Widha Ardhiansyah, Hanie Teki Tjendani, Budi Witjaksana
Universitas 17 Agustus 1945
Surabaya, Indonesia
E-mail:
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]�
|
KEYWORDS Quality
Management, Environmental Management, Safety & Health Management,
Stakeholder Satisfaction |
ABSTRACT Contractors have a major role
in the implementation of development projects. Therefore, it is necessary to
evaluate the contractor's performance by related Stakeholders regarding the
results and work processes carried out in order to meet Stakeholder
satisfaction . This study aims to find the influence of contractor
performance factors in the form of Quality Management, Environmental
Management and Safety & Health Management on Stakeholder Satisfaction in
the Malang City Rehabilitation Construction Expenditure Project. This
research is a quantitative research with data collection methods in the form
of interviews and questionnaires. The population of this research is Stakeholders
in the Malang City Rehabilitation Construction Expenditure Project with a
total sample of 45 people. The research data analysis technique uses the PLS
SEM method. Research proves that Quality Management has no significant effect
on Stakeholder satisfaction, while Environmental and Safety & Health
management has a significant effect on Stakeholder satisfaction. |
INTRODUCTION
A contractor is a person or entity that accepts work and carries out
work according to a predetermined fee based on a drawing plan and regulations
and predetermined conditions (Ervianto, 2015). In every construction project, contractors are required
to carry out work effectively
and efficiently and with high quality . There is a crucial role of the Contractor in
carrying out the work , Stakeholders
need to
periodically evaluate the contractor's performance.
A project is
defined as a series of unique activities that are interrelated to achieve a
certain result and are carried out within a certain period of time (Ihwanudin, 2017). Projects are activities carried out with certain sequences that are logically
predetermined and completed within the allotted time to meet performance standards (Andardi, 2021). �The project is temporary
where if the project development goals have been achieved then the project will
be stopped.
Performance evaluation is a performance
appraisal , a process used by leaders to determine whether an employee is
doing his job in accordance with his duties and responsibilities (Mangkunegara, 2012) .
Performance evaluation is a method and
process of assessing the implementation of the duties of members of a company
or organization according to established performance standards or goals (Hermawan et al., 2020). The purpose of
performance evaluation is to provide an assessment of the results and work processes carried out by
the contractor so that it can be determined whether the work has been carried
out in accordance with established standards or not .
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). The achievement of project performance according to plan can increase Stakeholder satisfaction . Good
construction project performance can produce quality project
products.
Satisfaction is a person's feeling of
pleasure or disappointment that arises after comparing the performance of the
product that is thought of against the expected performance. While Stakeholders are every
group inside or outside the company that has a role in determining the success
of a company. So the notion of Stakeholder Satisfaction is the level of group or individual satisfaction as
measured by comparing the results obtained with the objectives of a plan, which
is also influenced by the point of view of each Stakeholder (Trisnawati et al., 2018).
There
are several factors that affect Stakeholder Satisfaction, namely the
implementation of Quality management, good Environment and Safety & Health will cause
Project Performance to be carried out well too. According to Trisnawati et al., (2018) Performance can be
measured based on several indicators including: cost, quality, time,
environmental management and OSH management, but in this study 3 indicators
were used, namely Quality Management, Environmental Management and OSH
Management. Quality Management is a management
system that promotes something as a business strategy that is oriented towards customer satisfaction by
involving customers and all members of the organization (Karyawati, 2013) . While Environmental Management is a
comprehensive activity that includes the implementation of activities,
observation of activities/monitoring to prevent pollution of water, soil, air
and habitat and biodiversity conservation. Meanwhile, Occupational Safety and Health Management is
an
activity that is part of the management system in a particular company or
organization with the aim of implementing Safety & Health (Saputro, 2022) .
Stakeholder dissatisfaction with the
implementation of a project has made this research process even more important
to carry out. Stakeholder dissatisfaction that occurs will hinder the
acceptance of work or the next project from the same stakeholder or not
for the contractor. Then researchers will conduct research to analyze the
performance factors of contractors that affect stakeholder satisfaction . The research will use Structural Equation Modeling analysis
with the Partial Least Square method .
