CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INSTITUTE

P RE -P ROJECT P LANNING T OOL :

PDRI FOR B UILDINGS

Research Summary 155-1

 Construction Industry Institute
3M
Abbott Laboratories
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Alcoa
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
Aramco Services Company
Atlantic Richfield Company
Bayer Corporation
BP Amoco Corporation
Celanese
Champion International Corporation
Chevron Corporation
CITGO Petroleum Corporation
The Dow Chemical Company
DuPont
Eastman Chemical Company
Exxon Research & Engineering Company
FPL Energy, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
General Services Administration
Intel Corporation
Eli Lilly and Company
LTV Steel Company, Inc.
NASA
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Ontario Power Generation
Phillips Petroleum Company
Praxair, Inc.
The Procter & Gamble Company
Reliant Energy
Rohm and Haas Company
Shell Oil Company
Solutia Inc.
Tennessee Valley Authority
Texaco Inc.
U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Steel
Union Carbide Corporation
The University of Texas System
Weyerhaeuser Company
ABB Lummus Global Inc.
BE&K, Inc.
BMW Constructors, Inc.
Bechtel Group, Inc.
Black & Veatch
Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc.
Butler Manufacturing Company
CDI Engineering Group, Inc.
Chemtex International Inc.
Cherne Contracting Corporation
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company
Cianbro Corporation
Day & Zimmermann International, Inc.
Dick Corporation
Dillingham Construction Holdings Inc.
Eichleay Holdings Inc.
Fisher Controls International, Inc.
Fluor Daniel, Inc.
Foster Wheeler USA Corporation
Fru-Con Construction Corporation
James N. Gray Company
Graycor
H+M Construction Co., Inc.
Hilti Corporation
Honeywell Inc.
International Technology Corporation
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
J. A. Jones, Inc.
Kellogg Brown & Root
Kiewit Construction Group, Inc.
Kvrner
Morrison Knudsen Corporation
M. A. Mortenson Company
Murphy Company
The Parsons Corporation
Primavera Systems, Inc.
Raytheon Engineers & Constructors
S&B Engineers and Constructors Ltd.
SAP America, Inc.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
Walbridge Aldinger Company
H. B. Zachry Company
 Pre-Project Planning Tool:
PDRI for Buildings

Prepared by
The Construction Industry Institute
PDRI for Building Projects Research Team

Research Summary 155-1

November 1999
 1999 Construction Industry Institute.

The University of Texas at Austin.

CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at
no cost to internal recipients. CII members are permitted to revise and adapt this
work for the internal use provided an informational copy is furnished to CII.

Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or

distributed and no modifications made without prior written permission from CII.
Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase copies.
Volume discounts may be available.

All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible
to purchase CII products at member prices. Faculty and students at a college or
university may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for
educational use.

Printed in the United States of America.

 Contents

Chapter Page

Executive Summary v

1. Introduction 1

2. PDRIBuildings 3

3. How to Use the PDRIBuildings 15

4. Conclusions 19

References 23

Appendix A: PDRIBuildings Validation Projects 24

Appendix B: In-Progress PDRIBuildings Validation

Projects 26

Appendix C: Equipment Element Descriptions 27

 Executive Summary

Previous CII research found that tools for measuring project

scope definition and assisting alignment between project
participants needed to be developed. CII formed the Project
Definition Rating Index for Building Projects Research Team (RT
155) to produce an effective, simple, and easy-to-use scope
definition tool for building projects. This research summary
provides an overview of the research and development of PDRI
Buildings. It also discusses the usefulness of the PDRI on building
projects.

RT 155 produced CII Implementation Resource 155-2, PDRI

Building Projects, which consists of 64 elements in a weighted
checklist format and provides a method for measuring the
completeness of project scope development. The PDRIBuildings
weighted index, based on industry best practices, allows its users to
measure the level of scope definition and to compare scope
definition to anticipated project success. This tool should help
owners and contractors better achieve business, operational, and
project objectives.

When using the PDRIBuildings tool, the weighted score of a

project can range up to 1000 points, with a lower score being
better. Based on an analysis of 32 completed projects during the
validation process, RT 155 found that projects scoring less than 200
(out of 1000 total points) were significantly more successful than
those that scored greater than 200.

