SHS Web of Conferences 49, 02020 (2018) https://doi.org/10.

1051/shsconf/20184902020
ICES 2018

Risk analysis and strategic planning on bridge

construction works at the toll road procurement
projects in Central Java Province
Hery Suliantoro1,*, Nurul Fitriani2 and Bagus Hario Setiadji2
1
Industrial Engineering, Diponegoro University, Semarang Indonesia
2
Civil Engineering, Diponegoro University, Semarang Indonesia

Abstract. Risk is a condition caused by uncertainty. Risks will occur on

any construction project, including bridge construction projects. Efforts
that can be taken to minimize the impact of these risks are to engage in risk
management activities. This research was conducted on bridge
construction work on toll road procurement project in Pejagan-Pemalang,
Pemalang-Batang and Salatiga-Kertasura. The purpose of this research is
to analyze the risk of bridge development project in toll road project using
Risk Breakdown Structure (RBS) method and then the result as database in
discussing risk response strategy. The bridge construction project has 36
risks that are divided into six groups: materials and equipment, design,
human resources, finance, management, nature and environmental
conditions. Bad weather risks are the higest risk and seasonal risk causing
temporary work stoppages. This risk-response strategy is avoidance. Short-
term avoidance response strategy is to add shift workers, install tents and
add additives in the acceleration of the process of maturation of concrete.
The long-term avoidance response strategy is to evaluate and rearrange the
work schedule by considering the weather forecast report.

1 Introduction
Some Toll Road Projects in Central Java Province which are parts of Mega Trans Java
Project (Cikampek West Java - Gempol East Java along 652 Km) are still under
construction. Among them are the Pejagan-Pemalang, Pemalang-Batang and Salatiga-
Kertasura Road Projects. In those projects, there are bridge projects whose existence is
quite essential; therefore it needs maximum handling efforts, including risk mitigation. Risk
is a consequence of uncertain conditions in a project. There is a correlation between risk
and the quality of construction project implementation [1].
Risks in bridge construction projects may include financial risk, external risk, design
risk, management risk, construction risk, contractual risk, and health and safety risks [2].
Mitigation of risk can be carried out by conducting risk management plans. A risk
management plan is considered as an attempt of analyzing risks that can enrich the
decision-making process and provide additional arguments to help choosing the optimal

*
Corresponding author: suliantoro_hery@yahoo.com

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
SHS Web of Conferences 49, 02020 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184902020
ICES 2018

variant using multiple approaches [3]. Nevertheless, the risk management policies should
be implemented and evaluated regularly to minimize the probability of failure [4].
This study aims to analyze the risks in the bridge construction project at the toll road
project. In the analysis conducted will be known the risks that influence, value, category,
and mitigation of each risk.

2 Literatur Review

2.1 Risk Management

The risks in the construction project are irreversible, but their impacts can be minimized
[5]. An effort which can be done to minimize the impact is to carry out risk management
activities [2]. International Standard (2009) [6] describes 5 (five) stages of risk management
process: (1) Establish the context; This shows the relationship between the problem and the
organization environment, the risk management process and the standard risk criteria, (2)
Risk Identification; The identification process includes: what risks, when, where, how and
why risks can occur, (3) Risk Analysis; Determine how much impact and possible risks will
occur. Then the level of each risk is determined, (4) Risk Evaluation; Risk evaluation is
carried out by comparing the estimated risk level against predetermined criteria and (5)
Risk Treatment; Risk treatment is the stage of development and implementation of
strategies and action plans for the selection of the best response.

