FACTORS
INFLUENCING CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE IN JONGE LAKE ROAD CONSTRUCTION WORK, MALANG
CITY
Christiawan Teguh Prasetijo,
Hanie Teki Tjendani, Budi Witjaksana
Universitas 17 Agustus 1945
Surabaya, Indonesia
E-mail:
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]�
|
KEYWORDS Contractor
Performance, Contractors, Supervisory Consultants |
ABSTRACT The contractor is very
instrumental in the success of a project. Therefore, contractors are required
to have maximum performance in carrying out their work. There are various
factors that affect the performance of contractors such as Human Resources,
Money, Field Management, Communication, Materials and Equipment. This study
aims to analyze the relationship between factors that influence contractor
performance. This research is quantitative with data collection techniques in
the form of interviews and distributing questionnaires. The research
population consisted of 78 supervisory consultants for the Danau Jonge road
construction project in Malang , with the total sample being the entire
population. The research data analysis technique uses the PLS SEM method. Research
proves that Human Resource and Money have a positive and not significant
effect on Contractor Performance. Field Management has a negative and
insignificant effect on Contractor Performance. While Communication,
Materials and Equipment have a significant positive effect on Contractor
Performance. |
INTRODUCTION
Developments in the field of construction are
increasingly rapid as evidenced by the many buildings that are not only physically
strong but also have aesthetic and aesthetic qualities. In the construction of a building or other construction that has the desired quality and
beauty, the contractor has a big role in determining the success of the
construction . The success of a project is
largely determined by the role of the contractor, if the contractor has good
performance then the results of the construction work produced will also have
good results. The contractor has a dominant
role with the ultimate goal of achieving the project objectives and getting the
maximum profit (Azis, 2018) .
The contractor is a
person or business entity that accepts work and carries out the work according
to the plans, regulations and conditions specified (Ervianto, 2002) . The contractor is defined as a contractor
or anemer. In general, the contractor is defined as the party responsible for carrying out
all or some parts of the construction work. A contractor has the responsibility
of providing various materials, equipment, labor, to everything needed in
project development issues. Usually, a building contractor is also present to
supervise the construction of buildings and their projects.
In the development
process there are various series of activities that are mutually sustainable
with one another. If one activity is delayed, it will have an impact on other
activities. Therefore, the use of appropriate, practical, fast and safe methods
is very helpful in completing work on a construction project so that the time,
cost and quality targets as set can be achieved (Onibala et al., 2018) .
But in reality, there are still many delays in the
implementation of project work. Delays occur due to various kinds of inhibiting factors. According to
Julifer in Musafaruddin et al., ( 2018) , the inhibiting factors in the implementation
of construction projects come from equipment, design and planning factors,
factors beyond the ability of the contractor, material factors, labor factors,
condition factors and conditions in the field, implementation factors and
relationships work. However, of these various inhibiting factors, it is the contractor who is the key to the
success of construction, which in turn determines the success of infrastructure
development (KEMENPUPR., 2020) .
CV. Meiza Regan
Sakti is a contractor which is located at Jl. Vishnu Wardhana No. C-4RT. 01 RW. 01 Ex. Madyopuro
Kec. kedungkandang. CV. Meiza Regan Sakti became the contractor responsible for the construction of
Jl. Jonge Lake Kel. Madyopuro City of Malang. On CV. Meiza Regan Sakti certainly wants maximum performance. Based on
the evaluation conducted by CV. Meiza Regan Sakti still found work activities
that were not running optimally, effectively and efficiently. Therefore, it is
important for CV. Meiza Regan Sakti to find out the factors that can affect the
performance of contractors so that steps can be taken to evaluate and improve
the factors that cause decreased performance.
With the crucial
role of the contractor in determining the success of a project . Thus, it is necessary to evaluate the factors that affect the
performance of contractors. Performance is a work result achieved by a person
in carrying out the tasks assigned to him based on skills, experience,
sincerity, and time (Ervianto,
200 9:69).� Contractor
performance is the result of work in quality and quantity achieved by the
contractor, in carrying out his duties in accordance with the responsibilities
given to him (Tumelap, 2014; Ruci & Wita, 2019)
According to Adriyanto & Nirmalawati, (2019) , factors
that affect contractor performance are HR, Money, Field Management, Compliance,
Provisions, Communication, Delays & Scheduling, Materials, Equipment,
Quality, Commitment and environment. Meanwhile, research by Yana et al., (2020) states that the
factors that affect contractor performance are 1) Quality,
Quantity, and Cost of Labor, Materials, and Auxiliary Equipment in the
implementation of Building construction, 2) Competence of the
parties involved in building construction projects, both from Contractors,
Consultants Supervisors,
as well as Planning Consultants, 3) Planning Pre-construction and
work preparation carried out by the contractor, both in estimating the amount and costs
to be incurred, as well as the formation of work to be carried out in the
project, 4) The
control and communication system implemented in the project.