The PDRIBuildings tool was used on several projects that were

in-progress during the research. Lessons learned are presented to
provide a better understanding of how to use the PDRIBuildings
tool in planning a project. Logic flow diagrams, developed to
provide time-sequenced logic to project planning activities, are also
included.

v
 1

Introduction

Recent research studies have proven the importance of the pre-

project planning phase of the project life cycle. Specifically, a
complete scope definition improves project performance in the
areas of cost, schedule, quality, and operational characteristics.
Unfortunately, until now, the building sector has lacked non-
proprietary tools to assist in performing this critical stage of the
project.

Because of the needs of the building sector, CII created

Research Team 155 (RT 155). The research team set forth the
following objectives:

1. Produce a user-friendly and generic tool for measuring

project scope development that would:
Be easy to use, yet be detailed enough to be effective.
Help reduce total project costs and improve schedule
performance.
Serve as a communication and alignment tool.
Be a decision support tool.
Be a reliable predictor.
Be flexible among facility types.

2. Validate the tool through testing on sample projects by

measuring the level of project scope definition during the
pre-project planning phases.

In meeting these objectives, RT 155 developed the Project

Definition Rating Index for Building Projects (PDRIBuildings). This
generic, user-friendly pre-project planning tool can help owners,
designers, and constructors to better achieve business, operational,
and project objectives.

1
 The research project pursued by CII RT 155 was initiated in part
due to a recommendation by the CII Front End Planning Research
Team. The product of that research team, PDRI for Industrial
Projects (CII Implementation Resource 113-2), is now widely used
as a planning tool in the industrial sector. A PDRIIndustrial Projects
score of 200 points or less was shown to increase the likelihood of a
successful project. A sample of 40 projects using the PDRI
Industrial Projects indicated that those projects scoring below 200
versus those scoring above 200 had:

Average cost savings of 19 percent

Schedule reduction by 13 percent
Fewer project changes
Increased predictability of operational performance.

The PDRIBuildings tool (IR155-2) is now available to assist a

project team in developing a complete project definition package.
Readers are encouraged to use the tool to improve the predictability
of project performance.

The central premise of the PDRI for Building Projects Research

Team effort is that teams must be working on the right project
in a collaborative manner (alignment) and performing the right
work (scope definition) during pre-project planning.

2
 2

PDRIBuildings

PDRI Development Methodology

Initial development work on PDRIBuildings used PDRIIndustrial
Projects as a basis. This effort included input from approximately 30
industry experts as well as extensive use of published sources for
terminology and key scope element refinement.

RT 155 members refined and streamlined the list of PDRI

Buildings elements and their descriptions. The final version of the
PDRIBuildings consists of 64 elements, which are grouped into 11
categories and further grouped into three main sections. A complete
list of the three sections, 11 categories, and 64 elements is given in
Table 1. The 64 elements in the PDRIBuildings are arranged in a
score sheet format and supported by 38 pages of detailed
descriptions and checklists. The format of the score sheet and
descriptions for the PDRIBuildings has the same look as that of the
PDRIIndustrial Projects.

Table 1. PDRIBuildings Sections, Categories, and Elements

SECTION I. BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION

A. Business Strategy
A1. Building Use Requirements
A2. Business Justification
A3. Business Plan
A4. Economic Analysis
A5. Facility Requirements
A6. Future Expansion/Alteration
A7. Site Selection Considerations
A8. Project Objectives Statement
B. Owner Philosophies
B1. Reliability Philosophy
B2. Maintenance Philosophy
B3. Operating Philosophy
B4. Design Philosophy
C. Project Requirements
C1. Value-Analysis Process
C2. Project Design Criteria
C3. Evaluation of Existing Facilities
C4. Scope of Work Overview
C5. Project Schedule
C6. Project Cost Estimate

