Analysis of
The Construction Management Application to Project Success Using Importance
Performance Analysis on Superflat Concrete Floor Work
Darmawan
Pontan1*, Imam Muhammad Fikri2, Dhanu
Setyo Bhekti3
Universitas Trisakti,
West Jakarta, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia1,2,3
Email:
[email protected]1*, [email protected]2, [email protected]3
|
|
ABSTRACT |
|
|
Construction Management Application,
Project Success, Superflat Floor, SmartPls 3.0, Importance Performance Analysis. |
|
In pursuit of Indonesia's equitable and
sustainable development, the surge in industrial city development, notably in
Karawang, has led to the construction of various facilities such as
factories, warehouses, and workshops. Efficient planning methods, encompassing
cost, time, and quality considerations, are imperative for these projects. A
critical aspect is the construction of concrete floors, vital for supporting
diverse loads like heavy vehicles, static loads from goods, storage racks,
and large machines. The ongoing development of the Superflat
Concrete Floor Method, with its productivity and precision advantages,
underscores the need for effective construction management. This study aims
to evaluate the substantial impact of construction management on project
success and to map application indicators on the IPA diagram – Importance
Performance Analysis. Employing both quantitative and qualitative methods,
the research distributed questionnaires with Likert scales to 30 respondents,
including contractors, owners, and design planners. Smartpls
3.0 software analysis reveals that Knowledge Management significantly and
positively influences the success of the superflat
concrete floor project at the Karawang Industrial Factory site. The IPA
mapping places Knowledge Management and Total Quality Management in Quadrant
I (Keep Up the Good Work), emphasizing their pivotal roles in ensuring
project success. This study provides essential insights for stakeholders
involved in industrial development, guiding them toward more effective
construction management strategies for optimized outcomes. |
|
|
||
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
In carrying out Concrete Floor Work
usually uses conventional methods with the implementation of manual casting of
complete human labor, but this method has some shortcomings, especially the
problem of top elevation of the floor surface which has a deviation between
10mm – 20 mm and is relatively not too flat and manpower productivity which has
limits. To optimize the work of Concrete Floor Construction, there are
currently technological developments from various methods, one of which is the superflat floor method
To optimize the above, there are
currently technological developments from various methods, one of which is the superflat floor method
There are several differences in
methods and treatments in the implementation of conventional methods and flat
floor methods, especially when the concrete begins to harden if the
conventional method of finishing the floor surface uses manual tools that are
entirely done by manpower, while in the superflat
floor method
Construction management implementation
includes administrative aspects, total quality management aspects, technology
management, knowledge management aspects, and in the early stages of the
project until the end of the project
In a general sense, Construction
Management is an effort carried out through the management process, namely
planning, implementing, and controlling project activities from beginning to
end by allocating resources effectively and efficiently to achieve a satisfactory
result according to the desired target
The importance of construction
management implementation in supporting project success
METHODS
Figure 1.
Research Flow Chart
Research
Variables
The measuring instruments or indicators
in this study are used to determine the Variables in the Implementation of
Construction Management in Superflat Concrete Floor
Projects (Case Study: Superflat Floor Project Factory
Area – Karawang). The measuring instruments in this study have been validated
by experts in Table 1.
