Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Road infrastructure development requires high-quality Detailed Engineering Design (DED) documents, as they serve as the foundation for construction implementation and significantly influence project quality, schedule, and cost performance. However, the evaluation of DED quality in Indonesia is still predominantly based on administrative compliance and has not yet employed a structured quantitative assessment instrument capable of measuring the substantive quality of the design. This condition may increase technical uncertainty, lead to design changes during construction, and reduce the effectiveness of project quality control. This study aims to determine the weighting of DED quality criteria, calculate the DED quality index, and identify the dominant criteria affecting the quality of road DED documents. This study employed the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method to determine criteria weights and the weighted scoring method to calculate the DED quality index. Data were collected through questionnaires distributed to 12 expert respondents and through the evaluation of 13 road DED documents in the UPTD Road and Bridge Management Region VI, Indramayu Regency. The results show that the criterion of quality and completeness of planning data has the highest weight of 0.32, followed by compliance of design with technical standards at 0.30, with a Consistency Ratio (CR) of 0.07, indicating consistent judgments. The DED quality index ranges from 4.279 to 4.487, with all documents classified as very good. The highest quality DED document was found on the Karangampel–Jatibarang road section, with an index value of 4.487. This study concludes that the quality of road DED documents is mainly influenced by the quality of planning data and compliance with technical standards, with a cumulative contribution of 62%, indicating that the developed evaluation model can be used as a more objective and measurable quality control instrument for DED documents.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Firmansyah et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: