BUILDING PROJECT SCOPE DEFINITION USING PROJECT DEFINITION

RATING INDEX
By Chung-Suk Cho1 and G. Edward Gibson Jr.,2 Members, ASCE

ABSTRACT: Poor scope definition is recognized by industry practitioners as one of the leading causes of project
failure, adversely affecting projects in the areas of cost, schedule, and operational characteristics. Unfortunately,
many owner and contractor organizations do a poor job of adequately defining a project’s scope leading to a
poor design basis. A research team constituted by the Construction Industry Institute (CII) has developed the
Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) to address scope definition in the building sector. The PDRI for buildings
is a comprehensive, weighted checklist of 64 scope definition elements presented in a score sheet format. It
provides a tool for an individual or project team to objectively evaluate the status of a building project during
preproject planning. This paper will discuss the PDRI development process, including input from over 100
industry professionals. Key project scope definition elements will be identified. The PDRI validation procedure,
involving over 50 projects, will be discussed. A description of the potential uses of the PDRI and a summary
of its benefits to the building construction industry will be outlined.

INTRODUCTION • A 20% cost savings with a high level of preproject plan-

Preproject planning is the project phase encompassing all
the tasks between project initiation to detailed design. Over
the past nine years, the Construction Industry Institute (CII)
has funded several research projects focused on preproject
planning. Findings from these investigations have dramatically
changed the awareness of project management professionals
within CII toward the importance of the process and the ben-
efits of early project planning. Research results have shown
that greater preproject planning efforts lead to improved per-
formance on industrial projects in the areas of cost, schedule,
and operational characteristics (Gibson and Hamilton 1994;
CII 1995; Griffith and Gibson 1995; Griffith et al. 1998). Syn-
thesizing these efforts was the development of the Project Def-
inition Rating Index (PDRI) for industrial projects, a scope
definition tool that is widely used by planners in the industrial
projects sector.
One of the major subprocesses of the preproject planning
process is the development of the project scope definition
package. Project scope definition is the process by which proj-
ects are defined and prepared for execution. It is at this crucial
stage where risks associated with the project are analyzed and
the specific project execution approach is defined. Success dur-
ing the detailed design, construction, and start-up phases of a
project is highly dependent on the level of effort expended
during this scope definition phase (Gibson and Hamilton
1994).
Research has shown the importance of preproject planning
on capital projects and its influence on project success. Find-
ings of a recent study have proven that higher levels of pre-
project planning effort can result in significant cost and sched-
ule savings. Specifically, the research study categorized 53
capital facility projects into three different intensities of pre-
project planning effort and compared total potential cost and
schedule performance differences as follows (CII 1994; Ham-
ilton and Gibson 1996):
ning effort
• A 39% schedule savings with a high level of preproject
planning effort
Because of the significant savings associated with improved
project predictability, the study concluded that a complete
scope definition prior to project execution is imperative to
project success.
A more recent CII research study focused on developing a
useful tool for measuring the level of project definition at the
time the project is authorized for final funding. This new tool,
the PDRI for Industrial Projects, is a project management tool
that assists in calculating a total score representing the level
of project definition. Developed specifically for industrial proj-
ects such as refineries, chemical plants, power plants, and
heavy manufacturing, the PDRI provides project team mem-
bers with a structured approach for developing a good scope
definition package.
The PDRI for Industrial Projects consists of 70 scope def-
inition elements in a weighted checklist format. The 70 ele-
ments are divided into three main sections and 15 categories
(Gibson and Dumont 1996; Dumont et al. 1997). The project
team assessing the level of definition of each of the 70 ele-
ments and a score is calculated; the lower the score, the more
well defined the project. A score of 200 points or below using
this tool was shown to statistically increase the predictability
of project outcome. A sample of 40 projects using the indus-
trial version of the PDRI indicated that those projects scoring
below 200 versus those scoring above 200 had:
• Average cost savings of 19% versus estimated for design
and construction
• Schedule reduction by 13% versus estimated for design
and construction
• Fewer project changes
• Increased predictability of operational performance

