P-ISSN: 2808-5957
E-ISSN: 2808-6724
ijoms.internationaljournallabs.com
2395
RISK ANALYSIS OF JOINT OPERATION IMPLEMENTATION ON
LARGE DAM PROJECTS (CASE STUDY: TAPIN DAM)
Septian Rizki Pramono
*
, Tri Joko Wahyu Adi
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Planning, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh November, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia
*
idseptianrp@gmail.com
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Published: February 7
th
, 2023
Along with the implementation of project work with the Joint Operation
(KSO) system, there are risks that arise due to differences in vision between
partners so that risks that may occur need to be identified so that risk
mitigation can be carried out. This study aims to identify the risks that arise
in the KSO project in Tapin Dam, South Kalimantan. KSO risk identification
begins with conducting a literature study to create a risk list and then
conducting a preliminary survey and expert validation to determine the
relevance of KSO risk to the project that is the object of research.
Furthermore, the Probability Impact Matrix (PIM) is used to see the
dominant risks that affect the achievement of project goals. This study also
analyzes the risk allocation of each party and proposes mitigation actions.
Based on the results of the study, it was found that among 30 relevant risk
variables, 11 variables identified as high risk which are then allocated and
determined its risk mitigation.
Keywords: joint operation, risk,
Tapin Dam, mitigation
This work is licensed under CC
BY-SA 4.0
INTRODUCTION
Projects with a joint operation system are a combination of two or more different companies
(Artto et al., 2016). In the Tapin Dam construction project with the KSO scheme, the implementing
contractor is BAP-WASKITA KSO which is a combination of two state-owned companies,
namely BAP and PT. Waskita Karya (Persero) Tbk. The formation of the KSO begins when it will
submit a tender offer, with the deposit of venture capital which determines the number of portions
of the work at the time of implementation as written in the Joint Agreement (JoA) for Joint
Operations. At the time of contract implementation based on Job Portion management, each KSO
member agreed to contribute or participate in the rights, obligations, authorities and
responsibilities in the KSO, respectively BAP as KSO leader by 51% and PT. Waskita Karya
(Persero) Tbk as a member of KSO by 49%. In the JO Portion system, BAP acts as the KSO leader.
The duties and authorities as KSO leaders are entitled to sign contracts, work reports to the terms
representing the KSOs, while PT. Waskita Karya (Persero) Tbk as a member of the KSO is
represented by the leader in matters relating to the project owner.
Some of the problems that arose during the planning period was the distribution period of
the work location portions, so that project implementation was hampered because there was no
clear location for each joint operation partner. In addition, during the implementation period there
were delays in several buildings due to interdependence in the implementation, if one partner has
not finished, the other partner is idle. The implementation of the Tapin Dam project which is
carried out on a KSO Combination basis poses a risk (Uncertainty) because it is formed from a
combination of different companies. Uncertainty approach of construction projects can be done
with risk management (Faraji et al., 2021). Risk management is an organized approach to obtain
Risk Analysis of Joint Operation Implementation on Large Dam Projects (Case Study: Tapin Dam)
2396 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 5 ) , F e b ,
2023
potential risks (Osipova & Eriksson, 2013). Hence, to reduce the occurrence of something
unexpected. In the Joint Venture International (JVI) construction project, Ozorhon et al. (2008)
stated that problems in developing countries are very different from those in developed countries.
The main difference is a matter of culture. Cultural differences are caused by each party bringing
a corporate culture that will cause difficulties and conflicts for the partnering parties (Tetteh et al.,
2020). This difference will then make it more difficult for JVI to agree on goals, problem solving,
and conflict resolution than if it were partnering with the same country. There have been many
studies related to joint operation systems, such as ones conducted by Shen et al. (2001), Ready &
Hardjomuljadi (2019), Lumeno (2011), Kusumadewi et al. (2017), Marzuki & Lumeno (2011),
and Kembuan et al. (2019). However, none of the aforementioned researchers discussed about
joint operations constructing a large dam. Therefore, it would be interesting to discuss the topic,
especially in Indonesia, since dam construction is crucial in areas with great volume of water.