By
knowing the factors that affect the contractor's performance, the contractor
can evaluate and improve to improve the contractor's performance. The researcher will conduct a study entitled Factors
Influencing Contractor Performance in the
Jalan Danau Jonge Construction Work in Malang City . In addition, for the
Owner, it can be a means of assistance in monitoring the performance of
the selected contractor or in selecting a contractor.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Projects
Projects are activities carried out with certain sequences that are
logically predetermined and completed within the allotted time to meet
performance standards (Andardi, 2021) . In the series of project activities, there is a
process that processes project resources into an activity result in the form of
a building. The process that occurs in a series of activities certainly
involves related parties, either directly or indirectly. According to Ervianto (2004), Projects
have three characteristics that can be viewed in three dimensions, including:
1) Unique in nature, the uniqueness of a construction project is: there is
never a series of exactly the same activities (no identical projects, there are
projects that are of the same type), projects are temporary, and always involve
different groups of workers, 2) Resources are needed, in every project
management always requires 5M resources namely Man, Money, Machine, Method, and
Material, as well as organization, Every organization has diversity goals that
involve a number of individuals with varying skills, different interests,
varied personalities, and uncertainties.
Triple
Constraints
According to Soeharto (1999) in the process of
achieving goals there are limitations that must be met, namely the amount of
costs (budget) allocated, schedule, and quality that must be met. These three
things are important parameters for project organizers which are often
associated as project objectives. The three constraints above are called the
three constraints (triple constraint), namely:
1.
Budget Costs
The project must be
completed at a cost that does not exceed the budget. For projects that involve
large amounts of funds and work schedules for years, the budget is not only
determined as a total project, but is broken down into its components or per
certain period (for example, quarterly) whose amount is adjusted according to
needs. Thus, the completion of the project parts must also meet the targets per
period.
2.
Time
The project must be carried out in accordance with the specified timeframe
and end date. If the final result is a new product, then the delivery may not
exceed a predetermined limit.
3.
Quality
Products or results of project activities must meet the
required quality and criteria. So, fulfilling quality requirements means being
able to fulfill the intended task.
Figure
1
�Triple Constraint Relationship
(Source :� Soeharto (1995))
These three boundaries are interrelated. This means that if you want to
improve the performance of the project that has been agreed upon in the
contract, it generally has to be followed by increasing the quality. This in
turn results in rising costs. So over budget. On the other hand, if you want to
reduce costs, you usually have to compromise on quality and schedule.
Contractor Project Performance
Performance is a description of the level of achievement of the
implementation of an activity, program, policy in realizing the goals,
objectives, mission, and vision contained in organizational strategic planning (Mahsun, 2006) . Contractor
performance is the result of work in quality and quantity achieved by the
contractor, in carrying out his duties in accordance with the responsibilities
given to him (Tumelap, 2014; Ruci & Wita (2019) . According
to Hamdi, (2012) , Project
Performance is how the project works by comparing the actual work results
with the estimated working methods in the work contract agreed upon by the
owner and the implementing contractor Contractor performance is a result of
work achieved by the contractor in carrying out the tasks assigned to him based
on skill, experience and sincerity as well as time.
Contractors
The contractor is
the person or entity that accepts the work and carries out the work according
to a predetermined fee based on the plan drawings and regulations and
conditions that have been set (Ervianto, 2011) . The contractor
can be a legal entity or individual company carrying out the work. The rights
and obligations of a contractor are to carry out work in accordance with the
plan drawings, make implementation drawings approved by the supervisory
consultant, provide work safety equipment, make reports on work results, and
submit all or part of the work that has been completed (Stefany, 2015) . The rights and
obligations of a contractor are to carry out the work according to the plan
drawings, make implementation drawings that are approved by the supervisory
consultant, provide work safety equipment, make work results reports, and
submit all or part of the work that has been completed.