Table 1. Research Variables
|
No |
|
Variable’s |
Operational
Definition |
|
1 |
|
Administartion |
|
|
|
A 1 |
Financial Capability |
Criteria regarding the
financial capabilities of service provider companies in previous projects and
track records related to performance in fulfilling the contracts undertaken. |
|
|
A 2 |
Technical Capabilities |
Criteria
regarding the technical ability or specialization of the service provider
company to be able to complete the project. |
|
|
A 3 |
Experience and Performance |
Criteria regarding the
company's experience in previous projects and track records related to the
Company's performance in fulfilling the contracts undertaken. |
|
|
A 4 |
Managerial Ability |
Criteria regarding
the ability of service provider companies to plan, organize and control all
activities and resources involved. |
|
|
A 5 |
Price Quote |
Criteria regarding the
bid price and details of reasonable offers offered by the service provider. |
|
|
A 6 |
HSE - Health, Safety and Environment |
Criteria
regarding the commitment of workers involved in the project environment in
carrying out HSE principles and HSE programs in the implementation of work. |
|
|
A 7 |
Subcont Selection & Superflat Floor
Applicator / Procurement Method |
Criteria
regarding the selection of Subcont in the
implementation of construction work. |
|
2 |
|
Construction Technology Management |
|
|
|
T 1 |
Construction Technology Management |
Involvement of construction workers during
the process of implementing new technology in the project, especially
construction technology. |
|
|
T 2 |
Development
Management |
Involvement of the project team in
the process of developing construction technology. |
|
|
T 3 |
Construction Technology Performance |
The ability or reliability of the
technology used in the construction process. |
|
3 |
|
Total Quality Management |
|
|
|
QM 1 |
Continous Improvment |
The ability of the project team to
continuously develop to achieve product quality expected
construction. |
|
|
QM 2 |
Teamwork |
The ability of workers to cooperate
during the construction process. |
|
|
QM 3 |
Customer Focus |
The project team works together to
get customer satisfaction. |
|
|
QM 4 |
Leadership |
The ability of Project Manager / Site
Manager to lead a team during the construction process. |
|
|
QM 5 |
Komunikasi dan Koordinasi |
The ability of the project team in
communication & coordination in every construction work process. |
|
|
QM 6 |
Project Quality
Plan / Perencanaan Kualitas
Proyek |
The ability of the project team to
prepare work quality planning according to predetermined standards. |
|
4 |
|
Knowlegde Management |
|
|
|
MP 1 |
Knowledge
sharing |
There is a process of sharing or
transferring knowledge during the construction process. |
|
|
MP 2 |
Information Technology Support |
Availability of technology to support
the process of delivering information in the project. |
|
|
MP 3 |
Knowledge Application |
There is a process of implementation
of science carried out by project personnel. |
|
|
MP 4 |
Developing Knowledge |
There is a process in developing
science when the construction process takes place. |
|
|
MP 5 |
Organizational Culture |
It is an organizational culture that supports
the knowledge management process in the project. |
|
5 |
|
Project Succes |
|
|
|
K 1 |
On Time Delivery |
The ability of the project team to
deliver/applied products in a timely manner. |
|
|
K 2 |
Minimum Waste |
The presence of residual material
produced / Minimum residual material. |
|
|
K 3 |
Product Standardization |
Produce construction products that
have quality in accordance with predetermined standards. |
|
|
K4 |
According to The Initial Design |
Construction Implementation in
accordance with the initial design of the plan. |
|
|
K5 |
According to Stakeholders' Expectations |
in accordance with stakeholder
expectations. |
|
|
K6 |
Zero Accident |
Able to carry out Construction Work
without fatal incidents. |
(Sources of researchers, 2024)
In this study, to measure variables,
the Likert Scale is used, which is a method of measuring attitudes or
counter-responses by stating the level of good and the level of not good
towards certain subjects and objects, as follows Table 2.
Table 2. Likert Scale
|
Value |
Measurement Scale |
Description |
|
|