Based on this background, this study aims to identify and analyze the risk factors that have
an impact on the project and the risk response carried out to minimize the impact on the
implementation of the joint operation project at the Tapin Dam. The expected result of this research
is the identification of risks that affect the performance of the dam KSO project and its risk
response, so that it is expected to be a reference in the implementation of the Tapin Dam
construction and similar projects using the KSO scheme in Indonesia. The risk variables that used
in this study was obtained from previous research and Preliminary Survey. The risk variables can
be seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Risk Variable
Risk Aspect
Risk Variable
Reference
Financial and
Economic
Risk
Cash In is negative due to late approval of distribution
terms
Site Administration
Manager
Tax fines for late reporting (Consolidation between
partners)
Consolidated Report Delay
Estimated cost of capital
Liquidity Risk
Revenue sharing
Project Manager
Errors or delays in preparing the backup quantity and
backup quality
Late or incomplete collection of accounts receivable
(Consolidation between partners)
Design and
Construction
Division of work
Site Contract
Administration
Manager
Delay in finalizing the design at the intersecting location
Technical and
Operational
Dependence between work partners in locations that
intersect/intersect
Site Operational
Manager
Risk Analysis of Joint Operation Implementation on Large Dam Projects (Case Study: Tapin Dam)
2397 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 5 ) , F e b ,
2023
Late material fulfillment (Limited materials)
Situmorang et al.
(2018)
The access road interferes with the work of other
partners
Site Operational
Manager
Human
Resources
Jealousy among workers from JO partners due to
differences in compensation/reward
Marzuki &
Lumeno (2011)
Team solidarity in partners is not good
Sufa’atin (2017)
Political &
Legal Policy
Contract breach by project partner
Shen et al. (2001)
Delay in signing new contracts, addendums or
amendments to contracts, other agreements
Shen et al. (2001)
Termination of project activities by the surrounding
community
Site Operational
Manager
Division of
Work
Locations
Land acquisition
Site Contract
Administration
Manager
The struggle for implementing road maintenance work
The struggle for the location of the tunnel inlet work
because the implementation is easier without making
work roads
The struggle for the location of the cofferdam work
because the land is ready and the price is favorable
Saddle dam job owner determination conflict
The struggle for the location of the Main Dam
The struggle over the owner of the Main Dam
embankment work
Scramble for the Spillway Downstream Excavation
location because the land is already free
Conflict in determining the owner of the intake job that
has a high level of difficulty
Conflicts regarding the determination of
Hydromechanical implementers who have a high level
of difficulty
Conflict of determination of the owner of the facility
building works
Conflicts regarding the determination of the owner of
the electric power job
Conflict in determining the measurement and
implementation team because the design and land are
not yet free on the relocation road
Risk Analysis of Joint Operation Implementation on Large Dam Projects (Case Study: Tapin Dam)
2398 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 5 ) , F e b ,
2023
METHOD
This research is a case study with an exploratory approach. The results of the research are in
the form of an exploration of the risks that may occur in the Tapin Dam Project which requires a
response to be followed up. This research consists of questionnaires and interviews on the
probability and impact of risk occurrence, determining risk owner, and determine the risk
mitigation by expert judgment in Forum Group Discussion (FGD). The FGD participants are
experts from expert judgment in accordance with the research theme so that the appropriate risk
allocation and mitigation can be determined. This FGD participants same with preliminary
interviews respondents in Table 2.
Table 2. List of Preliminary Interview Respondents and FGD Participants
No
Position
Experience
1
Project Manager
13 Years KSO Project
2
Site Contract Administration & Risk Manager
10 Years KSO Project
3
Site Administration Manager
21 Years KSO Project
4
Site Operational Manager
5 Years KSO Project
5
Site Engineering Manager
9 Years KSO Project
In this research, the risk variable are analyzed using the Severity Index (SI) which aims to
obtain the results of a combination of probability and risk impact assessments. The Severity Index
for the results of the probability and risk impact survey is calculated using the following formula
(Al-Hammad, 2000):
4
0
4
0
.
(100%)
4
i
i
ai xi
SI
xi
=
=
=
(1)
In which a
i
is constant expressing weight given to i and x
i
is variable expressing frequency
of the i value. The criteria for determining the probability scale are obtained from the 2019 edition
of Waskita's Risk Management Procedure, which is data from project risk analysis. In this study,
the SI assessment was divided into 5 (five) categories, namely very low (VL), low (L), moderate
(M), high (H), and very high (VH) with a scale as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. SI Rating Scale of Risk Probability and Impact
Category
SI Value
Probability Value (P)
Impact Value (I)
Very Low (VL)
0,00 < SI < 12,5
1
1
Low (L)
12,5 ≤ SI < 37,5
2
2
Moderate (M)
37,5 ≤ SI < 62,5
3
3
High (H)
62,5 ≤ SI < 87,5
4
4
Very High (VH)
87,5 ≤ SI < 100
5
5
Risk Analysis of Joint Operation Implementation on Large Dam Projects (Case Study: Tapin Dam)
2399 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 5 ) , F e b ,
2023
At this stage, based on the pre-determined risks, the probability of the occurrence of the risk,
the possible impact if the risk occurs, and the importance of each risk is determined by using the
probability effect matrix (PIM) method for analysis. Probability Impact Matrix (PIM) is a method
of analyzing the possibility of a risk appearing qualitatively. The Probability Impact Matrix that
will be used in this study can be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Probability Impact Matrix
Based on Figure 1 above, the evaluation range for each risk probability is 1 to 25 which is
divided into 3 risk values, namely low, moderate, and high levels as shown in Table 4. A scale of
1 to 5 represents a low risk level, a scale of 6 to 14 represents a low risk level, while a 15-25 scale
represents a high risk level.