3
Table 1. PDRIBuildings Sections, Categories, and Elements (continued)
SECTION II. BASIS OF DESIGN
D. Site Information
D1. Site Layout
D2. Site Surveys
D3. Civil/Geotechnical Information
D4. Governing Regulatory
Requirements
D5. Environmental Assessment
D6. Utility Sources with Supply
Conditions
D7. Site Life Safety Considerations
SECTION III. EXECUTION
D8. Special Water and Waste
APPROACH
Treatment
E. Building Programming
E1. Program Statement
E2. Building Summary Space List
E3. Overall Adjacency Diagrams
E4. Stacking Diagrams
E5. Growth and Phased
Development
E6. Circulation and Open Space
Requirements
E7. Functional Relationship
Diagrams/Room by Room
E8. Loading/Unloading/Storage
Facilities
E9. Transportation Requirements
E10.Building Finishes
E11. Room Data Sheets
E12.Furnishings, Equipment, &
Built-Ins
E13.Window Treatment
Considerations
F. Building/Project Design
Parameters
F1. Civil/Site Design
F2. Architectural Design
F3. Structural Design
4
F4. Mechanical Design
F5. Electrical Design
F6. Building Life Safety
Requirements
F7. Constructability Analysis
F8. Technological Sophistication
G. Equipment
G1. Equipment List
G2. Equipment Location Drawings
G3. Equipment Utility Requirements
H. Procurement Strategy
H1. Identify Long Lead/Critical
Equipment and Materials
H2. Procurement Procedures and
Plans
J. Deliverables
J1. CADD/Model Requirements
J2. Documentation/Deliverables
K. Project Control
K1. Project Quality Assurance and
Control
K2. Project Cost Control
K3. Project Schedule Control
Requirements
K4. Risk Management
K5. Safety Procedures
L. Project Execution Plan
L1. Project Organization
L2. Owner Approval Requirements
L3. Project Delivery Method
L4. Design/Construction Plan &
Approach
L5. Substantial Completion
Requirements
 The PDRIBuildings is applicable to multi-story or single-story
commercial, institutional, or light industrial facilities such as:

Offices Parking structures

Schools (classrooms) Warehouses
Banks Light assembly/
Research and laboratory manufacturing
facilities Churches
Medical facilities Airport terminals
Nursing homes Recreational/athletic
Institutional buildings facilities

Stores/shopping centers Public assembly/

performance halls
Dormitories
Industrial control buildings
Apartments
Hotels/motels

The research team hypothesized that all elements are not

equally important with respect to their potential impact on overall
project success. Therefore, each element needed to be weighted
relative to the others. Higher weights were to be assigned to those
elements whose lack of definition could have the most seriously
negative effect on project performance.

In developing the PDRI for Industrial Projects, the CII Front End
Planning Research Team (RT113) decided the best way to quickly
develop reasonable and credible weights for the PDRI elements was
to rely on the expertise of a broad range of construction industry
experts marshaled together in workshops. RT155 hosted seven such
weighting workshops. The 69 workshop participants consisted of
30 engineers, 31 architects, and eight other professionals directly
involved in planning building projects.

5
 Each participant completed a series of documents at the
workshops. In addition to personal history, participants were
initially asked to write about a typical project that they had recently
worked on for the organization they represented. Participants were
then asked to assume that they were estimating the cost of this
particular project and evaluating its probability of success based on
the level of definition of the 64 elements.

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: 1) the element was undefined or 2) it was
completely defined. The weighting was based on their opinions as
to the relative impact that each element has on the overall accuracy
of the projects total installed cost (TIC) estimate.

PDRI element weights were established using the input

provided by 35 owner and contractor organizations from the
building sector. A complex statistical analysis of the data was
conducted to determine the numerical weights assigned to
each element.

The raw weights obtained from these workshops were used to

develop the final version of the PDRIBuildings score sheet by
normalizing a scoring system of zero to 1000 points (the lower the
score, the better the scope definition). Each participants responses
at the workshops were individually evaluated and a single weight
was developed for each level of definition of each element. Several
statistical tests were performed. For more information on this
methodology see CII Research Report 155-11.

6
PDRIBuildings Validation
In order to validate the usefulness of the PDRIBuildings, and to
determine its target value, it was tested on completed projects to
verify its viability as a predictor of project success. The primary goal
of the validation process was to correlate PDRIBuildings scores
with project measures in terms of cost performance, schedule
performance, change orders, and customer satisfaction.

Questionnaire packages were sent to the firms that volunteered

to participate in the validation process. The questionnaires
collected quantitative and historical project data as well as level of
definition PDRIBuildings element status at beginning of
construction document (CD) development. These data were used to
build profiles of the sample projects and to assess the PDRI with
regard to project success. The CII Benchmarking and Metrics
database was also a source for additional validation project data.