Criteria |
Code |
||
|
5 |
Totally Agree / Very
Good |
SS |
Respondents strongly
agree with the statement because it is very in accordance with the
circumstances in the site. |
|
4 |
Agree / Good |
S |
Respondent Agrees with the statement
because it is in accordance with the circumstances on the site. |
|
3 |
Quite Agree |
CS |
Respondents quite
agree with the statement because it is quite in accordance with the
circumstances on the site. |
|
2 |
Disagree / Not Good |
TS |
Respondents Disagree with the
statement because it is not in accordance with the circumstances on the site. |
|
1 |
Strongly Disagree /
Very Bad |
STS |
Respondents Strongly
Disagree with the statement because it is not at all in accordance with the
circumstances on the site. |
Source:
RESULTS
Descriptive
Analysis
In this study, the primary data
collection process was carried out by distributing questionnaires to the
project team on Superflat Concrete Floor Work in the
Karawang Factory area – West Java. The questionnaire contains 27 questions
according to research variables and indicators regarding the Implementation of
Construction Management to Project Success. From the distribution of the
questionnaire, as many as 30 response data were obtained that had been filled
in completely. The distribution of this questionnaire is carried out by 2 (two)
methods, namely the first method offline or meeting in person and then filling
in the hardcopy of the research questionnaire and the second method online or
through the Google media application as a tool. In Table 3. Explained about the
recapitulation of questionnaire filling from respondents as follows:
Table 3. Respondent Recapitulation
|
No |
Variable’s |
Respondents' Answers |
Total |
Mean |
Std |
|||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||||||
|
STS |
TS |
R |
S |
SS |
||||||
|
1 |
|
Administation |
||||||||
|
A 1 |
Financial Capability |
0 |
0 |
3 |
11 |
16 |
133 |
4.290 |
0.679 |
|
|
A 2 |
Technical Capabilities |
0 |
0 |
3 |
13 |
14 |
131 |
4.226 |
0.669 |
|
|
A 3 |
Experience and Performance |
0 |
0 |
3 |
16 |
11 |
128 |
4.129 |
0.640 |
|
|
A 4 |
Managerial Ability |
0 |
0 |
4 |
15 |
11 |
127 |
4.097 |
0.679 |
|
|
A 5 |
Price Quote |
0 |
0 |
8 |
14 |
8 |
120 |
3.871 |
0.743 |
|
|
A 6 |
HSE - Health, Safety and Environment |
0 |
1 |
3 |
16 |
10 |
125 |
4.032 |
0.747 |
|
|
A 7 |
Subcont Selection & Superflat Floor
Applicator / Procurement Method |
0 |
0 |
5 |
15 |
10 |
125 |
4.032 |
0.699 |
|
|
2 |
|
Construction Technology Management |
||||||||
|
T 1 |
Construction Technology Management |
0 |
0 |
11 |
13 |
6 |
115 |
3.710 |
0.747 |
|
|
T 2 |
Development
Management |
0 |
0 |
8 |
16 |
6 |
118 |
3.806 |
0.691 |
|
|
T 3 |
Construction Technology Performance |
0 |
0 |
12 |
30 |
18 |
246 |
7.935 |
0.691 |
|
|
3 |
|
Total Quality Management |
||||||||
|
QM 1 |
Continous Improvment |
0 |
0 |
4 |
17 |
9 |
125 |
4.032 |
0.648 |
|
|
QM 2 |
Teamwork |
0 |
0 |
3 |
13 |
14 |
131 |
4.226 |
0.669 |
|
|
QM 3 |
Customer Focus |
0 |
1 |
2 |
15 |
12 |
128 |
4.129 |
0.740 |
|
|
QM 4 |
Leadership |
0 |
1 |
0 |
13 |
16 |
134 |
4.323 |
0.681 |
|
|
QM 5 |
Komunikasi dan Koordinasi |
0 |
0 |
5 |
16 |
9 |
124 |
4.000 |
0.681 |
|
|
QM 6 |
Project Quality
Plan / Perencanaan Kualitas
Proyek |
0 |
0 |
2 |
15 |
13 |
131 |
4.226 |
0.615 |
|
|
4 |
|
Knowlegde Management |
||||||||
|
MP 1 |
Knowledge
sharing |
0 |
0 |
3 |
19 |
8 |
125 |
4.032 |
0.592 |
|
|
MP 2 |
Information Technology Support |
0 |
0 |
4 |
17 |
9 |
125 |
4.032 |
0.648 |
|
|
MP 3 |
Knowledge Application |
0 |
0 |
4 |
16 |
10 |
126 |
4.065 |
0.664 |
|
|
MP 4 |
Developing Knowledge |
0 |
0 |
6 |
15 |
9 |
123 |
3.968 |
0.712 |
|
|
MP 5 |
Organizational Culture |
0 |
1 |
3 |
18 |
8 |
123 |
3.968 |
0.712 |
|
|
5 |
|
Project Succes |
||||||||
|
K 1 |
On Time Delivery |
0 |
1 |
1 |
20 |
8 |
125 |
4.032 |
0.648 |
|
|
K 2 |
Minimum Waste |
0 |
1 |
6 |
15 |
8 |
120 |
3.871 |
0.788 |
|
|
K 3 |
Product Standardization |
0 |
0 |
2 |
17 |
11 |
129 |
4.161 |
0.596 |
|
|
K4 |
According to The Initial Design |
0 |
1 |
4 |
16 |
9 |
123 |
3.968 |
0.759 |
|
|
K5 |
According to
Stakeholders' Expectations |
0 |
1 |
3 |
17 |
9 |
124 |
4.000 |
0.730 |
|
|
K6 |
Zero Accident |
0 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
21 |
137 |
4.419 |
0.774 |
|
Source: (Processing Results, 2024)