Table 4. Level of Risk Scale
Scale
Risk Level
1 – 5
Low
6 – 14
Moderate
15 – 25
High
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Assessment of Risk Level
After obtaining the risk variables relevant to the dam project with the joint operation scheme,
the main survey is then carried out to conduct a risk analysis. The main survey was conducted by
distributing probability and risk impact questionnaires to the same 5 respondents as the preliminary
survey. The survey results are then analyzed using the Severity Index (SI), which aims to obtain
the results of a combination of probability and risk impact assessments. The results of the risk
probability (P) and impact (I) assessment using the Severity Index method from this study can be
seen in Table 5. Risk analysis is carried out by assessing the level of risk which is calculated by
multiplying the results of the probability assessment (I) with the results of the impact assessment
(P) of each risk variable. Based on the multiplication value, the risk level is then determined using
a probability impact matrix (PIM). The results of the calculation of the multiplication of the
Risk Analysis of Joint Operation Implementation on Large Dam Projects (Case Study: Tapin Dam)
2400 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 5 ) , F e b ,
2023
probability value (I) with the impact value (P) and the level of risk in this study can be seen in
Table 5.
Table 5. Risk Level Assessment Results
Risk Aspect
Risk
Code
Risk Variable
Value
P x I
Risk
Level
Probability (P)
Impact (I)
Financial
and
Economic
Risk
R1
Cash In is negative due
to late approval of
distribution terms
4
5
20
H
R2
Tax fines for late
reporting
(Consolidation
between partners)
2
3
6
M
R3
Consolidated Report
Delay
3
3
9
M
R4
Estimated cost of
capital
1
5
5
L
Liquidity
Risk
R5
Revenue sharing
4
3
12
M
R6
Errors or delays in
preparing the backup
quantity and backup
quality
3
4
12
M
R7
Late or incomplete
collection of accounts
receivable
(Consolidation
between partners)
4
4
16
H
Design and
Construction
R8
Division of work
5
5
25
H
R9
Delay in finalizing the
design at the
intersecting location
3
3
9
M
Technical
and
Operational
R10
Dependence between
work partners in
locations that
intersect/intersect
4
4
16
H
R11
Late material
fulfillment (Limited
materials)
3
4
12
M
Risk Analysis of Joint Operation Implementation on Large Dam Projects (Case Study: Tapin Dam)
2401 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 5 ) , F e b ,
2023
R12
The access road
interferes with the
work of other partners
1
2
2
L
Human
Resources
R13
Jealousy among
workers from JO
partners due to
differences in
compensation/reward
4
3
12
M
R14
Team solidarity in
partners is not good
4
4
16
H
Political &
Legal Policy
R15
Contract breach by
project partner
2
3
6
L
R16
Delay in signing new
contracts, addendums
or amendments to
contracts, other
agreements
4
4
16
H
R17
Termination of project
activities by the
surrounding
community
4
5
20
H
Division of
Work
Locations
R18
Land acquisition
4
4
16
H
R19
The struggle for
implementing road
maintenance work
2
3
6
M
R20
The struggle for the
location of the tunnel
inlet work because the
implementation is
easier without making
work roads
3
3
9
M
R21
The struggle for the
location of the
cofferdam work
because the land is
ready and the price is
favorable
3
3
9
M
R22
Saddle dam job owner
determination conflict
2
2
4
L
Risk Analysis of Joint Operation Implementation on Large Dam Projects (Case Study: Tapin Dam)
2402 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 5 ) , F e b ,
2023
R23
The struggle for the
location of the Main
Dam
4
3
12
M
R24
The struggle over the
owner of the Main
Dam embankment
work
4
3
12
M
R25
Scramble for the
Spillway Downstream
Excavation location
because the land is
already free
3
3
9
M
R26
Conflict in determining
the owner of the intake
job that has a high level
of difficulty
1
3
3
L
R27
Conflicts regarding the
determination of
Hydromechanical
implementers who
have a high level of
difficulty
5
4
20
H
R28
Conflict of
determination of the
owner of the facility
building works
5
3
15
H
R29
Conflicts regarding the
determination of the
owner of the electric
power job
5
3
15
H
R30
Conflict in determining
the measurement and
implementation team
because the design and
land are not yet free on
the relocation road
3
1
3
L
Note: L = Low, M = Moderate, H = High
Risk Analysis of Joint Operation Implementation on Large Dam Projects (Case Study: Tapin Dam)
2403 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 5 ) , F e b ,
