BUILDING PROJECT SCOPE DEFINITION USING PROJECT DEFINITION
RATING INDEX
By Chung-Suk Cho1 and G. Edward Gibson Jr.,2 Members, ASCE
ABSTRACT: Poor scope definition is recognized by industry practitioners as one of the leading causes of project
failure, adversely affecting projects in the areas of cost, schedule, and operational characteristics. Unfortunately,
many owner and contractor organizations do a poor job of adequately defining a project’s scope leading to a
poor design basis. A research team constituted by the Construction Industry Institute (CII) has developed the
Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) to address scope definition in the building sector. The PDRI for buildings
is a comprehensive, weighted checklist of 64 scope definition elements presented in a score sheet format. It
provides a tool for an individual or project team to objectively evaluate the status of a building project during
preproject planning. This paper will discuss the PDRI development process, including input from over 100
industry professionals. Key project scope definition elements will be identified. The PDRI validation procedure,
involving over 50 projects, will be discussed. A description of the potential uses of the PDRI and a summary
of its benefits to the building construction industry will be outlined.
INTRODUCTION
Preproject planning is the project phase encompassing all
the tasks between project initiation to detailed design. Over
the past nine years, the Construction Industry Institute (CII)
has funded several research projects focused on preproject
planning. Findings from these investigations have dramatically
changed the awareness of project management professionals
within CII toward the importance of the process and the benefits of early project planning. Research results have shown
that greater preproject planning efforts lead to improved performance on industrial projects in the areas of cost, schedule,
and operational characteristics (Gibson and Hamilton 1994;
CII 1995; Griffith and Gibson 1995; Griffith et al. 1998). Synthesizing these efforts was the development of the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for industrial projects, a scope
definition tool that is widely used by planners in the industrial
projects sector.
One of the major subprocesses of the preproject planning
process is the development of the project scope definition
package. Project scope definition is the process by which projects are defined and prepared for execution. It is at this crucial
stage where risks associated with the project are analyzed and
the specific project execution approach is defined. Success during the detailed design, construction, and start-up phases of a
project is highly dependent on the level of effort expended
during this scope definition phase (Gibson and Hamilton
1994).
Research has shown the importance of preproject planning
on capital projects and its influence on project success. Findings of a recent study have proven that higher levels of preproject planning effort can result in significant cost and schedule savings. Specifically, the research study categorized 53
capital facility projects into three different intensities of preproject planning effort and compared total potential cost and
schedule performance differences as follows (CII 1994; Hamilton and Gibson 1996):
1
Project Engr., ADP Marshall, 75 Newman Ave., Rumford, RI 02916.
Assoc. Prof. and Fluor Centennial Teaching Fellow, Dept. of Civ.
Engrg., Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: egibson@mail.utexas.
edu
Note. Discussion open until May 1, 2002. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on January 9, 2001; revised July 30, 2001. This paper
is part of the Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 4, December, 2001. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1076-0431/01/0004-0115–0125/$8.00 ⫹
$.50 per page. Paper No. 21939.
2
• A 20% cost savings with a high level of preproject planning effort
• A 39% schedule savings with a high level of preproject
planning effort
Because of the significant savings associated with improved
project predictability, the study concluded that a complete
scope definition prior to project execution is imperative to
project success.
A more recent CII research study focused on developing a
useful tool for measuring the level of project definition at the
time the project is authorized for final funding. This new tool,
the PDRI for Industrial Projects, is a project management tool
that assists in calculating a total score representing the level
of project definition. Developed specifically for industrial projects such as refineries, chemical plants, power plants, and
heavy manufacturing, the PDRI provides project team members with a structured approach for developing a good scope
definition package.