With the success of the PDRI for industrial projects, many

1
Project Engr., ADP Marshall, 75 Newman Ave., Rumford, RI 02916.
2
Assoc. Prof. and Fluor Centennial Teaching Fellow, Dept. of Civ.
Engrg., Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: egibson@mail.utexas.
edu
Note. Discussion open until May 1, 2002. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of
Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and
possible publication on January 9, 2001; revised July 30, 2001. This paper
is part of the Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 4, De-
cember, 2001. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 1076-0431/01/0004-0115–0125/$8.00 ⫹
$.50 per page. Paper No. 21939.
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001 / 115
building industry planners wanted a similar tool to address
scope development of buildings. CII constituted a team and
funded a research effort to facilitate this development effort.
The rest of this paper will introduce the PDRI for building
projects. The primary structure and format of the PDRI and
its development will be explained. This will be followed by a
brief synopsis of its validation on 33 completed building proj-
ects and its use on 20 ongoing projects. The paper will con-
clude by describing the potential uses of the PDRI and sum-
marizing its benefits to building construction practitioners.
BACKGROUND
Planning has long been a subject of discussion in the build-
ing industry. Many guides have been developed and much
knowledge resides with experienced practitioners (Griffin
1972; Pena 1987; Billings 1993; Preiser 1993; Haviland 1996;
Cherry 1999; ASCE 2000). However, early planning in many
cases is not performed well in the building industry. Conse-
quently, the building sector suffers from poor or incomplete
scope definition, frequently experiencing considerable changes
that result in significant cost and schedule overruns (Gibson
et al. 1997; Cho et al. 1999; Cho 2000). Because of these
problems, there existed a need for a better method of assisting
in defining project scope.
The building industry is different from the industrial sector
in various ways, such as the approach of planning, design, and
construction of facilities; the owner’s perspective; the archi-
tectural focus; and so on. Nonetheless, there are many simi-
larities. Like the industrial sector, the building industry suffers
from poor or incomplete preproject planning. As in the indus-
trial sector, planning in the building industry is a process that
needs to have input from a wide variety of individuals and
must have significant owner involvement. However, at the
time of this study, a quantitative understanding of scope def-
inition issues for buildings had not been well-studied and no
tool existed to help with scope definition.
As developed, the PDRI for Building Projects is a user-
friendly checklist that identifies and precisely describes each
critical element in a project scope definition package to assist
project managers in understanding the scope of work. It pro-
vides a means for an individual or team to evaluate the status
of a building project during preproject planning with a score
corresponding to project’s overall level of definition. The
PDRI helps stakeholders of a project quickly analyze the scope
definition package and predict factors that may impact project
risk specifically in regard to buildings. (CII 1999; Cho 2000)
As illustrated in Fig. 1, the PDRI for building projects is de-
signed for use at varying times during the project’s lifecycle
prior to detailed design and development of construction doc-
uments.
This tool is applicable to multistory or single-story com-
mercial, institutional, or light industrial facilities, such as:
• Offices
• Schools (classrooms)
• Medical facilities
• Research and laboratory facilities
• Institutional buildings
• Stores/shopping centers
• Dormitories
• Apartments
• Hotels/motels
• Parking structures
• Warehouses
• Light assembly/manufacturing
• Churches
FIG. 1. Applicability of PDRI in Project Lifecycle, Typical Building Project
116 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001
• Airport terminals
• Recreational/athletic facilities
• Public assembly/performance halls
• Industrial control buildings
DEVELOPMENT OF PDRI FOR BUILDING PROJECTS
Initial development work on the PDRI for building projects
began in June 1997 at the University of Texas using the PDRI
for Industrial Projects as a basis. This effort included input
and review from approximately 30 industry experts, as well
as extensive use of literature sources for terminology and key
scope element refinement (O’Reilly 1997). The 12 member,
CII PDRI for Buildings Research Team, constituted in Feb-
ruary 1998, refined and streamlined the list of PDRI elements
and their descriptions, starting with the draft of 71 elements
to the final draft in December 1998.
A complete list of the PDRI’s three sections, 11 categories,
and 64 elements is given in Fig. 2. The 64 elements in the
PDRI for Building Projects are arranged in a score sheet for-
mat and supported by 38 pages of detailed descriptions and
checklists. The score sheet is given in Appendix I and will be
described in more detail later in this paper. A representative
example description for element G1, Equipment List, is given
in Fig. 3. Due to limitations of space, the entire list of detailed
element descriptions are not included in this document.
PDRI Element Weighting
The writers knew that the 64 elements within the PDRI were
not equally important with respect to their potential impact on
overall project success. Therefore, it was decided that the el-
ements needed to be weighted relative to each other to enhance
their usefulness as a risk analysis tool. The method chosen to
quickly develop reasonable and credible weights for the PDRI
elements was to rely on the expertise of a broad range of
construction industry practitioners marshaled together in work-
shops. The weighting development was therefore an inductive
process in nature that incorporated expert input into develop-
ing final weights.
From July 1998 to October 1998, seven weighting work-
shops were held for this purpose, each lasting four hours. The
workshops involved a total of 69 experienced project manag-
ers, architects, and engineers with almost 1,500 total collective
years of building project expertise to help evaluate and weight
the PDRI elements. The participants represented 35 owner and
contractor organizations from the building construction sector,
consisting of 11 owners and 24 contractors. The participants
were volunteers and constituted a convenience sample put to-
gether using contacts and acquaintances of the development
team. In addition to keeping a balance between owner and
contractor organizations, the research team attempted to invite
balanced numbers of groups with different educational back-
grounds to evaluate and weight the PDRI elements. The 69
workshop participants consisted of 30 individuals with engi-
neering backgrounds, 31 with architectural backgrounds, and
 FIG. 2. PDRI SECTIONS, Categories, and Elements