LITERATURE REVIEW
Project
Projects are activities carried out with certain
sequences that are logically predetermined and completed
within the allotted time to meet performance standards (Andardi, 2021) . A project is an activity carried out to achieve
certain goals and objectives, which in the process are limited by the time and
resources required and certain other requirements. According to Dimyati & Nurjamanuddin (2014) , there are several similarities
or characteristics of a project, including: 1)
Setting goals, 2) A defined life span from start to finish , 3) Involving
several departments and professionals, 4) Doing something that has not been been done before and 5) Time, cost and specific needs . In addition, according to Malik (2010) , the characteristics of a project are 1) One cycle
system , 2) It is dynamic, 3) There is only one
activity without repetition for similar activities, 4) Limited by time, cost,
and certain quality, 5 ) Has many
interrelated activities , 6) Involves a
wide variety of resources, expertise, skills, and technology and 7) Influenced
by environmental factors .
Contractors
The contractor is a
component of the project team that accepts and at the same time carries out the
implementation of construction work in accordance with the budget provided and
the predetermined time schedule as well as the technical requirements required
in the specifications (Azis et al., 2016) . A
contractor is defined as a service provider for individuals or business
entities who are declared experts, professionals in the field of construction
services, who are able to carry out their activities to realize a planning
result into a building form or other physical form and are bound by a contract
to complete the construction work. In
general, contractors are people whose work is bound by a contract where their
services are to help those who do not have enough time to build a construction
project.
Contractor Project Performance
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.
According to Trisnawati et al., (2018) , performance
can be measured based on several indicators including 1) Cost, 2) Quality,
3) Time, 4) Environmental
management and 5) Safety & Health Management .
Quality Management
Quality Management is a management system that adopts something as a
business strategy that is oriented to customer satisfaction by involving
customers and all members of the organization (Karyawati, 2013) . Quality management is an action
taken to maintain the level of quality desired by the company. This action
includes a series of other activities such as determining quality standards,
necessary regulations, and other aspects that can determine the quality of
products or services. The quality management standard commonly used is the ISO
9001:2015 Quality Management System. Project quality management consists of
: 1 ) Quality Planning , Quality Assurance and Quality
Control.
Environmental Management
Environmental Management is an action taken to manage the surrounding
environment so that it can be sustainable. Environmental management are aspects
of the overall management function that determine and lead to the
implementation of environmental policies (Assa, 2021) . According to ISO 14001:2015 in Amaeci, (2021) , an Environmental
Management System (EMS) is a tool for managing the impact of an organization's
activities on the environment. This provides a structured approach to planning
and implementing environmental protection measures. An environmental management
system is a systems used by companies to manage the environment.
Management of Occupational
Safety and Health
Occupational Safety and Health Management is an effort made to create
a safe and healthy work process that protects workers, companies, the
environment and the surrounding community from work accidents. The role of OSH
management is to prevent and reduce the risk of industrial accidents (Trisnawati et al., 2018) . The implementation of OSH management should
not be considered as an activity that costs a lot of money, but OSH management
is an activity that can provide long-term benefits for the company. According to Rachmawati in Fajri et al., (2017) "Occupational safety and
health as an effort to prevent and eradicate disease and1 work-related
accidents, maintain and improve the health and nutrition of workers, care for
and enhance efficiency and power of Job Satisfaction Human labor employees,
eradication of work fatigue, multiplier the excitement and enjoyment of work. The environmental
management standard that is commonly used is the ISO 45001:2018 Management System.
Performance Evaluation
Performance
appraisal is an attempt to identify, measure and manage the work performed by
employees (HR) in an organizational/company environment (Nawawi, 2011:236) . According
to Simanjuntak (2005) , performance
appraisal is a method and process of assessing the performance of a person or
group of people or a work unit within a company or organization against
predetermined performance criteria or objectives. Performance appraisal is the process
of evaluating employee job performance according to a set of criteria and then
communicating with them (Mathis & Jackson, 2009) .