2.2 Risk Breakdown Structure Method (RBS)

RBS is an aid for identifying, assessing, comparing, and reporting risk. A long list of risks
can be hard to structure and prioritize, therefore the RBS can be a more effective tool to
breaking down the risks and helping the project manager focus attention on certain risks.
According to Hillson [7], RBS results risk response planning that will be useful as future
project guideline.
RBS is a hierarchical structure of the source of risk, the method of grouping project risk
based on the source that can organize and define the overall risk faced by a project. In
general, RBS will be divided into 4 (four) levels, namely: References to printed journal
articles should typically contain: Level 0 states a risky program, Level 1 is a global
grouping such as a bridge construction project risk, Level 2 is a category of level 1 in the
form of grouping of several risks such as planning risk group, risk contract group,
operational risk group and so on, and Level 3 is a more specific risk description according
to level 2.

3 Reseach Methods
The object of this research is the bridge project in the Pejagan-Pemalang Toll Road Project
(17 bridges), Pemalang-Batang (27 bridges), and Salatiga-Kertasura (12 bridges).
Data collection method used in this research is observation and communication.
Observation method used to get secondary data that is by searching data needed in book,
journal, and other publication related to research theme. While communication method used
to get primary data that is through interview and filling questioner.
Data collection begins with collecting secondary data to identify the initial risks which
are then used as a reference for obtaining primary data through interviews and filling in
questionnaires. Secondary data were taken using the observation method to obtain / identify
the initial risks which were then used as reference in obtaining the primary data. Primary

2
SHS Web of Conferences 49, 02020 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184902020
ICES 2018

data is taken using the method of communication through interviews and filling
questionnaires distributed in 2 (two) stages. Questionnaire I is a risk validation effort,
questionnaire II is an effort to assess the frequency and impact level.
This research uses purposive sampling technique that is sample determination technique
with certain considerations, so there is no limitation related to the number of samples.
Respondents in this study are stakeholders that include contractors and supervisory
consultants. Questionnaire I, respondents are experts / experts who have at least 5 years
experience working on construction projects. While Questionnaire II, respondents are
technical staff from contractors and supervisory consultants. Data analysis performed
include nonparametric test, validity test, reliability test and risk analysis with Risk
Breakdown Structure (RBS) method.
The purpose of this study was to explore the risk factors on the bridge project. This
research is exploratory research. In this study, the factors affecting the bridge construction
project are explored in depth. After obtaining the research factors with exploratory
research, then these factors become the basis in preparing the questionnaire which is then
analyzed to know the impact and its management. The method of analysis used is Risk
Breakdown Structure (RBS). Hillson [7], states that RBS is a hierarchical structure of risk
sources that can define the overall risk faced by a project. After the risk hierarchy is
formulated then proceed with determining the value of the frequency level as a reference in
categorizing and ranking each risk.
The variables in this study are risk factors derived from several references that are then
validated using communication methods that is through questionnaires and interviews. The
variables in this study can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1. The Exploration of Risk Factor

No. Risk Factors Reference
Materials and Equipment
1 Material Shortage Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]
2 Material Error on form, function and specification Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]
3 Delay of Material Supply Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]
4 Material Damage in Storage Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]
5 Material Scarcity Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]
6 Inaccurate timing of material order Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]
7 Delay of Equipment Research Proposal
8 Equipment Damage Winaktu et al., 2014 [9]
9 Equipment Shortage Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]
10 Equipment Productivity Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]
Design
11 Design Changes Vidivelli et al., 2017 [10]
12 Design Variation Zou et al., 2006 [11]
13 Error in Design by Planner Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]
14 Error in drawing/specification Taufik, 2010 [1]
15 Unclear information on the scope of work at the time Taufik, 2010 [1]
of job description
Human Resource
16 Less professional Zou et al., 2006 [11]
17 Less labor Zou et al., 2006 [11]
18 Low labor ability Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]