eight other professionals directly involved in planning building
projects (Cho et al. 1999; Cho 2000).
Each participant completed a series of documents at the
workshops. In addition to personal history, they were initially
asked to list and consider a typical project that they had re-
cently worked on for the organization they represented. Each
was then asked to assume that he/she was estimating this par-
ticular project and evaluating its probability of success based
on the level of definition of the 64 elements. The workshop
proceeded in order through the 64 elements with each element
reviewed and its description read.
Assuming that scope development for the project had been
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001 / 117
completed, the workshop participants were instructed to apply
what they felt to be an appropriate cost contingency to each
element, given two circumstances—the element was unde-
fined (level of definition 5), or it was completely defined (level
of definition 1). The weighting was based on their opinions as
to the relative impact that each element has on the overall
accuracy of the project’s total installed cost (TIC) estimate. All
64 elements were reviewed in this manner.
The workshop concluded with critiques of the scoring meth-
odology and the tool itself. These comments were subse-
quently evaluated and several minor corrections were made to
the score sheet, instructions for use, and element descriptions.
 FIG. 3. Example Element Description, G1. Equipment List
The raw weights obtained from these workshops were used
to develop the final version of the PDRI score sheet. Each
participant’s responses at the workshop were individually eval-
uated and normalized to a maximum of 1,000 points. This was
accomplished by adding all values in the ‘‘incomplete or
poorly defined’’ column and converting those scores to values
relative to one another that added to 1,000 points. A similar
method was used to evaluate the elements when they had
‘‘complete definition’’ by normalizing to 70 points (which was
chosen to be consistent with the PDRI for industrial projects).
Definition levels 2, 3, and 4 were interpolated between the
extremes.
A single, collective weight was developed for each of five
levels of definition of each element based using the mean of
the 69 responses. Several statistical tests were then performed
to evaluate the responses including simple descriptive statis-
tics, skewness, kurtosis, and variance analyses. In some cases,
respondents were removed from the sample because their re-
sponses were far different from the overall sample. In the end,
59 of the 69 respondents were used to develop the final
weights, and the weighted PDRI score sheet is provided in
Appendix I (Cho 2000). An unweighted PDRI score sheet and
38 pages of element descriptions can be found in a separate
document entitled Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI),
Building Projects (CII 1999).
The PDRI score sheet is used to evaluate the level of com-
pleteness of the project scope definition at a point in time.
Each of the 64 elements is subjectively evaluated by key proj-
ect stakeholders during preproject planning based on its level
of definition versus its corresponding description. Six levels
of definition are listed across the top of the PDRI score sheet,
creating a matrix with the 64 elements. These six definition
levels, including level 0 for not applicable, range from com-
plete definition for level 1 to incomplete or poor definition for
118 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001
level 5. Depending on how well the element is defined in the
scope definition package, the PDRI score sheet user can check
the appropriate definition level for a particular element, rang-
ing from being completely defined to incomplete or poor def-
inition.
Adding up the individual element evaluations and their cor-
responding weights yields a single PDRI score for the project,
which can range from 70 to 1,000. The lower the total PDRI
score, the better the project scope definition. Higher weights
signify that certain elements within the scope package lack
adequate definition and should be reexamined prior to con-
struction documents development.
ANALYSES
Analyzing Weighted PDRI
The three sections and 11 categories of the PDRI were
sorted in order of importance as shown in Table 1. The weight
column corresponds to a summation of all definition level 5
values for that category or section. In other words, if all ele-
ments in that section or category were incomplete or unde-
fined, these would be the scores.
Section II, Basis of Design, and Section I, Basis of Project
Decision, in combination, comprise 841 points, or approxi-
mately 84% of a potential of 1,000 points. This indicates the
significance of having a sound basis of design and project
decision prepared in the project scope definition package dur-
ing the preproject planning phase, as identified by the work-
shop panelists. It also signifies the importance of owner input