The PDRI for Industrial Projects consists of 70 scope definition elements in a weighted checklist format. The 70 elements are divided into three main sections and 15 categories
(Gibson and Dumont 1996; Dumont et al. 1997). The project
team assessing the level of definition of each of the 70 elements and a score is calculated; the lower the score, the more
well defined the project. A score of 200 points or below using
this tool was shown to statistically increase the predictability
of project outcome. A sample of 40 projects using the industrial version of the PDRI indicated that those projects scoring
below 200 versus those scoring above 200 had:
• Average cost savings of 19% versus estimated for design
and construction
• Schedule reduction by 13% versus estimated for design
and construction
• Fewer project changes
• Increased predictability of operational performance
With the success of the PDRI for industrial projects, many
building industry planners wanted a similar tool to address
scope development of buildings. CII constituted a team and
funded a research effort to facilitate this development effort.
The rest of this paper will introduce the PDRI for building
projects. The primary structure and format of the PDRI and
its development will be explained. This will be followed by a
brief synopsis of its validation on 33 completed building projects and its use on 20 ongoing projects. The paper will conclude by describing the potential uses of the PDRI and summarizing its benefits to building construction practitioners.
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001 / 115
BACKGROUND
Planning has long been a subject of discussion in the building industry. Many guides have been developed and much
knowledge resides with experienced practitioners (Griffin
1972; Pena 1987; Billings 1993; Preiser 1993; Haviland 1996;
Cherry 1999; ASCE 2000). However, early planning in many
cases is not performed well in the building industry. Consequently, the building sector suffers from poor or incomplete
scope definition, frequently experiencing considerable changes
that result in significant cost and schedule overruns (Gibson
et al. 1997; Cho et al. 1999; Cho 2000). Because of these
problems, there existed a need for a better method of assisting
in defining project scope.
The building industry is different from the industrial sector
in various ways, such as the approach of planning, design, and
construction of facilities; the owner’s perspective; the architectural focus; and so on. Nonetheless, there are many similarities. Like the industrial sector, the building industry suffers
from poor or incomplete preproject planning. As in the industrial sector, planning in the building industry is a process that
needs to have input from a wide variety of individuals and
must have significant owner involvement. However, at the
time of this study, a quantitative understanding of scope definition issues for buildings had not been well-studied and no
tool existed to help with scope definition.
As developed, the PDRI for Building Projects is a userfriendly checklist that identifies and precisely describes each
critical element in a project scope definition package to assist
project managers in understanding the scope of work. It provides a means for an individual or team to evaluate the status
of a building project during preproject planning with a score
corresponding to project’s overall level of definition. The
PDRI helps stakeholders of a project quickly analyze the scope
definition package and predict factors that may impact project
risk specifically in regard to buildings. (CII 1999; Cho 2000)
As illustrated in Fig. 1, the PDRI for building projects is designed for use at varying times during the project’s lifecycle
prior to detailed design and development of construction documents.
This tool is applicable to multistory or single-story commercial, institutional, or light industrial facilities, such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Offices
Schools (classrooms)
Medical facilities
Research and laboratory facilities
Institutional buildings
Stores/shopping centers
Dormitories
Apartments
Hotels/motels
Parking structures
Warehouses
Light assembly/manufacturing
Churches
FIG. 1.
•
•
•
•
Airport terminals
Recreational/athletic facilities
Public assembly/performance halls
Industrial control buildings
DEVELOPMENT OF PDRI FOR BUILDING PROJECTS
Initial development work on the PDRI for building projects
began in June 1997 at the University of Texas using the PDRI
for Industrial Projects as a basis. This effort included input
and review from approximately 30 industry experts, as well
as extensive use of literature sources for terminology and key
scope element refinement (O’Reilly 1997). The 12 member,
CII PDRI for Buildings Research Team, constituted in February 1998, refined and streamlined the list of PDRI elements
and their descriptions, starting with the draft of 71 elements
to the final draft in December 1998.