The PDRIBuildings has been tested on a total of 32 projects

varying in authorized cost from $0.7 million to $200 million
(representing approximately $896 million in constructed cost).
PDRIBuildings scores were computed for each of these projects at
a point in time just prior to development of construction documents
and compared to completed project success criteria, such as cost
and schedule performance. (Note that this is an after-the-fact
evaluation.) Summary information about the validation projects is
given in Appendix A.

Further analysis has revealed a significant difference in

performance between the projects scoring above 200 and the
projects scoring below 200 prior to development of construction

7
documents as shown in Table 2. Performance is the mean
percentage change in actual cost (contingency not included) and
schedule performance as compared to that estimated prior to
development of construction documents. The reported change
order value represents the cost increase during design and
construction due to change orders as an absolute value. Variation
data for the sample projects are given in Table 3.

Table 2. Summary of Cost, Schedule, and Change Order Performance

for the PDRI Validation Projects Using a 200-Point Cutoff

PDRI Score
Category < 200 > 200 Difference

Cost 1% above budget 6% above budget 5%

Schedule 2% behind schedule 11% behind schedule 9%

Change Orders 7% of budget 10% of budget 3%

(n=16) (n=16)

Table 3. Summary of Cost, Schedule, and Change Order Variation for

the PDRI Validation Projects Using a 200-Point Cutoff

PDRI Score < 200 PDRI Score > 200

Category Range Std. Dev. Range Std. Dev.
Cost -22% to +25% 11% -30% to +40% 10%

Schedule -17% to +27% 11% -10% to +89% 24%

Change Orders 2% to 14% 4% 1% to 61% 15%

In summary, the validation projects scoring below 200

outperformed those scoring above 200 in three important areas:
cost performance, schedule performance, and the relative value of
change orders compared to budget.

8
 In addition to cost and schedule differences, the projects
scoring less than 200 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 project scoring higher than 200. Additional
performance data are given in Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of Other Performance Data for the PDRI

Validation Projects Using a 200 Point Cutoff

PDRI Score
Performance < 200 > 200
Average PDRI Score 138 266
Average Number of Change Orders 58 100
Project Success (scale of 1-5) 4.9 4.2
Design Size Changes During CD 3 6
Development or Construction*
(N= 16) (N = 16)

* denotes number of projects with design size changes out of sub-sample.

For this sample, the validation process has proven the PDRI for
building projects to be a good predictor of project success, and
it has shown statistically that a score of 200 points is a
desirable target score for a well-defined project.

Lessons Learned
While the validation process discussed above was performed on
completed projects, the PDRIBuildings was also used on current
projects to observe its effectiveness in helping teams complete
project planning activities. The PDRIBuildings was used on a total
of 11 projects at different stages of planning as outlined in Appendix
B. In each case, the PDRIBuildings gave project planners a viable

9
platform to discuss project specific issues and helped identify
critical planning problems. Specific lessons learned include:

The PDRIBuildings should be used a minimum of two times

during project planning.
A facilitator provides a neutral party to help maintain
consistency when scoring projects.
Using the tool is an excellent way to align a project team.
Because of project pressures, it is often difficult to get the
right project participants together to score a project, but the
results are worthwhile.
The tool provides an excellent mechanism to identify
specific problems and assign actions.
The team or individual scoring the project should focus on
the scoring process, rather than the final score, in order to
honestly identify deficiencies.
Use the PDRIBuildings initially on pre-selected pilot
projects in order to gain proficiency with using the tool.
Train individuals in the use and background of the tool in
order to improve consistency.
The PDRIBuildings 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.
Care should be taken when determining level of definition
of elements such as maintenance philosophy or operating
philosophy to maintain (within company) consistency of
scoring due to the existence of internal standards in many
organizations. It is hard to compare the level of definition of
one project to another if there is no consistency.

