314 2-Ac15

Construction Industry Institute
Project Definition Rating Index
Small Industrial Projects
Implementation Resource 314-2

PDRI:
Small Industrial Projects
Research Team 314, A Project Definition Rating Index

for Small Industrial Projects
Construction Industry Institute
Implementation Resource 314-2
August 2015
2015 CII Annual Conference Edition

2015 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 their 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 may be 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.

Foreword
Welcome to the first edition of the PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index
Small Industrial Projects. CII Research Team 314, PDRISmall Industrial Projects,
developed this resource to address a critical industry need. Past work by CII,
published in 1991 and 2003, described the difficulty of defining the term small
project. The RT 314 research investigation defined small projects as those generally
valued at less than $10 million (U.S. dollars) in expenditure, with construction
durations of between three and six months, and of less overall complexity than
large projects, based on several indicators; these projects annually comprise
more than 70 percent of all completed projects by number in most organizations
portfolios. In addition to this publication, the team created a macro-enabled
spreadsheet to help project teams assess their projects. This Excel-based file is
available as a download or on CD.
With this publication, CII has filled a gap in its front end planning body
of knowledge. This document and the Excel-based tool will help project teams
develop scope definition on small industrial projects, whether they involve new
construction or renovation. It is complementary to CII Implementation Resource
(IR) 113-2, PDRIIndustrial Projects, which was developed specifically to assess
the scope definition of large, complex industrial projects. Two other PDRI tools
also focus on large, complex projects. They include IR 155-2, PDRIBuilding
Projects, and IR 268-2, PDRIInfrastructure Projects. Note that at publication,
no small-project PDRI versions exist for the building or infrastructure sectors.
iii
Contents
Chapter Page
Foreword iii
1. What Is the PDRI? 1
2. Benefits of the PDRI 13
3. Instructions for Assessing a Project 17
4. What Does a PDRI Score Mean? 35
5. Concluding Remarks 39
Appendix A. Unweighted Project Score Sheet 41
Appendix B. Weighted Project Score Sheet 45
Appendix C. Element Descriptions 49
Appendix D. Industrial PDRI Selection Guide Tool 55
Appendix E. Examples of Completed PDRIs 119
Appendix F. Logic Flow Diagrams 131
Appendix G. Facilitation Instructions 137
Appendix H. Example Action List 143
References 145
1
What Is the PDRI?
The PDRI is a powerful, easy-to-use tool for

measuring the degree of scope development.
The Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) is a powerful, easy-to-use tool

for measuring project scope definition for completeness. It identifies and precisely
describes each critical element in a scope definition package. It also quickly allows
project teams to identify project risk factors related to desired outcomes for cost,
schedule, and operating performance. Using the PDRI method, teams can capture
mitigation action items as well. It is designed to evaluate the completeness of
scope definition at any point prior to detailed design and construction. While
three previously developed versions of the PDRI apply to large and complex
projects for building, industrial, and infrastructure projects (CII Implementation
Resources 155-2, 113-2, and 268-2, respectively), this version addresses small
industrial projects.
Table 1.1 can help PDRI users decide which version of the PDRI are most
applicable to particular projects, since it lists practical applications for each
one. For further clarification, Table 1.2 summarizes the main characteristics of
infrastructure, building, and industrial projects. Together, these tables can guide
the selection of the most appropriate PDRI for any project under consideration.
1
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?
Table 1.1. Applicable Project Types for Each PDRI
Industrial Projects (IR 113-2, IR 314-2)

Oil/gas production Steel/aluminum mills Food processing plants
facilities Power plants Refineries
Textile mills Steam heat/chilled Water/wastewater
Chemical plants water plants treatment
Pharmaceutical plants Manufacturing Plant upgrade/retrofit
Paper mills facilities
Infrastructure Projects (IR 268-2)
Pipelines Water control Electricity
Aqueducts structures transmission/
Pumping and Levees distribution
compressor stations Highways Fiber optic networks
Locks, weirs Railroads Wide area networks
Reservoirs Access Ramps Electrical substations/
Meters and Regulator Tunnels switch gears
Stations Airport runways Towers
Pig launchers and Canals
receivers Security fencing
Building Projects (IR 155-2)
Offices Dormitories Recreational and
Schools (classrooms) Apartments athletic facilities
Banks Hotels and motels Public assembly and
Research and Parking structures performance halls
laboratory facilities Toll booths Industrial control
Medical facilities Warehouses buildings
Nursing homes Light assembly and Government facilities
Institutional buildings manufacturing
Stores and shopping Churches
centers Airport terminals
2
Table 1.2. Project Sector Characteristics
PDRI Selection Matrix

Characteristics Infrastructure Building Industrial
Primary Designer civil engineer architect chemical,
mechanical,
industrial
Project horizontal vertical vertical
Orientation
System vector node node
Utilization conveyance functional use transformation
Operational flow dynamics, nodal consumptions
networked into a terminations and production
grid
Interface with extensive moderate minimal
Public
Environmental extensive moderate extensive
Impact
Primary Cost earthwork, building, building piping,
materials, system mechanical,
associated equipment
structures
Installed minimal moderate extensive
Equipment Cost
Land Cost moderate to high low to high low to moderate
Jurisdiction extensive moderate moderate
Interface
3
The PDRI is intended for use during front end planning, which encompasses
project activities such as feasibility, concept, and detailed scope definition. (See
Figure 1.1.) Please note that front end planning has many other equivalent
and associated terms, including front end loading, pre-project planning,
programming, schematic design, design development, and sanctioning.
Although the term front end planning is used in this document, it should
be considered synonymous with the analogous term within the users business
process. (More detailed information on timing and process is provided below.)
Although, the original PDRI was envisioned as a decision-support metric for
funding detail design and project execution at Phase Gate 3, experience has shown
that, depending on project size and complexity, it should be used more than once
prior to arriving at this gate.
Design &
0 Feasibility 1 Concept 2 Detailed Scope 3 Construction
Front End Planning
Figure 1.1. Project Life Cycle Diagram
All versions of the PDRI include specific risk factors relating to new construction
(greenfield) projects and renovation-and-revamp (R&R) projects.An R&R project
is defined as one that is focused on an existing facility but does not involve
routine maintenance activities. It includes the act, process, or work of replacing,
restoring, repairing, or improving the facility with capital funds or non-capital
funds. It may also include the construction of additional structures and systems to
achieve a more functional, serviceable, or desirable condition. These modifications
address such considerations as profitability, reliability, efficiency, safety, security,
environmental performance, or compliance with regulatory requirements. The
R&R project may be known by numerous other names, such as repair, upgrade,
modernization, or restoration, among others.More details about how to adapt
the PDRI to R&R projects are presented below. (For more information on how
to manage front end planning of R&R projects, see Implementation Resource
242-2, Front End Planning of Renovation and Revamp Projects.)
4
How Is This PDRI Different?
Industrial projects with substantial scope, complexity, schedule duration,

and cost are typically considered large, while projects with lower costs and
smaller scope are categorized as small. Organizations expend considerable
effort to ensure success on large projects, since they view them as critical to their
overall financial prosperity. Also, because they view small projects as having
low risk and, thus, as not warranting a structure planning approach, they often
place minimal emphasis on detailed front end planning. Moreover, organizations
often use small projects as training grounds for younger or inexperienced project
managers and engineers, to prepare them for work on larger future projects. In
reality, it is shortsighted to assume that a small project inherently carries lower
risk or is less critical to an organization. Indeed, because small projects make up
seventy to ninety percent of all projects completed in the industrial sector every
year, poorly planned small projects can have a major cumulative impact on an
organizations bottom line. CII chartered RT 314 to develop the PDRISmall
Industrial Projects to address this highly important and prevalent project type.
The team defined small projects as those generally with less than $10 million
(U.S. dollars) in expenditures, three to six months in construction duration, and
of less overall complexity than large projects based on several indicators; these
projects annually comprise more than 70 percent of all completed projects by
number in most organizations portfolios. The speed and concurrent phasing
of small projects make it more difficult to provide guidance on the best time to
conduct a PDRI review. On many small projects, the entire project may be charged
against a funding budget, hence users will want to perform an initial assessment
to get on track. In other situations, there may be a funding point after the initial
decision to proceed with the development, and the optimal time to use the tool
may be just prior to that second funding decision. Figure 1.2 shows that a small
project may be phased such that feasibility, concept, detailed scope, and design,
procurement, and construction all overlap. Engaging in so much concurrent
activity may not be the optimal way to proceed with a project, but it may reflect
the reality of typical small industrial projects.
5
Feasibility
Concept
Detailed Scope
Design, Procurement, and

Construction
Front End Planning
Figure 1.2. Project Life Cycle Diagram Typical Small Industrial Projects
RT 314 designed the PDRISmall Industrial Projects so that it could be used

multiple times throughout the FEP process, or as a one-time-use tool. By utilizing
the tool multiple times, project teams can benefit from iterative reviews within a
narrower time frame consistent with a shorter project schedule. However, when
used only once in the FEP process, the project team may find the tool comparably
effective if deployed properly. For one-time use, it will work best with proper
review-team development, effective capture of and follow-up on action items, and
open and honest discussion aimed at revealing project scope concerns. Also, if a
project is assessed only once, the earlier in the project life cycle this occurs, the
better. (See Chapter 3 for further details regarding timing of use.)
The PDRISmall Industrial Projects assesses specific risk factors related to

repetitive programs, which consist of many similar projects executed throughout
an organizations portfolio, typically using companywide standards.Typical drivers
of repetitive programs include the following: replacements and upgrades to meet
new regulations; equipment failures (end of life); safety; expansions; and security
concerns. Ideally, all projects in these programs should be developed and executed
consistently with the overall program standards.These program requirements are
likely to be developed at a higher programmatic level and should flow down into
a given project being evaluated with this tool.
6
The research team also created the PDRISmall Industrial Projects to assess
both process- and non-process-related projects. The team defines a process-
related project as any project in an industrial facility related to constructing or
refurbishing the systems, equipment, utilities, piping, and/or controls that directly
affect the production rate, efficiency, quantity, or quality of a product. These
projects typically have a stated return on investment (ROI) expectation directly
related to improved production factors; and this improvement may affect how
the product is marketed to consumers (e.g., as of a higher quality than before or
as available in more quantities). In most cases, project teams need to create or
update documents pertaining to the ongoing operations of facilities (e.g., piping
and instrumentation diagrams and process safety management plans).
A non-process-related project is any project in an industrial facility that is

ancillary to production processes, but that does not directly affect the quantity or
quality of the product. Examples of such projects include the following: additions
to or expansion of the infrastructure that supports a facility; facility updates
necessary for environmental or safety compliance; and replacement-in-kind of
facility components (e.g., equipment, structural, or piping) that do not directly affect
the nature of the product. If an ROI is required on these projects, it is typically
tied to improving facility operating efficiencies not directly related to production,
such as increased energy efficiency from installing variable frequency drives (VFDs)
on HVAC equipment, or installing solar panels to lessen the amount of power
needed from a public utility provider. The project team may or may not need to
create or update documents pertaining to the ongoing operations of the facility
(e.g., piping and instrumentation diagrams or process safety management plans).
7
Following are examples of small industrial projects:
PROCESS
Oil/gas refining facilities

Stack monitoring and flare line replacement
Replacement of desalter effluent cooler fin fans
Installation of a gasoline cooler in a pipeline
Addition of a hydrogen plant within an existing refinery
Replacement-in-kind of process piping
Pulp/Paper Mills
Replacement of entangling section
Replacement of internal screens in a digester vessel
Replacement of a headbox section
Replacement of components associated with a wood-yard log chipping line
Manufacturing Facilities
Installation of a new packaging line
Modifications to existing packaging line
Addition of a motor control center
Breweries
Replacement of cooker coils
Upgrade coders on a can line
Chemical Plants
Installation of new technology nylon compounding extruder and pack-out
Replacement of an injection molder
8
NON-PROCESS
Plant Upgrade/Retrofit
Replacement of existing elevators
Replacement of existing HVAC equipment
Repointing of existing masonry structures
Replacement of or upgrades to existing power supply
Installation of a raw-materials railcar offload station
Water conservation projects
Replacement of constant speed electric feed-water pumps with variable-
frequency driven pumps
Addition of waste water clarifier to a storm sewer system
Installation of new dust collection equipment and ducting
Installation of environmental monitoring or noise abatement equipment
Installation of new security cage and associated security system within
an existing operating warehouse facility
PDRI Structure
The PDRISmall Industrial Projects offers a comprehensive checklist of 41 scope

definition elements in an easy-to-use score sheet format. (Note that IR 113-2, PDRI
for Industrial Projects, has a total of 70 elements.) Each element is weighted on the
basis of its relative importance to the other elements. Since the PDRI score relates
to risk, users can easily isolate areas in need of further work, and then identify
and document mitigation actions. (See Chapter 4 for a detailed description of the
weighting system). To develop the PDRISmall Industrial Projects, the research
team collected input and feedback from 65 industry professionals representing
29 organizations, 26 owners and 39 contractors, each with an average of more
than 20 years of individual experience in managing small industrial projects.
9
The PDRI consists of three main sections, each of which is broken down
into a series of categories. Figure 1.3 shows how these categories are divided into
elements in one part of the PDRI hierarchy. Table 1.3 provides a complete list of
the PDRIs three sections, eight categories, and 41 elements.
PDRI
Section I
Section II Section III
Basis of Project
Basis of Design Execution Approach
Decision
Category C Category D Category E

Process/Product Electrical and
Design Guidance
Design Basis Instrumentation Systems
Element D3
Element D2
Element D1 Piping and
Process Flow Diagrams
Process Safety Instrumentation
along with Heat and
Management (PSM) Diagrams (P&IDs)
Material Balance
and so on...
Figure 1.3. Partial PDRI Hierarchy
10
Table 1.3. PDRI Sections, Categories, and Elements
I. BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION

A. Project Alignment B. Project Performance Requirements
A1 Project Objectives Statement B1 Products
A2 Project Strategy and Scope of Work B2 Capacities
A3 Project Philosophies B3 Processes
A4 Location B4 Technology
B5 Physical Site
II. BASIS OF DESIGN

C. Design Guidance D. Process/Product Design Basis
C1 Lead/Discipline Scope of Work D1 Process Safety Management (PSM)
C2 Project Design Criteria D2 Process Flow Diagrams along with
C3 Project Site Assessment Heat and Material Balance
C4 Specifications D3 Piping and Instrumentation
C5 Construction Input Diagrams (P&IDs)
D4 Piping System Stress Analysis
D5 Equipment Location Drawings
D6 Critical Process/Product Items Lists
E. Electrical and Instrumentation Systems F. General Facility Requirements
E1 Control Philosophy F1 Site Plan
E2 Functional Descriptions and F2 Loading/Unloading/Storage
Control Narratives Requirements
E3 Electrical Single Line Diagrams F3 Transportation Requirements
E4 Critical Electrical Items Lists F4 Additional Project Requirements
III. EXECUTION APPROACH