Validity
& Reliability Test
The first step in the process of
processing research data before with the help of PLS-SEM is to test the
validity and reliability of the questionnaire given to respondents after
validation by experts. A validity test is an indicator used to determine
whether the questionnaire used is valid on the research indicator. In this
case, as with the research of its predecessors, a significance value (α) of 5%
was used with 30 respondents, then it is known that the value of r table =
0.3494. The results of the questionnaire can be seen in Table 4.
Table 4. r Calculate Validity Indicator
Values
|
No |
|
Variable’s |
rhitung |
rtabel |
Remarks |
|
1 |
|
Administation |
|
|
|
|
A 1 |
Financial Capability |
0.7822 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
A 2 |
Technical Capabilities |
0.7625 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
A 3 |
Experience and Performance |
0.6277 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
A 4 |
Managerial Ability |
0.7156 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
A 5 |
Price Quote |
0.8011 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
A 6 |
HSE - Health, Safety and Environment |
0.6467 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
A 7 |
Subcont Selection & Superflat Floor
Applicator / Procurement Method |
0.8098 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
2 |
|
Construction Technology Management |
|||
|
T 1 |
Construction Technology Management |
0.7697 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
T 2 |
Development
Management |
0.4692 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
T 3 |
Construction Technology Performance |
0.5243 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
3 |
|
Total Quality Management |
|||
|
QM 1 |
Continous Improvement |
0.7375 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
QM 2 |
Teamwork |
0.7586 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
QM 3 |
Customer Focus |
0.7606 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
QM 4 |
Leadership |
0.5298 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
QM 5 |
Komunikasi dan Koordinasi |
0.7064 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
QM 6 |
Project Quality
Plan |
0.7193 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
4 |
|
Knowlegde Management |
|||
|
MP 1 |
Knowledge
sharing |
0.6663 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
MP 2 |
Information Technology Support |
0.7936 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
MP 3 |
Knowledge Application |
0.7916 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
MP 4 |
Developing Knowledge |
0.7033 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
MP 5 |
Organizational Culture |
0.8529 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
5 |
|
Project Succes |
|||
|
K 1 |
On Time Delivery |
0.7495 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
K 2 |
Minimum Waste |
0.7487 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
K 3 |
Product Standardization |
0.8201 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
K4 |
According to The Initial Design |
0.7317 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
K5 |
According to
Stakeholders' Expectations |
0.7944 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
|
|
K6 |
Zero Accident |
0.4688 |
0.3494 |
Valid |
Source: (Processing Results, 2024)
Reliability test is used using the
Alpha-Cronbach formula where the reliability is declared satisfactory if the
value obtained exceeds 0.6. In Table 7. The results of the Reliability Test
state that as follows:
Table 5. Value of Reality Test
|
Reability Coefficient |
|
|
N of Cases |
30 |
|
Alpha – Cronbach |
0.9622 |
|
N of Items |
27 |
Source:
(Processing Results, 2024)
PLS-SEM/ SmartPls Analysis
In line with what has been explained
earlier, in this study a data processing process was carried out using PLS-SEM
analysis with Smart PLS 3.0 software. The steps carried out in PLS-SEM analysis
include Conceptual model, path diagram construction, path diagram conversion,
and model evaluation.
Evaluation
of Measurement Models and Structural Models (Outer Model and Inner Model)
Validity
Test
The validity test in Smart PLS modeling
can be seen in the Discriminant Validity on the AVE (Average Variance Entrance)
value and Loading Factor in each latent variable. The indicator is valid if it
has a loading factor value of ≥ 0.7, if the indicator has a value of <0.7 it
will be dropped or issued
Figure 2. Value Loading Factor Modeling
From Figure 2, several indicators have a loading factor
value of <0.7. The indicator is removed and then re-run on SmartPLS 3.0. The results are as follows in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Value Loading Factor Re-modeling
Based on Figure 3, all indicators have
a loading factor value of ≥ 0.7. This indicates that all indicators are valid. According
to
Table 6. AVE Values
|
No |
Variable’s |
AVE Values |
|
1 |
Administrations |
0,708 |
|
2 |
Technology’s Management |
0,784 |
|
3 |
Total Quality Management |
0,645 |
|
4 |
Knowledge Management |
0,775 |
|
5 |
Projects Succes |
0,683 |
Source:
(Processing Results, 2024)
Reliability
Test
An indicator is considered realistic if it has a Cronbach's
Alpha Value of > 0.6 and a Composite Reliability Value of 0.7
Table 7. Reliability Values
|
No. |
Variable’s |
Cronbach's Alpha |
Composite Reliability |
|
1 |
Administrations |
0.916 |
0.935 |
|
2 |
Technology’s Management |
0.733 |
0.879 |
|
3 |
Total Quality Management |
0.813 |
0.878 |
|
4 |
Knowledge Management |
0.928 |
0.945 |
|
5 |
Projects Succes |
0.884 |
0.915 |
Source:
(Processing Results, 2024)
Based
on Table 7, each latent variable has a value of Cronbach's Alpha > 0.6 and
Composite Reliability > 0.7. This means that all indicators have a good and
reliable realistic value.