2.7 Stakeholder Satisfaction
Satisfaction
is the level of one's feelings after comparing perceived performance or results
compared to expectations (Tjiptono, 2016: 312) . Meanwhile Stakeholders are every group inside
or outside the company that has a role in determining the success of a company.
Stakeholder
satisfaction is the level of group or
individual satisfaction that is measured by comparing the results that have
been obtained with the objectives of a plan, which is also influenced by the
point of view of each stakeholder (Trisnawati et al., 2018). Stakeholder satisfaction is the key in creating loyalty and sustainability of
cooperation. Stakeholder satisfaction
assessment is the suitability of attitudes and competencies owned, mastered,
and understood by workers (Bahri & Sada, 2019) . Meanwhile, according to Armiady, (2015) Stakeholder satisfaction is the feelings of pleasure or
disappointment of Stakeholders as a
result of a comparison between perceived and expected performance quality.
Influence Relationship Between
Variables
Influence of Quality Management on Stakeholder Decisions
Study Sahlan, (2017) explains that service quality must be
maintained and even improved by collaborating with other institutions or
institutions that can provide training in the form of quality services so that
stakeholder satisfaction increases. So it can be interpreted that the better the contractor's performance
in quality management, the higher the stakeholder satisfaction. Through quality
management, stakeholders can evaluate the process and results of work carried
out by contractors against predetermined quality standards.
The Influence of Environmental
Management on Stakeholder Decisions
Study Trisnawati et al., (2018) explained that environmental management has a positive impact on
stakeholder satisfaction. This means that when environmental management
performance increases, stakeholder satisfaction also increases. With the
implementation of environmental management, stakeholders can assess how the
construction process and results are carried out in accordance with existing
environmental quality standards. It is a measure to comply with environmental
laws and regulations and a way for companies to support sustainable natural
development.
Influence of OSH Management on Stakeholder Decisions
Findings of
Trisnawati et al., (2018) shows that OSH management has a positive
impact on stakeholder satisfaction. This means that by improving the
performance of Safety & Health management, stakeholder satisfaction will
also increase. The existence of Safety & Health management is a preventive work to prevent
accidents and other losses in the workplace. Safety & Health management that is carried out properly can
provide assurance to stakeholders that the work carried out does not cause
casualties and is in accordance with existing safety standards.
Based on the background that has been described
and the literature review, a research model can be created to demonstrate a
research mindset. The following is the research model in this study:
�Research Model
RESEARCH METHOD
This type of research uses a quantitative
approach to the interview method. The quantitative method is used because it is
in accordance with scientific principles, namely specific, objective,
structured and systematic through a questionnaire (Sugiyono, 2019: 7) . The population of this research is the Construction Stakeholders in
the Malang City Rehabilitation Construction Expenditures project totaling 48
people. While the number of
samples used in this study is the entire population, namely as many as 48
people . The variables used in the study consist of two, namely: 1) Independent
Variables, consisting of Quality Management, Environmental Management and Safety & Health
Management and 2) Dependent Variable, namely Stakeholder Satisfaction .
Quality Management
variable indicators are 1) Quality Planning (Quality Planning), 2)
Quality Assurance ( Quality Assurance )
and 3 ) Quality Control / quality (Quality
Control). Environmental Management variable indicators are
1) Lighting in the workplace, 2) Temperature in the workplace, 3)
Humidity, 4) Air circulation in the workplace, 5) Noise in the workplace, 6) Mechanical vibration, 7) Color layout in the workplace work, 8) Safety
at work, 9) Relations between superiors and subordinates and 10) Relationships
among colleagues . Safety & Health Management indicators include 1) Health financing, 2) Health services, 3)
Equipment, 4) Procedures, 5) Storage of goods, 6) Work authority and 7) Negligence . Stakeholder Satisfaction
variable indicators are 1) Product Quality, 2) Service Quality, 3) Emotional, 4) Price and 5) Cost.