G. Execution Requirements H. Engineering/Construction Plan and
G1 Procurement Plan Approach
G2 Owner Approval Requirements H1 Engineering/Construction
G3 Distribution Matrix Methodology
G4 Risk Management Plan H2 Project Cost Estimate
G5 Shutdown/Turnaround H3 Project Accounting and Cost
Requirements Control
G6 Precommissioning, Startup, & H4 Project Schedule and Schedule
Turnover Sequence Requirements Control
H5 Project Change Control
H6 Deliverables for Design and
Construction
H7 Deliverables for Project
Commissioning/Closeout
The PDRI should be used in conjunction with Implementation Resource 113-3,

Alignment During Pre-Project Planning: A Key to Project Success, to ensure that
critical risk issues are addressed and that stakeholder interests are represented
11
effectively in the front end planning process. In addition, users should determine
whether the project is a renovation or revamp project. If it is either of these, they
should use the additional descriptions provided in the tool (in the Renovation and
Revamp sub-section) to address critical R&R issues during front end planning.
Figure 1.4 provides a decision diagram to help users determine the most effective
use of the PDRISmall Industrial Projects tool. (Note that, if the project includes
a shutdown/turnaround/outage scenario, the project planning team should also
use the Shutdown Turnaround Alignment Readiness tool provided in IR 242-2,
Front End Planning of Renovation and Revamp Projects, to address the unique
issues associated with these types of events.)
Decision has been made to use

the applicable PDRI
No Is this an Yes
R&R Project?
Use the applicable PDRI

Use the applicable PDRI
including the R&R descriptions
excluding R&R description.
in the element assessment.
Does this
project include Yes
a Shutdown or
Turnaround
activity? Use STAR
FEP Tool
No
Document Results/
Develop Action Plans/
Follow Up
Figure 1.4. Use of Additional Tools to Supplement the PDRI
12
Choosing the Appropriate Industrial PDRI
Simply put, a small industrial project is not a large industrial project. While
this statement may seem flippant, it reflects the fact that, over time, project
professionals have had considerable debate over the distinction between small
and large projects. Indeed, past CII research explored this topic and concluded
that a clear, consistent definition of a small project does not exist. However, what
is clear is that a project viewed as small by one organization may not necessarily
be viewed as small by another.
Small projects should not be differentiated from large projects solely on the
basis of static project cost levels within an organization or across the industry
at large. Complexity is the true differentiator between small and large projects.
A complex is defined as a group of obviously related units among which the
degree and nature of inter-relationship is imperfectly known. Complexity is the
quality or state of having such incompletely understood components. Industrial
construction projects can fall anywhere along a spectrum of complexity, from
projects with little to no complexity (i.e., simple maintenance projects) to highly
complex projects (i.e., mega-projects). The rigor of planning efforts expended on a
project should match its level of complexity. The PDRISmall Industrial Projects
focuses on lower-complexity projects.
Table 1.4 provides data from a study of 90 industrial projects with varying
levels of complexity. It gives the averages of nine separate project attributes for
typical small and large industrial projects. This table, along with the PDRI
Industrial Selection Guide tool (provided in Appendix D), can be used as a method
to determine the appropriate industrial PDRI for use on a project.
13
Table 1.4. PDRI Industrial Selection Guide
Project Complexity PDRISmall Industrial PDRIIndustrial

Indicator Projects Projects
Less than $10 million More than $10 million
Total Installed Cost
(U.S. dollars) (U.S. dollars)
Construction Duration 36 months 915 months
Between regional and Between corporate and

Level of Funding
corporate Board of Directors
Project Visibility Moderate Significant
Number of
79 individuals 1015 individuals
Core Team Members
Combination of
Availability of
Part-time availability part-time and full-time
Core Team Members
to completely full-time
None to minimal Minimal to significant
Extent of Permitting
permitting permitting
None to local/state Local/state to national
Types of Permits
permits permits
Number of Trade 34 separate trade 78 separate trade
Contractors contractors contractors
This matrix provides direction for selecting the appropriate PDRI tool for
use on an industrial project, but should not be used as a strict guideline. In some
organizations, projects with total installed costs of US$10 million may be very
small, while in other organizations, projects of this caliber would be considered
very large. In choosing a suitable tool for a specific project, users are urged to
consider such factors and let common sense prevail. If project team members
feel that a certain project should be considered small based on their experiences
in their organization, it probably is. The same can be said about large projects.
Users should keep in mind that RT 314 developed the PDRISmall Industrial
Projects just for assessing small projects. The tool is NOT intended as a short-
cut to use in lieu of assessing a project with PDRIIndustrial Projects. Some
organizations may wish to base the selection criteria on the characteristics of their
typical projects; however, RT 314 validated the results presented in this document
for projects meeting the criteria presented in Table 1.4.
14
2
Benefits of the PDRI
Effective early project planning improves project performance in terms of

both cost and schedule, since it reinforces the positive impact of early scope
definition on project success. The PDRI allows a project team to assess, quantify,
and rate the level of scope development and readiness for project execution, prior
to detailed design and construction. Moreover, it is a means by which project
enablers can be identified early and acted upon. Its ability to provide these early
measures and indicators makes the PDRI a remarkably powerful proactive project
management tool.
A significant feature of the PDRISmall Industrial Projects is that one can

quickly go through an assessment and evaluate scope definition on both process-
and non-process-specific industrial projects. Elements that are not applicable to
a specific project can be zeroed out, thus eliminating them from the final scoring
calculation. Following is a list of the ways the PDRISmall Industrial Projects
functions:
as a checklist that a project team can use to determine the necessary steps
for defining project scope, for both greenfield and R&R projects
as a listing of standardized scope definition terminology for small
industrial projects
as an industry standard for rating the completeness of the project scope
definition package to facilitate risk assessment and prediction of escalation
potential for disputes
as a means to monitor progresswhen used successivelyat various
stages of the front end planning effort
as a partial forensic assessment tool for evaluating design and construction
readiness
as a tool that promotes communication and alignment among owners,
designers/engineers, and construction contractors by highlighting poorly
defined areas in a scope definition package
as a means by which project team participants can reconcile differences,
when used as a common basis for project evaluation
15
Chapter 2. Benefits of the PDRI
as a means by which members of the project team can identify gap-list

tasks and act upon them before the project cost, schedule, or quality are
negatively affected
as a training tool for organizations and individuals (particularly those
with less experience) to understand the requirements of scope definition
of small industrial projects throughout the industry
as a benchmarking tool for comparing completion of scope definition
on current projects against performance on past projects, both within
organizations and externally, in order to predict the probability of success
on future projects.
Who Should Use the PDRI?
Any organization wishing to improve the overall performance

of its small industrial projects should use the PDRI.
The PDRI can benefit owners, designers, and constructors. Owners can use
it as an assessment tool to establish a comfort level that, when reached, prompts
them to move forward with projects. Designers and constructors can use it to
identify poorly-defined project scope elements. As an objective tool that provides
a common basis for project scope evaluation, the PDRI provides a means for all
project participants to communicate and reconcile any differences they have.
Owners should use the tool as a formal checklist of items to be defined and
communicated to ensure that the design team fully understands the project
business objectives and drivers. It also provides an opportunity for the owner and
stakeholdersincluding operations and maintenanceto gain an understanding
of the project, including compliance with mandates. Communication is essential
to ensuring that the design team is proceeding to meet the expectations and
requirements of the owner stakeholders. Engineers and contractors may become
involved in projects at various points of the front end planning process and should
use the PDRI to organize their work. They should use it as an alignment tool to
understand and participate in the development of the owners business objectives
and drivers, facilitating the design teams understanding of the elements defined
in Section 1, the Basis of Project Decision. The project team should use this
alignment check to make decisions concerning cost, quality, and schedule as the
16
Chapter 2. Benefits of the PDRI
project progresses from the scope definition stage into project execution. As front
end planning progresses, the PDRI helps project participants clarify requirements,
and it ensures the right input from key owner stakeholders representing areas such
as operations and maintenance, process engineering, research and development,
manufacturing, and business, among others. The PDRI also supports coordination
and execution planning with the owner organization.
Contractors are often given a request for proposal (RFP) on a project that has
had all or a portion of the project scope defined by the owner, or the owner has
utilized a third-party engineering firm to develop the scope definition package.
In such instances, the contractor could use a PDRI assessment as a risk analysis
to determine the degree of definition and identify any potential weaknesses/areas
of concern, before responding to the RFP. The contractor should make every
attempt to get as many of the project stakeholders as possible involved in the PDRI
assessment session, to ensure that the team is making the correct evaluation and
assumptions before proceeding to the next stage.
Contractors may also use the PDRI to determine whether the work within their
control is ready to move to the next step. Many contractors spend a portion of the
project development effort performing design, procurement, and constructability
reviews prior to the work starting in the field. For instance, the PDRI can be used
to determine whether, prior to the start of the underground work or selection of
a subcontractor to perform the work, there is sufficient definition to minimize
schedule and/or cost impacts that could trigger mitigating strategies. Such
assessments of definition can also be done prior to starting other major activities
at the construction site.
In some cases, small projects are performed repetitively across many sites,
and the PDRISmall Industrial Projects assessment can be conducted for each
one. In such cases, the assessments should be coordinated to ensure that critical
issues are addressed and lessons are learned. Also, many organizations perform
small projects very rapidly, with much concurrency among planning, design, and
construction activities. By highlighting gaps and risks, the PDRISmall Industrial
Projects can help project participants quickly assess scope definition to keep these
overlapping efforts on track.
17
3
Instructions for Assessing a Project
Assessing a project is as easy as 1-2-3.
Individuals involved in front end planning should use the project score sheets
shown in Appendices A and B when assessing a project. Appendix A provides
a simple unweighted checklist, while the checklist in Appendix B contains the
weighted values and allows a front end planning team to quantify the level of
scope definition at any stage of a project on a 1,000-point scale. The unweighted
version should be used in a team scoring process to prevent bias in choosing the
level of definition or in targeting a specific score. The team leader or facilitator
can easily score the project as the weighting session is being held. If the project
includes renovation work, the team should consider the supplemental issues that
are provided in selected element descriptions.
When to Use the PDRI
The PDRI is a powerful tool that may be used at points throughout a

projects front end planning effort to ensure continued alignment, conformance
to organizational procedures, and a continual focus on project priorities. Many
organizations find value in utilizing a PDRI tool at multiple points in the front
end planning process. Project size, complexity, and duration will help determine
the optimal time to use the PDRI tool. To aid in the expanded use of this tool,
Figure 3.1 illustrates suggested application points for the PDRISmall Industrial
Projects. As shown in Figure 1.4, there may be significant overlap in the three
stages of front end planning. This overlap is a characteristic of many small
projects, and is not typical of larger, more complex projects, where these stages
are completed sequentially.
19
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project
PDRIEarly
Feasibility
PDRIFinal
Concept
Detailed Scope
Design, Procurement, and

Construction
Front End Planning
Figure 3.1. Employing the PDRI, Application Points
The purpose of completing a PDRI is to help stakeholders ensure that they

are doing the right project at the right time in the right place, have considered
all design parameters, have put the appropriate processes in place to handle a
variety of circumstances, and will execute and close out the project according
to plan. In order for the PDRI to help with these assurances, though, project
teams must conduct the review before the related project activities begin. If the
PDRI review is performed only once, and it is completed during or at the end of
the feasibility stage, it may help with the business case development; however, it
may be necessary to complete a second review at a later point in the project. If
the review is done later, say, at the end of the detailed scope stage, the team may
discover misalignment on key project objectives within the project team, causing
rework, delay, and additional cost.
Regardless of the timing of the PDRI assessment, participants should all use
the same checklist/descriptions and follow the guidelines outlined below. The
following sections discuss the objectives and overall scores of PDRI assessments.
20
PDRIEarly Review This is a high-level assessment of the project following

Feasibility. It is one of the decision criteria for continuing development of the
Detailed Scope. PDRI Section I, Basis of Decision, should be well-defined (with a
low relative PDRI score) at this point. This assessment is typically held for projects
at the initial project kickoff meeting, when an engineering firm is brought on
board. The PDRIEarly review should focus on the following outcomes:
aligning the team with project objectives
ensuring good communication between business/sponsor to project/
contractor team
highlighting stakeholder expectations to facilitate reasonable engineering
estimates
identifying high-priority project deliverables
helping to eliminate late project surprises; providing opportunities to
prevent costly rework, changes, and schedule delays, later in the project
life cycle.
Typical PDRI scores at this assessment will be in the range of 400 to 800.
PDRIFinal Review This is typically the final assessment of the project and
it comes at the end of front end project planning (at the end of Detailed Scope).
The PDRIFinal review should be completed for all projects. At this stage, the
project team has identified risk issues have been identified and is developing or
has put mitigation plans in place. Typical scores for this review are 150 to 400,
with a target of 300 or below.
In addition to these two PDRI reviews, the tool can be used at other points.
For instance, it can be used early in Feasibility as a checklist to help organize work
effort. It can also be conducted during the Design, Procurement and Construction
phase to verify the design before moving into construction.
21
Assessing a PDRI Element
To assess an element, the user should first refer to the score sheet in Appendix
A or B, and then read its corresponding description in Appendix C. Some elements
contain a list of items to be considered as their definition levels are evaluated.
These lists may be used as checklists. Additional issues may be applicable for
renovation/shutdown/turnaround projects. All elements have six pre-assigned
scores, one for each of the six possible definition levels.
As noted earlier, the PDRI consists of three main sections that are each broken
down into eight categories. These eight categories are further broken down into
41 elements. The elements are individually described in Appendix C, Element
Descriptions. Elements should be rated numerically from 0 to 5. The scores range
from 0 Not Applicable, to 1 Complete Definition, to 5 Incomplete or Poor
Definition, as indicated in the legend at the bottom of each score sheet. The elements
that are as well-defined as possible should receive a 2, 3, 4, or 5 rating, depending
on the teams assessment of them. Those elements deemed not applicable for the
project under consideration should receive a 0, so as not to affect the final score.
Users should choose only one definition level (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) for an element,
based on their perception of how well it has been addressed. The suggested method
for making this determination is through open discussion among the project team
members. In considering the completeness of the PDRI elements, the project team
should consider the desired outcome alongside the optimal cost and schedule
performance. Ensure that the team has adequate understanding of the element
issues and the work required to achieve complete definition. It is important to
defer to the most knowledgeable team members (for example, piping issues should
be deferred to the process engineer), while respecting the concerns of other team
members. As the discussion unfolds, capture action items or gaps. Appendix G
provides an example of an action item (gap) list.
Figure 3.2 outlines a method of assessing an elements level of definition at a

given point in time. For elements that are completely defined, no further work is
needed during front end planning. For ones with minor deficiencies, no further
work is needed during the front end planning phase, and the issue will not affect
cost and schedule performance; however, the project team will need to track and
address the minor issues identified as the project proceeds into the design phase.
For those elements that are assessed as having some problems or major deficiencies,
22
or are incomplete, the team will have to perform further mitigation during front
end planning before the end of the detailed scope phase.
Once users have chosen the appropriate definition level for each of the 41
elements, they write the value of the score that corresponds to that level on the
project score sheet. Alternatively, the PDRISmall Industrial Projects Excel-based
spreadsheet can be used to capture each score. Regardless of where the scores are
recorded, it is important to assess each element.
WELL Defined POORLY Defined
CATEGORY
0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
Element
Not Applicable
COMPLETE Definition
No further work required
MINOR Deficiencies
No further work required prior
to the end of Front End Planning
SOME Deficiencies
Needs more work prior to
the end of Front End Planning
MAJOR Deficiencies
Needs a lot more work prior to
the end of Front End Planning
INCOMPLETE or POOR Definition
Figure 3.2. PDRI Definition Levels versus Further Work Required