19 Low labor productivity Choudhry and Aslam,

3
SHS Web of Conferences 49, 02020 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184902020
ICES 2018

No. Risk Factors Reference

2011 [2]
Finance
20 Inflation Choudhry and Aslam,
2011 [2]
21 Financial Failure of the Contractor Choudhry and Aslam,
2011 [2]
22 Poor Estimation of Unexpected Cost Research Proposal
23 Incomplete Cost Estimation Zou et al., 2006 [11]
24 Unrealistic Cost estimation Vidivelli et al., 2017 [10]
25 Late Payment Vidivelli et al., 2017 [10]
Management
26 Error in Understanding Contract Document Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]
27 Document is incomplete Zou et al., 2006 [11]
28 Less coordination Vidivelli et al., 2017 [10]
29 Dispute Zou et al., 2006 [11]
30 Inadequate project information (soil test and survey Zou et al., 2006 [11]
report)
31 Error in choosing implementation method Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]
32 Strict project schedule Zou et al., 2006 [11]
33 Poor program scheduling Zou et al., 2006 [11]
34 Delay during construction process Vidivelli et al., 2017 [10]
35 Many work errors require rework Research Proposal
36 Job implementation does not follow SOP Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]
37 Bad K3 management Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]
38 Poor surveillance and site management Choudhry and Aslam,
2011 [2]
39 Choudhry and Aslam,
Subcontractor failure
2011 [2]
Nature and Environment
Conditions
40 Earthquake Winaktu et al., 2014 [9]
41 Landslide Winaktu et al., 2014 [9]
42 Bad weather Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]
43 Late permissions Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]
44 A less secure project development environment Asmarantaka, 2014 [8]
45 Disagreement interests with citizens Research Proposal
46 Unstable government policy Choudhry and Aslam,
2011 [2]
47 Excessive government approval procedures Zou et al., 2006 [11]

Risk Probability and Impact Assessment is investigating the possibility of occurrence of

some specific risks and the potential effects (negative impacts as well as positive impacts)
of a project that may affect the project's ultimate objectives such as time, quality, price,
scope of work. A commonly used analytical method is Probability and Impact Matrix,
where risk can be arranged on a priority scale for the next step of quantitative analysis and
risk mitigation.
Evaluation of the importance of each risk, as well as the priority of attention to risks can
typically use Table 2. In this table the organization can determine anywhere from a
combination of probabilities of risks and the effects of those riks in the classification of

4
SHS Web of Conferences 49, 02020 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184902020
ICES 2018

high risk, medium risk and low risk. The probability level values consist of values of 0.1 to
0.9 and an impact level value comprising values of 0.05 to 0.8. The probability and impact
of the advantages and disadvantages can be analyzed in one matrix, by defining the good
from each of the risks from different levels [12].

Table 2. Probability and Impact Matrix

Quantitative Risk Analysis is a risk analysis based on the risk priority resulting from
qualitative analysis. In this method, the risk is analyzed to find out how much effect will be
generated by giving a number that indicates the level of risk. The quantitative analysis is to
assess the importance of risk to know which risks are most influential to the bridge
construction project. The equation for calculating the value of risk level can be seen in
equation 1.

Level of risk interest = Probability x Impact (1)

This quantitative analysis should be performed again after the Risk Response Planning
phase, as part of the Risk Monitoring and Control.
Nonparametric test was conducted to know the level of difference of understanding
based on respondent data. The test was performed with the help of SPSS program in the
form of testing two samples using Mann Whitney U Test. Validity test is a test used to
indicate how accurately the instrument is used. While the reliability test is a test to
determine the extent to which the consistency of the instrument used. The validity test is
used to find out if there are any questions in the invalid questionnaire that should be
discarded. While the reliability test is used to determine whether the instruments in the
study can produce consistent data. The testing technique for validity test using SPSS
software is by looking at the value of corrected item-total correlation. Testing technique for
reliability test also use SPSS software by looking at coefficient value of alpha cronbach.
Once the ranking and risk categories are identified, then an analysis of the causes,
impacts and respon of each of the risks can be done. Analysis of causes, impacts and risk
management was obtained by conducting interviews with three experts. Risk response
planning is a process of developing options and determining the most effective actions so
that it is expected to increase the opportunity and reduce the risk seen from the negative

5
SHS Web of Conferences 49, 02020 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184902020
ICES 2018

side of the challenge. The type of response to risk is divided into four, there are : (1) avoid;
the project team acts to eliminate risks or protect the project from its impact, (2) transfer;
the project team transfers the impact of risk to a third party, (3) mitigate; the project team
acts to reduce the likelihood of occurrence or impact of a risk, (4) accept; the project team
decides to recognize the risks and does not take any action unless such risk occurs.