Research data analysis
technique using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis is one of the techniques of
multivariate analysis used to test theories about a set of indicators on a
number of variables significantly. In this study, the
SEM analysis used is Partial Least Square
(PLS) with a calculation process that will be managed by the Smart PLS application. PLS is able to
thoroughly analyze the relationship between the variables contained in this
study. The software that researchers use is SmartPLS 3.0.
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
SEM-PLS Testing
PLS-SEM testing is divided into 2 types of measurement, namely
the Inner and Outer Models. The following tests each model, namely:
Outer Model Evaluation
Evaluation of the
measurement model or measurement outer model aims to find out the relationship
between latent variables and their indicators or the outer model is also
defined to find out how each indicator relates to its latent variables (Fordian & Ramadiawati, 2020)
. The Outer Model test is divided into 2 stages, namely the Validity
Test and the Reliability Test.
1.
Validity Testing
In testing Validity divided into 2 types, namely
Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity. The following is a discussion of
each validity test:
a. Convergent Validity Testing
Measuring the value of convergent validity can
be seen from the correlation between the indicator score and the construct
score ( loading factor ) with the
criterion of a p-value if <0.05 is considered significant (Widianto & Aryanto, 2018) . The following are the
results of convergent validity testing for each research indicator, namely:
Outer
Loading
|
Variable |
Indicator |
Original Sample (O) |
P Values |
Information |
||
|
Results |
Parameter |
Results |
Parameter |
|||
|
Quality Management (X1) |
X1.1 |
0.823 |
>0.6 |
0.000 |
< 0.05 |
Valid |
|
X1.2 |
0.915 |
|||||
|
X1.3 |
0.786 |
|||||
|
Environmental Management (X2) |
X2.1 |
0.676 |
>0.6 |
0.000 |
< 0.05 |
Valid |
|
X2.2 |
0.890 |
|||||
|
X2.3 |
0.791 |
|||||
|
X2.4 |
0.770 |
|||||
|
X2.5 |
0.814 |
|||||
|
X2.6 |
0.763 |
|||||
|
X2.7 |
0.860 |
|||||
|
X2.8 |
0.827 |
|||||
|
X2.9 |
0.667 |
|||||
|
X2.10 |
0.805 |
|||||
|
Safety & Health Management (X3) |
X3.1 |
0.854 |
>0.6 |
0.000 |
< 0.05 |
|
|
X3.2 |
0.666 |
Valid |
||||
|
X3.3 |
0.875 |
|||||
|
X3.4 |
0.685 |
|||||
|
X3.5 |
0.845 |
|||||
|
X3.6 |
0.865 |
|||||
|
X3.7 |
0.798 |
|||||
|
Stakeholder Satisfaction (Y) |
Y1 |
0.761 |
>0.6 |
0.000 |
< 0.05 |
Valid |
|
Y2 |
0.896 |
|||||
|
Y3 |
0.818 |
|||||
|
Y4 |
0.827 |
|||||
|
Y5 |
0.881 |
|||||
(Source: Primary
Data Processed, 2022)
Loading model
indicators have an Original Sample (O) value greater than 0.60 and a p value smaller than 0.5, meaning that
the construct is acceptable . The next step to evaluate convergent validity apart from being seen
from the loading factor, can be seen from the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value which is said to be valid if
the value is more than 0.50.
AVE Values
|
Variable |
AVE |
Parameter |
Results |
|
Quality Management (X1) |
0.711 |
0.5 |
Valid |
|
Environmental
Management (X2) |
0.623 |
||
|
Safety & Health
Management (X3) |
0.644 |
||
|
Stakeholder Satisfaction (Y) |
0.702 |
Source: Primary Data Processed (2022)
In the table above it can be seen that the AVE value of
all variables has a value greater than 0.50, which means that the value is
valid and meets the requirements for the AVE value.
b.
Discriminant Validity Testing
Discriminant validity can be carried out in two stages,
namely comparing the results of cross loading and looking at the results of
AVE. In SmartPLS, cross loading is represented in cross validation. The
indicator can be said to be valid if the results of the comparison of the
variable loading values are the greatest compared to other variables.