Factors Affecting
Contractor Performance
There are various factors that affect the performance of contractors Adriyanto & Nirmalawati (2019) research, factors that influence contractor performance are HR, Money, Field
Management, Compliance, Provisions, Communication, Delays & Scheduling,
Materials, Equipment, Quality, Commitment and environment. Meanwhile, research
by Yana et al., (2020) states that the
factors that influence contractor performance are 1) Quality, Quantity and Cost of Labor, Materials and Auxiliary Equipment in the implementation of
building construction, 2) Competence of the parties involved in building
construction projects, both from Contractors, Supervisory Consultants, and
Planning Consultants, 3) Pre-Construction Planning and work preparation carried
out by contractors, both in estimating the amount and costs to be incurred, as
well as the formation of work to be carried out in the project, 4) Control and
communication systems that are done in the project. Khasnora (2020) research states that the
factors that affect contractor performance are Method and Technology, Field
Management, Work Environment, and People. So from the various factors that
affect the performance of the contractor, the factors that influence the
performance of the contractor used in this study are:
Humans are an important component in the organization that will
move and carry out activities to achieve goals. The success of an organization
is determined by the quality of the people in it.
2. Money
Money is something
that is generally accepted in payment for the purchase of goods and services
and for payment of debts
3. Field Management
Field management can
be interpreted as the process of organizing or regulating and controlling in a
work environment which consists of several elements such as human resources,
finance, equipment, etc. as supporting factors for an activity or work
practice.
4. Communication
Communication is the process of sending messages or symbols
that contain meaning from a source or communicator to a recipient or
communicant with a specific purpose.
5. Material
Materials are an
important component in determining the cost of a project, during the
construction implementation stage the use of materials in the field often
results in quite large residual materials due to a lack of proper planning and
control, so efforts to minimize material waste are very important to implement.
6. Equipment
Equipment is a tool
or can be in the form of a place whose purpose is to support the work. The purpose of using this equipment is to make it easier for
workers to do their work, so that the expected results can be easily achieved
in a shorter time and more effectively.
Research Models
According to the
background and literature review above, a research model can be described,
namely:
Research Model
RESEARCH METHOD
This research is a quantitative research type where according to Sugiyono (2019) this research method is used to examine certain populations or
samples, data collection uses research instruments, data analysis is
quantitative/statistical in nature, with the aim of testing established
hypotheses. The population in this study were the Supervisory Consultants for the
Jalan Jonge road construction project in Malang , 78 people and the total sample was the entire research population,
namely 78 people.
In this study, two types of variables will be used, namely (1) Independent Variables, consisting of Human
Resources, Money, Field Management, Communication, Materials and Equipment ;
(2) The dependent variable, namely contractor performance .
The following is the
operational definition of each variable:
1.
HR
Indicators of HR factors refer to Adriyanto & Nirmawati, (2019), including: (a) inadequate work, (b)
expertise and skills of foremen and workforce, and (c) experience and
competence of project managers.
2.
Money
The indicator of the money factor refers to Adriyanto & Nirmawati, (2019), �including: (a) inaccurate price estimates
and (b) the effects of inflation and escalation.
3.
Field Management
Indicators of field management factors refer to Adriyanto & Nirmawati (2019), including: (a) top
management received job information about poor communication and conflicts of
interest, (b) a lack of personnel with experience in construction management,
and (c) a lack of personnel with experience and expertise in management
contract.
4.
Communication
The indicator of the communication factor refers to Adriyanto & Nirmawati (2019), �including: (a) the ability of the project
manager to communicate both verbally and in writing and (b) communication
between the workforce and the foreman/foreman.
5.
Material
Indicators of material factors refer to Adriyanto & Nirmalawati (2019), including: (a) availability of materials according to needs and (b)
poor quality control of materials.
6.
Equipment
The indicator of the equipment factor refers to Adriyanto & Nirmawati (2019), �including: (a) improper use of tools, and
(b) insufficient equipment and working capital.
7.
Contractor Performance
Performance indicators refer to Fatimah & Purnanda (2021) , including: product and service factors.
The data collection
method in this study was carried out using survey techniques
through questionnaire instruments which were distributed to respondents
directly. The data analysis technique used is Partial
Least Square (PLS). Partial Least Square (PLS) is a multivariate
statistical technique that is capable of handling many independent, dependent
and explanatory variables at once. Partial Least Square (PLS) is an
analytical method that is often referred to as soft modeling because it
eliminates regression assumptions. The Partial Least Square
(PLS) analysis consists of two sub-models,
namely the outer model or measurement model and the inner model or
structural model.