A complete list of the PDRI’s three sections, 11 categories,
and 64 elements is given in Fig. 2. The 64 elements in the
PDRI for Building Projects are arranged in a score sheet format and supported by 38 pages of detailed descriptions and
checklists. The score sheet is given in Appendix I and will be
described in more detail later in this paper. A representative
example description for element G1, Equipment List, is given
in Fig. 3. Due to limitations of space, the entire list of detailed
element descriptions are not included in this document.
PDRI Element Weighting
The writers knew that the 64 elements within the PDRI were
not equally important with respect to their potential impact on
overall project success. Therefore, it was decided that the elements needed to be weighted relative to each other to enhance
their usefulness as a risk analysis tool. The method chosen to
quickly develop reasonable and credible weights for the PDRI
elements was to rely on the expertise of a broad range of
construction industry practitioners marshaled together in workshops. The weighting development was therefore an inductive
process in nature that incorporated expert input into developing final weights.
From July 1998 to October 1998, seven weighting workshops were held for this purpose, each lasting four hours. The
workshops involved a total of 69 experienced project managers, architects, and engineers with almost 1,500 total collective
years of building project expertise to help evaluate and weight
the PDRI elements. The participants represented 35 owner and
contractor organizations from the building construction sector,
consisting of 11 owners and 24 contractors. The participants
were volunteers and constituted a convenience sample put together using contacts and acquaintances of the development
team. In addition to keeping a balance between owner and
contractor organizations, the research team attempted to invite
balanced numbers of groups with different educational backgrounds to evaluate and weight the PDRI elements. The 69
workshop participants consisted of 30 individuals with engineering backgrounds, 31 with architectural backgrounds, and
Applicability of PDRI in Project Lifecycle, Typical Building Project
116 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001
FIG. 2.
PDRI SECTIONS, Categories, and Elements
eight other professionals directly involved in planning building
projects (Cho et al. 1999; Cho 2000).
Each participant completed a series of documents at the
workshops. In addition to personal history, they were initially
asked to list and consider a typical project that they had recently worked on for the organization they represented. Each
was then asked to assume that he/she was estimating this particular project and evaluating its probability of success based
on the level of definition of the 64 elements. The workshop
proceeded in order through the 64 elements with each element
reviewed and its description read.
Assuming that scope development for the project had been
completed, the workshop participants were instructed to apply
what they felt to be an appropriate cost contingency to each
element, given two circumstances—the element was undefined (level of definition 5), or it was completely defined (level
of definition 1). The weighting was based on their opinions as
to the relative impact that each element has on the overall
accuracy of the project’s total installed cost (TIC) estimate. All
64 elements were reviewed in this manner.
The workshop concluded with critiques of the scoring methodology and the tool itself. These comments were subsequently evaluated and several minor corrections were made to
the score sheet, instructions for use, and element descriptions.
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001 / 117
FIG. 3.
Example Element Description, G1. Equipment List
The raw weights obtained from these workshops were used
to develop the final version of the PDRI score sheet. Each
participant’s responses at the workshop were individually evaluated and normalized to a maximum of 1,000 points. This was
accomplished by adding all values in the ‘‘incomplete or
poorly defined’’ column and converting those scores to values
relative to one another that added to 1,000 points. A similar
method was used to evaluate the elements when they had
‘‘complete definition’’ by normalizing to 70 points (which was
chosen to be consistent with the PDRI for industrial projects).
Definition levels 2, 3, and 4 were interpolated between the
extremes.
A single, collective weight was developed for each of five
levels of definition of each element based using the mean of
the 69 responses. Several statistical tests were then performed
to evaluate the responses including simple descriptive statistics, skewness, kurtosis, and variance analyses. In some cases,
respondents were removed from the sample because their responses were far different from the overall sample. In the end,
59 of the 69 respondents were used to develop the final
weights, and the weighted PDRI score sheet is provided in
Appendix I (Cho 2000). An unweighted PDRI score sheet and
38 pages of element descriptions can be found in a separate
document entitled Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI),
Building Projects (CII 1999).
The PDRI score sheet is used to evaluate the level of completeness of the project scope definition at a point in time.