During Front End Planning
All of the element scores within a category should be added together to produce
a total score for that category. Then, the scores for each of the categories within
a section should then be summed to arrive at a section score. Finally, the three
section scores should be combined to determine the total PDRI score. The PDRI
Small Industrial Projects spreadsheet performs these calculations automatically.
It should be noted that the research team established the levels of definition with
a focus on developing the overall project scope of work, such that a project has a
higher probability of achieving an acceptable cost or schedule outcome.
23
The relative level of definition of a PDRI element is also tied to its importance
to the project at hand. The flexibility of the PDRI allows the project team some
leeway in assessing individual element definitions. For instance, if the issues
missing from the scope documentation of a particular PDRI element are integral
to project success (and reduction of risk), the team can perhaps rate the issues at
a definition level 3, 4, or even 5. On a different project, the absence of definition
of these same issues within a PDRI element may not be of concern, and the team
might decide to rate the element as at level 2. Maximizing the tools flexibility
and, thus, its consistent effectiveness, requires users to be alert to the unique
priorities of each project.
Assessment Example
Following is an example of how a member of a front end planning team that

is responsible for developing the scope definition package for a small industrial
project would proceed through the steps of a PDRI assessment. The project will
replace and upgrade sections of process piping to allow for increased capacity
in a major oil refinery. The team has just completed the feasibility phase and
plans to use the PDRI to evaluate the current level of completeness of the
scope definition package. At the time of this particular evaluation, the scope
development is underway, but is not yet complete. The front end planning teams
responsibility is to evaluate how well the project alignment has been defined to
date. This information is covered in Category A of the PDRI, as shown below, and
consists of four elements: A1. Project Objectives Statement; A2. Project Strategy
and Scope of Work; A3. Project Philosophies; and A4. Location. For the team
setting of this assessment, the unweighted assessment sheet is the appropriate one
to use. The steps the team will take to conduct the assessment are presented below.
24
SECTION I BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION

Definition Level
CATEGORY
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
A. PROJECT ALIGNMENT
A1. Project Objectives Statement
A2. Project Strategy and Scope of Work
A3. Project Philosophies
A4. Location
Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition
Step 1: Read the description for each element in Appendix C. Some elements
contain a list of items that should be considered when their levels of
definition are evaluated. These lists may be used as checklists.
Step 2: Collect all the data that you may need to properly evaluate and select
the definition level for each element in this category. This may require
input from other individuals involved in the scope development effort.
Step 3: Select the definition level for each element as described and shown
below.
Element A1: The overall project objectives and priorities for

meeting the business needs have been well defined.
The requirements of the new piping and installation
during a specified turnaround have been established.
Definition Level = 1
Element A2: The team has not yet completed a detailed scope of
work of the project, nor has construction provided
input on a plan for installation. An engineering and
procurement plan is in place. Since this is a fast-track
project, a funding plan must be determined to allow for
early engineering and material procurement. Details of
replacing existing spring supports and instrumentation
must be determined, as well as a plan for analyzing
the existing support structure, due to higher piping
loads. This element has some major deficiencies that
should be addressed prior to authorization of the
project. Definition Level = 4
25
Element A3: Since this is a renovation and revamp project, there

needs to be close coordination with engineering,
turnaround group, construction, and operations, to
allow for sufficient time for removal of old piping
and installation of new piping within the prescribed
turnaround period. There is also coordination required
with other turnaround projects in the same area. The
team feels there are some deficiencies in this area which
need to be addressed. Definition Level = 3
Element A4: The scope of this project involves replacing existing

piping with new piping. The planning team determined
that the piping would be replaced in the exact same
location, therefore the location is completely defined.
Definition Level = 1

Definition Level
CATEGORY
A1. Project Objectives Statement X
A2. Project Strategy and Scope of Work X
A3. Project Philosophies X
A4. Location X
Definition Levels
Action items/comments should be captured as the discussion

progresses for later reference (in Step 6). This list is referred to as a
gap list, in that it identifies those issues that need to be addressed
to move the project forward and in that it identifies a gap in the
planning activities.
Step 4: For each element, enter the score that corresponds to its level of
definition in the Score column. If the team feels that any or all
of the elements in a category are not applicable for this project,
they should be given a definition level of 0 and zeroed out. The
weighted score sheet is given below with the elements circled for the
chosen definition levels in this example.
26
Step 5: Sum the element scores to obtain a category score. Repeat this process
for each element in the PDRI. In this example, the category has a
total score of 52. Add up category scores to obtain section scores.

Definition Level
CATEGORY
A1. Project Objectives Statement 0 2 13 24 35 47 2
A2. Project Strategy and Scope of Work 0 3 13 24 34 45 34
A3. Project Philosophies 0 2 8 14 19 25 14
A4. Location 0 2 11 19 28 36 2
CATEGORY L TOTAL 52
Definition Levels
Add up all the section scores to obtain a total PDRI score. Completed
PDRI score sheets for process and non-process industrial projects
are included in Appendix D for reference.
Step 6: Take Action. In this example, Category A has a total score of 52

(out of 153 total points) and needs more work, particularly for
elements A2 and A3. Use the gap list to identify issues that need
additional attention. The gap list provided below is an excerpt from
the PDRISmall Industrial Projects spreadsheet.
PDRI E Low Definition Items

Additional
Section Element Element Description Level Comments Assigned To Target Date
Comments
The team needs to develop a

Project Strategy project strategy and scope of work
I A2 Level 4 Mike Smith 12/14/20XX
and Scope of Work to include early engineering and
procurement involvement
Ensure close coordination with

engineering turnaround group and
Project with construction and operations, Jenny
I A3 Level 3 12/31/20XX
Philosophies to allow time to remove pipe and Taylor
install new pipe during turnaround
operation period
The project team leader should evaluate the gap list and then direct
action towards those elements that are of a critical nature, as indicated
by element scores and levels of definition.
27
PDRISmall Industrial Projects Low Definition Matrix
In the PDRISmall Industrial Projects spreadsheet, the default setting for

the matrix is to output any elements with a definition level greater than 3 (i.e.,
4 or 5). Depending on how mature the project is, the project team may elect to
adjust the focal area. If the project has just started, there may be many elements
that are less defined. If this is the case, narrowing the focus to the elements that
were rated greater than 4 (i.e., only the definition level 5 definitions) may help
concentrate efforts for the greatest impact in the shortest time. A key issue with
this approach is that there may be elements with lower ratings (i.e., with higher
definitions) that would benefit from earlier review from two perspectives: first,
more defined elements that are difficult to reconcile will take more time and, thus,
later action on them may come too late; and second, since each elements weighting
corresponds to its relative importance in project planning and execution, a more
defined element may have a larger impact on the overall project rating than any
of the least defined elements. (For examples of such important weighted elements,
see Element A1 Project Objectives Statement and Element G3 Distribution Matrix
in Appendix B.)
Philosophy of Use
Ideally, the project team will conduct a PDRI evaluation at two points in
the project. Experience has shown that the scoring process works best in a team
environment, with a neutral facilitator who understands the PDRI process. On a
small project, the assessment team may only be composed of a few key stakeholders
brought together. The facilitator manages the process, provides objective feedback
to the team, and controls the pace of the assessment. (See Appendix H for details
on facilitation.) If this team-facilitator arrangement is not possible, an alternative
approach is to have key individuals evaluate the project separately, then evaluate it
together and ultimately agree on a final evaluation. Even individual use of the PDRI
provides an effective method for project evaluation. For example, the mechanical
discipline lead may utilize applicable portions of the PDRI to look at piping issues
alone, to stimulate discussion on areas of interest and/or to evaluate potential
risk areas. This assessment may be useful to help determine areas involving long
lead items or extended time frames.
28
Experience has also shown that the PDRI is best used as a tool to help project
managers (i.e., project coordinators and project planners) organize and monitor
the progress of the front end planning effort. In many cases, a planner may use the
PDRI prior to the formation of a team, in order to understand major risk areas on
the project. Implementing the PDRI early in the project life cycle typically leads
to high PDRI scores. This is normal, since project definition usually increases
throughout the projects life cycle (hence, the PDRI score would decrease). The
completed score sheet from an early PDRI assessment (if performed) gives the
project manager a sense for which areas of the project are weakly defined at a
given point in time.
The PDRI provides an excellent tool to use in early project team meetings,
since it provides a means for the team to align itself on the project and organize
its work. Experienced PDRI users understand that the final PDRI score is less
important than the process used to arrive at that score. The PDRI also can provide
an effective means of handing off the project to other entities or of maintaining
continuity as new project participants are added to the project, (e.g., at end of
front end planning and handoff to design and construction). Also, regardless of
when the project team uses the PDRI, an organization may want to standardize
many of the PDRI elements to improve the cycle time of planning activities. If
the organization already has front end planning procedures and standards, along
with deliverables, in place for small projects, many of the PDRI elements may be
partially defined when the project begins front end planning.
If the PDRI is only implemented once, it is important that the team spends
the extra time needed to get accurate information to assess the level of scope
definition for all of the applicable elements. The front end 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. A PDRI
target score may not be as important as the teams progress over time in resolving
issues that harbor risk. It is critical to keep in mind that the tool is designed to
highlight areas needing further definition early in the projects lifecycle so that the
team can address these issues early on; this early action can prevent the rework
that, because of the concurrency in their design and construction processes, often
plagues small projects.
29
The PDRI was developed as a point in time tool, with elements that are as
discrete as possible. Most of the elements constitute deliverables to the planning
process. However, a close review of the elements reveals an embedded sequential
logic. Certain elements must first be well-defined in order for others to be defined
(e.g., the location is required before a site plan can be developed). This cascading
logic works within project phases and from one phase to the next.
Figure 3.3 outlines the logic at the section level. In general, Section I elements
must be well-defined prior to defining Section II and III elements. Note that this
is not the rigorously linear type of logic used in the critical path method (CPM);
in this system, elements can often be pursued concurrently, regardless of their
relative positions within the logical hierarchy.
288 Points
Section I:
Basis of Project Decision
Categories A and B
425 Points
Section II:
Basis of Design
Categories C thru F
287 Points
Section III:
Execution Approach
Categories G and H
Figure 3.3. PDRISmall Industrial Projects Section Logic Flow Diagram
Figure 3.4 outlines the general logic flow of the PDRI categories. Again, the flow
is not like that of traditional CPM processes. Moreover, the diagram is given only
as a guideline, since, the PDRI allows for many other ways to organize the work.
30
145 Points
Category D
Process/Product
Design Basis
135 Points 129 Points
Category B
Project Category G
Performance Execution
Requirements Requirements
Category A Category E
Electrical and
Start Project End
Instrumentation
Alignment
Systems
Category H
Category C Engineering/
Design Construction
Guidance Plan and
Approach
76 Points
Category F
Legend General Facility
Requirements
Section I
Section II
Basis of Design
Section III
Execution Approach
Figure 3.4. PDRISmall Industrial Projects Category Logic Flow Diagram
31
For instance, if information gained in Category E (Electrical and Instrumentation

Systems) during the assessment is different than expected (assumed), then the
planner may choose to re-examine elements in Categories AD in light of that
difference. If an organization wants to standardize its front end planning process,
the logic presented in these diagrams could provide the basis for that development.
Appendix E provides full-sized color versions of Figures 3.3 and 3.4.
Implementation across an Organization
The first requirement for implementation of the PDRI across any organization
(i.e., using it on all projects), whether owner or contractor, is the unwavering
support of upper management. Upper management must create a procedure that
requires PDRI use prior to a projects authorization to proceed with the execution
phase. Many successful organizations require a PDRI report as part of their
project approval process. Some organizations may require a specific score of 300
or lower for a project to be approved for the next phase.
There is some danger in putting too much focus on scoring, since some projects
with higher scores may be defined well enough. For example, some smaller
maintenance projects may be fully acceptable with a much higher PDRI scoreas
long as the project team has defined the project risks and put a mitigation plan in
place to control the project. As mentioned above, common sense should prevail
when users review PDRI results from a project. Requirement to reach specific
scores could motivate teams to adjust them artificially so that their projects can be
executed (to the detriment of the organization, the project, and team participants).
In most cases, it is more beneficial for the sponsor to have a PDRI assessment with
a score above 300along with identified risk issues (gap list) and corresponding
mitigation stepsthan to have a PDRI assessment with a lower score and no
commentary. Sponsors should focus on the gap list generated in the assessment
session, not solely on the PDRI score. Placing too much emphasis on the score
can lead to use of the tool as a perfunctory administrative exercise.
The second requirement for implementation across an organization is a

local champion. This person is an enthusiastic supporter and advocate of PDRI
application. He or she gains knowledge about the tool and fosters its widespread
application by staying in contact with other organizations that use the tool.
32
Training is the third requirement for successful PDRI implementation. Several

facilitators should be trained within an organization. The number of facilitators
needed will vary depending on the size of the organization and the number of
projects that require approval. The objective is to ensure that every project has
access to a trained facilitator in a timely manner. The facilitator should NOT
be a member of the project team. In many organizations, project managers are
trained as facilitators for their peers projects.
In addition to developing a cadre of facilitators, every organization should

ensure that all of its key members understand the PDRI. In most cases, this is
accomplished with just-in-time training. At the outset of each session, the facilitator
will brief the participants on the purpose of the PDRI process and explain their
respective roles in making the session a success. The facilitator should further take
the opportunity to comment on specific behaviors as the team progresses through
the assessment session. Soon, these key members will be well-trained and know
what to expect during PDRI assessment sessions. Also, if the PDRI is implemented
across the organization, its use should be monitored. Many organizations have
modified PDRI element descriptions to ensure that the discussion addresses
proprietary concerns and lessons learned, and includes terminology specific to
their particular business environments.
33
4
What Does A PDRI Score Mean?
A low PDRI score represents a project definition package that is

well-defined and, in general, corresponds to an increased probability
for project success. Higher scores indicate that certain elements
within the project definition package lack adequate definition.
The PDRI, in its various forms, has been used on hundreds of projects
representing billions of dollars in investment. As part of the tool assessment
process during development, RT 314 tested the PDRISmall Industrial Projects
on 40 completed projects (worth a total of US$151.8 million), each of which
met the teams definition of a small industrial project. These included several
process-related projects, among which were the following: piping and equipment
replacements within utility generation facilities; additions and renovations to
existing production lines within pharmaceutical and petrochemical manufacturing
facilities; and tank batteries at oil and gas drilling operations. Completed non-
process-related projects included natural gas pipeline meter stations, parking lot
replacement, and HVAC upgrades.
Table 4.1 shows the results of the teams comparison of project performance
among the 21 small industrial projects in this sample, using a 300-point PDRI
score cutoff. These data show the mean performance for the projects versus the
execution estimate for design and construction and the absolute value of changes
as a percentage of total project cost. Projects with a PDRI score under 300 (a lower
score is better) outperformed projects with a PDRI score above 300 in terms of
both cost and schedule.
The research team was surprised to find that change performance showed
little difference, but learned that such a result appears to be expected for small
projects. The team surmises this finding has two causes: first, changes to the
project scope once FEP has been completed (both addition and deletion) can
drastically affect even well-planned projects, since the original scope of small
projects is limited and more sensitive to change; and, second, the concurrency
of design and construction that is typical of many small industrial projects may
35
Chapter 4. What Does A PDRI Score Mean?
affect the project data collected. If the design intent is incomplete during FEP, a
project will typically require change orders before it can be completed to satisfy
the owners needs. Essentially, the PDRISmall Industrial Projects tool supports
better management of cost and schedule impacts of these changes.
The PDRI score for each of the tested projects was determined just prior to
the beginning of detailed design; because of the small sample size, the differences
in performance parameters are not statistically significant. (For more information
on this data analysis, see Reference 14.)
Table 4.1. Project Performance based on PDRI Score
PDRI Score
Performance < 300 > 300
Cost 2% below budget 14% above budget
Schedule 7% behind schedule 22% behind schedule
Change Orders* 13% of budget 16% of budget
(N=24) (N=16)
* Absolute value of change orders did not vary substantially due to concurrency of design and
construction, along with scope changes typical of small projects.
Use on In-process Projects
RT 314 also tested the PDRISmall Industrial Projects on 12 projects during