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
SEM-PLS Testing
Jonge Road Development
Project in Malang City were
processed with the help of the SEM-PLS program. The following stages of SEM-PLS
analysis are as follows:
Outer Model Evaluation
����������� The Outer Model is evaluated by assessing the value of the validity and reliability of
the research model measurements. Here are some tests in the Outer Model :
1. Validity Testing
Validity measurement includes convergent validity and discriminant
validity. Convergent validity is determined by the parameter loading factor ( original sample estimate ) and the AVE value. Discriminant validity
is determined based on the results of the crossloading
of each variable.
a. Convergent Validity Testing
Convergent validity is the correlation between the indicator score and the
construct score. The model is said to be valid if it meets convergent validity which has a loading factor value of >
0.70 and AVE > 0.5 (Abdillah & Jogiyanto, 2009) . The following is the outer
loading value of the research variables:
Table 1 Convergent Validity
|
Indicator |
Original
Sample (O) |
Sample
Means (M) |
Standard
Deviation (STDEV) |
T
Statistics (|O/STDEV|) |
P Values |
|
HR (X1) |
|||||
|
X1.1 |
0.904 |
0.903 |
0.025 |
35,986 |
0.000 |
|
X1.2 |
0.888 |
0.886 |
0.031 |
28,375 |
0.000 |
|
X1.3 |
0.792 |
0.796 |
0.067 |
11,891 |
0.000 |
|
Money (X2) |
|||||
|
X2.1 |
0.912 |
0.913 |
0.029 |
31,194 |
0.000 |
|
X2.2 |
0.930 |
0.929 |
0.022 |
41,899 |
0.000 |
|
Field Management (X3) |
|||||
|
X3.1 |
0.849 |
0.851 |
0.038 |
22,627 |
0.000 |
|
X3.2 |
0.884 |
0.885 |
0.034 |
26,358 |
0.000 |
|
X3.3 |
0.924 |
0.924 |
0.016 |
59,057 |
0.000 |
|
Communication (X4) |
|||||
|
X4.1 |
0.899 |
0.897 |
0.031 |
28,781 |
0.000 |
|
X4.2 |
0.914 |
0.911 |
0.030 |
30,180 |
0.000 |
|
Materials (X5) |
|||||
|
X5.1 |
0.916 |
0.913 |
0.026 |
34,945 |
0.000 |
|
X5.2 |
0.924 |
0.921 |
0.025 |
36,314 |
0.000 |
|
Equipment (X6) |
|||||
|
X6.1 |
0.869 |
0.864 |
0.044 |
19,840 |
0.000 |
|
X6.2 |
0.908 |
0.908 |
0.027 |
33,242 |
0.000 |
|
Contractor Performance (Y) |
|||||
|
Y1 |
0.862 |
0.860 |
0.048 |
17,787 |
0.000 |
|
Y2 |
0.886 |
0.885 |
0.032 |
27,364 |
0.000 |
����� (Source: Primary Data Processed, 2022)
All indicators have a value above 0.7 then declared valid as a measuring tool construct
funds can be used in research. Convergent validity test can also be seen from
the AVE value. Research variables that have values > 0.5 are declared to
have convergent validity. The following AVE test results appear in the
following table :
Table 2 AVE value
|
|
AVE value |
|
HR (X1) |
0.744 |
|
Money (X2) |
0.849 |
|
Field Management (X3) |
0.786 |
|
Communication (X4) |
0.822 |
|
Materials (X5) |
0.846 |
|
Equipment (X6) |
0.789 |
|
Contractor Performance (Y) |
0.764 |
(Source: PLS Appendix)
All variables have a value above 0.5 so that they meet the AVE
requirements. So it was concluded that the research indicators met the
requirements of convergent validity.