2023
5 risks
17%
14 risks
46%
11 Risk
37%
Low
Moderate
High
Figure 2. Frequency of Risk Categories
The frequency of each risk levels shown in Figure 2 shows that among the 30 risk variables
that have been analyzed, there are 11 risks (37%) that are at a high level, 14 risks (46%) are at a
moderate level, and 5 risks (17%) are at a low level. The risk variable included in the high risk
category is the dominant risk (major risk) which will have a very large influence on the Tapin Dam
construction project with a joint operation scheme. Risks with a high category level are things that
must be considered because they involve the smooth construction of the Tapin Dam, so careful
handling is needed to deal with these risks. This is due to the high frequency of occurrence of these
risks and the magnitude of the negative impacts arising from these risks if they are not handled.
Therefore, it is necessary to take risk mitigation measures against risks that are at a high category
level with the aim of reducing the possibility of risk occurrence and the impact of risks that may
occur.
Risk Allocation
Risk allocation is the assignment or sharing of risks that may occur in a project to the parties
involved in the project. Based on the results of the evaluation of the level of risk that has been
carried out, there are 11 risk variables that have a high level of risk. These risks are then determined
by the owner or person in charge through a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) by 5 (five) experts in
accordance with the research theme as mentioned in 3 The criteria for the owner or person in
charge of these risks are determined based on the party causing the risk and the party most capable
of controlling the risk (Palupie & Yuniarto, 2016). In addition, other criteria that need to be
considered in risk allocation are the most appropriate time and alternative solutions to ensure
proper risk allocation (Abednego & Ogunlana, 2006). The allocation of each risk variable with a
high category level can be seen in Table 6.
Risk Analysis of Joint Operation Implementation on Large Dam Projects (Case Study: Tapin Dam)
2404 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 5 ) , F e b ,
2023
Table 6. Risk Allocation in the Tapin Dam Development Project with the KSO Scheme
Risk Aspect
Risk
Code
Risk Variable
Risk Allocation
Reference
BAP
PT. Waskita
Karya
(Persero)
Tbk
KSO
(Sharing
Risk)
Financial
and
Economic
Risk
R1
Cash In is negative
due to late approval
of distribution
terms
v
v
Site
Administration
Manager
Liquidity
Risk
R7
Late or incomplete
collection of
accounts receivable
(Consolidation
between partners)
v
v
Site
Administration
Manager
Design and
Construction
R8
Division of work
v
v
Site Contract
Administration
& Risk
Manager
Technical
and
Operational
R10
Dependence
between work
partners in
locations that
intersect/intersect
v
Site
Operational
Manager
Human
Resources
R14
Team solidarity in
partners is not good
v
v
Site
Operational
Manager
Political &
Legal Policy
R16
Delay in signing
new contracts,
addendums or
amendments to
contracts, other
agreements
v
v
Site Contract
Administration
& Risk
Manager
R17
Termination of
project activities by
the surrounding
community
v
Project
Manager
Division of
Work
Locations
R18
Land acquisition
v
Site
Administration
Manager
Risk Analysis of Joint Operation Implementation on Large Dam Projects (Case Study: Tapin Dam)
2405 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 5 ) , F e b ,
2023
R27
Conflicts regarding
the determination
of
Hydromechanical
implementers who
have a high level of
difficulty
v
Site
Engineering
Manager
R28
Conflict of
determination of
the owner of the
facility building
works
v
Site
Engineering
Manager
R29
Conflicts regarding
the determination
of the owner of the
electric power job
v
Site
Engineering
Manager
Risk Mitigation
The results of the risk level analysis show that there are 11 high risks. These risk with this
high category level will have a significant impact on risk mitigation (risk reduction). This high risk
will have a significant impact on the implementation of the Tapin Dam construction project, so it
needs special attention by mitigating risks. This is to reduce the chance of occurrence of risks in a
project will be more effective than to improve the impact of risks that have already occurred. Risk
mitigation actions that can be taken for risks with a high category level from this research can be
seen in Table 7.