real-time planning exercises. Among them, the process-related projects included the
following: a standalone manufacturing facility; additions to existing manufacturing
lines; structural replacement of an existing cooling tower support system; a natural
gas pipeline meter station; and a clean-room manufacturing suite. The sample
also had a variety of non-process projects, some of which were as follows: a new
standalone QC lab; a petroleum pipeline measurement skid; a replacement of a
reverse-osmosis water treatment system; and a natural gas pipeline meter station.
On average, the tool took between 60 and 90 minutes to complete.
In general, the feedback from these preliminary users was extremely positive.
The tool performed very well in identifying critical risk issues during the front
end planning process, and it spurred important conversations about elements
not yet considered by the project teams. As one user stated, Utilization of the
PDRISmall Industrial Projects tool not only provided for a structured process
36
to assess the status of project scope definition and execution readiness, it also
assisted the team in bringing newly assigned individuals on the project up to speed
on the project scope and status, as well as gaining alignment within the team on
the project plan. As another user stated, My first reaction was, This is going
to take a long time . . . [but,] I picked it up and realized it wasnt complicated at
all. I like [the tool] because its easy and straightforward. (For more information
on these assessments, see Reference 14.)
Analyzing PDRI Scores What to Look For
The PDRI is of little value unless the user takes action based on the analysis,
and uses the assessment to identify and mitigate risk for the project. Project teams
can use PDRI scores in a number of ways including the following:
Project scores can be compared over time as a way of identifying trends in
developing scope definition within your organization.
Different types of projects can be compared (e.g., process versus non-
process, piping versus equipment, and greenfield versus brownfield) to
determine threshold PDRI scores for each type and to identify critical
success factors from the comparisons. The PDRI score can also be used
to compare projects for different clients or different-sized projects of the
same client.
Depending on the nature of the business, the internal scope

definition practices, and the project requirements, an organization
may wish to determine a comfort level (range of PDRI scores) at
which it is willing to move into the design and construction phases.
PDRI scores can isolate weak areas of a project at the section, category,
or element level. For example, if any element has a definition level of
3, 4 or 5, the team should further define this element or develop a risk
mitigation strategy for it. This provides an effective method of risk
analysis, since each element, category, and section is weighted relative to
the others in terms of potential risk exposure. Identifying the projects
weak areas is critical as the project team progresses toward execution,
and it should provide path-forward action items. Sometimes, project
teams are pressured to develop a scope of work in a short period of
time. To streamline the process, the team could focus on the top eight
elements, as given in Table 4.4. These elements comprise approximately
30 percent of the total score. When addressing small projects, the team
may want to select a different set of top eight elements, depending on
the circumstances and their experience. (See Appendix C for descriptions
37
of the top eight elements.)
Table 4.2. Eight Highest Ranking PDRISmall Industrial Elements
Definition Level 5
Rank Element Element Description
Weight
1 A1 Project Objectives Statement 47
2 A2 Project Strategy and Scope of Work 45
3 H2 Project Cost Estimate 39
4 D3 Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs) 36
A4 Location 36
6 G5 Shutdown/Turnaround Requirements 32
7 B2 Capacities 31
8 C3 Project Site Assessment 29
Total 295
Project teams can determine and evaluate the overall percentage of scope
definition, using the PDRI score. For example, the PDRI scoring scheme
has a range of 930 total points (i.e., 70 to 1,000). If a projects PDRI score
was 435 out of the 1,000 total points, then 365 points (i.e., 435 minus
70), or 39 percent of the 930 total point range, has yet to be defined. In
essence, 61 percent of the scope for the total project has been defined.
Another method of evaluation is to look at the score of each section or
category as a percentage of its maximum score, in order to focus attention
on critical items for the project. For example, if Section I, Basis of Project
Decision, is at 200 points, then it is roughly 50 percent of its potential
maximum score (437). The elements in this section would then need
much work. The summary results page within the PDRISmall Industrial
Projects spreadsheet automatically provides percent-complete calculations
for the total project assessment, as well as for individual PDRI sections,
categories, and the top eight highest-weighted elements.
Historical PDRI Scores
Keeping a corporate or organizational database of PDRI scores for various

project sizes and types may be desirable. As more projects are completed and
scored with the PDRI, the ability to predict the probability of success on future
projects should improve. Organizations may come to depend on the PDRI as a
gauge for deciding whether or not to authorize the development of construction
documents and, ultimately, the construction of a project. Another use for the
PDRI is as an external benchmark for measurement against the practices of other
industry leaders.
38
5
Concluding Remarks
As the preceding chapters have demonstrated, the PDRI can benefit owners,
developers, designers, and contractors. Facility owners, developers, and lending
institutions can also gain from it, by using it to establish threshold levels for
moving forward on projects. By using it to identify poorly defined project scope
definition elements, designers and constructors can use it as a means of negotiating
with owners as they join projects. The PDRI provides a forum for all project
participants to communicate and reconcile differences; because it is an objective
tool, it provides a much-needed common basis for project scope evaluation. It
also provides excellent input into the detailed design process and a solid baseline
for design management.
Anyone who wishes to improve the overall performance on

his or her small industrial projects should use the PDRI.
How to Improve Performance on Future Projects
The following suggestions are offered to individuals or organizations who

adopt the PDRI with the desire to improve performance on their industrial projects:
Commit to early project planning. Effective planning in the early stages
of small industrial projects can greatly enhance cost, schedule, and
operational performance while minimizing the possibility of financial
failures and disasters.
Gain and maintain project team alignment by using the PDRI throughout
front end planning. Discussions around the scope definition checklists are
particularly effective in helping with team alignment.
Be particularly cognizant of specific scope elements on renovation and
revamp projects. Use the specific R&R issues identified in the element
descriptions. Implementation Resource 242-2, Front End Planning of
Renovation and Revamp Projects, is an invaluable resource, especially
if the project includes a shutdown/turnaround/outage scenario.
39
Chapter 5. Concluding Remarks
Adjust the PDRI as necessary to meet the specific needs of your project.
The PDRI was designed so that certain elements considered inapplicable
to a particular project can be zeroed out, thus eliminating them from
the final scoring calculation. The PDRISmall Industrial Projects was
developed to allow teams to skip categories if certain scope development
requirements are not needed.
Use the PDRI to improve project performance. Build your own internal
database of PDRIscored projects. By computing PDRI scores generated
at the various times during scope development and then correlating them
to project success, organizations can establish their own scope definition
thresholds for moving forward from phase to phase. Also, weaknesses
identified with the PDRI can be used to improve the overall front end
planning process.
Use caution when beginning detailed design of projects with PDRI scores
greater than 300. CII data have shown that a direct correlation exists
between high PDRI scores and poor project performance.
PDRI scores are only a portion of the output. While PDRI scores, in
aggregate, demonstrate the level of project planning development, the
more valuable output from the process is the insight that can be gleaned
from the remarks, lessons learned, and coordinating tasks identified during
the assessment session. Executive leadership can better assess where and
how to commit limited planning resources to enhance project execution.
CII research has shown that the PDRI can improve the predictability
of project performance. However, the PDRI 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.
40
Appendix A:
Unweighted Project Score Sheet
An Excel version of this matrix is on the compact disc that accompanies this book.

CATEGORY Definition Level
A4. Location
CATEGORY A TOTAL
B. PROJECT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
B1. Products
B2. Capacities
B3. Processes
B4. Technology
B5. Physical Site
CATEGORY B TOTAL
SECTION I TOTAL
Definition Levels
41
Appendix A. Unweighted Project Score Sheet
SECTION II BASIS OF DESIGN

C. DESIGN GUIDANCE
C1. Lead/Discipline Scope of Work
C2. Project Design Criteria
C3. Project Site Assessment
C4. Specifications
C5. Construction Input
CATEGORY C TOTAL
D. PROCESS/PRODUCT DESIGN BASIS
D1. Process Safety Management (PSM)
D2. Process Flow Diagrams along with Heat and
Material Balance
D3. Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams
(P&IDs)
D4. Piping System Stress Analysis
D5. Equipment Location Drawings
D6. Critical Process/Product Items Lists
CATEGORY D TOTAL
E. ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS
E1. Control Philosophy
E2. Functional Descriptions and Control
Narratives
E3. Electric Single Line Diagrams
E4. Critical Electrical Items Lists
CATEGORY E TOTAL
F. GENERAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
F1. Site Plan 0 1 6 10 15 20
F2. Loading/Unloading/Storage Requirements 0 2 5 9 13 17
F3. Transportation Requirements 0 1 5 8 12 15
F4. Additional Project Requirements 0 2 8 13 19 24
CATEGORY F TOTAL
SECTION II TOTAL
Definition Levels
42
Appendix A. Unweighted Project Score Sheet
SECTION III EXECUTION APPROACH

G. EXECUTION REQUIREMENTS
G1. Procurement Plan
G2. Owner Approval Requirements
G3. Distribution Matrix
G4. Risk Management Plan
G5. Shutdown/Turnaround Requirements
G6. Precommissioning, Start-up, and Turnover
Sequence Requirements
CATEGORY G TOTAL
H. ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND APPROACH
H1. Engineering/Construction Methodology
H2. Project Cost Estimate
H3. Project Accounting and Cost Control
H4. Project Schedule and Schedule Control
H5. Project Change Control
H6. Deliverables for Design and Construction
H7. Deliverables for Project Comissioning/
Closeout
CATEGORY H TOTAL
SECTION III TOTAL
PDRI TOTAL SCORE
Definition Levels
43
Appendix B:
Weighted Project Score Sheet
An Excel version of this matrix is on the compact disc that accompanies this book.

A. PROJECT ALIGNMENT (Maximum Score = 153)
A1. Project Objectives Statement 0 2 13 24 35 47
A2. Project Strategy and Scope of Work 0 3 13 24 34 45
A3. Project Philosophies 0 2 8 14 19 25
A4. Location 0 2 11 19 28 36
CATEGORY A TOTAL
B. PROJECT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS (Maximum Score = 135)
B1. Products 0 1 8 15 21 28
B2. Capacities 0 2 9 17 24 31
B3. Processes 0 2 7 12 17 23
B4. Technology 0 2 8 15 21 28
B5. Physical Site 0 2 8 14 19 25
CATEGORY B TOTAL
Section I Maximum Score = 288 SECTION I TOTAL
Definition Levels
45
Appendix B. Weighted Project Score Sheet

C. DESIGN GUIDANCE (Maximum Score = 133)
C1. Lead/Discipline Scope of Work 2 8 14 20 27
0
C2. Project Design Criteria 2 8 14 20 26
0
C3. Project Site Assessment 2 9 15 22 29
0
C4. Specifications 2 8 14 20 26
0
C5. Construction Input 2 8 14 19 25
0
CATEGORY C TOTAL
D. PROCESS/PRODUCT DESIGN BASIS (Maximum Score = 145)
D1. Process Safety Management (PSM) 0 1 6 10 14 19
0 2 8 15 22 28
Material Balance
0 2 11 19 28 36
(P&IDs)
D4. Piping System Stress Analysis 0 1 5 9 13 17
D5. Equipment Location Drawings 0 1 7 12 17 22
D6. Critical Process/Product Items Lists 0 2 7 12 17 23
CATEGORY D TOTAL
E. ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS (Maximum Score = 71)
E1. Control Philosophy 0 2 7 12 17 22
0 1 4 7 11 14
Narratives
E3. Electric Single Line Diagrams 0 1 5 9 13 17
E4. Critical Electrical Items Lists 0 1 5 10 14 18
CATEGORY E TOTAL
F. GENERAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS (Maximum Score = 76)
F1. Site Plan 0 1 6 10 15 20
F2. Loading/Unloading/Storage Requirements 0 2 5 9 13 17
F3. Transportation Requirements 0 1 5 8 12 15
F4. Additional Project Requirements 0 2 8 13 19 24
CATEGORY F TOTAL
Section II Maximum Score = 425 SECTION II TOTAL
Definition Levels
46
Appendix B. Weighted Project Score Sheet

G. EXECUTION REQUIREMENTS (Maximum Score = 129)
G1. Procurement Plan 0 2 9 15 22 28
G2. Owner Approval Requirements 0 1 5 9 13 17
G3. Distribution Matrix 0 1 3 4 6 8
G4. Risk Management Plan 0 2 7 13 18 23
G5. Shutdown/Turnaround Requirements 0 3 10 17 25 32
0 2 7 11 16 21
CATEGORY G TOTAL
(Maximum Score = 158)
H1. Engineering/Construction Methodology 0 2 8 14 20 25
H2. Project Cost Estimate 0 3 12 21 30 39
H3. Project Accounting and Cost Control 0 1 4 8 11 14
H4. Project Schedule and Schedule Control 0 2 8 13 19 25
H5. Project Change Control 0 1 6 10 15 19
H6. Deliverables for Design and Construction 0 1 6 11 16 21
0 1 5 8 12 15
Closeout
CATEGORY H TOTAL
Section III Maximum Score = 287 SECTION III TOTAL
PDRI TOTAL SCORE

Maximum Score = 1000
Definition Levels
47
Appendix C:
Element Descriptions
RT 314 developed the following descriptions to help generate a clear

understanding of the terms used in the un-weighted project score sheet. Some
descriptions include checklists of sub-elements. These sub-elements clarify
concepts and facilitate ideas, to make the assessment of each element easier. Note
that these checklists are not all-inclusive and that the user may supplement them
when necessary.
The descriptions follow the order in which they are presented in the un-
weighted or the weighted project score sheet; they are organized in a hierarchy
by section, category, and element. The score sheet consists of three main sections,
each of which is a series of categories broken down into elements. Note that some
of the elements have issues listed that are specific to projects that are renovations
and revamps or part of a repetitive program. Identified as Additional items
to consider for renovation & revamp projects and If this is an instance of a
repetitive program, these issues should be used for discussion if applicable. Users
generate the score by evaluating each elements definition level.
It should be noted that RT 314 developed this tool and these descriptions to
address a variety of types of small industrial projects, both process- and non-
process-related. Throughout the descriptions, the user will see sub-elements that
relate to this range of projects. These sub-elements appear in the order in which
they are discussed above. If a sub-element is not applicable to the project that the
user is assessing, then it should be ignored. The sections, categories, and elements
are organized as discussed below.
49
Appendix C. Element Descriptions
SECTION I: BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION
This section consists of information necessary for understanding the project

objectives. The completeness of this section indicates whether the project team is
aligned enough to fulfill the projects business objectives and drivers.
Categories:
A Project Alignment
B Project Performance Requirements
SECTION II: BASIS OF DESIGN
This section addresses processes and technical information elements that

should be evaluated for a full understanding of the engineering/design requirements
necessary for the project.
Categories:
C Design Guidance
D Process/Product Design Basis
E Electrical and Instrumentation Systems
F General Facility Requirements
SECTION III: EXECUTION APPROACH
This section consists of elements that should be evaluated for a full understanding
of the owners strategy and required approach for executing the project construction
and closeout.
Categories:
G Execution Requirements
H Engineering/Construction Plan and Approach
The following pages contain detailed descriptions for all of the elements in
the PDRI.
50
SECTION I: BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION
The elements in this category align key stakeholders around the whys, whats,
and hows of the project in order to meet the needs of the organization.

