In the realm of construction project management, the selection of construction methods plays a critical role in determining the overall success of a project. Factors such as cost efficiency, project duration, and quality outcomes are directly influenced by the techniques chosen during the execution phase. In Indonesia, infrastructure projects, especially those funded by the government or educational institutions, frequently encounter delays and budget overruns. These recurring problems are often linked not only to administrative inefficiencies but also to the inadequacy of technical decision-making, particularly in the initial planning stages. Among the technical considerations, the selection of construction methods stands out as a pivotal determinant of project performance.

One of the primary challenges in Indonesian construction practices lies in the tendency to prioritize short-term cost savings over long-term operational efficiency. Despite the growing recognition of modern methods such as precast concrete, many contractors still rely on conventional construction approaches. This preference is commonly attributed to the higher initial investment costs associated with precast components and the limited availability of supporting infrastructure in certain regions. Moreover, conventional methods are often deemed more adaptable to local labor skills and material availability, especially in non-metropolitan or semi-urban contexts. However, such considerations may not always lead to optimal project outcomes when viewed from a broader perspective that includes time and quality dimensions (Li et al., 2021).

Recent years have seen an increasing interest in the adoption of precast concrete systems due to their advantages in standardization, quality control, and accelerated construction timelines. In theory, these benefits could lead to a significant reduction in project duration and overall costs when appropriately implemented. Nonetheless, empirical data on their comparative effectiveness in Indonesian construction settings remain limited. The decision-making process regarding whether to use precast or conventional methods often lacks systematic analysis, especially in medium-scale projects such as institutional or educational buildings. This situation underscores the need for context-specific research that can quantify the actual trade-offs involved in method selection.

In response to this gap, the present study conducts a comparative analysis of cost and time performance between conventional beam construction and precast beam installation in the case of the Laboratory Building project at UIN Tulungagung. By applying a quantitative approach within a real-world construction context, this study offers practical insights into the economic and temporal implications of construction method selection. The findings are expected to contribute to the existing body of knowledge regarding construction efficiency, particularly for mid-rise structures in secondary urban regions. Furthermore, the results aim to inform both practitioners and academic researchers on how method selection should align with project-specific variables, including location, scale, and resource availability (Li et al., 2021).

This research adopts a quantitative methodology aimed at comparing the cost and duration performance of two different structural construction methods: conventional concrete beam construction and precast concrete beam construction. The study focuses on a real-world project located at the State Islamic University (UIN) of Tulungagung, East Java, specifically involving the construction of a multi-story laboratory building. Quantitative analysis is employed to objectively assess measurable parameters such as total construction time, labor costs, material usage, and equipment expenditures. The selection of a quantitative approach is justified by the need to provide empirical evidence for decision-making regarding the efficiency of construction techniques under varying operational constraints.

The research process commenced with field surveys and direct observation of ongoing construction activities that incorporated both precast and conventional concrete methods. This dual-approach project provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the two systems under similar environmental and structural conditions. The data collection involved reviewing architectural and structural drawings, project schedules, material specifications, and cost reports. Through this process, comparative data on the duration of beam installation, workforce deployment, material volumes, and tool utilization were compiled and analyzed. As previous studies have shown, the precast method is generally two stages faster than the conventional method, contributing to significant improvements in project time management and productivity outcomes ( , 2023). Furthermore, the study emphasizes the practicality and efficiency of the precast concrete system in reducing on-site workload and material waste. Unlike the conventional method, which relies heavily on on-site casting, curing, and formwork assembly, the precast method allows for the prefabrication of components in a factory-controlled environment. This approach supports better quality control and logistical planning while enhancing the overall pace of construction. The methodology is structured around a case study model, wherein the construction process of the UIN Tulungagung Laboratory Building serves as the empirical framework. All supporting data—including cost breakdowns,

scheduling documents, and labor estimates—were collected from project stakeholders to substantiate the analytical findings presented in the final report.

This study presents a detailed comparative analysis of the costs and construction time between conventional concrete and precast concrete methods, using the UIN Tulungagung Laboratory Building project as a case study. The objective was to assess which method offers greater efficiency in a real-world, mid- rise construction context. The results highlight clear distinctions in terms of execution time, labor utilization, equipment deployment, and material expenditures. Each of these aspects contributes differently to the overall feasibility and practicality of the respective methods, especially when contextualized within the Indonesian construction environment.

From a time management perspective, the precast construction method demonstrates a considerable advantage over its conventional counterpart. The total time required to complete the structural works from the ground floor to the rooftop using the precast system was approximately 164 days. This is markedly more efficient than the conventional approach, which took about 460 days. Such a significant reduction in duration nearly two-thirds illustrates the potential of precast methods in expediting project timelines. For institutional buildings, where operational deadlines are often fixed and critical, this time efficiency can translate into strategic benefits, including earlier occupancy, reduced exposure to inflation, and lower project overheads.