Cross
Loading
|
Indicator |
Quality management (X1) |
Environmental Management (X2) |
Safety & Health Management (X3) |
Stakeholder
Satisfaction
(X4) |
|
X1.1 |
0.823 |
0.708 |
0.662 |
0.670 |
|
X1.2 |
0.915 |
0.616 |
0.642 |
0.686 |
|
X1.3 |
0.786 |
0.433 |
0.434 |
0.489 |
|
X2.1 |
0.557 |
0.676 |
0.641 |
0.658 |
|
X2.2 |
0.574 |
0.890 |
0.697 |
0.682 |
|
X2.3 |
0.580 |
0.791 |
0.526 |
0.654 |
|
X2.4 |
0.483 |
0.770 |
0.525 |
0.542 |
|
X2.5 |
0.708 |
0.814 |
0.754 |
0.717 |
|
X2.6 |
0.380 |
0.763 |
0.590 |
0.658 |
|
X2.7 |
0.575 |
0.860 |
0.680 |
0.742 |
|
X2.8 |
0.547 |
0.827 |
0.642 |
0.692 |
|
X2.9 |
0.609 |
0.667 |
0.569 |
0.506 |
|
X2.10 |
0.727 |
0.805 |
0.725 |
0.579 |
|
X3.1 |
0.609 |
0.693 |
0.854 |
0.646 |
|
X3.2 |
0.472 |
0.483 |
0.666 |
0.470 |
|
X3.3 |
0.622 |
0.732 |
0.875 |
0.768 |
|
X3.4 |
0.585 |
0.668 |
0.685 |
0.616 |
|
X3.5 |
0.663 |
0.669 |
0.845 |
0.706 |
|
X3.6 |
0.470 |
0.680 |
0.865 |
0.692 |
|
X3.7 |
0.510 |
0.597 |
0.798 |
0.702 |
|
Y1 |
0.449 |
0.612 |
0.667 |
0.761 |
|
Y2 |
0.684 |
0.838 |
0.785 |
0.896 |
|
Y3 |
0.644 |
0.571 |
0.597 |
0.818 |
|
Y4 |
0.679 |
0.595 |
0.657 |
0.827 |
|
Y5 |
0.639 |
0.853 |
0.744 |
0.881 |
Source: Primary Data
Processed (2022)
Based
on the table above, it can be concluded that the correlation of latent
variables with indicators is greater than the size of the latent variables.
This shows that the latent construct in a block is better than other block
sizes. In addition, the cross loading value in one variable is more than 0.50.
This shows that the cross loading analysis does not have discriminant validity
problems.
2. Reliability Testing
There are several tests in the Reliability test,
namely the Composite Reliability Test and Cronbach
Alpha . According to Ghozali (2016), a variable can be declared to meet composite
reliability if it has a composite reliability value of > 0.6. In addition, a
variable can be declared reliable or meets cronbach's alpha if it has a
cronbach's alpha value > 0.7 (Ekawati, 2020) . The following are the results of the Composite Reliability and Cronbach
Alpha tests, namely:
Reliability Testing
|
Variable |
Composite Reliability |
Parameter |
Cronbach Alpha |
Parameter |
Ket. |
|
Quality Management (X1) |
0.880 |
0.6 |
0.797 |
0.7 |
Valid |
|
Environmental
Management (X2) |
0.943 |
0.932 |
|||
|
Safety & Health
Management (X3) |
0.926 |
0.6 |
0.906 |
0.7 |
Valid |
|
Stakeholder Satisfaction (Y) |
0.922 |
0.894 |
Source: Primary Data
Processed (2022)
Based on the table above, it can be seen that the
calculation results on composite reliability and Cronbach Alpha for all
constructs are worth the required parameters. This shows that respondents are
consistent in answering questions, so it can be concluded that all constructs
have a good level of reliability.