Each of the 64 elements is subjectively evaluated by key project stakeholders during preproject planning based on its level
of definition versus its corresponding description. Six levels
of definition are listed across the top of the PDRI score sheet,
creating a matrix with the 64 elements. These six definition
levels, including level 0 for not applicable, range from complete definition for level 1 to incomplete or poor definition for
118 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001
level 5. Depending on how well the element is defined in the
scope definition package, the PDRI score sheet user can check
the appropriate definition level for a particular element, ranging from being completely defined to incomplete or poor definition.
Adding up the individual element evaluations and their corresponding weights yields a single PDRI score for the project,
which can range from 70 to 1,000. The lower the total PDRI
score, the better the project scope definition. Higher weights
signify that certain elements within the scope package lack
adequate definition and should be reexamined prior to construction documents development.
ANALYSES
Analyzing Weighted PDRI
The three sections and 11 categories of the PDRI were
sorted in order of importance as shown in Table 1. The weight
column corresponds to a summation of all definition level 5
values for that category or section. In other words, if all elements in that section or category were incomplete or undefined, these would be the scores.
Section II, Basis of Design, and Section I, Basis of Project
Decision, in combination, comprise 841 points, or approximately 84% of a potential of 1,000 points. This indicates the
significance of having a sound basis of design and project
decision prepared in the project scope definition package during the preproject planning phase, as identified by the workshop panelists. It also signifies the importance of owner input
and active participation of critical owner stakeholders during
the planning stage of a project. The category weights sorted
in hierarchical order of importance indicate that Categories
A and E were deemed as the most important of the 11 categories, receiving 376 of the 1,000 total points. A list of 10
TABLE 1.
PDRI Section and Category Weights
Section Weights
Section
II Basis of Design
I Basis of Project
Decision
III Execution Approach
Total
TABLE 2.
428
413
159
1,000
Category
Weight
A Business Strategy
E Building Programming
214
162
C Project Requirements
F Building/Project Design
Parameters
D Site Information
B Owner Philosophies
K Project Control
L Project Execution Plan
G Equipment
H Procurement Strategy
J Deliverables
Total
131
122
108
68
63
60
36
25
11
1,000
Ten Highest Weighted PDRI Elements
Element
designator
A1
A5
A7
A2
C6
A3
C2
C3
A6
F2
Category Weights
Weight
Element
Weight
Building Use
Facility Requirements
Site Selection Considerations
Business Justification
Project Cost Estimate
Business Plan
Project Design Criteria
Evaluation of Existing Facilities
Future Expansion/Alteration Considerations
Architectural Design
44
31
28
27
27
26
24
24
22
22
highest weighted elements in descending order is shown in
Table 2.
These 10 elements total 275 points, or approximately 28%,
of the 1,000 total points. (Each element has a corresponding
detailed description which is not given here.) The 10 highest
weighted elements can be regarded as the most important elements in the project scope definition package and, if poorly
or incompletely defined during early project planning, will
have the greatest negative impact on project performance. If a
project team lacks the time for preproject planning prior to the
development of construction document and construction, these
elements are the critical few that should be considered.
Oftentimes, there is a tendency in the construction industry
to skip several steps in the scope definition process in an attempt to reduce overall project cycle time. This may be due
to several reasons, such as lack of necessary expertise within
the organization, demand for the end product, or an unwillingness to commit the funds required for complete scope definition. If this happens, at least those critical few elements
defined in Table 2 should be considered during preproject
planning in order to meet the project objectives and reduce
risk.
PDRI VALIDATION
Although the weights obtained for PDRI elements were
based upon the expertise of experienced project managers, architects, and engineers, the tool needed to be tested on actual
projects to verify its capabilities and value. In order to establish an unbiased, reliable validation data sample from an analytical and statistical standpoint, a number of both successful
and unsuccessful projects were used for the validation. The
primary goal of the validation process was to correlate PDRI
scores with projects measured in terms of cost performance,
schedule performance, change orders, and customer satisfaction. A mail survey was used to collect quantitative and historical project data as well as ‘‘level of definition’’ PDRI el-
ement status at the beginning of construction document (CD)
development. These data were used to build profiles of the
sample and to assess the PDRI with regard to project success.