The labor component further reinforces the precast method’s superiority. The majority of structural elements such as beams and slabs are manufactured off- site in controlled environments, which streamlines on-site processes and minimizes manual labor requirements. As a result, labor costs in the precast method are substantially reduced compared to the conventional method, which relies heavily on prolonged manual work for casting, curing, and assembly. This reduction in labor not only minimizes costs but also enhances safety and predictability, key components of modern construction practices based on industrialized and prefabricated models.

Despite these advantages, the precast system introduces new challenges, particularly in terms of equipment and material expenditures. Precast implementation demands the use of specialized heavy machinery, such as tower cranes and mobile cranes, to transport and install prefabricated components. The data reveals that equipment costs in the precast approach are more than ten times

higher than those in the conventional method. This stark difference significantly impacts the overall budget, especially for projects operating under financial limitations or in regions where such machinery is not readily accessible.

In addition to equipment costs, material expenses associated with precast construction are also considerably higher. These costs arise from the precision, quality assurance, and factory-level production standards required for precast components. Moreover, logistical complexities such as transportation from the factory to the construction site contribute to additional costs. While these materials offer higher uniformity and potentially longer life cycles, the upfront expenses may be difficult to justify for smaller-scale or cost-sensitive projects. Thus, while the precast method offers advantages in efficiency and labor, it demands higher capital investment, particularly in the early phases of project execution.

In summary, the choice between conventional and precast concrete methods entails a complex trade-off between time, labor, equipment, and material costs. The precast method proves highly effective in reducing construction time and labor dependency, making it suitable for projects prioritizing speed and productivity. However, its high initial investment in equipment and materials may deter its use in budget-constrained environments. Consequently, construction method selection should be based on a comprehensive evaluation of project characteristics, including financial capacity, project duration, and access to technological infrastructure. Strategic decisions that align method selection with these variables are essential for optimizing construction outcomes in various regional contexts.

Based on the comprehensive analysis conducted in this study, it can be concluded that the precast construction method offers significant advantages over the conventional method, particularly in medium-rise building projects such as the UIN Tulungagung Laboratory Building. The precast method has demonstrated superior performance in terms of construction duration, requiring only 164 days compared to 460 days for the conventional method. This acceleration in the timeline provides strategic benefits, such as earlier building utilization, reduced overhead, and improved scheduling for subsequent construction phases. Additionally, the reduced reliance on on-site labor enhances the predictability and control of project execution.

From a cost-efficiency standpoint, the findings indicate that the total labor costs associated with the precast method are significantly lower, amounting to Rp 537,920,000 compared to Rp 2,007,320,000 for the conventional method. Although the precast approach incurs higher material and equipment costs Rp 6,858,350,000 and Rp 3,862,200,000 respectively its overall economic impact is mitigated by time savings and reduced labor requirements. Thus, for projects that prioritize efficiency, quality assurance, and timely delivery, the precast system emerges as a favorable choice. It is especially applicable for institutional or commercial buildings in urban and semi-urban settings where industrialized construction infrastructure is accessible.

However, it is important to emphasize that the success of the precast system depends on several supporting factors, including the availability of manufacturing facilities, transportation networks, and the accessibility of lifting equipment on site. Projects located in remote or infrastructure-limited regions may find the implementation of precast methods less feasible due to logistical and technical constraints. In such contexts, the conventional method still presents a viable alternative, especially where local labor and materials are more readily available and cost-effective. Therefore, method selection should be guided not only by cost and time metrics but also by contextual variables such as site conditions, resource access, and technical capacity.

For future applications, a hybrid approach may be recommended to optimize both cost and schedule performance. By employing precast components for structurally significant elements such as beams, columns, and floor panels while maintaining conventional methods for secondary or non-structural parts, construction teams can balance efficiency and adaptability. This integrated strategy allows for customization based on the specific requirements and constraints of each project, ensuring that both budgetary and technical considerations are adequately addressed. Ultimately, the strategic selection of construction methods must align with broader project goals, logistical realities, and long-term value creation.

Further research may also consider additional variables such as environmental impact, project risk analysis, and sustainability aspects of each method. The use of Building Information Modeling (BIM) software could also serve as a new approach to evaluate the efficiency of planning and implementation of both construction methods more accurately. Thus, the results of future research are expected to provide more practical and strategic recommendations for construction industry practitioners across various project scales and conditions.

We would like to express our gratitude to all parties who have contributed to this research. We greatly appreciate the support and guidance from our parents and supervisors, who have provided valuable direction. We would also like to thank our colleagues who have provided support and constructive input

throughout the research process. Additionally, we would like to thank the institutions and organizations that provided the necessary resources and facilities, including the laboratory that supported the experiments. We hope that the results of this research will provide benefits and positive contributions to the advancement of knowledge and society. With the support of all parties, we are optimistic that this research will serve as the first step toward further studies in this field.