Evaluation of the Inner Model
inner model can be evaluated
with the Coefficient of Determination R2 (RSquare ) and Predictive
Relevance Q2 (Q-Square ).
The following is a discussion of each test:
1. Coefficient of Determination (R-Square) R 2
There are 3 dependent variables that are
influenced by other variables, namely Stakeholder
Satisfaction (Y) which is influenced by Quality Management (X1),
Environmental Management (X2), and Safety & Health Management (X3). Evaluation of the
Inner Model begins by looking at the R-Square value. For endogenous latent
variables in the structural model which
has an R2 of 0.75 indicating that the model is "strong", R2
of 0.50 indicates that the model is "moderate", R2 of
0.25 indicates that the model is "weak" (Ghozali , 2016) . The following are the results of the R Square test,
namely:
�Value of R Square
|
R Square |
|
|
Stakeholder Satisfaction
(Y) |
0.789 |
Source: Primary Data Processed (2022)
The table above shows the R Square value of Stakeholder Satisfaction (Y) of
0.789 which means that the Stakeholder
Satisfaction Variable can be influenced by the variables Quality Management
(X1), Environmental Management
(X2), and Safety & Health
Management (X3) of 78.9%. While the percentage of 21.1% is influenced by
other variables outside of this study. In addition, the R-square value above interprets the strong model relationship
between the independent and dependent variables.
2.
Predictive Relevance (Q Square) Q 2
The next step in measuring the structural model is
with Predictive Relevance (Q-Square) Q 2 . Predictive Relevance
(Q-Square) Q 2 for structural models that measure how well the
values produced by the model and also the parameter estimates. The model has
predictive relevance if the Q Square value > 0, otherwise it shows the model
has less predictive relevance if the Q-Square value ≤ 0. 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 �0.789)]
���� ������ = 1 - [0.211]
���� ������ = 0.789
The next evaluation
in the Inner Model is to look at the
PLS image model which shows the influence of the dependent and independent
variables. PLS Drawing Models can show structural equations. Following Model
Drawing PLS:
PLS Models
The PLS model above shows variables Stakeholder satisfaction is
influenced by the
variables Quality Management, Environmental Management and OSH
Management which
are described in the structural equation below.
Y =
0.201 X 1 + 0.413 X2 + 0.353 X3
3.
Hypothesis Testing
After testing convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability,
the next test is testing the hypothesis. The value of the path coefficient or
inner model shows the level of significance in hypothesis testing, the
significance test is carried out using the Bootstrapping method (Hudin &
Riana, 2016) . According to Latan & Ghozali hypothesis
testing is done by looking at the value of the T-statistics which uses a
significance level of 95% (α = 0.05). The T-table value with a
significance level of 95% is 1.96. The following are the results of Hypothesis Testing in Table
below:
Hypothesis Testing Results
|
Variable Relations |
T Statistics
(|O/STDEV|) |
T Table |
Information |
|
Quality Management (X1) ->
Stakeholder Satisfaction (Y) |
1,661 |
1.96 |
Not
significant |
|
Environmental Management (X2) ->
Stakeholder Satisfaction (Y) |
3,265 |
Significant |
|
|
Safety & Health Management (X3)
-> Stakeholder Satisfaction (Y) |
2,349 |
Significant |
Source: PLS Appendix
Based on the results of
hypothesis testing, the following results are obtained:
a. Quality Management is not has a
significant influence on Stakeholder Satisfaction, because the statistical
T value is 1.661 which means it is smaller than 1.96.
b. Environmental Management has a significant influence on Stakeholder
Satisfaction, because
the statistical T value is 3.265 , which is greater
than 1.96.
c. Safety & Health Management has a significant influence on Stakeholder
Satisfaction, because
the statistical T value is 2.349 which is greater than
1.96.