The project objectives statement clearly defines why the project is
being performed and what its value is to the organization. Project
objectives and priorities for meeting the business drivers should be
documented and shared. The statement should outline the relative
priority among cost, schedule, and quality. Key stakeholders (e.g., owner/
operations, environmental/permitting, design/engineering, procurement,
construction, commissioning/startup, and external stakeholders) should
be engaged to ensure the project is aligned to applicable objectives and
constraints. Items to consider should include the following:
Objectives:
Safety/security
Quality of product/quality of life
Performance/capacity
Environmental/sustainability
Stakeholder understanding of the objectives, including
questions or concerns answered
Constraints or limitations placed on the project, which, if not
addressed or overcome, could adversely affect the projects
ability to meet objectives (e.g., space, operations, timing/
schedule of project, and funding)
Other (user-defined).
If this is an instance of a repetitive program

Ensure compatibility of project objectives with program
objectives.
51

The project strategy and scope of work supports the identified market
and/or business drivers and objectives, and also addresses applicable
project constraints. The team should document a brief, generally
discipline-oriented narrative description of the project, laying out the
major components of work to be accomplished. The project strategy
and scope of work should be evaluated against the preliminary cost
estimate and schedule, to determine project feasibility. The narrative
should include the following:
Assurance of safe construction and operations
A strategy that aligns with project objectives based on project
priorities:
Cost
Schedule
Quality
Other (e.g., supply chain, environmental, human resources,
labor)
A project funding strategy to ensure that the project can move
forward without any unintended stoppages (e.g., internal or
external funds or savings from process or energy efficiency
improvements)
A contracting strategy (e.g., lump sum, reimbursable, unit
price, parallel prime)
Sequencing of work
Interface issues for various contractors, contracts, or work
packages
Any ancillary or temporary equipment required for:
Installation and commissioning
Regulatory compliance or reporting
Additional items to consider for renovation & revamp projects

If the project is within an existing facility, the project scope
should align with overall plant/process strategy.
Identification of interface or coordination efforts with
operations and owners staff, and with existing equipment and
systems; grouping of work to minimize outages
52

Compatibility of project scope and strategy with programs
scope and strategy

General project design philosophies to meet the performance goals of
the unit/facility should be documented. Philosophies should define the
following:
Operating philosophy (achieving the projected overall
performance requirements such as on-stream time or service
factor)
Operating time sequence (e.g., ranging from continuous
operation to five- day to day-shift only); necessary level of
segregation and clean-out between batches or runs
Level of operator coverage and automatic control to
be provided; aligned with union operator contractual
agreements
Desired unit turndown capability; design requirements for
routine start-up and shutdown
Security protection for material management and product
control
Reliability philosophy (achieving dependable operating
performance)
Control, alarm, security and safety systems redundancy, and
access control; measures to be taken to prevent loss
Mechanical/structural integrity of components (e.g.,
metallurgy, seals, types of couplings, bearing selection, and
corrosion allowance)
Installed spare equipment and strategic spares
Maintenance Philosophy (meeting maintenance goals)
Scheduled unit/equipment shutdown frequencies and
durations
Equipment access/monorails/cranes/other lifting equipment
sized appropriately
Equipment monitoring requirements (e.g., lubricants and
vibrations)
53

Align new project components life cycle with existing systems/
plant/process life cycle
Maintenance requirements during renovation
Common/spare parts (repair versus replace existing
components)
Interruptions to existing and adjacent facilities and operations
Compatibility of maintenance philosophy for new systems and
equipment with existing use and maintenance philosophy
Coordination of the project with ongoing or planned
maintenance projects

Compatibility and alignment of projects philosophies with
programs philosophies
A4. Location
A location that considers the long-term needs of the owner organization,
meets requirements and maximizes benefits should be selected. If locations
have been pre-chosen, it is always a good idea to verify benefits. The
selection of location(s) involves an assessment of the relative strengths
and weaknesses of alternate locations. Evaluation criteria should include
the following:
Available utilities
Operational requirements and hazards
Interface with ongoing projects or operations
Construction/operations and maintenance access
Security constraints (consider separation of construction
workers from operations, construction access, and so forth)
Regulatory/social constraints
Orientation of project to facilitate future expansion
54
B. PROJECT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

The elements in this category address high-level requirements informing the
basis of design. These elements should define success criteria.
B1. Products
Product(s) to be manufactured and/or the specifications and tolerances
that the project is intended to deliver have been documented. Issues to
consider should include the following:
Chemical composition; physical form/properties; allowable
impurities
Raw materials and packaging specification
Intermediate/final product form
By-products and wastes
Hazards associated with products
B2. Capacities
Design output or benefits to be gained from this project have been
documented. Capacities should be defined in terms of the following:
Yield; design rate or output
Increase in storage
Regulation- or environment-driven requirements
Product quality or process efficiency improvement
B3. Processes
A particular, specific sequence of steps to change the raw materials,
intermediates, or sub-assemblies in the finished product or outcome, has
been documented. The organizations experience with the process steps
should be considered. Evaluation criteria should include the following:
Proven, new, and/or experimental elements of the process
Scale-up from bench or pilot application to commercial scale
Potential impacts to other process steps from proposed change
55
B4. Technology
The technology(ies) being used in this project to gain the desired results
should be documented. Technologies may include chemical, biological,
or mechanical processes, and information technology (i.e., software
development/upgrade). Evaluation criteria should include the following:
Existing/proven or duplicate
New or experimental
Scale-up from bench or pilot application to commercial scale
Organizations (or industrys) experience with the technology
Licensing or development implications of chosen technology(ies)
An additional item to consider for renovation & revamp projects

Integration of new technology with existing systems, including
interface/safety issues.
B5. Physical Site

Permanent physical systems that support or drive the need for the project
have been documented. Physical parameters should be defined in terms
of the following:
Excavation or remediation
Fencing and security
Structural
Utilities/infrastructure
Access
Buildings
56
SECTION II: BASIS OF DESIGN
C. DESIGN GUIDANCE
The elements in this category identify items required to support detailed design.
C1. Lead/Discipline Scope of Work

A complete, generally discipline-oriented narrative description of the
project has been documented, laying out the major components of work
to be accomplished. This narrative should be tied to a high-level work
breakdown structure (WBS) for the project. Items to consider should
include the following:
Sequencing of both product and project work, including
engineering deliverables supporting pre-commissioning,
commissioning, and expedited start-up
Interface issues for various contractors, contracts, or work
packages
Any ancillary or temporary equipment required for installation
and commissioning, regulatory compliance, or reporting

Identification of specific interface or coordination efforts with
operations and owners staff
C2. Project Design Criteria

The codes, standards, and guidelines that govern the project design
have been identified and documented, as well as evaluated, for schedule
impact. Items to consider should include the following:
National, local, or corporate codes
Local, state/provincial, and federal government permits:
Construction, building, and occupancy
Transportation, including highway, railroad, or levee board
Security and fire
Air and water
Utilization of engineering standards (e.g., owners, contractors,
or other)
Alignment of criteria between the project and existing system/
facilities
Health, safety, and environment (HSE)
57
Electrical area classifications

Value engineering plan
Future expansion considerations
Level of automation
Other (user-defined)

Evaluation of original intent of codes and regulations, and any
grandfathered requirements
Setting design goals to take advantage of outages and plant
down-time
Electrical area reclassification impact on existing access and
operating areas
Verification of accuracy of as-built or existing 3D models

Applicability of existing criteria and permits for this project.
C3. Project Site Assessment

The actual conditions pertaining to the project site should be identified and
documented. The team should identify the availability/non-availability
or redundancy of site utilities needed to operate the unit/facility and
equipment. Items to consider should include the following:
Survey and benchmark (coordinate and elevation) control
system
Geotechnical report
Soil treatment or removal/replacement requirements
Environmental permits currently in force
Existing environmental problems with the site
Other factors such as light, dust, noise, emissions, or erosion
control
Fluid/gas utility sources with supply conditions (including
temperature, pressure, and quality)
Power sources with supply conditions (including location,
voltage level, available power, reliability, and electrical power
quality)
58

Field verification of the condition of isolation and tie-in points,
including operational approval
Field verification of the condition of existing or reused
equipment
Existing horizontal and vertical position analysis (e.g., use of
laser scanning).
C4. Specifications
Project-specific specifications for the design, performance, manufacturing,
and material requirements should be identified and documented. Items
to consider should include the following:
Mechanical (e.g., classes of equipment, piping, tracing
requirements, protective coating, and insulation)
Instrument & electrical (e.g., classes of equipment, power and
control, protection, security, heat tracing, and installation
standards)
Automation/process control
Civil/structural (e.g., dimensions, seismic, boundary,
fireproofing, protective coatings, and wind loads)
Architectural (e.g., acoustical, finishes, specialty coatings,
cleanability, accessibility of occupants, and voice/data)
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, along with indoor
air quality (e.g., equipment, ducting, filtration, air changes, and
emissions)

Reconciliation of as-built specifications with current
specifications

Compatibility of this projects specifications with programs
specifications.
59
C5. Construction Input

A structured process for constructability analysis has been documented.
This process should be initiated in front end planning and include early
identification of project team participants for constructability analysis.
Elements of constructability to consider should include the following:
Construction knowledge/experience involved in project
planning and design, including contracting strategy, value
engineering, and WBS development
Developing a construction-sensitive project schedule
Considering construction methods in design (e.g.,
modularization/pre-assembly, and off-site fabrication)
Developing site layouts for construction infrastructure and
logistics, including laydown areas and hoisting requirements
(e.g., crane placement and assembly/disassembly, lift paths,
rigging, and line of sight)
Developing a detailed traffic/routing plan for oversized loads
and equipment inside the plant boundaries

Installability (e.g., small components/modules/pre-assembly
to facilitate installation in congested areas)
Opportunities to perform as much work as possible outside
shutdowns and outages
Development of an operations-sensitive schedule (e.g.,
minimization of shutdown/turnaround work and hot work in
operating areas).
60
D. PROCESS/PRODUCT DESIGN BASIS

The elements in this category focus on the process and mechanical design.
It should be noted that on some small projects, none of the elements in
this category may be applicable; however, in other situations these may
be the key items driving the project.
(For more information on process/mechanical issues, see Category G in
the PDRIIndustrial Projects.)
D1. Process Safety Management

A formal process safety management (PSM) plan is in place to identify,
evaluate, and mitigate potential risks of injury to the environment or
populace. The team should develop the PSM plan to address the specific
scope of the project appropriately. The important issues are, first, whether
the owner has clearly communicated the requirements, methodology,
and responsibility for the various activities to project participants and,
second, whether this information is incorporated into the project plans.
Each national government (or organization) will have its specific PSM
compliance requirements. (For example, in the U.S., OSHA Regulation
1910.119 compliance is required.) If a PSM plan is not in place, the team
should consider the potential for risks that could affect the schedule and
cost of the project.
Compatibility of this project with existing PSM documentation

Compatibility of this project with programs PSM
documentation.
D2. Process Flow Diagrams along with Heat & Material Balance
The process flow diagrams, along with the heat and material balance,
have been created or updated to reflect the process conditions required
to support operating conditions. Evaluation criteria should include the
following:
Major equipment items
Flow of materials and heat to and from the major equipment
items
Sufficient information to allow sizing of all process lines

Definition of owners requirements for updating existing
process flow diagrams and heat and material balance.
61

Piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs) may be referred to with
the following other terms:
Engineering Flow Diagrams (EFDs)
Mechanical Flow Diagrams (MFDs)
Process & Mechanical Control Diagrams (PMCDs).
In general, P&IDs are considered to be a critical element within the scope
definition package of an industrial project. For small projects, utility
flow diagrams (UFDs) will be included. P&IDs must be complete enough
to support the required accuracy of estimate and the development of
the projects detailed design. P&IDs are traditionally completed in the
following iterations or issues:
Preliminary issue comments and work input from other
disciplines and the owners representatives
Issue for approval incorporation of all critical information,
including lines sized, specifications developed, equipment
identified, and blocks completed for owner approval
Issue for design incorporation of all owner comments, and
readiness of P&IDs for the appropriate level of process safety
management (PSM) review
Issue as basis of estimate completion of entire process safety
review and incorporation of all comments.

Field verification of existing P&IDs for accuracy
Clear identification of scope of work on the new or existing
P&IDs (clouding or shading that indicates any or all of the
following: new, refurbished, modified, and/or relocated
equipment; utilities; all piping; tie-in points; specialty items;
instruments; and controls)
Completion of demolition P&IDs to define equipment, piping,
and supporting utilities removal scope.
62
D4. Piping System Stress Analysis

Piping system stress guidelines and requirements have been documented.
The owner must communicate the standards, methodology, and record
documentation required to support the piping systems design effort.
Verification of existing conditions (e.g., hangers, supports,
anchors, and wall thickness); assurance that lines are
functioning, available, and active
Field verification (back to anchor points) of existing lines that
will be modified and require stress analysis.
D5. Equipment Location Drawings

Equipment location/arrangement drawings that identify the specific
location and elevation of each item of equipment in the project have been
developed; key stakeholders should review and approve these drawings.
Identification of any equipment to be removed or rearranged;
assurance that equipment is sufficient for continued use,
including any necessary retrofitting.
D6. Critical Process/Product Items Lists

Critical items lists should be developed and documented. Many of these
critical items can be extracted from the P&IDs, and they will form
the basis for procurement and discipline design. All lists should be in
accordance with owner/engineer organization standards. Critical items
lists should include the following:
Mechanical equipment list should identify all equipment by tag
number,
Instrument index should identify all instruments by tag number
(e.g., control valves, relief devices, motor operated valves, and
tagged instruments).
The line list should designate all piping in the project (including
utilities). It should include items such as the following:
Unique number for each line, with size/termination/origin/
reference drawing
Operating and design temperature and pressure
Test pressure requirements and method
Pipe specifications
Insulation/tracing and paint requirements
63
Tie-in list should identify all new lines connecting to existing

lines. It should include items such as the following:
Existing/new line numbers
Reference drawings
Pipe specifications
Types of tie-in/size
Structured process to validate tie-ins and tie-in strategy
The piping specialty items list should specify in-line piping
items not covered by piping material specifications (e.g.,
strainers, steam traps, flex hoses, and expansion joints).

