.
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 :
Frequency index (FI) = [[summation].sup.5.sub.I=1] [a.sub.1][n.sub.1]/5N, (6)
where i = the index of the category, at [a.sub.i]] the weight of the i-th response, [n.sub.i] = 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.
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 . 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
Severity index (SI) = [[summation].sup.5.sub.I=1] [a.sub.1][n.sub.1]/5N, (7)
where i = the index of the category, ai = the weight of the i-th response, [n.sub.i] = 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.
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:
RII = FI x SI, (8)
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 Tables 4 and 5.
Data 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) by [t.sub.sig] obtained equal to 0.514. The test criterion is that if t [greater than or equal to] [t.sub.sig], 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.
The reliability test result for the frequency index and the severity index analyses indicate that the C-Alpha value for all risk factors (labor, materials, and equipment) is higher than 0.6, as summarized in Tables 8 and 9.
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 Table 10.
In 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 Table 11.
In 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 (Table 12) 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.
Generally, 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 (Table 13), 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.
The 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 Table 14.
The 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 Table 15, the top ten variables of 35 risk assessment variables are shown.
The top ten variables are A1, A2, A4, B2, B3 , B3 , A2, B1, B2 , and A1, A2, A4, B1, B2, B3, C5 . 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).
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.
The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
We would like to thank both the research team and respondents for supporting the research.
 M. Clayton, Risk Happens, Marshall Cavendish, London, UK, 2011.
 PMI, A Guide to Project management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK@ Guide), Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA, USA, 4th edition, 2008.
 A. I. I. Dieguez, A. S. Cazorla, and R. A. Luque, "Risk management in Megaprojects," Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 119, pp. 407-416, 2014.
 F. Fachrurrazi, "Project risk patterns: a comparison across three periods," International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 112, 2018.
 A. Mills, "A systematic approach to risk management for construction," Structural Survey, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 245-252, 2001.
 C. F. Gray and E. W. Larson, Project Management: The Managerial Process, Mc Graw-Hill, Singapore, 2000.
 S. M. Sadaba, A. P. Ezcurdia, A. M. Lazcano, and P. Villanueva, "Project risk management methodology for small firms," International Journal of Project Management, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 327-340, 2014.
 A. Albogamy, N. Dawood, and D. Scott, "A risk management approach to address construction delays from client aspect," Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, pp. 1497-1505, 2014.
 G. J. Kikwasi, "Causes and effects of delays and disruptions in construction projects in Tanzania," Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 52-59, 2012.
 N. Banaitiene and A. Banaitis, "Risk management in construction projects," Risk Management-Current Issues and Challenges, InTech, London, UK, 2012.
 A. Vafadarnikjoo, M. Mobin, and S. M. A. K. Firouzabadi, "An intuitionistic fuzzy-based DEMATEL to rank risks of construction projects," in Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Detroit, Michigan, USA, September, 2016.
 H. Kerzner, Project Management, John Willey and Sons, New York, NY, USA, 10th edition, 2009.
 W. Mark, P. E. Cohen, and R. P. Glen, "Project risk identification and management," AACE International Transaction, INT.01.1-5, 2004.
 P. Rezakhani, "A review of fuzzy risk assessment models for construction projects," Slovak journal of Civil engineering, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 35-40, 2012.
 I. Mahamid, "Risk matrix for factors affecting time delay in road construction projects: owner's perspective," Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 609-617, 2011.
 Douglas and Hubbard, The Failure of Risk Management: Why It's Broken and How to Fix It, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 2009.
 A. A. R. Karimi, N. Mousavi, S. F. Mousavi, and S. B. Hosseini, "Risk assessment model selection in the construction industry," Expert System with Applications, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 9105-9111, 2011.
 O. Taylan, A. O. Bafail, R. M. Abdulaal, and M. R. Kabli, "Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 17, pp. 105-116, 2014.
 P. Zeccola, "Dividing disasters in Aceh, Indonesia: separatist conflict and tsunami, human rights and humanitarianism," Disasters, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 308-328, 2010.