Discussion
Effect of Quality Management on Stakeholder
Satisfaction
Quality Management has a T -statistic value of 1.661 where the value is less than the
T-table, namely 1.96. This shows that
Quality Management has no
significant influence on Stakeholder Satisfaction . Thus the first
hypothesis reads Allegedly the Quality Management factor has a significant
effect on Stakeholder Satisfaction not proven
true. The results of this study support the results of Sahlan's research (2017) explaining that service quality must be maintained or even improved by
efforts to establish cooperation with other institutions or agencies that can
provide training in the form of excellent service so that stakeholder
satisfaction can increase. This means that the better the Contractor's
performance in quality management can increase Stakeholder satisfaction.
The Effect of Environmental Management on
Stakeholder Satisfaction
Environmental Management has a T-statistic value of
3.265 where the value exceeds the T-table value, namely 1.96. This shows that Environmental Management
has a significant influence on Stakeholder
Satisfaction. Thus the second hypothesis reads that it is suspected that
Environmental Management factors have a significant effect on Stakeholder Satisfaction, proven to be
true. The
results of this study support the research results of Trisnawati et
al., (2018) explaining that Environmental Management has a
positive effect on Stakeholder satisfaction . This means that with
increased performance on environmental management, stakeholder satisfaction will
also increase.
Effect of Safety & Health Management on
Stakeholder Satisfaction
Safety & Health management has a T-statistic value of 2.349 where the value
exceeds the T-table value of 1.96. This shows that Safety & Health Management has a significant influence on Stakeholder Satisfaction. Thus the third hypothesis reads Allegedly Safety & Health Management factors have a significant effect
on Stakeholder Satisfaction proven to
be true. The
results of this study support the research results of Trisnawati et
al., (2018) explaining that Safety & Health management has a positive effect on stakeholder
satisfaction . This means that by increasing the performance of Safety & Health management, Stakeholder satisfaction will
also increase. The existence of Safety & Health management is a preventive effort to prevent
work accidents and other losses that arise. Safety & Health management that is implemented properly can
provide assurance for Stakeholders that the work carried out does not
cause casualties and is in accordance with existing safety standards.
CONCLUSION
Based on the
results of the research and discussion that has been carried out, the following
conclusions can be obtained:
Quality Management
is not has a significant influence on Stakeholder
Satisfaction on the implementation of the Malang City Rehabilitation
Construction Expenditures project with a T-statistic value of 1.661 which is
less than the T-table of 1.96.
Environmental
Management has a significant influence on Stakeholder Satisfaction.
implementation of the Malang City Rehabilitation Construction Expenditure
project with a T-Statistic value of 3.265 which exceeds the T-table value of
1.96
Safety &
Health Management has a significant influence on Stakeholder Satisfaction in
the implementation of the Malang City Rehabilitation Construction Expenditures
project with a T-Statistic value of 2.349 which exceeds the T-table value of
1.96
REFERENCES
Amaeci, P.
(2021). 3 Types of
Environmental Management Systems. NeighborhoodGo.
Andardi, F.R.
(2021). Analysis of the Implementation of the Scheduling System Using the Pert Method in
Construction Projects (Case Study: Rehabilitation and Improvement of
Traditional Market Infrastructure in Malang City). PROKONS Civil Engineering
Department, 14(2), 19. https://doi.org/10.33795/prokons.v14i2.269
Armiady, D.
(2015). Prediction of Stakeholder
Satisfaction with Algorithm C.45. Journal of Informatics Engineering, 15(16),
69�76.
Assa, A.F. (2021). Environmental Management Executive Summary
Book for Postgraduate Students (S2 & S3) (Cet. First). Moeka Publishing
page.
Azis, S.,
Putranto, E.H.D., & Sudarmono. (2016).
Analysis Of The Influence Of Contractor Performance On The Quality Of Road
Improvement Projects In Probolinggo District. Journal of Info Manpro, 7(2),
50�60.
Bahri, S., &
Sada, H.J. (2019). Study Of Stakeholders'
Satisfaction Level Of Competence Of Graduates Of Islamic Religious Education
Program Faculty Of Tarbiyah And Teacher's Uin Raden Intan Lampung In Bandar
Lampung City. Al-Tadzkiyyah: Journal of Islamic Education, 10(I), 13�29.