10
Logic Flow Diagram
The PDRIBuildings was developed as a point in time tool
with elements grouped by subject matter, not in time-sequenced
logic. It is recognized that there is an imbedded logic. Certain
elements must first be defined before others. For instance, Section I
elements address the need to perform the right project. Section II
elements help the team to develop the right product, and Section
III elements focus on the right approach to performing the project.
Figure 4 outlines the logic at a section level. In general, Section I
elements must be well defined prior to defining Section II and III
elements. Note that this is not a critical path method (CPM)-type
logic in that certain elements are completed prior to starting the
next elements. Many times elements can be pursued concurrently
and as information is gained down-stream, elements already
defined have to be revisited.

413 Points

Section I
Basis of Project Decision
Categories A thru C 428 Points

Section II
Basis of Design
Legend Categories D thru G
Section I

Section II

Section III
159 Points

Section III
Execution Approach
Categories H thru L

Figure 4. Section Logic Flow Diagram

11
 Figure 5 outlines the general logic flow of the PDRIBuildings
categories. Again, the flow is not the traditional CPM logic
paradigm. Indeed, there may be many ways to organize the work
differently than the flow shown in this diagram. This logic flow
diagram is provided as a guideline for planners to use in pursuing
the planning process. For instance, if information gained in
Category D, Site Information, is very different than expected
(assumed), then a planner should assess the impact of that
difference on Categories A, B, and C.

214 Points 108 Points 25 Points

Category A Category D Category H
Business Site Procurement
Strategy Information Strategy
122 Points

Category F
Project
131 Points Design
Parameters
Category C
Start Project End
Requirements 36 Points

Category G
Equipment

68 Points 162 Points 11 Points

Category B Category E
Category J
Owner Building
Deliverables
Philosophies Programming

60 Points 63 Points
Legend Category L Category K
Section I Project Project
Execution Plan Control
Section II

Section III

Figure 5. Category Logic Flow Diagram

These logic flow diagrams are provided to illustrate the

interrelationship between various categories and elements of the
PDRIBuildings. Your organization may want to standardize a pre-
project planning process and the logic presented in these diagrams
could provide the basis for that development.

12
Philosophy of Use
Experience has shown that the PDRIBuildings is best used as a
tool to help project managers, project coordinators, and project
planners organize and monitor progress of the pre-project planning
effort. In many cases, a project manager may initially score the
project on his own prior to the existence of a team, in order to
understand major risk areas. High PDRIBuildings scores early in
pre-project planning are normal.

If the organization has well-documented pre-project planning

procedures and building standards in place, many of the elements
may be partially defined when the project begins the pre-project
planning phase. An organization will want to recognize these
standards and score them in a consistent manner.

Once a project team is formed, it meets periodically to conduct

a PDRIBuildings evaluation at various points in the project.
Experience has shown that the scoring process works best in a team
environment with a neutral facilitator who is familiar with the
process. If this arrangement is not possible, an alternate approach is
to have key individuals evaluate the project separately, then come
together to evaluate it and reach a consensus. Even using the PDRI
Buildings from an individual standpoint provides a method for
project evaluation. The PDRIBuildings provides an excellent tool
to use in early project team meetings in that it provides a means for
the team to align itself on the project and organize its work. It can
also provide an effective means of handing off the project to other
entities or can help maintain continuity as new project participants
are added to the project.

PDRIBuildings scores will improve as planning progresses, but

may vary on a day-to-day or week-to-week basis as team members
realize that some elements are not as well-defined as initially
assumed. It is important to score the elements honestly in order to

13
gain the benefits of the PDRIBuildings as a diagnostic tool. The
planning process is inherently iterative in nature and any project
criteria changes that occur may adversely effect the PDRIBuildings
score at that point in time. The target score (200 points) may not be
as important as the teams progress over time in resolving issues that
harbor risk.

PDRIBuildings scoring should ideally be done several times

during pre-project planning.

14
 3

How to Use the PDRIBuildings

To illustrate the process for scoring a project, consider, for

example, that you are a member of a planning team responsible for
developing the scope of work for the renovation of an existing office
building. Your team has identified major milestones throughout pre-
project planning at which time you plan to use the PDRI to evaluate
the current level of completeness of the scope definition package.
Assume that at the time of this particular evaluation the scope
development effort is underway, but it is not yet complete.

