Restrukturisasi Mesin Industri Pengolahan Kayu dan Furnitur: Evaluasi Kinerja Program dan Strategi Peningkatan Daya Saing

Abstract

Industri pengolahan kayu (KBLI 16) dan furnitur (KBLI 31) berperan dalam penciptaan nilai tambah, penyerapan tenaga kerja, dan ekspor nonmigas. Namun, keunggulan bahan baku belum otomatis menjadi daya saing yang berkelanjutan. Nilai revealed comparative advantage industri pengolahan kayu turun dari 3,06 pada 2020 menjadi 2,39 pada 2024, sedangkan furnitur kayu turun dari 1,18 menjadi 0,84. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis kondisi industri dan pelaksanaan Program Restrukturisasi Mesin, mengevaluasi perubahan kinerja perusahaan sebelum dan sesudah program, mengidentifikasi faktor strategis, serta menentukan prioritas strategi peningkatan efektivitas program. Program merupakan penggantian sebagian biaya pembelian mesin/peralatan yang telah direalisasikan dan diverifikasi, sehingga terutama diposisikan sebagai instrumen process upgrading. Penelitian menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif deskriptif-komparatif dan strategis. Uji sebelum–sesudah dilakukan pada 42 pasangan data lengkap dari 43 partisipasi program periode 2022–2024 dengan paired-samples t-test atau Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Ketahanan hasil diperiksa pada 33 perusahaan unik karena terdapat penerima berulang. Sebelas indikator mencakup delapan indikator internal serta penjualan domestik, total penjualan, dan nilai ekspor. Faktor strategis disusun melalui SWOT berbobot dari 28 responden, sedangkan prioritas strategi ditentukan menggunakan AHP berbasis SWOT dari tujuh ahli yang memenuhi syarat konsistensi dan diuji dengan leave-one-out. Kondisi makro menunjukkan rata-rata pertumbuhan PDB industri pengolahan kayu selama 2015–2025 sebesar -0,74%, sedangkan furnitur sebesar 2,21%. Pada tingkat program terdapat 59 pengajuan perusahaan-tahun dan 43 partisipasi penerima dari 33 perusahaan unik. Total investasi mesin/peralatan mencapai Rp153,70 miliar dan bantuan Rp20,61 miliar atau 13,41% dari investasi. Seluruh partisipasi tercatat menggunakan dana sendiri, sehingga perusahaan harus menyediakan pembiayaan awal sebelum menerima penggantian biaya. Peserta umumnya merupakan perusahaan yang telah matang, memiliki sedikitnya 100 pekerja, berorientasi ekspor, serta bergerak pada panel/komponen dan produk akhir/furnitur. Dengan karakter tersebut, program lebih berfungsi sebagai katalis modernisasi bagi perusahaan yang relatif siap. Hasil uji beda pada 42 pasangan menunjukkan tujuh dari sebelas indikator berubah signifikan. Pada uji sensitivitas 33 perusahaan unik, enam indikator internal tetap signifikan, yaitu produksi aktual, nilai produksi, intensitas bahan baku, utilisasi mesin, rendemen produksi terlapor, dan produktivitas tenaga kerja. Komposisi mesin mendukung pembacaan tersebut: 325 dari 575 unit/set merupakan peralatan penanganan material dan pemindahan, sedangkan 39,22% nilai investasi berada pada mesin pemotongan, pembentukan, dan penentuan ukuran. Pola ini konsisten dengan perbaikan aliran produksi, kapasitas, presisi, dan kualitas proses, tetapi tidak menunjukkan kontribusi kausal setiap kelompok mesin. Efisiensi energi dan jumlah tenaga kerja belum berubah signifikan. Kenaikan output per pekerja dengan jumlah pekerja relatif stabil menunjukkan peningkatan produktivitas tenaga kerja, tetapi tidak membuktikan skill upgrading atau tidak adanya perubahan komposisi pekerjaan. Penjualan domestik signifikan pada 42 pasangan, tetapi tidak bertahan pada 33 perusahaan unik; total penjualan dan nilai ekspor juga belum signifikan. Dengan demikian, hipotesis didukung secara parsial. Modernisasi mesin memperkuat kapabilitas internal dan process upgrading, sedangkan market upgrading dan export upgrading masih memerlukan produk bernilai tambah, konsistensi spesifikasi, jaringan pembeli, logistik, dan waktu pengamatan yang lebih panjang. Analisis SWOT berbobot menghasilkan IFE sebesar 2,92 dan EFE sebesar 2,58. Program berada pada Sel V Matriks IE dengan arah hold and maintain, sedangkan diagram kartesius berada pada kuadran SO. Kombinasi tersebut mengarahkan pertumbuhan selektif melalui penetrasi pasar dan pengembangan produk pada basis yang telah dimiliki, dengan perluasan cakupan program yang terkendali. Dalam AHP, transformasi teknologi dan daya saing industri nasional menjadi kriteria utama. Optimalisasi pemanfaatan mesin melalui pendampingan teknis (A2) dan penguatan seleksi penerima berbasis kesiapan serta komitmen kinerja (A1) berada pada lapis prioritas utama dan bertukar peringkat pada uji leave-one-out. Pengembangan produk bernilai tambah dan kesiapan ekspor (A4) stabil pada peringkat ketiga. Implikasi penelitian adalah perlunya menggeser orientasi program dari penggantian biaya pembelian mesin menuju modernisasi berbasis kinerja. Seleksi perlu mempertimbangkan kesiapan pembiayaan, kondisi awal, kebutuhan mesin, operator dan teknisi, rencana pemanfaatan, serta komitmen pelaporan. Pendampingan pascaprogram perlu mencakup SOP, pemeliharaan preventif, waktu henti, penggunaan energi dan bahan baku per unit output, serta integrasi mesin dengan alur produksi. Penelitian dibatasi oleh desain sebelum–sesudah tanpa kelompok nonpeserta, peserta yang tidak acak, dan keterbatasan data keuangan, ketenagakerjaan, mutu produk, serta pasar. Kesimpulan hanya berlaku pada perubahan yang teramati pada peserta. Secara keseluruhan, program memperkuat process upgrading, tetapi peningkatan daya saing pasar dan ekspor membutuhkan seleksi, pendampingan, pemantauan kinerja, nilai tambah, dan akses pasar.