Dimyati, H.,
& Nurjamanuddin, K. (2014).
Project management. Faithful Pustaka CV.
Ekawati, T.
(2020). Several factors influence the
intention to buy organic products. Journal of Business and Information Systems
(e-ISSN: 2685-2543), 2(1), 32�45. https://doi.org/10.36067/jbis.v2i1.35
Ervianto. (2015). Construction Project Management. ANDI.
Fajri, K.,
Utami, H., & Prasetya, A. (2017).
The Influence Of Occupational Health And Safety (K3) Programs On Job
Satisfaction And Employee Performance (Study on Employees of PT Brantas
Abipraya (Persero) in the Kemayoran Athlete House Development Project). Journal
of Business Administration S1 Universitas Brawijaya, 46(1), 11�19.
Fordian, D.,
& Ramadiawati, A. A. (2020).
The Effect of Brand Orientation and Co-Creation Value on Marketing Capability
Studies on Make-Up Artists (MUA) in Bandung City. Journal of Accounting and
Management Research, 9(1), 1�15.
Ghozali, I.
(2016). Multivariete Analysis Application
with IBM SPSS 23 Program (8th ed.). Semarang: Diponegoro University.
Hamdi, M.
(2012). Performance Management In Construction
Projects.
Hermawan, A.,
Kristiasari, A., Bhiju, F. N., & Manik, D. (2020). Development of performance evaluation instruments at the Satya Wacana
Christian University Library in Salatiga. Library And Information Science
Periodicals, 16(1), 1�15. https://doi.org/10.22146/bip.v16i1.61
Hudin, J. M.,
& Riana, D. (2016). Study of the Delone
& Mclean Information System Success Model for Accurate Accounting
Information System Users in Sukabumi City. Journal of Information Systems,
12(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.21609/jsi.v12i1.444
Ihwanudin, M. N.
(2017). Scheduling Analysis of Carbon Pipe
Projects Using the Fuzzy Logic Application For Scheduling Method. Muhammadiyah
Gresik University.
Karyawati. (2013). Pattern of
Implementation of Integrated Quality Management in Process Standards and
Standards for Educators and Education at SMP Negeri 4 Pacitan. Muhammadiyah
Surakarta university.
Malik. (2010). Introduction to the Construction Implementation Services Business. ANDI.
Mangkunegara, A.
P. (2012). HR Performance Evaluation, PT. Refika
Aditama, Bandung. Get up, Wilson.
Mathis, R. .,
& Jackson, J. H. (2009). Human Resource
Management: Human Resource Management. Salemba Four.
Nawawi, H.
(2011). Leadership Makes Organizations
Effective. Gajah Mada UniversityPress.
Ruci, M., &
Wita, K. (2019). Project Owner's View of
Performance. Journal of Engineering, 3(1), 53�62.
Sahlan, M.
(2017). Analysis of Stakeholders
Satisfaction Index Study of Public Services at the
Public Relations Section of Uin Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta. Prophetic: Communication
Journal, 9(2), 15. https://doi.org/10.14421/pjk.v9i2.1199
Saputro, N.
(2022). K3 Management. Rocketmanagement. Com.
Simanjuntak, P.
J. (2005). Work Management and Evaluation. FEUI
Issuing Institute.
Sugiyono.
(2019). Statistics for Research. CV Alphabet.
Tjiptono, F.
(2016). Service, Quality & satisfaction.
Andi.
Trisnawati, L.
D., Dharmayanti, G. A. P. C., & Jaya, N. M. (2018). Project Performance Analysis on STAKEHOLDER Satisfaction. Spectrant
Journal, 6(2), 205�209.
Widianto, A.,
& Aryanto, A. (2018). User Behavior Study on
the Use of Information Systems for Small and Medium Industries (SI-IKM) in
Tegal City. Journal of Business and Investment Research, 4(1), 1.
https://doi.org/10.35697/jrbi.v4i1.988
Copyright holders:
Widha Ardhiansyah,
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