Your responsibility is to evaluate how well the project-specific

equipment requirements have been identified and defined to date.
(Note that this is one of 11 categories in the PDRI.) This information
is covered in Category G of the PDRI as shown in Figure 2 and
consists of three elements: G1. Equipment List, G2. Equipment
Location Drawings, and G3. Equipment Utility Requirements.
Note that the entire score sheet is not given in this document due to
space limitations. (See CII Implementation Resource 155-2 for the
full score sheet.)

Definition Level
CATEGORY
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
G. EQUIPMENT (Maximum Score = 36)
G1. Equipment List 0 1 5 8 12 15
G2. Equipment Location Drawings 0 1 3 5 8 10
G3. Equipment Utility Requirements 0 1 4 6 9 11
CATEGORY G TOTAL

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

Figure 2. Sample Excerpt from PDRIBuildings Score Sheet,

Category G, Equipment

15
 To fill out Category G, Equipment, follow these steps:

Step 1: Read the description for each element. (Note: Due to

space requirements, not all the element descriptions are
given in this document. Category G element descriptions
are given in Appendix C). Some elements contain a list of
items to be considered when evaluating their levels of
definition. These lists may be used as checklists.

Step 2: Collect all data that you may need to properly evaluate
and select the definition level for each element in this
category. This may require obtaining input from other
individuals involved in the scope development effort.

Step 3: Select the definition level for each element as described

below and shown in Figure 3.

Element G1: Requirements for food service, trash disposal,

and material handling have been well
defined. However, process equipment for the
laboratory has not been identified to your
satisfaction. You feel that this element has
some deficiencies that should be addressed
prior to development of construction
documents. Definition Level = 3.

Element G2: Your team decides that this element has been
well done, including existing and new
equipment rooms. You are a little concerned
about the laboratory process equipment, but
feel you have space available regardless of
the requirements for your project. Therefore
the team feels the element has minor
deficiencies. Definition Level = 2.

Element G3: Although your team plans to clarify utility

requirements for the equipment, it has not yet
been done. This element is therefore
incomplete or poorly defined. Definition
Level = 5.

16
 Definition Level
CATEGORY
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
G. EQUIPMENT (Maximum Score = 36)
G1. Equipment List 0 1 5 8 12 15 8
G2. Equipment Location Drawings 0 1 3 5 8 10 3
G3. Equipment Utility Requirements 0 1 4 6 9 11 11
CATEGORY G TOTAL 22

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

Figure 3. Excerpt of PDRIBuildings Showing Category G,

Equipment, Completed

Step 4: For each element, write the score that corresponds to its
level of definition in the Score column. If the team feels
that any or all of the elements were not applicable for this
project they would have had a definition level of 0 and
been zeroed out.

Step 5: Add the element scores to obtain a category score. Repeat

this process for each of the 64 elements in the PDRI. Add
the 11 category scores to obtain section scores. Add
section scores to obtain a total PDRI score.

Step 6: Take Action. In this example, Category G has a total score

of 22 (out of 36 total points) and probably needs more
planning to improve the level of definition in this area.

Use of PDRIBuildings on Small or Renovation Projects

In recent years, the U.S. construction industry has seen an
increase in the number of renovation/upgrade improvement
projects. These projects are small and frequent in nature as well
as short in duration. On an individual basis, the scope of these
projects may not encompass many of the elements contained in the

17
PDRIBuildings. For instance, some siting information (in Category
D) may not be applicable for a renovation project since the site is
already determined.

In these situations an organization wishing to incorporate the

PDRIBuildings into their pre-project planning program may need
to customize it to fit the needs of their smaller projects. Since the
PDRIBuildings was purposely developed to be generic in nature,
an organization can delete any elements that specifically do not
apply on certain types of projects.

If an organization decides to create a scaled-down version of

the PDRIBuildings, it must be aware of the fact that this procedure
will alter the maximum possible score from 1000 points to some
lower number. Each time an element is deleted from the checklist,
the maximum score for the project is reduced by that elements total
weight (its definition Level 5 weight). Further, not only will the
maximum score be reduced, but the lowest possible score that can
be achieved with complete definition also will drop from 70 points
to some lower number. The target score of 200 points, as
determined through the validation process, will not be valid for a
scaled-down PDRIBuildings. Users must, through experience over
time, establish their own target score to be used in these instances.