Structural
Model Evaluation (Inner Model)
R –
Square Test
The R-Square test aims to measure how
well the PLS-SEM model explains the variation of endogenous latent variables
(variables influenced by other latent variables) in the model. In the context
of PLS-SEM, R-Square can be calculated for any endogenous latent variable
|
|
R Square |
|
Project’s Success |
0.795 |
Table 8. R-Square Test
Source:
(Processing Results, 2024)
Path
Coefficient
Table 9. Path Coefficient
|
No. |
Variable’s |
Project’s Success |
|
1 |
Administrations |
0.267 |
|
2 |
Technology’s Management |
0.040 |
|
3 |
Total Quality Management |
0.306 |
|
4 |
Knowledge Management |
0.370 |
Source: (Processing Results, 2024)
Based
on Table 9. Regarding the Path coefficient, it was found that the path
coefficient value of the latent variable is positive, which means that all
latent variables related to the implementation of construction management on
the successful project have a positive impact.
Significance
Evaluation Test
In
this study by the formulation and purpose of the problem, to determine the
magnitude of the influence of construction management implementation on project
success, statistical testing was carried out, where latent variables were
declared to have a significant effect if T statistics ≥ T table. Therefore,
this model sets a significance (α) of 5% with a total of 30 samples. Then
obtained a Ttable Value of 1.960. The
following statistical values are obtained from the SmartPLS
3.0 Modeling process in Table 10. and Figure 4. See the following:
Table 10. T-Value Modeling Statistics
|
No |
Variable’s |
T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) |
P Values |
|
1 |
Administrations
> Projects Success |
1,574 |
0,116 |
|
2 |
Construction
technology Managagement -> Projects Success |
0,288 |
0,773 |
|
3 |
Total
Quality Management > Projects Success |
1,566 |
0,120 |
|
4 |
Knowledge Management
> Projects Success |
2,174 |
0,030 |
Source: (Processing Results, 2024)
Following
Table 10. Regarding modeling Statistics, it is stated that Knowledge Management
has P Values < 5% which means that the latent variable has a significant
positive effect on project success. while the Technology Management,
Administration, and Quality Management have P Values > 5% which means that
these variables do not have a significant positive effect. Shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Significance Evaluation Test
Source :
(Processing Results with SmartPls 3.0, 2024)
Figure 4. Varied T-statistical Values
Based on the data in Table 10 and
Figure 4, there are varied T-statistical Values, it can be taken that the
Administrative, Quality Management, and Construction Technology have a
Statistical Value of <1.960 which means that these three variables have an
insignificant level of construction management application of the Project
Success Variable. Knowledge Management has the highest value and has a positive
significance to project success of 2.174.
Analysis
of the Application of Construction Management to Project Success
In this study, to find out which
indicators have an Applications Performance Value on Project Success, an
Importance Performance Analysis Test was conducted. The results are shown in
Table 11.
Table 11. Performance Value to Project
Success
|
No |
|
Variable’s |
Importance/ Projects Success |
Performance Applications |
|
1 |
A 1 |
Financial Capability |
0.045 |
71.667 |
|
2 |
A 2 |
Technical Capabilities |
0.047 |
68.333 |
|
3 |
A 3 |
Experience and Performance |
0.042 |
63.333 |
|
4 |
A 4 |
Managerial Ability |
0.040 |
61.667 |
|
5 |
A 5 |
Price Quote |
0.043 |
50.000 |
|
6 |
A 7 |
Subcont Selection & Superflat Floor
Applicator / Procurement Method |
0.048 |
58.333 |
|
7 |
T 1 |
Construction Technology Management |
0.020 |
41.667 |
|
8 |
T 2 |
Development Management |
0.015 |
46.667 |
|
9 |
QM 1 |
Continous Improvment |
0.092 |
58.333 |
|
10 |
QM 2 |
Teamwork |
0.076 |
68.333 |
|
11 |
QM 3 |
Customer Focus |
0.073 |
75.556 |
|
12 |
QM 6 |
Project Quality Plan / |
0.091 |
68.333 |
|
13 |
MP 1 |
Knowledge
sharing |
0.062 |
58.333 |
|
14 |
MP 2 |
Information Technology Support |
0.076 |
58.333 |
|
15 |
MP 3 |
Knowledge Application |
0.075 |
60.000 |
|
16 |
MP 4 |
Developing Knowledge |
0.060 |
55.000 |
|
17 |
MP 5 |
Organizational Culture |
0.088 |
70.000 |
|
|
|
Mean
|
0.060 |
60.000 |
Source:
(Processing Results SmartPls 3.0, 2024)
In connection with Table 10, then the
17 indicators above are mapped into 4 quadrants based on the value of
performance applications with the importance value of project success.