4 Result and Discussion

The analysis begins with identifying risk, followed by validity and reliability test. Data
which is valid and reliable is continued to next analysis stage. Risks which affect the bridge
construction project can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3. Risk Identification in Risk Breakdown Structure

Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

A 1 Materials and X1 Material Shortage
Equipment
Material Error on form, function and
X2
specification
X3 Delay of Material Supply
X4 Material Damage in Storage
X5 Material Scarcity
X6 Inaccurate timing of material order
X7 Delay of Equipment
X8 Equipment Damage
X9 Equipment Shortage
2 Design X10 Error in Design by Planner
X11 Design Changes
3 Human X12 Less professional
Resource
X13 Less labor
X14 Low labor ability
4 Finance X15 Inflation
X16 Financial Failure of the Contractor
X17 Poor Estimation of Unexpected Cost
X18 Incomplete Cost Estimation
X19 Late Payment
5 Management Error in Understanding Contract
X20
Document
X21 Document is incomplete
X22 Less coordination
X23 Dispute
Inadequate project information (soil test
X24
and survey report)
X25 Error in choosing implementation method

6
SHS Web of Conferences 49, 02020 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184902020
ICES 2018

Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Less precise in applying the method of
X26
implementation
X27 Poor program scheduling
X28 Many work errors require rework
X29 Job implementation does not follow SOP
X30 Bad K3 management
X31 Subcontractor failure
6 Nature and X32 Landslide
Environment
Conditions X33 Bad weather
X34 Late permissions
A less secure project development
X35
environment
X36 Disagreement interests with citizens
X37 Unstable government policy

Validity test is performed on the frequency and impact of risk with corrected item-total
correlation technique by comparing the r value of SPSS and r table (37 variables is 0.324).
The variable declared invalid as the value of r arithmetic < r table is a design change with
the value of r count frequency of 0.312. Reliability test performed on frequency and impact
of risk with alpha cronbach technique. Based on the analysis that has been done, the
instrument is stated reliable if the value of alpha cronbach> 0.6.
Recapitulation of respondent's answer to frequency and impact is analyzed and
reciprocated to obtain value of risk level. Based on these values determined the category
and handling strategies required.
Table 4. The Value of Frequency, Impact, Level of Interest, Category, and Strategy of Handling
Level of
Risk
Frequency Impact Risk Risk
Variable Risks Handling
(a) (b) Interest Category
Strategy
(axb)
Material and Equipment
X1 Material Shortage 0,346 0,231 0,080 Medium Mitigation
Material Error on form,
X2 function and 0,263 0,222 0,058 Low Monitoring
specification
X3 Delay of Material Supply 0,392 0,208 0,082 Medium Mitigation
Material Damage in
X4 0,346 0,216 0,075 Medium Mitigation
Storage
X5 Material Scarcity 0,292 0,206 0,060 Medium Mitigation
Inaccurate timing of
X6 0,354 0,194 0,069 Medium Mitigation
material order
X7 Delay of Equipment 0,413 0,255 0,105 Medium Mitigation
X8 Equipment Damage 0,421 0,228 0,096 Medium Mitigation
X9 Equipment Shortage 0,433 0,229 0,099 Medium Mitigation