 S. Husin, Abdullah, M. Riza, M. Afifuddin, and P. Zalbania, "Risk level of labor factors, materials and equipment on construction projects in Aceh Province," in Proceedings of National Conference of Civil Engineering, pp. 26-27, Atma Jaya University of Yogyakarta, October 2016.
 S. Husin Mubarak and Syarafina, "External risk on construction project implementation in Aceh Province," in Proceedings of National Conference of Civil Engineering, pp. 26-27, Atma Jaya University of Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, October 2016.
 F. Maulina, M. Jamil Fachrurrazi, and H. Amalia, "Cost risk comparison to construction contractors in three periods in Aceh Province," in Proceedings of National Conference of Civil Engineering, pp. 26-27, Atma Jaya University of Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, October 2016.
 M. Nurisra, N. Malahayati, and I. Sari, "Project construction risks stemming from contract and planning factors in Aceh Province," in Proceedings of National Conference of Civil Engineering, pp. 26-27, Atma Jaya University of Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, October 2016.
 Tripoli, A. T. Bulba, Fachrurrazi, and C. A. W. Mastura, "Identify the risk of implementation at construction project in Aceh Province," in Proceedings of National Conference of Civil Engineering, pp. 26-27, Atma Jaya University of Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, October 2016.
 S. Husin, Abdullah, M. Riza, and M. Afifuddin, "Construction cost impact related to manpower, material, and equipment factors in contractor firms perspective," AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1903, no. 1, 2017.
 Mubarak, S. Husin, and M. Oktaviati, "External risk factors affecting construction costs," AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1903, no. 1, 2017.
 M. J. de Smith, Statistical Analysis Handbook--A Web-Based Statistics Resource, The Winchelsea Press, Winchelsea, UK, 2015.
 J. M. Bland and D. G. Altman, "Statistics notes: cronbach's alpha," BMJ, vol. 314, no. 7080, p. 572, 1997.
 T. Jeremias and S. Freyke, "Risk analysis on housing construction project in Manado City," Journal of Media Engineering Sciences Sam Ratulangi University, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 29-37, 2011.
 M. Z. Abd. Majid and R. Mc Caffer, "Assessment of work performance of maintenance contractors in Saudi Arabia," Journal of Management in Engineering, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 91, 1997.
 M. S. B. A. Abd El-Karim, O. A. M. El-Nawawy, and A. M. Abdel-Alim, "Identification and assessment of risk factors affecting construction projects," Journal of Housing and Building National Research Center, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 72-77, 2015.
 Z. Sigmund and M. Radujkovic, "Risk breakdown structure for construction projects on existing buildings," Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 119, pp. 894-901, 2014.
 L. M. Khodeir and A. H. M. Mohamed, "Identifying the latest risk probabilities affecting construction projects in Egypt according to political and economic variables," Journal of Housing and Building National Research Center, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 129-135, 2014.
 S. Iqbal, R. M. Choudhry, K. Holschemacher, A. Ali, and J. Tamosaitiene, "Risk management in construction projects," Technological and economic development of economy, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 65-78, 2015.