Identification of existing components to relocate, modify,
refurbish, or dismantle.
E. ELECTRICAL AND INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS

The elements in this category are focused on electrical design and control.
It should be noted that, while none of the elements in this category may be
applicable on some small projects, they may be the key items driving the
project in other situations.
E1. Control Philosophy

A control philosophy has been documented, describing the general nature
of the process and identifying overall control systems hardware, software,
simulation, and testing requirements in a functional specification. Items
to consider should include the following:
Continuous or batch
Cyber security
Redundancy requirements
Block diagrams
Input/output (I/O) list
Manual or automatic controls
Safety instrumented systems (SIS) requirements
Classification of interlocks (i.e., process safety)
Alarm conditions and emergency shut down
Start-up controls
64

Existing specifications, owner preferences and agreements, and
compatibility

Compatibility of this project with programs control
philosophy.
E2. Functional Descriptions and Control Narratives

Functional descriptions and control narratives have been documented,
providing a method of depicting interlock and sequencing systems for
the start-up, operation, alarm, and shutdown of new equipment and
processes.
Field verification of functional descriptions and control
narratives to ensure that they are correct and have been
maintained to reflect the actual or current operating scenarios.
E3. Electric Single Line Diagrams

Electric single line diagrams that document the components, devices, or
parts of an electrical power distribution system have been documented.
These diagrams portray the system layout, from the public utilitys
incoming supply to the internal electrical power distribution system.
Depending on the size of the electrical system, the single line diagrams
may include several levels of distribution. Items to consider should
Incoming utility with owner substation/distribution to high-
and medium-voltage motors and substations
Electrical load list
Unit substations and switch gear
Motor control centers with distribution to motors and lighting
panels

Field verification of existing single line diagrams to ensure that
they are correct and have been maintained to reflect the actual
site conditions
Verification of locations and availability of power for new or
relocated equipment.
65
E4. Critical Electrical Items Lists

Critical items lists, most of which are extracted from the single line
diagrams, have been developed and documented. These lists will form
the basis for procurement and discipline design. All lists should be in
accordance with owner/engineer organization standards. Critical items
lists should include the following:
Unit substations and switch gear
Transformers
Motor control centers (MCC)
Uninterruptable power supplies (UPS)
Power conditioning equipment
Power factor correction equipment
High-voltage cable

Identification of existing components to relocate, modify,
refurbish, or dismantle.
F. GENERAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

The elements in this category focus on balance of plant. It should be noted
that, while some of the elements in this category may not be applicable on
small projects, they may be the key items driving the project in other situations.
F1. Site Plan

The site plan (also known as the plot plan) identifies the location of
new work in relation to adjoining units or facilities. In many cases, the
existing facility site plan will be updated to show the location affected
by the project. Items to consider should include the following:
Plant grid system with coordinates and work limits
Gates, fences, and/or barriers
Temporary facilities (e.g., construction/fabrication/laydown
areas)
Roads/rail facilities/access ways
Green space/buffer zones
Buildings
66
F2. Loading/Unloading/Storage Requirements

Permanent loading/unloading/storage facility requirements have been
documented; this documentation should identify the raw materials to
be unloaded and stored, and the products to be loaded (along with their
specifications and hazardous handling requirements, i.e., safety data
sheets). Items to consider should include the following:
Instantaneous and overall loading/unloading rates
Storage facilities to be provided and/or utilized
Specification of any required special environmental isolation
provisions (e.g., dikes and leak detection devices)
Essential security considerations (e.g., inspection requirements,
secure storage, authorized deliveries, and access/egress control)
F3. Transportation Requirements

Requirements have been documented for permanent in-plant
transportation (e.g., roadways or conveyance systems), as well as methods
for receiving/shipping/storing materials (e.g., truck, rail, and marine).
F4. Additional Project Requirements

Additional project requirements have defined items of scope that require
special considerations and documentation. Items to consider should
Dismantling and demolition requirements (e.g., timing/
sequencing, contamination, remediation, hazards, purge
requirements, and temporary protection of existing equipment
or spaces)
Fire protection and safety considerations (e.g., alarm systems,
eye wash stations/safety showers, fire monitors, hydrants, and
evacuation and escape routes)
Civil/structural requirements (e.g., structures, buildings,
columns, pipe racks, foundations, materials of construction,
sewers, and future expansion considerations)
Architectural requirements (e.g., building use, space
requirements, safety vulnerability assessment, service, storage,
maintenance, parking, accessibility, and noise)
Mechanical/heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC)
requirements (e.g., equipment, ducting, controls, cleanrooms,
air filtration, and special containments/negative air spaces
needed during or after construction)
67
Water treatment requirements (e.g., process and sanitary waste

water treatment, waste disposal, and storm water containment)
Containment (e.g., diking and secondary/double containment)

Interruption or interface to any existing fire and life safety
systems (with appropriate contingency planning)
Assessment of existing structural conditions (e.g., foundations,
building framing, pipe racks, harmonics/vibrations)
Potential effect of noise vibration and restricted headroom in
installation of piling and on existing operations
Underground interference (i.e., utilization of shallow-depth
designs)
Transition plan/swing space for people, materials, and
processes.
(For more information on architectural requirements, see IR 113-2,
PDRIIndustrial Projects, or IR 155-2, PDRIBuilding Projects.)
68
SECTION III: EXECUTION APPROACH
G. EXECUTION REQUIREMENTS
The elements in this category focus on ensuring a successful project execution
phase.
G1. Procurement Plan

A procurement plan has been developed that first identifies all equipment
and materials to be delivered to the site, and then validates and documents
that it can be delivered in the required timeframe and at the required
quality level. The team should also consider streamlining procurement
processes to address the short duration of small projects. The identification
and delivery of long lead/critical equipment and materials are especially
important for shutdowns/turnarounds. Issues to consider should include
the following:
Long lead time equipment and materials that may impact
engineering or construction schedule, including vendor data to
support design
Equipment or materials to be reused, including requirements
for and timing of inspections/refurbishment
Procurement procedures and guidelines, including
responsibilities and impact to schedule
Appropriate specifications and quality requirements of
materials/services, including factory acceptance testing and
onsite vendor support services
Field procurement of materials and services, including
expediting
Procurement of professional services (e.g., design, consulting,
and testing)
Identification of approved/preferred service suppliers and
equipment vendors, with buy-in from key stakeholders
Bid evaluation, terms, and conditions and selection of vendors/
suppliers
Spare parts requirements, including consideration to match
existing equipment
Inspection, receiving, and warehousing, including reservation of
existing equipment/materials
69

Identification of delivery dates in advance of shutdown/
turnaround, to support preparations for pre-outage activities
Availability of procurement support during time-constrained
R&R work, especially where expedited material services are
required
Procurement for repair, refurbishment, and relocation
of existing equipment, materials, lines, electrical, and
instrumentation
Retrofit kits (i.e., for non-standard connections and obsolete
equipment that may require adaptors).
G2. Owner Approval Requirements

Owner approval requirements have been developed and documented.
Owner approval requirements typically are an important part of the
project execution plan, especially the timing of necessary approvals.
Document formatting and delivery procedures should also be determined
(i.e., specific software used for submission). Items to consider should
Project document review and approval process
Approval process for changes or modifications
Drawings and drawing revisions
Schedule and schedule changes
Purchasing/invoicing

Compatibility of this project with programs owner approval
process.
G3. Distribution Matrix

A distribution matrix (document control system) has been developed
that identifies required correspondence and deliverables. It denotes who
is required to receive copies of all documents at the various stages of
the project, and it ensures the proper distribution of documentation
(including methods of distribution and retrieval). Some documents may
be restricted due to their proprietary nature.
70
G4. Risk Management Plan

A system should be in place to ensure that the team has identified,
evaluated, and documented significant risks unique to the project.
Mitigation plans should also be developed, with appropriate contingencies
included in the project budget and schedule. Risk ownership has been
determined. Typical risk issues include the following:
Design issues (e.g., technology maturity, site location, and
performance of installed equipment)
Construction delivery (e.g., availability of crafts/labor, site
discovery, procurement, environmental/regulatory, site logistics,
and impact on/from operations)
Management performance (e.g., project, construction)
Business conditions/requirements

Unforeseen issues related to the unique characteristics of
renovations projects (e.g., hazardous materials and unknown
underground structures or utilities)
Security clearance/access control in operating areas during
project execution
Safety of occupants during emergency conditions related to
renovation activities.
G5. Shutdown/Turnaround Requirements

Required shutdowns/turnarounds have been identified and documented.
In the event that this project falls within a shutdown/turnaround, or is
the driver for the shutdown/turnaround, special effort should be made to
contact the shutdown/turnaround manager for customer requirements
related to the unique issues surrounding the process. In the event there
is no such individual, special care should be made to ensure the site/
plant manager is part of the planning process for the project. Issues to
consider should include the following:
Scopes of work to be accomplished prior to and during the
shutdown/turnaround
Schedule development, including timing of outages
Labor resources
71
Contingency planning:
Unexpected delays (e.g., weather, faulty equipment, and
unforeseen conditions)
Unintended consequences
Considerations given to impacts on operating facilities
Progress measurement and reporting specifically to production/
operations
Coordination meetings and planning
Identification of unique risks
Potential impact due to multiple projects working concurrently
Shutdown/turnaround communications plan
G6. Pre-Commissioning, Start-up, & Turnover Sequence Requirements

Most small projects have some element of pre-commissioning, start-up,
and turnover. The owners requirements for this completion activity
should be reviewed, documented, and incorporated into the planning
sequence. Issues to consider should include the following:
Contractor/Engineer/Owner roles and responsibilities:
Leadership responsibility
Pre-commissioning, training, testing, and start-up
Definition of mechanical/electrical acceptance/approvals
Sequence of start-up and turnover, including system
identification requirements and pre-start-up safety review
(PSSR)
Workforce/technology requirements
Start-up requirements identified (e.g., quality documentation
requirements, run uptime, rate, performance requirements,
commissioning spares, and feedstock)
Training requirements:
Information systems, technology, and controls
Equipment operation and maintenance
Training materials and equipment (e.g., instructional videos,
manufacturer/supplier-specific training)
Safety systems
72
H. Engineering/Construction Plan & Approach

The elements in this category focus on ensuring successful construction and
closeout phases.
H1. Engineering/Construction Methodology

The methodology for engineering and constructing the project has been
documented. Items to consider should include the following:
Establishment of contracting plan
Engineering/construction staffing requirements:
Identification of requisite project team experience, including
seniority, experience with project type, and previous
working relationships with the team/owner
Ensuring that the organization can staff the project with a
team of appropriately experienced individuals, or identify
where hiring should occur
Determination of necessary availability (e.g., part-time or
full-time) of project team members
Design and contractor licensure and registrations
Union considerations
Identification, documentation, and clear communication of
responsibilities among parties
Identification and incorporation of construction sequencing of
events into the schedule/work package
Review of control of work plan (e.g., work permits, access, and
critical lifts)
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) plans
Understanding and documentation of any variance from
standard operating procedures regarding health, safety,
environmental, security, and communication between
engineering and construction
Clear identification of delivery gates/docks/doors and receiving
hours to be used by contractors

Consideration of flexible contracting arrangements for
renovation projects, such as a combination of unit price, cost
reimbursable, and lump sum
Identification of appropriate contingency for unforeseen
conditions
73
Identification of specialized contractors for R&R activities,

such as hazardous abatement or heavy haulers
Acknowledgement of responsibility for critical maintenance
activities in the existing facility (i.e., routine maintenance that
is necessary during construction)
Identification of permits and approvals for work in or near
continuing operations (e.g., hot work permitting, confined
space, lift plans, and environmental remediation)
Planning for coordination between multiple contractors and/or
maintenance activities
Coordination of equipment and material movement for
renovation work with operations, to ensure no unplanned
impacts.

Compatibility of this project with programs engineering/
construction plan and approach
H2. Project Cost Estimate

The project cost estimate should address all costs and work hours
necessary to complete the project. This cost estimate should include
the following:
Design costs
Construction/demolition costs, including labor, materials, and
equipment
Professional/service fees
Contingencies
Start-up and commissioning costs, including raw materials,
utilities, and consumables
Construction management costs
Owner costs
Taxes and insurance
Project specific safety costs
Costs for such exigencies as currency exchange, import/export
fees, and transoceanic shipping
Other overhead costs
74
H3. Project Accounting and Cost Control

Project-specific accounting requirements have been identified and
documented, with responsibilities assigned. A method for measuring
and reporting progress on meeting these requirements has also been
established and documented, also with responsibilities assigned. These
requirements should take into consideration any joint ventures or special
contracting/funding arrangements. Shutdowns/turnarounds/outages may
require a much more detailed project control system. Issues to consider
should include the following:
Budget established
Internal cost reporting requirements (e.g., phasing or area sub-
accounting, capital versus non-capital funds)
Client or regulatory reporting/billing requirements
Payment schedules
Cost control reporting requirements
Cost control procedures, including cash flow projections and
reporting requirements
Percent complete control procedures, including lien waivers
Change management procedures, including interfaces with
information systems
Integration of multiple projects

Additional communication may be required to coordinate
contractor activities with ongoing owner maintenance and
plant operations.
H4. Project Schedule and Schedule Control

An appropriately detailed project schedule has been developed,
documented, and analyzed. A method for measuring and reporting
progress has also been established and documented, with responsibilities
assigned in accordance with organizational requirements. Key
stakeholders should agree upon this schedule. Schedule and control
requirements should include the following:
Early input from the following:
Owner/operations
Design/engineering
Construction/estimating
75
Procurement
Environmental and permitting
Shutdown/turnaround manager (if applicable)
Milestones, unusual schedule considerations, appropriate
master schedule contingency time (float), procurement of long
lead items, and required submissions and approvals
Schedule control procedures, including clearly defined outage
dates, constraints, and detailed hourly schedule (if appropriate
for the scope of work)
Reporting requirements

Communication of the schedule to coordinate contractor
activities with owner maintenance and plant operations, and
integration of multiple projects
Milestone schedule should involve obtaining early input from
the Shutdown/turnaround manager, due to time and space
constraints that require very detailed plans and schedules.
H5. Project Change Control

A process has been established and documented that identifies and
manages changes to project scope and/or construction changes, in
accordance with organizational requirements. The process should include
an assessment and approval process, and should take the following into
consideration:
Level of approval necessary, including identification of
party(ies) responsible for authorizing change
Time required for approvals
Documentation required
Impact on project:
Schedule
Quality
Budget

Compatibility of this project with programs change
management process
76
H6. Deliverables for Design and Construction

A list detailing the required deliverables for the project has been developed.
Items to consider should include the following:
Written scope of work
Drawings such as the following:
P&IDs
Isometrics/field erection details
Site or plot plans
Piping
Civil/structural/architectural/electrical/instrumentation
Vendor documentation and certifications (e.g., positive material
identifications (PMIs), material test reports (MTRs).
Models (level of modeling and specific modeling software
requirements defined)
Project correspondence
Project process safety management (PSM) documents (project
hazards analysis (PHA) resolution report complete):
Alarm set points
Operational guidelines for new equipment
Regulatory permits
Procurement documents (purchase orders, material registers,
contract)

Compatibility of this project with programs design and
construction deliverables.
77
H7. Deliverables for Project Commissioning/Closeout

A list detailing the required deliverables for commissioning/closeout
of the project has been developed. Items to consider should include the
following:
Design calculations, equipment folders, and project data books
(quantity, format, contents, and completion date)
Operations, training, and maintenance manuals
As-built drawings
Quality assurance documents
Spare parts documentation
Preventative maintenance plan/operability and reliability
requirements
Commissioning documentation requirements

Requirements to update existing (legacy) documentation/
models and as-built drawings, including equipment folders/asset
management systems
Procedures for retiring an asset including the documentation
requirements, spare parts inventory, and accounting
requirements

Compatibility of this project with programs commissioning/
closeout deliverables
78
Appendix D:
Industrial PDRI Selection Guide Tool
79
Appendix D. Industrial PDRI Selection Guide Tool
Industrial PDRI Selection Guide Tool

Project Date

The Construction Industry Institute (CII) has developed two separate tools for assessing the level of
scope definition on industrial construction projects: PDRIIndustrial Projects and the PDRISmall
Industrial Projects. The purpose of the selection guide is to aid you and your organization in choosing
the appropriate tool to assess your upcoming project. The selection guide is meant to be used at the
beginning of the Front End Planning process.
Please answer the following nine questions to the best of your ability regarding your upcoming project,
and select the numerical value that coincide with you answers. Record these values in the Your Score
box. Estimated values are suitable for this evaluation. After answering each of the nine questions, sum
the Your Score boxes to determine a total score. Use the information at the end of this tool to
determine which PDRI tool is most appropriate for use on your project.
1 What will be the total installed cost of the project (in U.S. dollars)?
$5 Million 0 Your Score
$5.01 $10 Million 2
$10.01 $15 Million 4
$15.01 $20 Million 6
$20.01 $25 Million 8
> $25 Million 12
2 What will be the construction schedule duration of the project?