and active participation of critical owner stakeholders during
the planning stage of a project. The category weights sorted
in hierarchical order of importance indicate that Categories
A and E were deemed as the most important of the 11 cate-
gories, receiving 376 of the 1,000 total points. A list of 10
 TABLE 1. PDRI Section and Category Weights ement status at the beginning of construction document (CD)
Section Weights Category Weights development. These data were used to build profiles of the
sample and to assess the PDRI with regard to project success.
Section Weight Category Weight The PDRI for Building Projects was tested on a total of 33
II Basis of Design 428 A Business Strategy 214 completed projects varying in size from a final cost of $0.9
I Basis of Project 413 E Building Programming 162 million to $200 million, as shown in Table 3. The sample was
Decision a nonrandom sample from 10 organizations, with the PDRI
III Execution Approach 159 C Project Requirements 131
Total 1,000 F Building/Project Design 122 scored ‘‘after-the-fact.’’ These projects represented approxi-
Parameters mately $899.5 million in total constructed cost with a $26.8
D Site Information 108 million average.
B Owner Philosophies 68 Using an unweighted PDRI score sheet, the validation ques-
K Project Control 63 tionnaire respondents were asked to rate how well developed
L Project Execution Plan 60 each of the 64 elements were at the time the project was ready
G Equipment 36
H Procurement Strategy 25 to begin development of construction documents. This use of
J Deliverables 11 an unweighted scoresheet minimized the tendency of element
Total 1,000 weights to influence the evaluation process. Respondents in-
dicated their choice for each element by placing a check mark
in the box corresponding to the appropriate level of definition
TABLE 2. Ten Highest Weighted PDRI Elements on a scale ranging from 0 to 5. When the questionnaire was
Element returned, the writers converted this series of checks into a final
designator Element Weight project score.
A1 Building Use 44 The PDRI scores for 33 sample projects ranged from 74 to
A5 Facility Requirements 31 648 (from a possible range of 70 to 1,000) with a mean value
A7 Site Selection Considerations 28 of 203 and a median of 202. Among 33 sample projects, 16
A2 Business Justification 27 projects scored below 200 and remaining 17 scored above 200.
C6 Project Cost Estimate 27 The survey questionnaire captured detailed project information
A3 Business Plan 26 such as schedule, cost, changes, financial and investment in-
C2 Project Design Criteria 24
C3 Evaluation of Existing Facilities 24 formation, operating information, and customer satisfaction
A6 Future Expansion/Alteration Considerations 22 (Cho 2000).
F2 Architectural Design 22 The writers realize that project planning data used in the
sample were collected by relying on the respondent’s subjec-
tive recollections and, therefore, could be subject to biases.
highest weighted elements in descending order is shown in However, given the level of industry input in the tool devel-
Table 2. opment phase and the sample size, the results are adequate to
These 10 elements total 275 points, or approximately 28%,
of the 1,000 total points. (Each element has a corresponding TABLE 3. PDRI Validation Projects
detailed description which is not given here.) The 10 highest
weighted elements can be regarded as the most important el- Project Estimated cost PDRI
ements in the project scope definition package and, if poorly number Type of project (million $) score
or incompletely defined during early project planning, will 1 Office $10.0 256
have the greatest negative impact on project performance. If a 2 Recreational/athletic facility $32.6 96
3 Office $34.8 164
project team lacks the time for preproject planning prior to the
4 Warehouse $45.9 203
development of construction document and construction, these 5 Recreational/athletic facility $122.5 285
elements are the critical few that should be considered. 6 Stores/shopping center $200.0 460
Oftentimes, there is a tendency in the construction industry 7 Office $10.2 141
to skip several steps in the scope definition process in an at- 8 Office $8.7 130
tempt to reduce overall project cycle time. This may be due 9 Research/laboratory facility $0.9 208
10 Research/laboratory facility $0.9 202
to several reasons, such as lack of necessary expertise within
11 Research/laboratory facility $43.4 204
the organization, demand for the end product, or an unwill- 12 Industrial control building $25 126
ingness to commit the funds required for complete scope def- 13 Office $8.7 240
inition. If this happens, at least those critical few elements 14 Office $14.1 223
defined in Table 2 should be considered during preproject 15 Government border station $4.2 172
planning in order to meet the project objectives and reduce 16 Government border station $1.7 95
risk. 17 Courthouse $132.9 238
18 Store/shopping center $1.8 233
19 Fire station $1.6 218