7
SHS Web of Conferences 49, 02020 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184902020
ICES 2018

Level of
Risk
Frequency Impact Risk Risk
Variable Risks Handling
(a) (b) Interest Category
Strategy
(axb)
Design
X10 Error in Design by
0,371 0,334 0,124 Medium Mitigation
Planner
X11 Design Changes
Human Resource
X12 Less professional 0,342 0,206 0,070 Medium Mitigation
X13 Less labor 0,371 0,199 0,074 Medium Mitigation
X14 Low labor ability 0,342 0,195 0,067 Medium Mitigation
Finance
X15 Inflation 0,225 0,186 0,042 Low Monitoring
Financial Failure of the
X16 0,238 0,271 0,064 Medium Mitigation
Contractor
Poor Estimation of
X17 0,379 0,175 0,066 Medium Mitigation
Unexpected Cost
Incomplete Cost
X18 0,358 0,175 0,063 Medium Mitigation
Estimation
X19 Late Payment 0,433 0,225 0,098 Medium Mitigation
Management
Error in Understanding
X20 0,233 0,193 0,045 Low Monitoring
Contract Document
X21 Document is incomplete 0,350 0,184 0,065 Medium Mitigation
X22 Less coordination 0,400 0,229 0,092 Medium Mitigation
X23 Dispute 0,350 0,185 0,065 Medium Mitigation
Inadequate project
X24 information (soil test and 0,325 0,249 0,081 Medium Mitigation
survey report)
Error in choosing
X25 0,375 0,252 0,095 Medium Mitigation
implementation method
Less precise in applying
X26 the method of 0,358 0,274 0,098 Medium Mitigation
implementation
X27 Poor program scheduling 0,400 0,206 0,083 Medium Mitigation
Many work errors require
X28 0,346 0,255 0,088 Medium Mitigation
rework
Job implementation does
X29 0,354 0,297 0,105 Medium Mitigation
not follow SOP
X30 Bad K3 management 0,296 0,300 0,089 Medium Mitigation
X31 Subcontractor failure 0,363 0,272 0,099 Medium Mitigation
Nature and Environment Condition
X32 Landslide 0,363 0,327 0,119 Medium Mitigation
X33 Bad weather 0,617 0,354 0,218 High Avoiding
X34 Late permissions 0,421 0,220 0,092 Medium Mitigation

8
SHS Web of Conferences 49, 02020 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184902020
ICES 2018

Level of
Risk
Frequency Impact Risk Risk
Variable Risks Handling
(a) (b) Interest Category
Strategy
(axb)
A less secure project
X35 development 0,358 0,238 0,085 Medium Mitigation
environment
Disagreement interests
X36 0,479 0,248 0,119 Medium Mitigation
with citizens
Unstable government
X37 0,304 0,218 0,066 Medium Mitigation
policy
Based on the analysis that has been done and presented in table 4, there are 1 (one) risk
in high category that is bad weather risk with avoidance strategy, 32 risks in medium
category with mitigation handling strategy and 3 (three) low category risk which are
material error in form, function and specification, the risk of inflation and the risk of error
in the understanding of contract documents with monitoring strategies.
Bad weather is a risk with the highest level of risk interest in the high category,
followed by the risk of error in design by the planner which belongs to the medium
category. Bad weather is a risk caused by natural factors, so it is often unavoidable. But the
fact is, not all jobs are affected by this bad weather. In other words on certain jobs, there are
many solutions to overcome these risks. The risks to the project can be eliminated and can
even be protected against the impact of the bad weather. So in certain circumstances, this
risk is categorized as a risk that can be avoided.
Bad weather risk causes the work to be stopped temporarily. Another impact is also the
difficult transportation to enter the project site because the road becomes muddy and
slippery. Handling efforts as short-term avoidance response strategies are addition of shift
workers to pay back wasted work time. Regarding jobs which are not too dangerous and not
at altitudes such as processing iron activity, it will be overcome by the installation of tents
during the absence of strong winds. The addition of additives substance to accelerate the
process of concrete maturation, supported by the use of non-conventional formwork which
can be assembled and unloaded faster to pursue delay in progress of work. While the long-
term avoidance response strategy are evaluation and rearrangement the work schedule
considering the weather forecast report issued by Badan Meteorologi, Klimatologi,
Geofisika (BMKG), so jobs affected by these risks such as casting work, girder beam
installation etc. can be scheduled on a good weather. Despite being the highest risk, in fact
this risk is a seasonal risk, because it only happens when the rainy season comes.
Another high-level risk is a design error by planners that impact on construction
failures. A short-term mitigation response strategy is to find an independent expert design
to conduct an evaluation. The project team evaluates and then discusses with the design
engineering consultant to revise the design. A long-term mitigation response strategy is to
conduct periodic coordination and review with design engineering consultant.