As on the table above, the next mapping is carried out on
the Importance Performance Analysis diagram in the following Figure 5.
Quadrant
- 1 Quadrant
- 4 Quadrant
- 3 Quadrant
- 2 PERFORMANCE
APPLICATIONS
Figure 5. Importance Performance Analysis
Based on the results of PLS-SEM and IPA
analysis that have been displayed, a mapping of the implementation of
construction management indicators on the success of the superflat
concrete floor project was obtained in a case study (Superflat
Concrete Floor Project in the Karawang Factory Area) as in the following
explanation in Table 11.
Table 12. Construction Management
Implementation Mapping
|
Quadrant |
Categories |
Indicators |
|
I (High Performance, High Importance) |
Keep Up the
Good Work |
QM-2 Teamwork QM-3 Customer
Focus QM-6
Project Quality Plan MP-3 Knowledge Application MP-5 Organizational Culture |
|
II (Low Performance, High Importance) |
Concentrate Here |
A-1 Financial Capability A-2 Technical Capabilities A-3 Experience and Performance A-4 Managerial Ability |
|
III (Low Performance, Low Importance) |
Low
Priority |
A-5 Price Quote A-7 Procurement Method T-1 Construction Technology Management T-2 Development Management |
|
IV (High Performance, Loe Importance) |
Possible Overkill |
QM-1 Continous Improvement MP-1 Knowledge sharing MP-2 Information Technology Support MP-4 Developing Knowledge |
CONCLUSIONS
The
research, conducted through PLS-SEM/SmartPLS
analysis, establishes a significant positive impact of Knowledge Management
variables, specifically Knowledge Application and Organizational Culture, on
the success of Superflat Concrete Floor Projects in
the Karawang Factory Area. The identified positioning of these variables in
Quadrant I underscores their pivotal role in project success. The research
objectives focused on evaluating this impact, revealing the importance of incorporating
effective Knowledge Management practices. The IPA Mapping – Importance
Performance Analysis highlights the need to maintain high levels of
Construction Management Implementation Performance (Quadrant I) and directs
attention to Construction Technology Management and Administration Variables
(Quadrant IV). The implications stress the importance of emphasizing Knowledge
Application and fostering a conducive Organizational Culture for project
success. Recommendations include further research on the nuanced interactions
between Quality Management and Knowledge Management, as well as a deeper
investigation into variables like Price Quotation and Procurement Method.
Overall, these findings provide valuable insights for practitioners and
researchers, guiding the refinement of construction management practices in the
context of Superflat Concrete Floor Projects.
REFERENCES
Aziz, A., Pinem,
D., Tubagus, S., Nurmatias,
Argo, J. G., Hermawan, Firmansyah,
H., Putra, A. R., Permadhy, Y. T., Moridu, I., Colia, R. S., Nastiti, H., Hasriany, N., Ngii, E., & Kadir, A. (2022). Manajemen
Proyek (Tinjauan Teori dan Praktis) (Vol. 1).
Babalola, A., Manu, P., Cheung, C.,
Yunusa-Kaltungo, A., & Bartolo,
P. (2023). A systematic review of the application of immersive technologies
for safety and health management in the construction sector. Journal of
Safety Research, 85, 66–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSR.2023.01.007
Cui, W., Chen, Y., & Xu, B.
(2024). Application research of intelligent system based on BIM and sensors
monitoring technology in construction management. Physics and Chemistry of
the Earth, 134. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PCE.2024.103546
Fukase,
Y., Saito, R., Takemoto, Y., & Muramatsu, Y.