Saiful Husin [ID], (1) Abdullah Abdullah, (2) Medyan Riza, (2) and Mochammad Afifuddin (2)
(1) Engineering Doctoral Study Program, University of Syiah Kuala, 23111 Banda Aceh, Indonesia
(2) Faculty of Engineering, University of Syiah Kuala, 23111 Banda Aceh, Indonesia
Correspondence should be addressed to Saiful Husin; email@example.com
Received 24 May 2018; Accepted 11 October 2018; Published 29 October 2018
Academic Editor: Luigi Di Sarno
Table 1: List of factors and variables of project resources [20, 25]. Resources Variable Variables factors code 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 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 tools Table 2: Criteria and rating scale FI . 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 Table 3: Criteria and rating scale SI . 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 Table 4: Characteristic of respondents. Category of Characteristic Frequency Frequency characteristic description relative (%) Position in Director 5 33.3 contractor firm Manager 7 36.67 Other 3 20.00 Personal >2-4 years 1 6.67 experience >4-7 years 1 6.67 > 7 years 13 86.67 Table 5: Contractor firms characteristic of respondents. Category of Characteristic Frequency Frequency characteristic description relative (%) 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 Total of Period of rehabilitation reconstruction 1-3 projects 1 6.67 contractor's >3-6 projects 5 33.33 projects >6-10 projects 3 20.00 handled >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 Building 11 73.33 Roads and bridges 14 93.33 ever handled Water constructions 9 60.00 Average of <10 billion 2 13.33 contract price 10 billion-50 billion 8 53.33 yearly >50 billion 2 13.33 Table 6: Result of the validity test of FI data. Range of t Variable Information code 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 Valid Table 7: Result of the validity test of SI data. Range of t Variable Information code 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 Valid Table 8: Result of the reliability test of data frequency. Reliability test results Factors 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 Reliable Table 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 Table 10: Result of frequency index (FI). Period I Resources Variable factors code FI Scale Labor A1 0.667 Often A2 0.667 Often A3 0.653 Often A4 0.640 Often A5 0.493 Often enough A6 0.427 Often enough A7 0.387 Often enough Material B1 0.667 Often B2 0.653 Often B3 0.613 Often enough B4 0.387 Often enough B5 0.507 Often enough B6 0.467 Often enough B7 0.440 Often enough B8 0.453 Often enough B9 0.493 Often enough B10 0.347 Rarely Equipment C1 0.413 Often enough C2 0.427 Often enough C3 0.640 Often C4 0.480 Often enough C5 0.573 Often enough C6 0.480 Often enough C7 0.493 Often enough C8 0.480 Often enough C9 0.627 Often C10 0.680 Often C11 0.453 Often enough C12 0.493 Often enough C13 0.467 Often enough C14 0.480 Often enough C15 0.480 Often enough C16 0.440 Often enough C17 0.427 Often enough Period II Resources Variable factors code FI Scale Labor A1 0.640 Often A2 0.667 Often A3 0.627 Often A4 0.640 Often A5 0.480 Often enough A6 0.467 Often enough A7 0.387 Often enough Material B1 0.693 Often B2 0.493 Often enough B3 0.493 Often enough B4 0.387 Often enough B5 0.427 Often enough B6 0.467 Often enough B7 0.373 Rarely B8 0.413 Often enough B9 0.453 Often enough B10 0.32 Rarely Equipment C1 0.373 Rarely C2 0.413 Often enough C3 0.56 Often enough C4 0.44 Often enough C5 0.587 Often enough C6 0.467 Often enough C7 0.467 Often enough C8 0.52 Often enough C9 0.52 Often enough C10 0.533 Often enough C11 0.493 Often enough C12 0.467 Often enough C13 0.467 Often enough C14 0.453 Often enough C15 0.413 Often enough C16 0.453 Often enough C17 0.32 Rarely Period III Resources Variable factors code FI Scale Labor A1 0.547 Often enough A2 0.547 Often enough