3 Months 0 Your Score
3.01 6 Months 2
6.01 9 Months 4
9.01 12 Months 6
12.01 15 Months 8
> 15 Months 11
3 What will be the highest level of funding approval necessary for the project?
No approval needed 0 Your Score
Local 3
Regional 6
Corporate 9
Board of Directors 11
4 How visible (i.e., on the radar) will this project be to the corporate management
of the project owners organization?
Not at all 0 Your Score
Minimal visibility 4
Moderate visibility 8
Significant visibility 11
80
5 How many core team members (engineers/designers, design project managers,

owner project managers, trade project managers, and others) will be needed to
complete this project?
3 Individuals 0 Your Score
4 6 Individuals 2
7 9 Individuals 4
10 12 Individuals 6
13 15 Individuals 8
> 16 Individuals 11
6 What will be the necessary availability of the core team members to complete
the project?
No core team members needed 0 Your Score
Part-time availability 4
Combination of part-time and
8
full-time availability
Full-time availability 11
7 How extensive will the permitting be on this project?

No permitting necessary 0 Your Score
Minimal amount of permitting 6
Significant amount of permitting 11
8 What types of permits will be necessary to complete the project?

No permits necessary 0 Your Score
Local and state permits only 4
National permits only 8
Combination of local/state
11
and national permits
9 How many separate trade contractors will be necessary to complete the project?
2 Separate contractors 0 Your Score

3 4 Separate contractors 2
> 11 Separate contractors 11
Your Score
What is your total score?
81
How to analyze your score

Based on an analysis of typical projects in the industrial construction sector, projects that score in the
range of 0 to 44 are best assessed by using the PDRISmall Industrial Projects, and projects that score
in the range of 56100 are best assessed with the PDRIIndustrial Projects. Projects that score in the
lower range are typically less complex than those projects in the higher range. Due to their
characteristics, these projects, sometimes referred to as small projects, can be assessed with an
abbreviated PDRI tool and still achieve the same level of project success as a more complex project that
is assessed with the mor robust version of the PDRI.
High
Total Installed Cost
Construction Duration
Level of Funding Approval

Refer to
Visibility to Owner Management
Table cts
oje Magnitude of
Pr Number of Core Team Members
trial Project Complexity
d us Indicators Availability of Core Team Members
In
f or
RI Extent of Permitting
ll PD
ma cts
o r S roje Types of Permits Necessary
f P
RI ial
PD ustr
d Number of Separate Trade Contractors
In
Low
0 45 55 100
Range of Possible Scores
What to do if your project score is between 45 and 55

If your project score is between 45 and 55, review the table shown below and compare your individual
answers to those of typical projects that are assessed with each of the tools. By comparing your
individual answers, you should be able to determine which tool will be best suited to assess your
project. For example, if your answers to a majority of the questions align with projects that score
below a 44, then most likely the PDRISmall Industrial Projects will be appropriate for use. If your
answers to a majority of the questions align with projects that score above a 56, then the PDRI
Industrial Projects would be most appropriate.
Project Complexity Indicator PDRISmall Industrial Projects PDRIIndustrial Projects

Total Installed Cost Less than $10 million (U.S. dollars) More than $10 million (U.S. dollars)
Construction Duration 36 months 915 months
Between corporate and
Level of Funding Between regional and corporate
Board of Directors
Project Visibility Moderate Significant
Number of Core Team Members 79 individuals 1015 individuals
Availability of Combination of part-time and
Part-time availability
Core Team Members full-time to completely full-time
Extent of Permitting None to minimal permitting Minimal to significant permitting
Types of Permits None to local/state permits Local/state to national permits
Number of Trade Contractors 34 separate trade contractors 78 separate trade contractors
82
Appendix E:
Examples of Completed PDRIs
Example Project 1: Process-related Small Industrial Project
Project Type: Chilled water refrigeration plant
Project: Cooling tower renovation
Scope: Replace failing piping, pumps, and other

associated equipment throughout the condenser
water system on four cooling towers. Structural
steel and concrete repairs to towers, repair of
deck pans, and waterproofing of cells.
Total PDRI Score: 324
Budget: Final cost approximately US$4.1 million
Scheduled Completion: December 31, 2013
Date Scored: October 7, 2014
Objectives of Use the PDRISmall Industrial Projects on a

the Assessment: completed project as a tool to validate research
hypothesis about front end planning.
Methodology: Project team evaluated each element and

collectively scored the project according to its
scope definition within each element, looking
back retroactively.
Project Status: 100 percent complete with construction and

start-up
Performance Data: $150,000 under budget. Five months behind

schedule. Change orders representing 14 percent
of total costs. Success rating of 5 out of 5.
Major Findings/Areas Overrun in execution duration due to change

for Further Study: orders related to adverse existing conditions,
which were not found until after start of
construction. Repairs will allow usage of system
for another 30 years.
83
Appendix E. Examples of Completed PDRIs
Project Definition Rating Index for Infrastructure

Project Score Sheet: Example Project 1: Small Process Project

A4. Location 0 2 11 19 28 36 2
CATEGORY A TOTAL 9
B1. Products 0 1 8 15 21 28 1
B2. Capacities 0 2 9 17 24 31 2
B3. Processes 0 2 7 12 17 23 2
B4. Technology 0 2 8 15 21 28 8
B5. Physical Site 0 2 8 14 19 25 2
CATEGORY B TOTAL 15
Section I Maximum Score = 288 SECTION I TOTAL 24
Definition Levels
84

0 14
0 20
0 15
0 8
0 2
CATEGORY C TOTAL 59
D1. Process Safety Management (PSM) 0 1 6 10 14 19 1
0 2 8 15 22 28 8
Material Balance
0 2 11 19 28 36 11
(P&IDs)
D4. Piping System Stress Analysis 0 1 5 9 13 17 5
D5. Equipment Location Drawings 0 1 7 12 17 22 7
D6. Critical Process/Product Items Lists 0 2 7 12 17 23 12
CATEGORY D TOTAL 44
E1. Control Philosophy 0 2 7 12 17 22 17
0 1 4 7 11 14 11
Narratives
E3. Electric Single Line Diagrams 0 1 5 9 13 17 5
E4. Critical Electrical Items Lists 0 1 5 10 14 18 10
CATEGORY E TOTAL 43
F1. Site Plan 0 1 6 10 15 20 1
F2. Loading/Unloading/Storage Requirements 0 2 5 9 13 17 5
F3. Transportation Requirements 0 1 5 8 12 15 5
F4. Additional Project Requirements 0 2 8 13 19 24 13
CATEGORY F TOTAL 24
Section II Maximum Score = 425 SECTION II TOTAL 170
Definition Levels
85

G1. Procurement Plan 0 2 9 15 22 28 9
G2. Owner Approval Requirements 0 1 5 9 13 17 5
G3. Distribution Matrix 0 1 3 4 6 8 1
G4. Risk Management Plan 0 2 7 13 18 23 7
G5. Shutdown/Turnaround Requirements 0 3 10 17 25 32 25
0 2 7 11 16 21 16
CATEGORY G TOTAL 63
H1. Engineering/Construction Methodology 0 2 8 14 20 25 14
H2. Project Cost Estimate 0 3 12 21 30 39 21
H3. Project Accounting and Cost Control 0 1 4 8 11 14 4
H4. Project Schedule and Schedule Control 0 2 8 13 19 25 13
H5. Project Change Control 0 1 6 10 15 19 6
H6. Deliverables for Design and Construction 0 1 6 11 16 21 1
0 1 5 8 12 15 8
Closeout
CATEGORY H TOTAL 67
Section III Maximum Score = 287 SECTION III TOTAL 130
PDRI TOTAL SCORE

324
Definition Levels
86
Example Project 2: Non-Process Related Small Industrial Project
Project Type: Manufacturing
Project: Water spray paint booth
Scope: Demolish and replace water spray paint booth

and alter existing utilities feeding the booth,
including electrical, compressed air, domestic
water, fire sprinkler, and fire alarm.
Total PDRI Score: 329
Budget: Final cost approximately US$131,000
Scheduled Completion: July 10, 2014
Date Scored: October 10, 2014
Objectives of Use the PDRISmall Industrial Projects on a

the Assessment: completed project as a tool to validate research
hypothesis about front end planning.
Methodology: Project team evaluated each element and

collectively scored the project according to its
scope definition within each element, looking
back retroactively.
Project Status: 100 percent complete with construction and

start-up
Performance Data: $150,000 under budget. Five months behind

schedule. Change orders representing 14 percent
of total costs. Success rating of 5 out of 5.
Major Findings/Areas A 55-percent schedule overrun and a three-

for Further Study: percent cost overrun, due to design changes
made to the fire sprinkler system after start of
construction.
87
Project Definition Rating Index for Infrastructure

Project Score Sheet: Example Project 2:
Non-Process Related Small Industrial Project

A4. Location 0 2 11 19 28 36 2
CATEGORY A TOTAL 47
B1. Products 0 1 8 15 21 28 1
B2. Capacities 0 2 9 17 24 31 2
B3. Processes 0 2 7 12 17 23 7
B4. Technology 0 2 8 15 21 28 2
B5. Physical Site 0 2 8 14 19 25 2
CATEGORY B TOTAL 14
Section I Maximum Score = 288 SECTION I TOTAL 61
Definition Levels
88

0 2
0 2
0 15
0 8
0 14
CATEGORY C TOTAL 41
D1. Process Safety Management (PSM) 0 1 6 10 14 19 6
0 2 8 15 22 28 22
Material Balance
0 2 11 19 28 36 36
(P&IDs)
D4. Piping System Stress Analysis 0 1 5 9 13 17 0
D5. Equipment Location Drawings 0 1 7 12 17 22 7
D6. Critical Process/Product Items Lists 0 2 7 12 17 23 23
CATEGORY D TOTAL 94
E1. Control Philosophy 0 2 7 12 17 22 12
0 1 4 7 11 14 7
Narratives
E3. Electric Single Line Diagrams 0 1 5 9 13 17 9
E4. Critical Electrical Items Lists 0 1 5 10 14 18 10
CATEGORY E TOTAL 38
F1. Site Plan 0 1 6 10 15 20 1
F2. Loading/Unloading/Storage Requirements 0 2 5 9 13 17 0
F3. Transportation Requirements 0 1 5 8 12 15 0
F4. Additional Project Requirements 0 2 8 13 19 24 8
CATEGORY F TOTAL 9
Section II Maximum Score = 425 SECTION II TOTAL 182
Definition Levels
89

G1. Procurement Plan 0 2 9 15 22 28 9
G2. Owner Approval Requirements 0 1 5 9 13 17 5
G3. Distribution Matrix 0 1 3 4 6 8 8
G4. Risk Management Plan 0 2 7 13 18 23 18
G5. Shutdown/Turnaround Requirements 0 3 10 17 25 32 3
0 2 7 11 16 21 2
CATEGORY G TOTAL 45
H1. Engineering/Construction Methodology 0 2 8 14 20 25 8
H2. Project Cost Estimate 0 3 12 21 30 39 12
H3. Project Accounting and Cost Control 0 1 4 8 11 14 1
H4. Project Schedule and Schedule Control 0 2 8 13 19 25 8
H5. Project Change Control 0 1 6 10 15 19 1
H6. Deliverables for Design and Construction 0 1 6 11 16 21 6
0 1 5 8 12 15 5
Closeout
CATEGORY H TOTAL 41
Section III Maximum Score = 287 SECTION III TOTAL 86
PDRI TOTAL SCORE

329
Definition Levels
90
Appendix F:
Logic Flow Diagrams
91
Section Diagram
218 Points
Section I:
Categories A and B
425 Points
Section II:
Basis of Design
Categories C thru F
287 Points
Section III:
Execution Approach
Categories G and H
Logic Flow Diagrams