b. Discriminant Validity Testing
In discriminant validity, the Cross
Loading value will be used. An indicator that meets Discriminant Validity
if the indicator's cross loading value on
the variable is the largest compared to other variables. The following
is the crossloading value of the research:
|
Variable |
(X1) |
(X2) |
(X3) |
(X4) |
(X5) |
(X6) |
(Y) |
|
X1.1 |
0.904 |
0.637 |
0.660 |
0.667 |
0.728 |
0.616 |
0.658 |
|
X1.2 |
0.888 |
0.589 |
0.570 |
0.663 |
0.602 |
0.525 |
0.667 |
|
X1.3 |
0.792 |
0.614 |
0.613 |
0.562 |
0.461 |
0.492 |
0.544 |
|
X2.1 |
0.729 |
0.912 |
0.692 |
0.600 |
0.569 |
0.469 |
0.549 |
|
X2.2 |
0.584 |
0.930 |
0.778 |
0.614 |
0.623 |
0.547 |
0.613 |
|
X3.1 |
0.637 |
0.722 |
0.849 |
0.608 |
0.650 |
0.482 |
0.519 |
|
X3.2 |
0.609 |
0.660 |
0.884 |
0.652 |
0.795 |
0.677 |
0.562 |
|
X3.3 |
0.644 |
0.746 |
0.924 |
0.711 |
0.770 |
0.579 |
0.652 |
|
X4.1 |
0.598 |
0.536 |
0.592 |
0.899 |
0.550 |
0.623 |
0.656 |
|
X4.2 |
0.728 |
0.654 |
0.751 |
0.914 |
0.748 |
0.646 |
0.705 |
|
X5.1 |
0.574 |
0.617 |
0.795 |
0.648 |
0.916 |
0.695 |
0.668 |
|
X5.2 |
0.709 |
0.577 |
0.742 |
0.676 |
0.924 |
0.727 |
0.700 |
|
X6.1 |
0.484 |
0.450 |
0.518 |
0.516 |
0.695 |
0.869 |
0.614 |
|
X6.2 |
0.629 |
0.528 |
0.637 |
0.713 |
0.683 |
0.908 |
0.725 |
|
Y1 |
0.586 |
0.519 |
0.500 |
0.612 |
0.565 |
0.676 |
0.862 |
|
Y2 |
0.678 |
0.584 |
0.640 |
0.699 |
0.729 |
0.649 |
0.886 |
��� (Source: Primary Data Processed (2022)
All indicators that make up the variables have met discriminant validity
which can be seen from the construct indicators which are larger than the other
variables.
2. Reliability Testing
a.
Composite
Reliability
Variables that have a composite
reliability value of > 0.70 can
be declared to meet composite
reliability. The following is the composite
reliability value of the PLS test
results:
Table 4
Composite Reliability
|
Composite Reliability |
|
|
HR (X1) |
0.897 |
|
Money (X2) |
0.918 |
|
Field Management (X3) |
0.917 |
|
Communication (X4) |
0.902 |
|
Materials (X5) |
0.916 |
|
Equipment (X6) |
0.882 |
|
Contractor Performance (Y) |
0.866 |
�� (Source: PLS Appendix)
All variables have a composite reliability value above 0.70. Then all the variables are declared adequate and can
be used in further analysis. Reliability testing can also
be seen from the Cronbach Alpha test ,
namely:
b.
Cronbach
Alpha
Variables that have Cronbach alpha
values > 0.6 are declared
reliable. Following
are the results of the Cronbach alpha research value :
Table 5
Cronbach Alpha
|
|
Cronbach Alpha |
|
HR (X1) |
0.827 |
|
Money (X2) |
0.822 |
|
Field Management (X3) |
0.864 |
|
Communication (X4) |
0.783 |
|
Materials (X5) |
0.818 |
|
Equipment (X6) |
0.735 |
|
Contractor Performance (Y) |
0.691 |
�(Source: PLS Appendix)
All variables have a Cronbach
Alpha value above 0.6, so all variables have a high level of reliability.
4.1.2 Evaluation of the Inner Model
Evaluation of the
Inner Model is used to see the direct and indirect effects between
variables. Evaluation of the Inner Model begins
by looking at the R-Square value. For endogenous latent variables in a structural model that has an R 2 of
0.75 indicating that the model is " strong ", an R 2 of 0.50 indicates that the
model is "moderate", an R 2
of 0.25 indicates a "weak" model (Ghozali
, 2016) . The following is the R-Square value
of the test results:
Table 6
�R-Square Value
|
R Square |
|
|
Contractor Performance (Y) |
0.724 |
���
(Source: PLS Appendix)
The table above shows the R Square Contract Performance
(Y) value of 0.724. So it means that the percentage of the influence of HR
(X1), Money (X2), Field Management (X3), Communication (X4), Materials (X5) and
Equipment (X6) is 72.4%. While the percentage of 27.6% is influenced by other
variables outside of this study. In addition, the R-square value above
interprets the
Moderet model relationship between the independent and dependent variables .