The PDRI for Building Projects was tested on a total of 33
completed projects varying in size from a final cost of $0.9
million to $200 million, as shown in Table 3. The sample was
a nonrandom sample from 10 organizations, with the PDRI
scored ‘‘after-the-fact.’’ These projects represented approximately $899.5 million in total constructed cost with a $26.8
million average.
Using an unweighted PDRI score sheet, the validation questionnaire respondents were asked to rate how well developed
each of the 64 elements were at the time the project was ready
to begin development of construction documents. This use of
an unweighted scoresheet minimized the tendency of element
weights to influence the evaluation process. Respondents indicated their choice for each element by placing a check mark
in the box corresponding to the appropriate level of definition
on a scale ranging from 0 to 5. When the questionnaire was
returned, the writers converted this series of checks into a final
project score.
The PDRI scores for 33 sample projects ranged from 74 to
648 (from a possible range of 70 to 1,000) with a mean value
of 203 and a median of 202. Among 33 sample projects, 16
projects scored below 200 and remaining 17 scored above 200.
The survey questionnaire captured detailed project information
such as schedule, cost, changes, financial and investment information, operating information, and customer satisfaction
(Cho 2000).
The writers realize that project planning data used in the
sample were collected by relying on the respondent’s subjective recollections and, therefore, could be subject to biases.
However, given the level of industry input in the tool development phase and the sample size, the results are adequate to
TABLE 3.
Project
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
PDRI Validation Projects
Type of project
Estimated cost
(million $)
PDRI
score
Office
Recreational/athletic facility
Office
Warehouse
Recreational/athletic facility
Stores/shopping center
Office
Office
Research/laboratory facility
Research/laboratory facility
Research/laboratory facility
Industrial control building
Office
Office
Government border station
Government border station
Courthouse
Store/shopping center
Fire station
Retail/car dealership
School
School
Research/laboratory facility
Office
Research/laboratory facility
Seismic protection
Warehouse
Office
School
Institutional building
Recreational/athletic facility
Public assembly/performance
Office
Totals
$10.0
$32.6
$34.8
$45.9
$122.5
$200.0
$10.2
$8.7
$0.9
$0.9
$43.4
$25
$8.7
$14.1
$4.2
$1.7
$132.9
$1.8
$1.6
$1.6
$23.1
$23.0
$3.3
$13.4
$9.7
$16.1
$25.7
$6.4
$13.2
$18.1
$24.2
$18.2
$3.6
$899.5
256
96
164
203
285
460
141
130
208
202
204
126
240
223
172
95
238
233
218
158
102
139
149
648
202
188
151
74
160
205
238
165
216
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001 / 119
provide an initial tool validation, pending further study in the
future.
Project Performance Analyses Using Target
PDRI Score
In order to determine a PDRI score that distinguishes successful and unsuccessful projects, several different PDRI sample segregation points (e.g., 150, 200, and 210) were used to
test the mean performance differences. Using these segregation
points, mean values of project performance variables were
compared at a 95% confidence level. The writers found statistically significant mean differences on several performance
variables when the segregation point of 200 was used.
The authors consistently observed a statistically significant
difference in performance between the projects scoring above
TABLE 4. Summary of Cost, Schedule, and Change Order
Performance for PDRI Validation Projects Using 200 Point Cutoff
200 and the projects scoring below 200 prior to development
of construction documents, as shown in Table 4.
Performance is the mean percentage change in actual cost
(contingency not included) and schedule performance as compared with that estimated prior to development of construction
documents (CDs). The reported change order value represents
the cost increase/decrease during design and construction due
to change orders as an absolute value.