5 Conclusions and Suggestion

The results of the analysis can be drawn the following conclusions: There are 36 risks that
affect the bridge construction procurement project. Obtained 1 (one) high category risk that
is bad weather risk, 32 moderate category risk and 3 (three) low category risk that is
material mistake on form, function and specification, inflation and error occurred in the
understanding of contract documents. The risk of bad weather is the greatest risk and the
seasonal risk, the handling effort are 2 (two) avoidance response strategies. Short-term
response strategies are addition of shift workers to pay back wasted work time to replace the

9
SHS Web of Conferences 49, 02020 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184902020
ICES 2018

wasted work time, installaion of tents for work that is not at altitude, addition of additives
substance to accelerate the process of concrete maturation supported by the use of non-
conventional formwork. Long-term response strategy are evaluation and rearrangement the
whole of project schedule by considering the weather forecast report issued by BMKG.
This research is conducted on a bridge project along a defined toll road project and does
not classify on certain types of bridges. Therefore, it is advisable to conduct research
related to risk analysis with more specific bridge classification.

References
1. Taufik, H.A.R.M, Pengelolaan Risiko Kualitas pada Tahap Pelaksanaan Konstruksi di
Lingkungan PT. X, Tesis Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia, (2010)
2. Choudhry, R.M., and Aslam, M.A., Risk Analysis of Bridge Construction Projects in
Pakistan, Proceedings of International Council for Research and Innovation in
Building and Construction (CIB) Working Commission W99. Purdue University,
(2011)
3. Dziadosz, A., and Rejment, M, Risk Analysis in Construction Project – Chosen
Methods, Procedia Engineering 122, pp: 258-265, (2015)
4. C.S. Pawar, S.S. Jain, J.R. Patil, IJIRAE, 2, 172-176, (2015)
5. A. Nurdiana, M.A. Wibowo, J.U.D. Hatmoko, Procedia Engineering, 125, 12-17
(2015)
6. International Standard, ISO 13000, (2009)
7. D. Hillson, Proceeding of, The Project Management Institute Annual Seminars &
Symposium, (2002)
8. Asmarantaka, N.S., Analisis Resiko yang Berpengaruh Terhadap Kinerja Proyek pada
Pembangunan Hotel Batiqa Palembang, Jurnal Teknik Sipil dan Lingkungan, Vol. 2,
no. 3, pp. 483-491A. Dziadosz, M. Rejment, Procedia Engineering, 122, 258-265
(2015)
9. Winaktu, G., Mulyadi, L., and Hargono, E., Penentuan Skala Prioritas Risiko pada
Pembangunan Jembatan Afiat Desa Kanigoro Kecamatan Pagelaran Kabupaten
Malang, Jurnal Info Manajemen Proyek, pp. 11-19 (2014)
10. Vidivelli, B., Vidhyasagar, E., and Jayasudha, K, Risk Analysis in Bridge Construction
Projects, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology, Vol. 6 no. 5, pp 8271-8284 (2017)
11. Zou, P.X.W., Zhang, G., and Wang, J.Y, Indentifying Key Risk in Construction
Projects: Life Cycle and Stakeholder Perspectives, Proceedings of the 12th Pacific Rim
Real Estate Society Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, (2006)
12. Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge, Fifth Edition PMBOK. Project Management Institute,
Inc. Pennsylvania, (2013)

10