Table 7. Risk Mitigation of High Risks
Risk Aspect
Risk Variable
Risk Mitigation
Category
Risk Mitigation
Risk
Residual
Financial and
Economic Risk
R1-Cash In is
negative due to
late approval of
distribution terms
Reduce risk
1) Carry out routine
coordination and
scheduled meetings
between the financial
impact engineering
department
2) Complete the file for
the purposes of
dividing the terms
before the payment
Moderate
Risk Analysis of Joint Operation Implementation on Large Dam Projects (Case Study: Tapin Dam)
2406 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 5 ) , F e b ,
2023
due date stated in the
contract article;
3) Make a punishment
agreement if there is a
delay
Liquidity Risk
R7-Late or
incomplete
collection of
accounts
receivable
(Consolidation
between partners)
Reduce risk
1) Coordinate and
evaluate related
delays and
completeness of
accounts receivable
collection files
2) Immediately complete
the incomplete
collection of accounts
receivable
Low
Design and
Construction
R8-Division of
work
Avoid risk
1) Analyze each job so
that a fair division of
work can be
determined
2) Dividing the portion
of work in accordance
with the agreement or
contract.
Low
Technical and
Operational
R10-Dependence
between work
partners in
locations that
intersect/intersect
Reduce risk
1) Arrange the division
of work in locations
that intersect /
intersect clearly and
include it in the
minutes of agreement.
Low
Human
Resources
R14-Team
solidarity in
partners is not
good
1) Organizing gathering
activities to build
team solidarity
2) Build good
communication
between teams;
3) Build trust in the
team; and
4) Conduct regular work
evaluations to help the
Low
Risk Analysis of Joint Operation Implementation on Large Dam Projects (Case Study: Tapin Dam)
2407 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 5 ) , F e b ,
2023
team keep working
solid
Political &
Legal Policy
R16-Delay in
signing new
contracts,
addendums or
amendments to
contracts, other
agreements
Avoid risk
1) Complete the files
needed for signing a
new contract,
addendum or
amendment to the
contract, other
agreements;
2) Coordinate the
schedule for signing
new contracts,
addendums or
amendments to
contracts, other
agreements.
Moderate
R17-Termination
of project
activities by the
surrounding
community
Reduce risk
1) Conducting outreach
to the surrounding
community regarding
the project to be
carried out;
2) Conduct mediation
with the surrounding
community;
3) Minimize project
activities that disturb
the surrounding
community;
4) Paying attention to
AMDAL in project
implementation;
5) Leasing land while
waiting for land
acquisition payment
Low
Division of
Work Locations
R18-Land
acquisition
Risk Transfer
1) Coordinate and
monitor with BPN
(National Land
Agency) in the land
acquisition process;
and
Low
Risk Analysis of Joint Operation Implementation on Large Dam Projects (Case Study: Tapin Dam)
2408 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 5 ) , F e b ,
2023
2) Help complete legal
(official) data as
backups so that land
acquisition that is still
constrained and has
not been handed over
can be followed up
immediately
R27-Conflicts
regarding the
determination of
Hydromechanical
implementers
who have a high
level of difficulty
Reduce risk
1) Coordinate to reach
mutual agreement in
determining
hydromechanical
implementers;
2) The determination of
the hydromechanical
implementer is based
on the ability and
work experience in
the hydromechanical
field; and
3) Submit a new item
with the same
function at a favorable
price
Low
R28-Conflict of
determination of
the owner of the
facility building
works
Reduce risk
1) Coordinate to reach
mutual agreement in
determining facility
building works;
2) Determination of
building
implementers is based
on ability and work
experience in the field
of building facilities;
and
3) Submit a new design
to fix the price
Low
R29-Conflicts
regarding the
determination of
Reduce risk
1) The determination of
the electrical operator
is based on the ability
Low
Risk Analysis of Joint Operation Implementation on Large Dam Projects (Case Study: Tapin Dam)
2409 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 5 ) , F e b ,
2023
the owner of the
electric power job
and work experience
in the electronics
field; and
2) Propose a detailed and
clear design so that the
scope of work
becomes more
controlled
CONCLUSION
From the results of risk identification obtained 11 (eleven) high risk variables which are the
dominant risk (major risk). Owners of the dominant risk (major risk) in the tapin dam construction
project with a joint operation scheme (KSO), namely BAP and PT. Waskita Karya (Persero) with
the allocation of responsibility for 5 (five) risks charged to both parties with different portions, 2
(two) risks are shared responsibility, 2 (two) risks are assigned to PT. Waskita Karya (Persero)
Tbk, and 2 (two) risks are borne by BAP. Handling or responding to high risk which is the
dominant risk is carried out by reducing risk, avoiding risk, and transferring risk.