The validation projects scoring below 200 outperformed
those scoring above 200 in three important design/construction
outcome areas: cost performance, schedule performance, and
the relative value of change orders as compared with the authorized cost. In addition to cost and schedule differences, the
projects scoring less than 200 performed better financially, had
fewer numbers of change orders, had less turbulence related
to design size changes during CD development and construction, and were generally rated more successful on average than
projects scoring higher than 200. Additional performance data
are summarized in Table 5.
PDRI Score
Performance
Cost
Schedule
Change orders
<200
>200
Difference
1% above
budget
2% behind
schedule
7% of budget
(N = 16)
6% above
budget
12% behind
schedule
10% of budget
(N = 17)
5%
10%
3%
TABLE 5. Summary of Other Performance Data for PDRI Validation
Projects Using 200 Point Cutoff
PDRI Score
Performance
<200
>200
Average PDRI score
Average number of change orders
Financial performance (scale of 1–5)
Average percent design size and design
size changes
During CD development or constructiona
Project success (scale of 1–5)
138
58
3.4
100.1
264
95
3.2
99.1
3
4.9
(N = 16)
7
4.2
(N = 17)
PDRI Validation Using In-Progress Projects
While the validation process as discussed was performed on
complete projects, the PDRI was also used by the writers and
research team members on current, ongoing projects in a group
setting to observe its effectiveness in helping teams complete
preproject planning activities. It was used on a total of 20
projects at different stages of planning, as outlined in Table 6.
In each case, the PDRI gave project team members a viable
platform to discuss project-specific issues and helped identify
critical planning problems on every project. Examples of problems identified included site-specific issues such as flood plain
encroachment, fire water pressure shortfalls, traffic flow problems, permitting surprises, and setback problems. Example
building problems identified included poor equipment lists, inadequate space planning, undersized utilities, code violations,
and so on. These problems were identified at a point in the
project when they could be addressed with minimal disruption
and cost.
Specific observations include the following:
a
Denotes number of projects with design size changes out of subsample.
TABLE 6.
Project number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
• The PDRI can be used effectively more than once during
project planning.
In-Progress PDRI Validation Projects
Description
Estimated size
(million $)
Dormitory
R and D laboratory
Dormitory renovation
Student union
Distribution center addition
Hotel renovation
Manufacturing planta
Manufacturing/assembly plant
Manufacturing plant
Manufacturing/assembly plant
Manufacturing/assembly plant
Child care center
Medical research
Corporate campus
Hangar upgrade
Emergency backup power generation building
Upgrade chill water building
Upgrade computer room
Office complex
Dining hall renovation
Total
$52
3
13
7
2
12
62
144
57
60
TBD
1
37
120
3
4
3
0.2
34
13
$627
a
PDRI used to plan ‘‘building’’ portion of projects 7–11.
120 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001
Project phase used
After program development
At the end of design development
After schematic design
After program and after design development
During CD development
During CD development
Midway through planning, during design development
Early in planning, prior to program
Late in planning, prior to CD development
Late in planning, prior to CD development
Early in planning, prior to program
Midway through CD development of design/build project
During design development
Fast track, late in design development; site work had commenced
Midway through design development
Just prior to detailed design
Midway through design development
Just prior to detailed design
Just prior to detailed design
During design development
• The tool provides an excellent mechanism to identify specific problems and assign actions.
• Using the tool is an excellent way to align a project team.
• The PDRI is effective even when used very early in the
planning process. Individual planners can use the tool at
this point to identify potential problems and to organize
their work effort.
• A facilitator provides a neutral party to help maintain consistency when scoring projects.
• The team or individual scoring the project should focus
on the scoring process, rather than the final score, in order
to honestly identify deficiencies.