18
 4

Conclusions

Advice to Users
Previous CII research has shown that the greater the pre-project
planning effort, the greater the chance for project success. Pre-
project planning effort involves aligning the project team with the
business needs of the facility and developing an adequate scope
definition. Taking shortcuts during pre-project planning can lead to
project changes, cost overruns, and longer schedules.

Proper scope definition during pre-project planning will

improve both the cost and cycle time needed to design and
construct capital facilities.

The PDRIBuildings has been developed to assist project teams

in developing a complete project definition package for building
projects. The PDRI consists of 64 critical scope elements that must
be addressed to have a successful project. The research shows that
the PDRI is effective in predicting project success. 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 construction industry.
An industry standard for rating the completeness of the
project scope definition to facilitate risk assessment,
prediction of escalation, evaluation of the potential for
disputes, etc.
A means to monitor progress at various stages during the
pre-project planning effort and to focus efforts on high risk
areas that need definition.

19
 A tool that aids in communication 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, and
A benchmarking tool for organizations to use in evaluating
the completion of scope definition versus the probability of
success on future projects.

Poor scope definition has been shown to be a major cause of

project disasters. The PDRIBuildings directly addresses this
problem. It should be used consistently on all projects, including
small and unusual ones. The PDRIBuildings provides an easy-to-
use tool to enhance predictability and cost effectiveness of all
projects.

Use the PDRIBuildings to measure completeness of scope

definition and to identify areas of risk.

Recommendations
The PDRIBuildings can help 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. The PDRIBuildings provides a forum for all project
participants to communicate and reconcile differences using an
objective tool as a common basis for project scope evaluation. It
provides excellent input into the detailed design process and a base
line for design management.

20
 Three excellent CII resources address critical pre-project
planning implementation issues for building projects.

The research team recommends the following CII resources to

help manage the pre-project planning process and to increase the
chances for a successful project:

1. The Pre-Project Planning Handbook (CII SP39-2) provides

a pattern for an organizations pre-project planning
process and gives insight into critical tasks that must be
performed.

2. The PDRIBuildings can be used to measure completeness

of scope definition and to manage the pre-project planning
process by evaluating whether the project is ready for
detailed design. Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI),
Building Projects (CII Implementation Resource 155-2)
gives the user the requisite knowledge needed to use this
tool.

3. Alignment During Pre-Project Planning (CII Imple-

mentation Resource 113-3) should be used by team
members to address issues that can cause alignment
problems. This implementation resource outlines the
process required to gain and maintain alignment. It also
provides an in-process tool called the Alignment
Thermometer that can be used to determine whether the
team is focusing its limited resources on the issues and
processes that have a substantial effect on team alignment
during this critical phase of the project life-cycle.

21
Research has shown that the PDRIBuildings can effectively be
used to improve the predictability of project performance.
However, the PDRIBuildings alone will not ensure successful
projects. When combined with sound business planning,
alignment, and good project execution, it can greatly improve
the probability of meeting or exceeding project objectives.

22
 References

1. Pre-Project Planning: Beginning a Project the Right Way,

Publication 39-1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX,
December 1994.

2. Pre-Project Planning Handbook, Special Publication 39-2,

Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX, April 1995.

3. Pre-Project Planning Tools: PDRI and Alignment , Research

Summary 113-1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX,
August 1997.

4. Project Definition Rating Index, Industrial Projects,

Implementation Resource 113-2, Construction Industry
Institute, Austin, TX, July 1996.

5. Project Definition Rating Index, Building Projects,

Implementation Resource 155-2, Construction Industry
Institute, Austin, TX, July 1999.

6. C. S. Cho, J. Furman, and G. E. Gibson, Project Definition

Rating Index (PDRI) for Buildings, A report to the Construction
Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, Research
Report 155-11, in progress.

7. Alignment During Pre-Project Planning, Implementation

Resource 113-3, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX,
December 1997.