The wood processing (KBLI 16) and furniture (KBLI 31) industries contribute to value added, employment, and non-oil-and-gas exports. However, resource advantages have not automatically generated sustainable competitiveness. The revealed comparative advantage of wood processing declined from 3.06 in 2020 to 2.39 in 2024, while wooden furniture declined from 1.18 to 0.84. This study aimed to analyze industry conditions and program implementation, evaluate changes in firm performance before and after participation, identify strategic factors, and determine priorities for improving program effectiveness. The program reimburses part of the cost of machinery or equipment that has already been purchased and verified; it is therefore positioned mainly as an instrument of process upgrading. The study applied a quantitative descriptive-comparative and strategic approach. Before–after tests were conducted on 42 complete paired observations from 43 program participations during 2022–2024 using the paired-samples t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Robustness was examined using 33 unique firms because several firms participated more than once. Eleven indicators comprised eight internal performance indicators and three outcomes: domestic sales, total sales, and export value. Strategic factors were developed through weighted SWOT analysis involving 28 respondents, while priorities were determined through SWOT-based AHP using seven experts who met the consistency requirement and were tested through leave-one-out analysis. At the macro level, average GDP growth during 2015–2025 was -0.74% for wood processing and 2.21% for furniture. At the program level, 59 firm-year applications were submitted and 43 participations involving 33 unique firms received support. Machinery and equipment investment totaled IDR 153.70 billion, while assistance amounted to IDR 20.61 billion, or 13.41% of investment. All participations reported self-financing, requiring firms to provide upfront funds before receiving partial reimbursement. Participants were generally mature firms with at least 100 workers, export orientation, and operations in panels/components or final products/furniture. The program therefore functioned mainly as a modernization catalyst for relatively prepared firms. The tests on 42 pairs showed significant changes in seven of eleven indicators. In the robustness analysis of 33 unique firms, six internal indicators remained significant: actual output, production value, raw-material intensity, machine utilization, reported yield, and labor productivity. Machinery composition supports this interpretation: 325 of 575 units/sets were material-handling and transfer equipment, while 39.22% of investment was allocated to cutting, forming, and sizing machines. This pattern is consistent with improvements in production flow, capacity, precision, and process quality, but it does not establish the causal contribution of each machinery group. Energy efficiency and employment did not change significantly. Higher output per worker with relatively stable employment indicates increased labor productivity, but does not demonstrate skill upgrading or unchanged job composition. Domestic sales were significant in the 42-pair analysis but not among 33 unique firms; total sales and export value were also not significant. The hypothesis was therefore partially supported. Machinery modernization strengthened internal capabilities and process upgrading, whereas market and export upgrading still require value-added products, consistent specifications, buyer networks, logistics, and a longer observation period. The weighted SWOT analysis produced an IFE score of 2.92 and an EFE score of 2.58. The program was placed in Cell V of the IE matrix under a hold and maintain prescription, while the Cartesian diagram fell within the SO quadrant. Together, these results indicate selective growth through market penetration and product development on the existing base, with controlled expansion of program coverage. In the AHP, technology transformation and national industrial competitiveness became the leading criterion. Optimizing machinery use through technical assistance (A2) and strengthening recipient selection based on readiness and performance commitment (A1) formed the main priority tier and exchanged ranks in the leave-one-out test. Developing value-added products and export readiness (A4) remained stable in third place. The findings imply that the program should shift from machinery-purchase reimbursement toward performance-based modernization. Selection should assess financing readiness, baseline conditions, machinery needs, operator and technician preparedness, utilization plans, and reporting commitments. Post-program assistance should cover standard operating procedures, preventive maintenance, downtime, energy and material use per unit of output, and machinery integration within the production flow. The study is limited by its before–after design without a nonparticipant comparison group, nonrandom participants, and limited financial, labor, product-quality, and market data. Conclusions therefore apply only to observed changes among participating firms. Overall, the program strengthened process upgrading, while market and export competitiveness require appropriate selection, technical assistance, performance monitoring, value addition, and market access.