HOW TO USE PDRI
Ideally, the project team gets together to conduct a PDRI
evaluation at various points during preproject planning. Experience has shown that the scoring process works best in a
team environment with a neutral facilitator familiar with the
process. This facilitator provides objective feedback to the
team and controls the pace of the meeting. If this arrangement
is not possible, an alternate approach is to have key individuals
evaluate the project separately, then evaluate it together and
reach a consensus. Even an individual using the PDRI as a
checklist can provide an effective method for project evaluation (CII 1999).
The PDRI can be easily integrated into the early planning
process when project scope is developed and verified. Specifically, the PDRI can help improve completion of the five major
subprocesses of preproject planning (scope management): initiation, scope planning, scope definition, scope verification,
and scope change control (PMI 1996; Dumont et al. 1997):
• Initiation: The PDRI can help define the overall project
requirements for developing and assembling the project
team. It can help all stakeholders involved in the project
understand scope definition requirements and objectives.
The PDRI also can be used in developing a baseline for
understanding the current level of project definition of the
building.
• Scope Planning: The PDRI can help the project team determine which elements are the most critical in the building project scope package. The hierarchy of PDRI sections, categories, and elements can form the basis of a
work breakdown structure (WBS) for proper scope planning. The PDRI also assists in developing project milestones, standardizing terminology, and communication
among project participants. The ultimate results of scope
planning will be a scope management plan and a scope
statement.
• Scope Definition: The PDRI provides a structured approach to project scope definition for building projects.
Detailed element descriptions in a checklist format help
ensure that each appropriate element is adequately addressed. The PDRI can be used to score the completeness
of the project scope package during the planning process
in order to measure progress, assess risk, and redirect future effort. It also can assist in assigning work responsibilities to the scope definition WBS.
If the organization has well-documented preproject
planning procedures and standards in place, many of the
elements may be partially defined when project planning
begins. An organization may want to standardize many of
the PDRI elements as much as possible to improve cycle
time of planning activities.
• Scope Verification: PDRI scores reflect the quality and
completeness of the project scope package from the project participant’s perspective. Analysis of these scores can
facilitate risk assessment by highlighting the building
project’s weak areas. It can provide a benchmark for comparison against the performance of past projects in order
to predict the probability of future success. Project evaluation can be conducted by both owners and contractors
either separately or together to ensure a fair assessment
and a consensus among all stakeholders. The detailed element descriptions in the tool provide an objective basis
for discussion regarding the need for additional information in the scope package. This is important because often
facility owners are not aware of the level of definition
necessary for contractors to successfully complete the
project. Finally, it can be used as one indicator in making
the decision whether to authorize the project to move forward with development of construction documents and
construction.
• Scope Change Control: When used effectively, the PDRI
forces good, written scope definition. Therefore, when
scope changes occur, the affected areas can be identified
more easily. The PDRI allows the project team to refocus
effort during project execution on any elements that were
not well defined early on and take appropriate action to
improve their definition. It also provides a basis for ‘‘lessons learned’’ during future endeavors.
CONCLUSIONS
The PDRI is a scope development tool that applies to buildings such as institutional, offices, light manufacturing, medical
facilities, etc., in the project size range of $1–50 million and
has been effectively used on larger as well as smaller projects.
It is an effective tool that allows a planning team to assess the
probability of achieving project objectives during preproject
planning. It can be used as:
• A checklist that a project team can use for determining
the necessary steps to follow in defining the project scope
• A listing of standardized scope definition terminology
throughout the building construction sector
• An industry standard for rating the completeness of the
project scope definition package to facilitate risk assessment and prediction of escalation, potential for disputes, etc.
• A means to monitor progress at various stages during the
front end planning effort
• A tool that aids in communication and alignment between
owners and design contractors by highlighting poorly defined areas in a scope definition package
• A means for project team participants to reconcile differences using a common basis for project evaluation
• A training tool for organizations and individuals throughout the industry
• A benchmarking tool for organizations to use in evaluating completion of scope definition versus the performance
of past projects, both within their organization and externally, in order to predict the probability of success on
future projects
The PDRI can assist owners, developers, designers, and
contractors. Facility owners, developers, and lending institutions can use it as an assessment tool for establishing a comfort
level at which they are willing to move forward on projects.
