Calculation of Man Hour and Man Day

Oct 13, 2025 by magicalceylontours.com 87 views

Comparative Analysis of Work Unit Price AHSP Method and Actual Method: Case Study of the Construction of the Type-C General Hospital Building in Kec. Medan Labuhan

Introduction

In the world of construction, cost calculation becomes an important element that affects the success of a project. The accuracy of cost calculation can make or break a project, and it is crucial for contractors to have a reliable method to determine the cost of construction. The Work Unit Price Method AHSP (Unit Price Analysis of Work) is one of the methods used to calculate the cost of construction, but it has its limitations. In this article, we will present a comparative analysis of the Work Unit Price Method AHSP and the Actual Method, with a focus on concrete work in the construction of the Type-C General Hospital building located in Kec. Medan Labuhan.

Research Methodology

In this study, the authors used several analysis approaches, including:

Calculation of Man Hour and Man Day: used to calculate the coefficient with the actual method.
Quantitative Comparison: To get the difference in the coefficient and ratio of unit price comparisons of the concrete work between the AHSP method and the actual method.

Data collection techniques include field observations in the project, collecting data from the contractor, and referring to Ministerial Regulation No. 28 of 2016. In addition, data processing techniques use data analysis and comparative analysis to draw valid conclusions.

Research Result

The results of the analysis show that the coefficient value of the concrete work for the actual method is different from the AHSP method. In detail, here are the results of the coefficient and comparison:

Workers' wages:
- Actual Method: 0.80319 OH
- AHSP Method: 0.19681 OH
Bricklayer:
- Actual Method: 0.24585 OH
- AHSP Method: 0.00415 OH
Head of the handyman:
- Actual Method: 0.06280 OH
- AHSP Method: -0,03780 OH
Foreman:
- Actual Method: 0.08420 OH
- AHSP Method: 0.01580 OH
Material:
- Actual Method: 1,01786 m³
- AHSP method: 0.00214 m³
Equipment:
- Actual Method: 0.11665 Rent-Day
- AHSP method: 0.00335 rent

Comparison and Difference Analysis

After conducting calculations, the ratio of unit price comparisons is obtained as follows:

Wage Unit Price: Actual method is smaller 11.85% compared to the AHSP method.
Unit Price Material: Actual method is smaller 0.21% than the AHSP method.
Equipment Unit Price: Actual method is 2.78% smaller than the AHSP method.
Work Unit Price: Actual method is smaller 14.89% compared to the AHSP method.

Conclusion and Implications

From the results of the analysis, it can be concluded that the actual method provides more efficient results in terms of unit price of work, compared to the AHSP method. This shows the importance of understanding the actual method in calculating project costs, which can assist contractors in better decision making in the budgeting and implementation of the project.

The use of actual methods not only prioritizes cost effectiveness, but also encourages efficiency in the implementation of construction projects. Therefore, this research is beneficial for professionals in the fields of construction, academics, and other related parties in optimizing project costs.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made:

Use of Actual Method: Contractors should use the actual method in calculating project costs, as it provides more efficient results compared to the AHSP method.
Training and Education: Contractors and construction professionals should receive training and education on the use of actual methods in calculating project costs.
Research and Development: Further research and development should be conducted to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the actual method in calculating project costs.

Limitations

This study has several limitations, including:

Case Study: The study is based on a case study of a single project, which may not be representative of all construction projects.
Data Collection: The data used in this study was collected from a single source, which may not be representative of all data available.
Analysis: The analysis used in this study is based on a single approach, which may not be representative of all possible approaches.

Future Research Directions

Future research should focus on:

Improving the Accuracy of Actual Method: Further research should be conducted to improve the accuracy of the actual method in calculating project costs.
Comparing Actual Method with Other Methods: Future research should compare the actual method with other methods, such as the AHSP method, to determine which method is more efficient.
Developing a New Method: Future research should focus on developing a new method that combines the strengths of the actual method and other methods.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study has shown that the actual method provides more efficient results in terms of unit price of work, compared to the AHSP method. The use of actual methods not only prioritizes cost effectiveness, but also encourages efficiency in the implementation of construction projects. Therefore, this research is beneficial for professionals in the fields of construction, academics, and other related parties in optimizing project costs.
Q&A: Comparative Analysis of Work Unit Price AHSP Method and Actual Method

Introduction

In our previous article, we presented a comparative analysis of the Work Unit Price Method AHSP and the Actual Method, with a focus on concrete work in the construction of the Type-C General Hospital building located in Kec. Medan Labuhan. In this article, we will answer some of the frequently asked questions (FAQs) related to the study.

Q: What is the Work Unit Price Method AHSP?

A: The Work Unit Price Method AHSP (Unit Price Analysis of Work) is a method used to calculate the cost of construction. It involves breaking down the construction work into smaller units, such as labor, materials, and equipment, and then calculating the cost of each unit.

Q: What is the Actual Method?

A: The Actual Method is a method used to calculate the cost of construction based on actual data and observations. It involves collecting data on the actual cost of labor, materials, and equipment, and then using this data to calculate the total cost of the project.

Q: What are the advantages of using the Actual Method?

A: The Actual Method has several advantages, including:

More accurate cost estimates
Better decision-making
Improved efficiency in the implementation of construction projects
Reduced costs

Q: What are the limitations of using the AHSP Method?

A: The AHSP Method has several limitations, including:

Inaccurate cost estimates
Poor decision-making
Reduced efficiency in the implementation of construction projects
Increased costs

Q: How does the Actual Method compare to the AHSP Method?

A: The Actual Method provides more efficient results in terms of unit price of work, compared to the AHSP Method. The Actual Method is smaller 11.85% compared to the AHSP Method in terms of wage unit price, smaller 0.21% in terms of unit price material, and smaller 2.78% in terms of equipment unit price.

Q: What are the implications of using the Actual Method?

A: The use of the Actual Method has several implications, including:

Improved cost effectiveness
Increased efficiency in the implementation of construction projects
Better decision-making
Reduced costs

Q: Who can benefit from this research?

A: This research is beneficial for professionals in the fields of construction, academics, and other related parties in optimizing project costs.

Q: What are the future research directions?

A: Future research should focus on:

Improving the accuracy of the Actual Method
Comparing the Actual Method with other methods
Developing a new method that combines the strengths of the Actual Method and other methods

Q: What are the limitations of this study?

A: This study has several limitations, including:

Case study: The study is based on a case study of a single project, which may not be representative of all construction projects.
Data collection: The data used in this study was collected from a single source, which may not be representative of all data available.
Analysis: The analysis used in this study is based on a single approach, which may not be representative of all possible approaches.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this Q&A article has provided answers to some of the frequently asked questions related to the comparative analysis of the Work Unit Price Method AHSP and the Actual Method. The Actual Method provides more efficient results in terms of unit price of work, compared to the AHSP Method. The use of the Actual Method has several implications, including improved cost effectiveness, increased efficiency in the implementation of construction projects, better decision-making, and reduced costs.