PDRI VALIDATION 20 Retail/car dealership $1.6 158
21 School $23.1 102
Although the weights obtained for PDRI elements were 22 School $23.0 139
based upon the expertise of experienced project managers, ar- 23 Research/laboratory facility $3.3 149
chitects, and engineers, the tool needed to be tested on actual 24 Office $13.4 648
projects to verify its capabilities and value. In order to estab- 25 Research/laboratory facility $9.7 202
26 Seismic protection $16.1 188
lish an unbiased, reliable validation data sample from an an- 27 Warehouse $25.7 151
alytical and statistical standpoint, a number of both successful 28 Office $6.4 74
and unsuccessful projects were used for the validation. The 29 School $13.2 160
primary goal of the validation process was to correlate PDRI 30 Institutional building $18.1 205
scores with projects measured in terms of cost performance, 31 Recreational/athletic facility $24.2 238
schedule performance, change orders, and customer satisfac- 32 Public assembly/performance $18.2 165
33 Office $3.6 216
tion. A mail survey was used to collect quantitative and his- Totals $899.5
torical project data as well as ‘‘level of definition’’ PDRI el-
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001 / 119
provide an initial tool validation, pending further study in the 200 and the projects scoring below 200 prior to development
future. of construction documents, as shown in Table 4.
Performance is the mean percentage change in actual cost
Project Performance Analyses Using Target (contingency not included) and schedule performance as com-
PDRI Score pared with that estimated prior to development of construction
documents (CDs). The reported change order value represents
In order to determine a PDRI score that distinguishes suc- the cost increase/decrease during design and construction due
cessful and unsuccessful projects, several different PDRI sam- to change orders as an absolute value.
ple segregation points (e.g., 150, 200, and 210) were used to The validation projects scoring below 200 outperformed
test the mean performance differences. Using these segregation those scoring above 200 in three important design/construction
points, mean values of project performance variables were outcome areas: cost performance, schedule performance, and
compared at a 95% confidence level. The writers found statis- the relative value of change orders as compared with the au-
tically significant mean differences on several performance thorized cost. In addition to cost and schedule differences, the
variables when the segregation point of 200 was used. projects scoring less than 200 performed better financially, had
The authors consistently observed a statistically significant fewer numbers of change orders, had less turbulence related
difference in performance between the projects scoring above to design size changes during CD development and construc-
tion, and were generally rated more successful on average than
TABLE 4. Summary of Cost, Schedule, and Change Order projects scoring higher than 200. Additional performance data
Performance for PDRI Validation Projects Using 200 Point Cutoff are summarized in Table 5.
PDRI Score
Performance <200 >200 Difference
PDRI Validation Using In-Progress Projects
Cost 1% above 6% above 5% While the validation process as discussed was performed on
budget budget complete projects, the PDRI was also used by the writers and
Schedule 2% behind 12% behind 10%
schedule schedule research team members on current, ongoing projects in a group
Change orders 7% of budget 10% of budget 3% setting to observe its effectiveness in helping teams complete
(N = 16) (N = 17) preproject planning activities. It was used on a total of 20
projects at different stages of planning, as outlined in Table 6.
In each case, the PDRI gave project team members a viable
TABLE 5. Summary of Other Performance Data for PDRI Validation platform to discuss project-specific issues and helped identify
Projects Using 200 Point Cutoff critical planning problems on every project. Examples of prob-
PDRI Score lems identified included site-specific issues such as flood plain
encroachment, fire water pressure shortfalls, traffic flow prob-
Performance <200 >200
lems, permitting surprises, and setback problems. Example
Average PDRI score 138 264 building problems identified included poor equipment lists, in-
Average number of change orders 58 95 adequate space planning, undersized utilities, code violations,
Financial performance (scale of 1–5) 3.4 3.2
Average percent design size and design 100.1 99.1 and so on. These problems were identified at a point in the
size changes project when they could be addressed with minimal disruption
During CD development or constructiona 3 7 and cost.
Project success (scale of 1–5) 4.9 4.2 Specific observations include the following:
(N = 16) (N = 17)
a
Denotes number of projects with design size changes out of subsam-
ple.
• The PDRI can be used effectively more than once during
project planning.

