RATING INDEX
BACKGROUND                                                                    •   Airport terminals
FIG. 2.   PDRI SECTIONS, Categories, and Elements

eight other professionals directly involved in planning building      ...
FIG. 3.   Example Element Description, G1. Equipment List

   The raw weights obtained from these workshops were used    ...
TABLE 1.       PDRI Section and Category Weights                   ement status at the beginning of construction document ...
provide an initial tool validation, pending further study in the                    200 and the projects scoring below 200...
• The tool provides an excellent mechanism to identify spe-               project’s weak areas. It can provide a benchmark...
and reconcile differences using an objective tool as a common    that the PDRI along does not ensure project success, but
   The writers would like to thank CII and the members of the CII PDRI        American Society ...
Cherry, E. (1999). Programming for design: from theory to practice, Wi-          Gibson, G. E., and Hamilton, M. R. (1994)...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Proyecto II Costos


Published on

Pdri Buildings

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Proyecto II Costos

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