Designers and constructors can use it as a means of negotiating
with owners in identifying poorly defined project scope definition elements and to develop a written, detailed basis for
design.
The planning process is inherently iterative in nature and
any changes that occur in assumptions or planning parameters
need to be resolved with earlier planning decisions. The PDRI
provides a forum for all project participants to communicate
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001 / 121
and reconcile differences using an objective tool as a common
basis for project scope evaluation. The PDRI target score (200
points) may not be as important as the team’s progress over
time in resolving issues that harbor risk. It should be noted
APPENDIX I.
that the PDRI along does not ensure project success, but
should be coupled with sound business planning, alignment,
and good project execution to greatly improve the probability
of meeting or exceeding project objectives.
PDRI FOR BUILDINGS SCORE SHEET, WEIGHTED
122 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001 / 123
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
The writers would like to thank CII and the members of the CII PDRI
for Building Projects Research Team for supporting this research investigation. Without their assistance, this work would not have been possible.
Chung-Suk Cho was formerly a graduate student in the Department of
Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2000). Quality in the constructed project—a guide for owners, designers, and constructors, 2nd
Ed., Reston, Va.
Billings, K. (1993). Master planning for architecture, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
124 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001
Cherry, E. (1999). Programming for design: from theory to practice, Wiley, New York.
Cho, C. S., Furman, J. C., and Gibson, G. E. (1999). ‘‘Development of
the project definition rating index (PDRI) for building projects.’’ Res.
Rep. 155-11 Prepared for Construction Industry Institute, University
of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Cho, C. S. (2000). ‘‘Development of the project definition rating index
(PDRI) for building projects.’’ PhD thesis, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Cho, C. S., and Gibson, G. E., Jr. (2000). ‘‘Development of a project
definition rating index (PDRI) for general building projects.’’ Proc.,
Constr. Congr. VI, ASCE, Reston, Va., 343–352.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1995). ‘‘Pre-project planning handbook.’’ Special Publ. 39-2, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1999). ‘‘Project definition rating
index (PDRI), building projects.’’ Implementation Resour. 155-2, Austin, Tex.
Dumont, P. R., Gibson, G. E., and Fish, J. R. (1997). ‘‘Scope management
using project definition rating index.’’ J. Mgmt. Engrg., ASCE, 13(5),
54–60.
Gibson, G. E., and Dumont, P. R. (1996). ‘‘Project definition rating index
(PDRI).’’ Res. Rep. 113-11 Prepared for Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Gibson, G. E., and Hamilton, M. R. (1994). ‘‘Analysis of pre-project
planning effort and success variables for capital facility projects.’’ Rep.
Prepared for Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, Tex.
Gibson, G. E., Liao, S., Broaddus, J. A., and Bruns, T. A. (1997). ‘‘The
University of Texas System capital project performance, 1990–1995.’’
OFPC Paper 97-1, University of Texas System, Austin, Tex.
Griffin, C. W. (1972). Development building: the team approach, Wiley,
New York.
Griffith, A. F., Gibson, G. E., Hamilton, M. R., Tortora, A. L., and Wilson,
C. T. (1999). ‘‘Project success index for capital facility construction
projects.’’ J. Perf. Constr. Fac., ASCE, 13(1), 39–45.
Haviland, D., ed. (1996). The architect’s handbook of professional practice. Volume 2: The project, American Institute of Architects, Washington, D.C.
O’Reilly, A. (1997). ‘‘Project definition rating index for buildings.’’ MS
thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Pena, W. (1987). Problem seeking: an architectural programming primer,
3rd Ed., AIA Press, Washington, D.C.
Preiser, W. F. E. (1993). Professional practice in facility programming,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (1996). A guide to the project management body of knowledge, Upper Darby, Pa.
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001 / 125