The Goodness of fit
assessment can be identified from the Q 2 value . The value of Q
2 has the same meaning as R Square. The suitability of the structural model can be seen from Q 2 , as
follows:
Q 2 = 1 � [(1 � 0.724)]
���� ������ ����= 1 - [0.276]
���� ������ ����= 0.724
����������� The next evaluation in the Inner Model is to look at the path diagram which shows the
influence of the dependent and independent variables. Path diagrams can show
structural equations. The following is a research path diagram:
Figure 2
�PLS Path Diagram
The
path diagram above shows the variables Contractor performance is
influenced by the variables HR, Money, Field Management,
Communication, Materials and Equipment which are described in the structural equation
below.
Y = 0.206 X 1 + 0.162 X 2 - 0.2 46 X3 + 0.270 X4 +
0.278 X5 + 0.294 X6
Hypothesis Testing
After
the data meets the measurement requirements, a hypothesis test can be carried
out using the Boostraping method in PLS. The hypothesis test was carried out by
comparing the statistical T value of the PLS Boostraping test results with the
T-Table of 1.96. The following are the results of Hypothesis Testing in the following table:
Table 7
Results
of Hypothesis Testing
|
Variable Relations |
T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) |
T Table |
Information |
|
HR (X1) -> Contractor
Performance (Y) |
1,546 |
1.96 |
Not significant |
|
Money (X2) -> Contractor
Performance (Y) |
1.057 |
Not significant |
|
|
Field Management (X3) ->
Contractor Performance (Y) |
1.514 |
Not significant |
|
|
Communication (X4) ->
Contractor Performance (Y) |
2.055 |
Significant |
|
|
Material (X5) -> Contractor
Performance (Y) |
2,215 |
Significant |
|
|
Equipment
(X6) -> Contractor Performance (Y) |
2,427 |
Significant |
�����
(Source: PLS Appendix)
Based on the results of hypothesis testing, the
following results are obtained:
a. HR no has a significant influence on Contractor
Performance , because the statistical T value is 1.546 which means smaller than 1.96.
b. No money has a significant influence on Contractor
Performance , because the statistical T value is
1.057 which means it is smaller than 1.96.
c. Field Management is not has a significant effect on Contractor
Performance , because the statistical T value is
1.51 4 which means it is smaller than 1.96.
d. Communication
has a significant effect on contractor
performance , because the statistical T value is
2.055 which means it is greater than 1.96.
e. Material has a significant influence on Contractor
Performance , because the
statistical T value is 2.215 which means it is greater
than 1.96 .
f. Equipment has a significant effect on Contractor
Performance , because the
statistical T value is 2, 427 which means greater than 1 .96 .
Discussion
Effect
of Human Resource on Contractor Performance
Based on the
hypothesis testing that has been done, it can be concluded that Human Resort has a positive and not
significant effect on Contractor Performance, with a T-statistic value of 1.546
which is smaller than 1.96. The positive direction of this relationship shows
that the better the Human Resources, the better the contractor's performance.
This research is not in line with the research by Dewi et al. (2016) which states that if the human resources are good, the construction
service company will also be more advanced and the project can be profitable or
get a good profit oriented too .
The
Effect of Money on
Contractor Performance
Based on the
hypothesis testing conducted, it can be concluded that Money has a positive and insignificant effect
on contractor performance, with a T-statistic value of 1.057 which is smaller
than 1.96. The positive direction of this relationship indicates that the more
money available in the project, the contractor's performance will increase.
This research is not in line with the research of Christiawan & Koesmargono (2014) which states that financial factors affect the performance of quality
construction work.
Effect
of Field Management on Contractor Performance
Based on the
hypothesis testing conducted, it can be concluded that Field Management has a
negative and insignificant effect on Contractor Performance, with a T-statistic
value of 1.514 which is less than 1.96. The negative direction indicates that
the more field management is done, the contractor's performance will actually
decrease. This research is not in line with the research of Christiawan & Koesmargono (2014) which states that financial factors affect the performance of quality
construction work. The research results are not in line with the research of Ferdian et al., (2018) which states that field management has a positive effect on contractor
performance.
Effect of Communication on Contractor Performance
Based on the
hypothesis testing conducted, it can be concluded that communication has a
positive and significant effect on contractor performance, with a T-statistic
value of 2.055 which is greater than 1.96. The positive direction indicates
that the better the communication is, the better the contractor's performance
will be. The results of the research are in line with the research of Ferdian et al., (2018) which states that communication has a dominant effect on contractor
performance. In addition, research by Hapsari et al., (2018) also shows that communication has a significant positive effect on the
performance of construction projects in the city of Surabaya.