(PDRI) for Small Industrial Projects
August 2015 Rev. 1
Page 1 of 2
Category Diagram
145 Points
Category D
Process/Product
Design Basis
Category B
Project Perfor- Category G
mance Require- Execution
ments Requirements
Category A Category E
Electrical and
Start Project End
Instrumentation
Alignment
Systems
Category H
Category C Engineering/
Design Construction
Guidance Plan and
Approach
76 Points
Legend
Category F
General Facility
Section I Requirements
Section II
Basis of Design
Logic Flow Diagrams
Section III Project Definition Rating Index
Execution Approach
(PDRI) for Small Industrial Projects
August 2015 Rev. 1
Page 2 of 2
Appendix G:
Facilitation Instructions
After many years of observing the PDRI process, the members of RT 314 have
determined that an external facilitatora person who is not directly involved
with the projectis essential to ensuring that the PDRI assessment session is
effective. Whether the facilitator is a person internal to the organization or an
outside consultant, he or she should be experienced in front end planning, be
familiar with the PDRI tool and terminology, and have excellent facilitation skills.
The facilitator should address the following issues to prepare for and conduct a
PDRI assessment.
Pre-meeting Activities
Since, many times in PDRI assessment sessions, the open-ended discussions
concerning key elements provide the most value, the facilitator is responsible for
asking the types of questions that generate open discussion. Gaining some insight
into the nature and circumstances of the project prior to the assessment helps him
or her formulate such questions. Thus, the facilitator should arrange a briefing
with the project manager/engineer on the nature and purpose of the project to be
evaluated. The facilitators objective should be to learn enough about the project
in this meeting to be able to ask intelligent/probing questions of the project team
members during the session.
This meeting also serves as a good opportunity to preview the PDRI elements
to see if any of them do not apply to the project at hand. This is especially true
for renovation projects. In some cases, it is obvious that some of the elements do
not apply, and these can be removed in advance to save time in the assessment.
The facilitator should inform the project manager that this is her/his opportunity
to listen to the team members to see how well they understand the scope of work.
The project manager should work with the facilitator to probe the design team
and the owner, to ensure clear two-way understanding of scope requirements and
expectations. If the project manager dominates the discussion, the rest of the design
team will quickly clam up and fall in line. This will result in a PDRI assessment
that reflects the understanding of the project manager, not the team members.
97
Appendix G. Facilitation Instructions
The facilitator should also remind the project manager that the PDRI assessment
session is an opportunity for team building and team alignment on the projects
critical requirements. Experience has shown that serving foodperhaps lunch
or breakfastcan help increase participation, as well as team interaction. The
facilitator and project manager should discuss who among the key stakeholders
should attend the session. They should ensure that they are in attendance, working
with the project manager to send out meeting notices in time to enable the key
stakeholders to attend.
Logistics
The facilitator should ensure that the meeting facilities are large enough to
accommodate the key stakeholders comfortably during the assessment session.
The preferred method of facilitation is to use a computer projector to keep score
as the assessment progresses. Therefore, a room with a screen, a computer, and
a projector is a plus. The PDRI score can also be tabulated manually. When the
scores are tabulated manually, the facilitator should give separate score sheets and
element definitions to each participant, so that the entire team can follow along.
Assessment sessions using the PDRISmall Industrial Projects should take at

most one to two hours per project. It could take longer for an inexperienced team,
or for a more experienced team with a more complex project. As teams within
an organization get accustomed to the PDRI sessions, the time will drop to one
hour or less. However, it is the discussion occurring during the assessment session
that is perhaps its most important benefit. The facilitator should not allow an
artificial time limit to restrain the open communications between team members.
Some organizations conduct the sessions over an extended lunch period. In these
situations, it is better to start with a short lunch period as an ice breaker and
then conduct the session.
The facilitator should use the following checklist to ensure that the room is
set up in advance:
Make sure the computer, projector, and programs are functioning.
Make sure a dry erase board or easel pad is available.
Make sure all participants have a copy of the descriptions and un-
weighted score sheet.
98
If using the automated PDRI Scoring Programs, make sure the

operator is skilled. Lack of computer skills and preparation can lead
to ineffectiveness.
Ensure the programs are loaded and working prior to the session.
Identify a scribe to capture gaps in a manner visible to the other
participants.
Participants
Suggested attendees of the assessment session may include the following:
Engineering team discipline leads and support services, as required
Project manager/project engineer(s)
Project estimator
Owner engineering project representatives
Owner business sponsor
Owner operationskey personnel
Owner support servicesmaintenance, construction, safety,
environmental, logistics, quality, procurement, among others required
Shutdown/turnaround manager
Contractors, if possible.
It is important that all assessment session participants come prepared to

engage actively in the assessment. Typically, this involvement can be improved by
sending the PDRI assessment sheets and element descriptions out ahead of time
as a pre-reading assignment. Participants should be prepared to explain what
they are doing with regard to each applicable PDRI element, and to voice any
concerns they have about potential issues. Owner representatives should voice
their expectations and question the planning team to ensure full understanding of
project scope. The project manager should assist the facilitator in probing the team
members for answers and insight. The facilitator will ensure that all participants
have an opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns.
99
Conducting the Session

The facilitator should use the following checklist to ensure that the session is
meaningful and useful to the team:
The facilitator or project manager should define the purpose and
desired outcomes of the assessment session.
The facilitator should provide the team members with a short
overview of the PDRI.
The project manager should give a quick update of the project and its
status, including progress supporting the estimate and plan.
The facilitator should explain the scoring mechanism (Definition
Levels 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), and explain that the evaluation is a
consensus activity.
The facilitator should explain that certain elements may apply more
to certain team members or stakeholders. The facilitator should make
sure that these key stakeholders have the greatest say in deciding the
level of definition for those elements.
The facilitator should keep the session moving. Participants often
want to solve the problem during the assessment session. The
facilitator should not allow this to happen. It is important to
remember that the purpose of the session is to perform a detailed
assessment only and that actions can be performed later.
The facilitator should always challenge assumptions and continue to
ask the question, Is the material in writing?
The following assessment session objectives should be noted at the
start of the meeting:
Understand the current status of scope definition of the project.
Identify gaps in the scope definition.
Facilitate the alignment of project team members and enhance
their understanding of the project.
100
Post-Assessment Roles and Responsibilities/Expectations

The facilitator should ensure that the PDRI notes, gaps, and score
sheet are published within 48 hours of the session. The ideal target is
24 hours.
The project team leader should assign action responsibility to address
the gaps and ensure completion of all actions
If possible, the facilitator should stay engaged with the team to ensure
that all action items are completed as required to support the scope
definition process.
Alliance or Program-Planned Projects

Many smaller projects are conducted as part of a larger program, and/or by
an alliance design firm. In a number of situations, alliance partners act as the
design/engineering capability for the facility owner, and may execute numerous
projects per year. In effect, they provide the program management function.
Many of the PDRI elements refer to location, standards, stress requirements,

hazard analysis, deliverables, accounting, and other repetitive requirements. In
these types of projects, the facilitator will merely have to ask the question, Is
there anything different or unusual about this project for this element? It is also
a good time to ask whether there is any opportunity for improvement in any of
these areas that would help this project and other projects to follow.
101
PDRI E Low Definition Items
Additional
Section Element Element Description Level Comments Assigned To Target Date
Comments
Gain alignment on throughput
Project Objectives
I A1 Level 4 requirements and system capabilities Mike Smith 12/14/20XX
Statement
with stakeholders
Confirm scheduling strategy with
operations for implementation.
Project Strategy and
I A2 Level 3 Finalize drag conveyor scope for Jenny Taylor 12/31/20XX
Scope of Work
Phase II. Finalize tote bag refeed
scope.
Finalize autosampling philosophy
such that containment objectives are
I A3 Project Philosophies Level 3 Don Jones 12/14/20XX
achieved. Clarify containment testing
plan and acceptance criteria.
Finalize drag conveyor location.
Define operations expectations in
regards to ability to simultaneously
Appendix H:
I A4 Location Level 3 Bob Freddy 12/14/20XX

operate old and new systems such
that demo and install sequences can
Example Action List
be finalized.
Confirm with operations that bagging
I B2 Capacities Level 3 Tim Atlas 12/14/20XX
system capacity is adequate.
Finalize autosampling operating
I B4 Technology Level 4 Jeff Agent 12/14/20XX
strategy (procedure/frequency).
Lead/Discipline
II C1 Level 4 Complete Phase II design packages. Amy Curry 12/14/20XX
Scope of Work
Confirm that Phase I construction
Project Design
II C2 Level 3 package contains all specifications Chad Steves 12/14/20XX
Criteria
required for installation.
103
Appendix G. Example Action List
References
1. Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for Industrial Projects. Research

Report 113-11. Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 1995.
2. Development of the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for Building
Projects. Research Report 155-11. Construction Industry Institute,
Austin, Texas, 1999.
3. Pre-Project Planning Tools: PDRI and Alignment, Research Summary
113-1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 1997.
4. Alignment During Pre-Project Planning, Implementation Resource 113-3,
Version 2.1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 2009.
5. PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index Building Projects,
Implementation Resource 155-2, Version 4.0, Construction Industry
Institute, Austin, Texas, 2013.
6. Data Analysis to Support Front End Planning Implementation. Research
Report 213-11, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 2005.
Front End Planning: Break the Rules, Pay the Price, Research Summary
7.
213-1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 2006.
8. PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index Industrial Projects,
Implementation Resource 113-2, Version 4.1, Construction Industry
Institute, Austin, Texas, 2014.
9.
Front End Planning for Renovation and Revamp Projects: An Overview,
Research Summary 242-1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas,
2009.
10. Front End Planning for Renovation and Revamp, Implementation
Resource 242-2, Version 1.1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin,
Texas, 2014.
11. Development of the Project Definition Rating Index for Small Industrial
Projects. Research Report 268-11, Construction Industry Institute,
Austin, Texas, 2011.
12. Small Project Execution. Research Summary 161-1, Construction
Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 2001.
13. Manual for Small (Special) Project Management. Special Publication 13,
Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 1991.
14. Development of the Project Definition Rating Index for Small Industrial
Projects. Research Report 314-11, Construction Industry Institute,
Austin, Texas, in press.
105
Project Definition Rating Index for Small Industrial Projects
Research Team
(2013 15)
* Jeffrey Allen, Burns & McDonnell

* Jere Brubaker, Wood Group Mustang
* David Buttrum, Technip
** Wesley Collins, Arizona State University
* Thea Cummings, Anheuser-Busch InBev
* Wesley DuBois, SABIC Innovative Plastics
* Gregory Duffy, Pioneer Natural Resources
* John Fish, Ford, Bacon & Davis
** G. Edward Gibson, Jr., Arizona State University
* Doug Helmann, Architect of the Capitol
* Arno Jansen, CCC Group
* Paul Katers, American Transmission Company
** Brad Lynch, TransCanada, Chair
** Kristen Parrish, Arizona State University
** Scott Penrod, Walbridge, Vice Chair
* Stephanie Quinn, Pioneer Natural Resources
* Brett Smedley, Eli Lilly
* David Sonntag, DTE Energy
* Graham Targett, Irving Oil Refining
* William Thornton, Hargrove Engineers + Constructors
Former Members:
* Amy Busse, Air Products
* Eskil Carlsson, CSA Group
* Don Cooley, CH2M Hill (retired)
* Julia Speed, Audubon Engineering
* Contributing authors
** Coordinating authors
Editor: Jacqueline Thomas
107
CII Member Organizations
Abbott AECOM
Ameren Corporation AMEC Foster Wheeler
American Transmission Company AZCO
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Aecon Group
Anglo American Affiliated Construction Services
Anheuser-Busch InBev Alstom Power
Aramco Services Company Autodesk
ArcelorMittal Baker Concrete Construction
Architect of the Capitol Barton Malow Company
AstraZeneca Bechtel Group
BG Group Bentley Systems
BP America Bilfinger Industrial Services
Cargill Black & Veatch
Chevron Burns & McDonnell
ConocoPhillips CB&I
Consolidated Edison Company of New York CCC Group
DTE Energy CDI Engineering Solutions
The Dow Chemical Company CH2M
DuPont CSA Central
Eastman Chemical Company Construtora Norberto Odebrecht
Enbridge Coreworx
EnLink Midstream Day & Zimmermann
Eskom Holdings SOC Emerson Process Management
ExxonMobil Corporation Enstoa
General Electric Company Faithful+Gould
General Motors Company Fluor Corporation
GlaxoSmithKline Gross Mechanical Contractors
Global Infrastructure Partners Hargrove Engineers + Constructors
Honeywell International Hilti Corporation
Huntsman Corporation IHI E&C International Corporation
Intel Corporation IHS
Irving Oil Limited International Rivers Consulting
Kaiser Permanente JMJ Associates
Koch Industries JV Driver Projects
Eli Lilly and Company Jacobs
LyondellBasell KBR
Marathon Petroleum Corporation Kiewit Corporation
National Aeronautics & Space Administration Lauren Engineers & Constructors
NOVA Chemicals Corporation Leidos Constructors
ONEOK Matrix Service Company
Occidental Petroleum Corporation McCarthy Building Companies
Ontario Power Generation McDermott International
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Midwest Steel
Petroleo Brasileiro S/A - Petrobras PCL Construction Enterprises
Petroleos Mexicanos PTAG
Petronas Parsons
Phillips 66 Pathfinder
Pioneer Natural Resources Quality Execution
Praxair Richard Industrial Group
The Procter & Gamble Company The Robins & Morton Group
Public Service Electric & Gas Company S & B Engineers and Constructors
Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) SBM Offshore
SABIC - Saudi Basic Industries Corporation SNC-Lavalin
Sasol Technology Proprietary Limited Skanska USA
Shell Global Solutions US Supreme Group
Smithsonian Institution Technip
Southern Company TOYO-SETAL Engenharia
Statoil ASA UniversalPegasus International
SunCoke Energy Victaulic
Tennessee Valley Authority WESCO International
TransCanada Corporation Walbridge
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wanzek Construction
U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST/ The Weitz Company
Engineering Laboratory Wilhelm Construction
U.S. Department of Defense/ Wood Group Mustang
Tricare Management Activity WorleyParsons
U.S. Department of Energy Yates Construction
U.S. Department of State Zachry Group
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Zurich
U.S. General Services Administration
The Williams Companies

314 2-Ac15

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

314 2-Ac15

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Construction Industry Institute

Project Definition Rating Index

Small Industrial Projects

Implementation Resource 314-2

Research Team 314, A Project Definition Rating Index

Construction Industry Institute

Implementation Resource 314-2

2015 CII Annual Conference Edition

The University of Texas at Austin

Printed in the United States of America.

1. What Is the PDRI? 1

2. Benefits of the PDRI 13

3. Instructions for Assessing a Project 17

4. What Does a PDRI Score Mean? 35

Appendix A. Unweighted Project Score Sheet 41

Appendix B. Weighted Project Score Sheet 45

Appendix C. Element Descriptions 49

Appendix D. Industrial PDRI Selection Guide Tool 55

Appendix E. Examples of Completed PDRIs 119

Appendix F. Logic Flow Diagrams 131

Appendix G. Facilitation Instructions 137

Appendix H. Example Action List 143

The PDRI is a powerful, easy-to-use tool for

The Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) is a powerful, easy-to-use tool

Table 1.1. Applicable Project Types for Each PDRI

Industrial Projects (IR 113-2, IR 314-2)

Table 1.2. Project Sector Characteristics

PDRI Selection Matrix

Front End Planning

Figure 1.1. Project Life Cycle Diagram

How Is This PDRI Different?

Industrial projects with substantial scope, complexity, schedule duration,

Design, Procurement, and

Front End Planning

RT 314 designed the PDRISmall Industrial Projects so that it could be used

The PDRISmall Industrial Projects assesses specific risk factors related to

A non-process-related project is any project in an industrial facility that is

Following are examples of small industrial projects:

Oil/gas refining facilities

The PDRISmall Industrial Projects offers a comprehensive checklist of 41 scope

Category C Category D Category E

Figure 1.3. Partial PDRI Hierarchy

Table 1.3. PDRI Sections, Categories, and Elements

I. BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION

II. BASIS OF DESIGN

III. EXECUTION APPROACH

The PDRI should be used in conjunction with Implementation Resource 113-3,

Decision has been made to use

Use the applicable PDRI

Figure 1.4. Use of Additional Tools to Supplement the PDRI

Choosing the Appropriate Industrial PDRI

Table 1.4. PDRI Industrial Selection Guide

Project Complexity PDRISmall Industrial PDRIIndustrial

Construction Duration 36 months 915 months

Between regional and Between corporate and

Project Visibility Moderate Significant

Effective early project planning improves project performance in terms of

A significant feature of the PDRISmall Industrial Projects is that one can

as a means by which members of the project team can identify gap-list

Who Should Use the PDRI?

Any organization wishing to improve the overall performance

Assessing a project is as easy as 1-2-3.

When to Use the PDRI