23
 Appendix A

PDRIBuildings Validation Projects

Project Estimated Cost PDRI

Number Type of Project ($ Million) Score

1 Office $10.0 256

2 Recreational/athletic facility $32.6 96
3 Office $34.8 164
4 Warehouse $45.9 203
5 Recreational/athletic facility $122.5 285
6 Store/shopping center $200.0 460
7 Office $10.2 141
8 Office $8.7 130
9 Research/laboratory facility $0.9 208
10 Research/laboratory facility $0.9 202
11 Research/laboratory facility $43.4 204
12 Industrial control building $25 126
13 Office $8.7 240
14 Office $14.1 223
15 Government border station $4.2 172
16 Government border station $1.7 95
17 Courthouse $132.9 238
18 Store/shopping center $1.8 233
19 Fire station $1.6 218
20 Retail/car dealership $1.6 158
21 School $23.1 102
22 School $23.0 139
23 Research/laboratory facility $3.3 149

24
Project Estimated Cost PDRI
Number Type of Project ($ Million) Score

24 Office $13.4 648

25 Research/laboratory facility $9.7 202
26 Seismic protection $16.1 188
27 Warehouse $25.7 151
28 Office $6.4 74
29 School $13.2 160
30 Institutional building $18.1 205
31 Recreational/athletic facility $24.2 238
32 Public assembly/performance $18.2 165
Totals $895.8

25
 Appendix B

In-Progress PDRIBuildings Validation Projects

Est. Size Project Cost

Project Description ($ Million) Phase Used
1 Dormitory $52 After program
development
2 R&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 2 During CD
addition development
6 Hotel renovation 12 During CD
development
7 Manufacturing plant* 62 Midway through
planning, during
design development
8 Manufacturing/assembly 144 Early in planning,
plant prior to program
9 Manufacturing plant 57 Late in planning,
prior to CD
development
10 Manufacturing/assembly 60 Late in planning,
plant prior to CD
development
11 Manufacturing/assembly TBD Early in planning,
plant prior to program

Total $412

* PDRIBuildings used to plan the building portion of projects 7 through 11

26
 Appendix C

Equipment Element Descriptions

Note: The three element descriptions given in this appendix

comprise one category and are provided for illustrative purposes.
Descriptions for the 61 other elements are contained in IR 155-2.
G. EQUIPMENT

G1. Equipment List

Project-specific equipment should be defined and listed. (Note:

Building systems equipment is addressed in element F4,
Mechanical Design, and F5, Electrical Design). In situations where
owners are furnishing equipment, the equipment should be
properly defined and purchased. The list should define items such
as:
Process
Medical
Food service/vending
Trash disposal
Distributed control systems
Material handling
Existing sources and characteristics of
equipment
Relative sizes
Weights
Location
Capacities
Materials of construction
Insulation and painting requirements
Equipment related access
Vendor, model, and serial number once
identified
Equipment delivery time, if known
Other

27
G2. Equipment Location Drawings

Equipment location/arrangement drawings identify the specific

location of each item of equipment in a project. These drawings
should identify items such as:
Plan and elevation views of equipment and
platforms
Location of equipment rooms
Physical support requirement (e.g., installation
bolt patterns)
Coordinates or location of all major equipment
Other

G3. Equipment Utility Requirements

This evaluation should consist of a tabulated list of utility

requirements for all major equipment items such as:
Power and/or all utility requirements
Flow diagrams
Design temperature and pressure
Diversity of use
Gas
Water
Other

28
Notes

29
PDRI for Building Projects Research Team

George Abikhaled, The University of Texas System

Dennis Bayon, NASA

Ronald P. DiLustro, NASA

* G. Edward Gibson, Jr., The University of Texas at Austin

Mark Hanchar, ADP Marshall, Inc.

Thomas R. Hodges, U.S. Department of State

Schiller Liao, The University of Texas System

Tom Lyons, H. B. Zachry, Research Team Chairman

Ezel Silver, Jr., U.S. Department of State

Gary T. Steinmetz, General Motors Corp.

Other Contributing Participants

Gary M. Boyd, 3D/International

Sidney L. Henson, BECK Program Management

Robert D. Morris, 3D/International

Ron Ohm, HC BECK

John A. Oualline, 3D/International

Past Members

James A. Broaddus, The University of Texas System

Jerry Pitzrick, M.A. Mortenson Co.

Walter W. Morton, Metric Constructors, Inc.

* Coordinating Author

Editor: Rusty Haggard

The Construction Industry Institute
The University of Texas at Austin
3208 Red River, Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78705-2650
(512) 471-4319
FAX (512) 499-8101

Not printed with state funds

Bureau of Engineering Research
The University of Texas at Austin