(2020a). Construction Method of Super Flat Concrete Slab using High Precision
Height Measurement. ISARC. Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Automation and Robotics in Construction, 37, 639–645.
Fukase,
Y., Saito, R., Takemoto, Y., & Muramatsu, Y.
(2020b). Construction Method of Super Flat Concrete Slab using High Precision
Height Measurement. Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium on
Automation and Robotics in Construction, ISARC 2020: From Demonstration to
Practical Use - To New Stage of Construction Robot, Isarc,
639–645. https://doi.org/10.22260/isarc2020/0089
Irwan,
& Adam, K. (2015). Metode Partial Least Square
(Pls) Dan Terapannya (Studi
Kasus: Analisis Kepuasan Pelanggan terhadap Layanan PDAM Unit
Camming Kab. Bone). Jurnal
Teknosains UIn, 53–68.
Ismaeel, W. S. E., & Kassim, N. (2023). An environmental management plan for
construction waste management. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 14(12).
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASEJ.2023.102244
Liao, L., Liao, K., Wei, N., Ye,
Y., Li, L., & Wu, Z. (2023). A holistic evaluation of ergonomics
application in health, safety, and environment management research for
construction workers. Safety Science, 165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SSCI.2023.106198
Liu, K., Liu, Y., & Kou, Y.
(2024). Study on construction safety management in megaprojects from the
perspective of resilient governance. Safety Science, 173.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SSCI.2024.106442
Liu, Q., Cao, J., & Qin, J.
(2022). Research on Construction Management Based on Green Intelligent
Construction Concept. Procedia Computer Science, 208, 553–557.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCS.2022.10.076
Marliana,
R. R. (2019). Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Modeling Pada Hubungan Antara Tingkat Kepuasan
Mahasiswa Dan Kualitas
Google Classroom Berdasarkan Metode
Webqual 4.0. Jurnal
Matematika, Statistika Dan
Komputasi, 16(2), 174.
https://doi.org/10.20956/jmsk.v16i2.7851
Mir, M., Nasirzadeh,
F., Lee, S. H., Cabrera, D., & Mills, A. (2022). Construction noise
management: A systematic review and directions for future research. Applied
Acoustics, 197. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APACOUST.2022.108936
Muhson,
A. (2022). Analisis Statistik
Dengan SmartPLS. Universitas
Negeri Yogyakarta, 1–34.
Okonkwo, C., Okpala, I., Awolusi, I., & Nnaji, C. (2023). Overcoming barriers
to smart safety management system implementation in the construction industry.
Results in Engineering, 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RINENG.2023.101503
Party, C. S. W. (2016). Concrete
industrial ground floors. In Concrete (London) (Vol. 29, Issue 1).
Purwanto,
A. (2021). Education Management Research Data Analysis: Comparison of Results
between Lisrel, Tetrad, GSCA, Amos, SmartPLS, WarpPLS, and SPSS For
Small Samples. Nidhomul Haq: Jurnal Manajemen
Pendidikan Islam, 6(2).
Putra, N. A. (2021). Pengaruh Pengetahuan Manajemen Proyek terhadap Kesuksesan Proyek Non-core di PT Telkom Indonesia.
Raza, M. S., Tayeh,
B. A., Abu Aisheh, Y. I., & Maglad,
A. M. (2023). Potential features of building information modeling (BIM) for
application of project management knowledge areas in the construction
industry. Heliyon, 9(9).
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HELIYON.2023.E19697
Shah, P., & Chandragade,
A. A. (2023). Application of project management tool in construction for
Planning, Scheduling and Optimization. Materials Today: Proceedings, 77,
773–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATPR.2022.11.446
Simanjuntak,
M. R. A., & Anggraeni, Y. (2019). Manlian Ronald. A. Simanjuntak,
Yuniar Anggraeni. 2001,
309–315.
Tampubolon,
M. P. (2020). Change Management Manajemen Perubahan :
Individu, Tim Kerja Organisasi. In Bogor; Mitra Wacana
Media.
Yogie
Latansa, M. (2019). Analisa Pengaruh
Implementasi Total Quality Management, Teknologi, Dan Manajemen Pengetahuan Terhadap Kualitas Produk Pada Industri Konstruksi Di Indonesia.
|
Copyright holder: Darmawan Pontan,
Imam Muhammad Fikri, Dhanu
Setyo Bhekti (2024) |
|
First publication rights: International Journal of
Social Service and Research (IJSSR) |
|
This article is licensed under: |