Effect of Material on Contractor Performance
Based on the
hypothesis testing conducted, it can be concluded that Material has a positive and
significant effect on Contractor Performance, with a T-Statistics value of
2.215 which is greater than 1.96. The positive direction indicates that the
better the materials used in the construction project will improve the
contractor's performance. This research is in line with research (Nurgiyantoro, 2012) Research Maddeppungeng et al., (2017) which states that materials have a significant positive effect on the
performance of construction projects in the city of Surabaya. However, it is
not in line with the research of Ferdian et al., (2018) which states that material has a weak effect on contractor performance.
Effect of Equipment on Contractor Performance
Based on the
hypothesis testing conducted, it can be concluded that equipment has a positive
and significant effect on contractor performance, with a T-statistic value of
2.427 which is greater than 1.96. The positive direction indicates that the
better the equipment used will improve the performance of the contractor. This
research is in line with the research of Astana et al., (2020) which states that equipment greatly influences project implementation.
However, it is not in line with the research of Ferdian et al., (2018) which states that equipment has a weak effect on contractor performance.
CONCLUSION
Based on the
results of the analysis obtained, it can be taken several conclusion
following this:
HR has no
significant effect and has a positive direction towards Contractor Performance
Money has no significant
effect and has a positive direction towards Contractor Performance.
Field Management
has no significant effect and has a negative direction towards Contractor
Performance.
Communication has
a significant effect and has a positive direction towards Contractor
Performance.
Material has a
significant effect and has a positive direction relationship to Contractor
Performance.
Equipment has a
significant effect and has a positive direction towards Contractor Performance.
REFERENCES
Abdillah, Willy,
& Jogiyanto, Hartono. (2009). Partial Least Square (Pls) Alternatif Sem Dalam Penelitian Bisnis.
Yogyakarta: Penerbit Andi.
Adriyanto, Agus,
& Nirmalawati. (2019). Faktor-Faktor
Yang Mempengaruhi Kinerja Kontraktor Dalam Pekerjaan Konstruksi Gedung Di Kota
Palu. Jurnal Sains Dan Teknologi Peternakan, 2(1), 16�22.
Andardi, Faris
Rizal. (2021). Analisis Penerapan
Sistem Penjadwalan Dengan Metode Pert Pada Proyek Konstruksi (Studi Kasus:
Rehabilitasi Dan Peningkatan Infrastruksi Pasar Tradisonal Kota Malang). Prokons
Jurusan Teknik Sipil, 14(2), 19.
Https://Doi.Org/10.33795/Prokons.V14i2.269
Astana, I.
Nyoman Yudha, Dharmayanti, Gusti Ayu Putu Candra, & Sumarni, Ni Ketut.
(2020). Strategi Peningkatan Kinerja Pengelolaan Proyek Konstruksi.
Jurnal Spektran, 8(2), 179�186.
Azis, Fatoni.
(2018). Perbandingan Pelaksanaan Proyek Pembangunan Lift Barang Dua
Lantai Dengan Metode Critical Path Method (Cpm) (Studi Kasus : Cv. Prisma
Tehnik Gemilang Gresik). Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya.
Christiawan,
Albertus Dwi, & Koesmargono. (2014).
Studi Mengenai Hubungan Karakteristik Dan Kinerja Perusahaan Kontraktor
Kualifikasi Kecil Di Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. Jurnal Teknik Sipil,
1�11.
Dewi, A. .. Diah
Parami, Sudipta, I. Gusti Ketut, & Setyowati, Dewi Suci. (2016). Analisis Aspek Sumber Daya Manusia Terhadap Kinerja Pada Proyek
Konstruksi Di Kabupaten Bandung. Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Sipil, 20(2),
103�109.
Ervianto, I. W.
(2005). Manajemen Proyek Konstruksi
(Revisi). Andi.
Ervianto, W. I.
(2002). Teori Aplikasi Manajemen Proyek Konstruksi.
Yogyakarta: Andi.
Ervianto,
Wulfram I. (2009). Manajemen Proyek
Konstruksi. Jakarta: Graha Ilmu.
