IDENTIFYING RISK FACTORS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES TO SOLVE UNCLOSED ISSUE IN RU VI BALONGAN

• Main Author: Abdurrahman Hayat, Hazman
• Format: Theses
• Language: Indonesia
• Subjects: Manajemen umum
• Online Access: https://digilib.itb.ac.id/gdl/view/67229
• Institution: Institut Teknologi Bandung

RU VI Balongan is one of six downstream oil refineries owned by PT Pertamina (Persero) which have an important role in oil distribution to DKI Jakarta, West Java and surrounding areas. RU VI Balongan has a corporate vision, which is to become a leading refinery in Asia by 2025. With the following vision set, an organizational strategy called Grand Strategy was formed with the theme Product Excellence. The Grand Strategy in this period had five types of policies implemented for the strategy. According to the RU VI Balongan issues report in May 2022, the refinery has eight risks in the supply chain area that are still not resolved properly. This unclosed risk issue can disrupt and threaten the policies of Grand Strategy so that the vision of RU VI Balongan cannot be realized. Therefore, research was conducted to find the factors that influence the occurrence of unclosed issue risk and how to handle it. This is done by collecting primary and secondary data related to business issues that have been explored. After that, it was continued by carrying out supply chain mapping with the SCOR method to find out the activities at RU VI Balongan in detail. Followed by finding the root of the problem by referring to business issues and supply chain mapping. After that, alternative solutions are proposed using the House of Risk for all controllable root causes. The results of this study found that the unclosed issue risk has four root causes, namely the absence of priority agent risk (cause), the slowness of updating the risk register, the lack of information on the risk register and the slow implementation of the mitigation plan. With the application of the House of Risk method, 18 of the 43 types of risk agents and 28 preventive actions or mitigations were found to be applied to the 18 types of priority risk agents. The 18 risk agents can be applied to more than one mitigation and the mitigation can be applied to more than one risk agent.