In this study, the risk of cooperation systems has been discussed so that further research can
discuss the risks of cooperation techniques. Development for further research can also be done by
analyzing risks in different locations or researching other risk aspects related to operational
cooperation (KSO) projects such as communication and information aspects, cultural aspects, and
work environment aspects. In addition, in future projects it is recommended to carry out a risk
analysis as early as possible so that project work can be carried out effectively, efficiently and
sustainably.
REFERENCE
Abednego, M. P., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2006). Good project governance for proper risk allocation
in public-private partnerships in Indonesia. International Journal of Project Management,
24(7), 622–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.07.010
Al-Hammad, A.-M. (2000). Common interface problems among various construction parties.
Jurnal Performance Construction Facilities, 14, 71–74.
Artto, K., Ahola, T., & Vartiainen, V. (2016). From the front end of projects to the back end of
operations: Managing projects for value creation throughout the system lifecycle.
International Journal of Project Management, 34(2).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.003
Faraji, A., Rashidi, M., & Perera, S. (2021). Text mining risk assessment–based model to conduct
uncertainty analysis of the general conditions of contract in housing construction projects:
Case study of the NSW GC21. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 27(3).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000489
Risk Analysis of Joint Operation Implementation on Large Dam Projects (Case Study: Tapin Dam)
2410 | I n d o n e s i a n J o u r n a l o f M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y S c i e n c e , 2 ( 5 ) , F e b ,
2023
Kembuan, A. S., Mandagi, R. J. M., & Lumeno, S. S. (2019). Model risiko pengelolaan SDM
konstruksi dalam international joint operation pada proyek infrastruktur jalan tol Manado-
Bitung. Jurnal Sipil Statik, 7(1), 113–126.
Kusumadewi, A., Listyani, V., & Risiko, A. (2017). Analisa manajemen risiko tahap konstruksi
pada proyek kereta cepat Jakarta-Bandung. Jurnal Karya Teknik Sipil, 6(1), 157–164.
Lumeno, S. S. (2011). Masalah budaya dalam proyek international joint venture. Jurnal Ilmiah
Media Engineering, 1(2), 144–150.
Marzuki, P. F., & Lumeno, S. S. (2011). Persepsi risiko terhadap penyediaan dan pengelolaan
tenaga kerja dalam international joint venture pada proyek infrastruktur. Jurnal Teknik Sipil,
18(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.5614/jts.2011.18.1.2
Osipova, E., & Eriksson, P. E. (2013). Balancing control and flexibility in joint risk management:
Lessons learned from two construction projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 31(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.09.007
Ozorhon, B., Arditi, D., Dikmen, I., & Birgonul, M. T. (2008). Implications of culture in the
performance of international construction joint venture. Journal of Constrruction
Engineering and Management ASCE, 134(5), 361–370.
Palupie, Y. M. R., & Yuniarto, H. A. (2016). Alokasi risiko proyek infrastruktur dengan skema
kerjasama pemerintah dan badan usaha (KPBU): Suatu tinjauan literatur. Seminar Nasional
Teknik Industri Universitas Gadjah Mada, 96–103.
Ready, M. R. A., & Hardjomuljadi, S. (2019). Analisis pembagian tanggung jawab pada proyek
kerja sama operasi terhadap subkontraktor. Jurnal Konstruksia, 10(2), 1–20.
Shen, L. Y., Wu, G. W. C., & Ng, C. S. K. (2001). Risk assessment for construction joint ventures
in China. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 76(February), 76–81.
Sufa’atin. (2017). Implementasi probability impact matriks (PIM) untuk mengidentifikasi
kemungkinan dan dampak risiko proyek. Jurnal ULTIMA InfoSys, VIII(1), 43–47.
https://doi.org/10.31937/si.v8i1.555
Tetteh, M. O., Chan, A. P. C., Darko, A., & Nani, G. (2020). Factors affecting international
construction joint ventures: a systematic literature review. International Journal of
Construction Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1850203