A3 0.573 Often enough A4 0.560 Often enough A5 0.480 Often enough A6 0.453 Often enough A7 0.360 Often enough Material B1 0.653 Often B2 0.507 Often enough B3 0.493 Often enough B4 0.36 Rarely B5 0.44 Often enough B6 0.427 Often enough B7 0.387 Often enough B8 0.373 Rarely B9 0.387 Often enough B10 0.293 Rarely Equipment C1 0.373 Rarely C2 0.347 Rarely C3 0.413 Often enough C4 0.387 Often enough C5 0.56 Often enough C6 0.4 Often enough C7 0.427 Often enough C8 0.453 Often enough C9 0.52 Often enough C10 0.533 Often enough C11 0.427 Often enough C12 0.427 Often enough C13 0.467 Often enough C14 0.48 Often enough C15 0.373 Rarely C16 0.387 Often enough C17 0.373 Rarely Table 11: Result of the severity index (SI). Factors Variable Period I code SI Scale Labor A1 0.650 High A2 0.610 Medium A3 0.560 Medium A4 0.510 Medium A5 0.490 Medium A6 0.510 Medium A7 0.430 Medium Material B1 0.440 Medium B2 0.650 High B3 0.470 Medium B4 0.350 Low B5 0.360 Low B6 0.360 Low B7 0.410 Medium B8 0.440 Medium B9 0.470 Medium B10 0.310 Low Equipment C1 0.370 Low C2 0.370 Low C3 0.610 Medium C4 0.400 Medium C5 0.530 Medium C6 0.410 Medium C7 0.470 Medium C8 0.470 Medium C9 0.530 Medium C10 0.490 Medium C11 0.400 Medium C12 0.470 Medium C13 0.440 Medium C14 0.480 Medium C15 0.350 Low C16 0.370 Low C17 0.330 Low Factors Variable Period II code SI Scale Labor A1 0.570 Medium A2 0.610 Medium A3 0.530 Medium A4 0.490 Medium A5 0.450 Medium A6 0.450 Medium A7 0.400 Medium Material B1 0.410 Medium B2 0.560 Medium B3 0.450 Medium B4 0.370 Low B5 0.350 Low B6 0.400 Medium B7 0.370 Low B8 0.410 Medium B9 0.440 Medium B10 0.280 Low Equipment C1 0.370 Low C2 0.330 Low C3 0.480 Medium C4 0.370 Low C5 0.530 Medium C6 0.430 Medium C7 0.430 Medium C8 0.410 Medium C9 0.480 Medium C10 0.450 Medium C11 0.440 Medium C12 0.400 Medium C13 0.450 Medium C14 0.450 Medium C15 0.290 Low C16 0.330 Low C17 0.310 Low Factors Variable Period III code SI Scale Labor A1 0.490 Medium A2 0.510 Medium A3 0.510 Medium A4 0.450 Medium A5 0.450 Medium A6 0.440 Medium A7 0.350 Medium Material B1 0.410 Medium B2 0.570 Medium B3 0.450 Medium B4 0.360 Low B5 0.370 Low B6 0.390 Medium B7 0.360 Low B8 0.400 Medium B9 0.390 Medium B10 0.370 Low Equipment C1 0.370 Low C2 0.370 Low C3 0.520 Medium C4 0.440 Medium C5 0.490 Medium C6 0.400 Medium C7 0.400 Medium C8 0.360 Low C9 0.450 Medium C10 0.470 Medium C11 0.390 Medium C12 0.390 Medium C13 0.370 Low C14 0.400 Medium C15 0.350 Low C16 0.330 Low C17 0.310 Low 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 7 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 2 0.150 7 0.163 5 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 17 Table 15: Ten potential rankings in all three periods. Risk factors Variable Period I Period II code RII Rank RII Rank Labor A1 0.434 1 0.365 2 Material B2 0.425 2 0.276 7 Labor A2 0.407 3 0.407 1 Labor A3 0.366 5 0.332 3 Equipment C10 0.333 6 0.240 10 Equipment C9 0.332 7 0.250 9 Labor A4 0.326 8 0.314 4 Equipment C5 0.304 9 0.311 5 Material B1 0.294 10 0.284 6 Material B3 0.288 12 0.222 11 Risk factors Period III Top ten variables in all periods RII Rank Labor 0.268 5 1 Material 0.290 2 2 Labor 0.279 3 3 Labor 0.297 1 4 Equipment 0.251 8 5 Equipment 0.234 9 6 Labor 0.252 7 7 Equipment 0.274 4 8 Material 0.268 6 9 Material 0,222 10 10
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Research Article|
|Author:||Husin, Saiful; Abdullah, Abdullah; Riza, Medyan; Afifuddin, Mochammad|
|Publication:||Advances in Civil Engineering|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2018|
|Previous Article:||Effect of Mining Thickness on Overburden Movement and Underground Pressure Characteristics for Extrathick Coal Seam by Sublevel Caving with High...|
|Next Article:||Environmental Urbanization Assessment Using GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis: A Case Study for Denizli (Turkey) Municipal Area.|