Bab 4: Hasil dan Pembahasan
46
Tabel 4-9: The Ranking Order of Importance of CSF-alternatives
The first three CSFs in Table 4-9 represent the three priority areas of important CSFs METOOL, MARCON, and PROCOM. The following section discusses the
research findings. Setelah menganalisis dan membahas identifikasi
CSFs
terhadap manajemen biaya pada proyek konstruksi, maka bagian berikut adalah kesimpulan dicatat sebagai
dokumentasi dan rekomendasi untuk penelitian lebih lanjut dimasa yang akan datang.
4.7. Hasil Analisis dan Diskusi
Academic and professional research normally involves two important activities, a literature review and a field survey. A literature review is the requirement to make
judgements related to the value of references and organising ideas and findings Saunders,
et al
., 2009. A field research is the essential procedure to collect data from individuals and institutions that have no controls, sanctions, and structured limitations Yin, 2009. It
would be possible to derive research findings from both data sources, such as literature and questionnaires. The following section discusses the questionnaire survey category of the
research findings through AHP techniques.
4.7.1. The Evaluation-Criteria
Individual judgements of five experts were considered to determine the relative importance of four elements of evaluation-criteria. Accumulated scores of forty variable
CSFs were weighted into every element of evaluation-criteria. The weights of each element of four evaluation-criteria are used to develop matrix algebra through pair-wise
CSFs 1
Order METOOL
0.154986962 1st
MARCON 0.147329875
2nd 0.007657087
PROCOM 0.130071606
3rd 0.017258268
ROPRAC 0.120985813
4th 0.009085793
DEVFOC 0.120737273
5th 0.000248540
LOCRES 0.111440827
6th 0.009296446
INVTEC 0.111293243
7th 0.000147584
INTBEN 0.103154401
8th 0.008138842
Differences
Bab 4: Hasil dan Pembahasan
47 comparisons. This matrix algebra has been squared and iterated until the last normalised
eigenvectors have shown insignificant changes compared to the previous iteration. These normalised eigenvectors could be said to be the best eigenvector solution and are
restructured in Figure 3-3 and 4-1 and deconstructed on the right side of Table 4-8. In addition, the consistency of pair-wise comparison matrices has been checked for
validating the four elements of Evaluation-criteria, and the result of
CR~0.00 10
refer to Saaty, 1977 indicates that the individual judgements of the experts on prioritising the Evaluation-criteria are considered to be perfectly consistent. The relative influence of
every element of the four Evaluation-criteria to the CSF-alternatives in respect of the Decision-goals Figure 3-3 and 4-1 can therefore be discussed in this section.
A general assumption of 100 total weight was used as the principle to measure the four elements of evaluation-criteria for each of their weights of influence. It can be
assumed that an average weight for each element of their influence is
100 4
= 25. This is the equal weight distributed for each element of the four evaluation-criteria.
Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP techniques for the relative importance of evaluation-criteria refer to Table 4-8 and Figure 4-1 revealed that Project Monitoring
gives a relative influence of 29.13 which is greater than average weight of 25 for ‘project progress and cost performance’. Project Phase represented a relative influence of
26.08 which is also greater than 25 for maintaining the ‘mobilisation of project
resources and construction to
practical completions’ during the construction stage. These two elements of evaluation-criteria provided most impact of the eight CSF-alternatives.
Project Type with a relative effect of 24.30 for ‘commercial building projects’ and
Project Deliveries provided a relative effect of 20.48 for improving ‘construction activity
methods’. Regarding the last two elements of evaluation-criteria Project Type and Project Deliveries, each one provided less effectiveness than the average weight of 25.
However, they are not necessarily unimportant when attributed by these relative measures. Therefore, all four elements of evaluation-criteria and the eight CSF-alternatives are
considered to have important interdependency in order to determine the highest priority of important CSFs.
Bab 4: Hasil dan Pembahasan
48
4.7.2. The CSF-Alternatives
