Evaluation of Project Work in A Public Service Building in East Java

installation in the main building, lighting in changing rooms, grounding systems, central duct/airline, less power cables than needed and original water source using PAM water converted into deep pumping wells.


Introduction
Currently, the development of physical facilities in Indonesia is increasing rapidly along with the government's promotion of modernization with the aim of welcoming the millennial era. Various kinds of large-scale projects are carried out to meet the increasingly complex needs of society. This triggered the development of the construction industry in Indonesia. The construction of physical facilities requires serious management, bearing in mind the increasing size of the project and the increasing complexity of the dependency between one part of the work and another in one project. In this project, the Regional Government builds a Public Service Building with the location of the building to be built in the western region. This is due to the fact that the population in the western region is far away if they have to go to the city. With the construction of this building, it is hoped that people in the western region will find it easier and cheaper to get services because the distance will be shorter. The Regional Government in this case is building a public service building infrastructure that will cover the western region. In project development, in accordance with predefined task specifications, effective project planning, implementation, and supervision are required. One of the initial stages of planning is the work plan. This plan is made the assets to be utilized throughout the completion of building works must be carefully planned if optimal efficiency is to be achieved so that implementation costs can be reduced as efficiently as possible. Scheduling and allocating the right resources are the main factors supporting the success of a project. In implementing a project, it is common to encounter a project that does not go according to plan. Many experienced setbacks from the planned time. Many experienced setbacks from the planned time. Problems can arise if there is a discrepancy between the planned schedule that has been made and its implementation. To overcome this, an appropriate method is needed to control so that the project can proceed as planned.

Literature Review
In a construction project, planning is the preparation of a general concept to predict what work will be carried out in the future. In planning scheduling there are steps that must be considered, including: identifying existing activities in the project, creating a Work Breakdown Structure, identifying the sequence of activities of a job, estimating the duration of each activity, and planning a project schedule using existing methods.

238
In order to achieve the objectives that must be met in implementing the project, the following are a number of parameter limitations that must be met, including: the project must be completed at a cost that cannot exceed the budget, the project schedule must be carried out in accordance with a predetermined time period, and product quality must meet the criteria and specifications required [12].
A schedule is tracked by comparing the actual progress of the work that has been done during each time period with the anticipated timetable. (Faris, 2017) [2]. According to Hatumale (2016), by using tracking, executors can repress so that it can finish on schedule and be able to avoid incurring additional costs as a result of project delays. [1].

Methodology
This research was conducted in one of the public service building projects in East Java. The first step of this research is the collection of primary data, namely fieldwork interviews with contractors and construction managers, as well as direct observation supervisors as well as secondary data including Cost Budget Plans, S-curves, project drawings and images, as well as regular progress updates.
Data Processing verify the accuracy and dependability of the primary data. SPSS software is used for this test. The quality of the data utilized in the test has a significant impact on how accurately it measures the study variables. The degree to which a measuring tool measures what it intends to measure is known as validity. While the degree to which a measuring device is reliable is indicated by its reliability index [3].
The next stage is tracking, in this case the Microsoft Project application and Fishbone Diagram are used to find out the effects of a problem before taking more corrective action.
The final stage of this research is Descriptive Root Cause Analysis (RCA). This stage is used to offer a comprehensive picture for investigation and clarity that emerges by outlining a situation that happened in the context. According to Dian Rahmawati (2016) [4], the discoveries of the Fishbone Diagram study are utilized to determine the deeper core causes of project delays using the RCA approach.

Result and Discussions
This research was conducted to analyze the existing work processes and to find out the causes of project delays so that alternative solutions can be provided for the delays that occur. Table 1 below demonstrates the outcomes of the variables' validity and reliability tests. [6,8,9,10,11]. The percentage of respondents who responded to the same question in relation to the total respondents is the survey's outcome. Following are the results of the questionnaire in  After obtaining the top 5 variables causing a descriptive approach follows by being used to address the work's problems. Based on the data obtained in the field in the form of RAB, project work progress reports, the calculation of the costs incurred from the work achieved is based on the first to last week's achievements. After calculating the BCWS and BCWP values, there is a difference in the project realization value, which is IDR 6,859,665,122.46. For this reason, it will be analyzed in the sub-chapters below using comparisons as shown in Table 2. Next is the Tracking analysis using Ms. Project. The information needed is the time each task takes to complete and the cost of the work, both of which are collected from the project's initial plan. For the completed-percentage figure, the project progress report's weekly progress totals for each job are used. The analysis starts in the 49th week of August 19, 2019, and lasts until the project is completed on December 20, 2019, during which time there is a setback in the progress of work realization from the progress of the plan. Following is the 49th Week Tracking in Fig. 3 below. The percentage of actual realization in column 11 row 1 is 70%, while based on the plan it is 83.97%, so the percentage of delay is 13.97%. This analysis is continued until the last week of project work is completed, namely in week 66.
The tracking analysis from the first week of project delays to the last week showed that the duration was longer than the initial plan, namely the difference of 4 weeks and the costs in the last week of reporting were greater than the tracking analysis, namely the difference of around Rp.637,831,262.25 From the results of the cumulative comparative analysis of project plans and realization as well as tracking, the week of project setbacks was obtained. In that week, after being analyzed using the Fishbone Diagram, several indicators were obtained that caused a setback in the course of project implementation.
The first stage in formulating the RCA is an inventory of data by identifying the variables that are set as observations. From the Fishbone diagram, careful attention is paid to determine the primary underlying causes of project delays and can be identified by a number of subcategories of mechanical and electrical work ( Table 3 to Table 9).  Why is there extra work?
Because planning is less detailed / thorough in the Feeder cable from the planner. 4 Why is planning less detailed/ thorough in Feeder cables than planners?
Due to the lack of internal evaluation from related parties with experts in planning prior to project implementation. 5 Why is the internal evaluation from related parties with experts in planning prior to project implementation not maximized?
Because current plans weren't planned for or evaluated because of a lack of understanding of human resources.     Caused by a lack of knowledge about human resources in the development and evaluation of current strategies.

Conclusion
The main causes of the evaluation outcomes that can be inferred include an absence of knowledge about hiring processes in strategy/evaluating current strategies, a lack of job experience, and poor scheduling planning.
This resulted in several additional works including: Lightning protection work, insufficient Feeder cables, procurement of Deep Pump Bore wells, Procurement of Rainwater Installations, Procurement of downlights in changing rooms, addition of several lighting installation points and sockets, Procurement of Grounding and Ducting.
From this, alternative solutions or suggestions can be provided that can be used to anticipate the emergence of setbacks in the work, namely by increasing talent prospective or planners' proficiency in planning tasks.