Fatimah, Aldina,
& Purnanda, Sabar. (2021). Evaluasi Tingkat
Kinerja Kontraktor Dengan Metode Indeks (Studi Kasus: Pembangunan Gedung Kantor
Ditlantas Polda Aceh). Tameh: Journal Of Civil Engineering, 9(2),
69�78. Https://Doi.Org/10.37598/Tameh.V9i2.108
Ferdian, T.,
Isya, M., & Rani, Hafnidar A. (2018).
Analisis Hubungan Dan Pengaruh Faktor-Faktor Berkontribusi Terhadap Kinerja
Mutu Proyek Konstruksi Jalan Di Provinsi Aceh. Jurnal Arsip Rekayasa Sipil
Dan Perencanaan, 1(4), 174�183. Https://Doi.Org/10.24815/Jarsp.V1i4.12468
Ghozali, Imam.
(2016). Aplikasi Analisis Multivariete
Dengan Program Ibm Spss 23 (8th Ed.). Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas
Diponegoro.
Hamdi, M.
(2012). Manajemen Kinerja Pada Proyek
Konstruksi.
Hapsari, Welady
Pratika, Huda, Miftahul, Rini, Titien Setiyo, Hapsari, Welady Pratika, Huda,
Miftahul, & Rini, Titien Setiyo. (2018).
Proyek Konstruksi ( Studi Kasus Di Kota Surabaya ) Pengaruh Manajemen
Komunikasi Terhadap Kinerja Proyek Konstruksi ( Studi Kasus Di Kota Surabaya ).
Rekayasa Dan Manajemen Konstruksi, 6(3), 207�214.
Iman Soeharto.
Ir. (1999). Manajemen Proyek (Dari Konseptual
Sampai Operasional) (1st Ed.). Jakarta: Erlangga.
Kemenpupr.
(2020). Kunci Keberhasilan Pembangunan Infrastruktur, Pelaku
Konstruksi Harus Samakan Pemahaman Terhadap Kontrak Konstruksi.
Khasnora.
(2020). Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang
Mempengaruhi Kinerja Kontraktor Dalam Pelaksanaan Pekerjaan Jalan Dan Jembatan
Di Provinsi Sumatera Barat. Universitas Bung Hatta.
Maddeppungeng,
Andi, Irma, Suryani, & Oktaviani, Kiki Amarilis. (2017). Pengaruh Rantai Pasok Terhadap Kinerja Kontraktor Di Provinsi Banten Dan
Dki Jakarta. Fondasi : Jurnal Teknik Sipil, 3(2), 75�87.
Https://Doi.Org/10.36055/Jft.V3i2.1633
Mahsun, Mohamad.
(2006). Pengukuran Kinerja Sektor Publik. Yogyakarta:
Bpfe-Yogyakarta.
Musafaruddin,
Afifuddin, Mochammad, & Munir, Abdul. (2018). Faktor � Faktor Penghambat Pembangunan Layak Huni Untuk Kaum Dhuafa
Di 2088-9860 Aceh ( Study Kasus : 1(4), 119�129.
Https://Doi.Org/10.24815/Jarsp.Vlil.12462
Nurgiyantoro,
Burhan. (2012). Penilaian
Pembelajaran Bahasa. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.
Onibala, Etika
Christin, Inkiriwang, Revo L., & Sibi, Mochtar. (2018). Proyek Pembangunan Sekolah Smk Santa Fimilia Kota Tomohon. Sipil
Statik, 6(11), 927�940.
Ruci, Mega,
& Wita, Kristiana. (2019). Pandangan Pemilik
Proyek Terhadap Kinerja. Jurnal Teknika, 3(1), 53�62.
Soeharto I.
(1995). Manajemen Proyek Dari Konseptual
Sampai Operasional. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Stefany, Olivia.
(2015). Analisis Faktor Yang Mendukung Kesuksesan Proyek Gedung
Bagi Kontraktor Di Kota Yogyakarta. Uajy.
Sugiyono.
(2019). Statistika Untuk Penelitian.
Bandung: Cv Alfabeta.
Yana, Anak Agung
Gde Agung, Dewi, Anak Agung Diah Parami, & Harefa, Yandi Kurniawan Kayun.
(2020). Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi
Kinerja Proyek ( Studi Kasus : Proyek Pemerintah Kabupaten Badung ). Jurnal
Spektran, 8(2), 215�221.
Copyright holders:
Christiawan Teguh
Prasetijo, Hanie Teki Tjendani, Budi Witjaksana (2022)
First publication right:
Devotion - Journal of Research and Community Service
This
article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International