TABLE 6. In-Progress PDRI Validation Projects

Estimated size
Project number Description (million $) Project phase used
1 Dormitory $52 After program development
2 R and D laboratory 3 At the end of design development
3 Dormitory renovation 13 After schematic design
4 Student union 7 After program and after design development
5 Distribution center addition 2 During CD development
6 Hotel renovation 12 During CD development
7 Manufacturing planta 62 Midway through planning, during design development
8 Manufacturing/assembly plant 144 Early in planning, prior to program
9 Manufacturing plant 57 Late in planning, prior to CD development
10 Manufacturing/assembly plant 60 Late in planning, prior to CD development
11 Manufacturing/assembly plant TBD Early in planning, prior to program
12 Child care center 1 Midway through CD development of design/build project
13 Medical research 37 During design development
14 Corporate campus 120 Fast track, late in design development; site work had commenced
15 Hangar upgrade 3 Midway through design development
16 Emergency backup power generation building 4 Just prior to detailed design
17 Upgrade chill water building 3 Midway through design development
18 Upgrade computer room 0.2 Just prior to detailed design
19 Office complex 34 Just prior to detailed design
20 Dining hall renovation 13 During design development
Total $627
a
PDRI used to plan ‘‘building’’ portion of projects 7–11.

120 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001

 • The tool provides an excellent mechanism to identify spe-
cific problems and assign actions.
• Using the tool is an excellent way to align a project team.
• The PDRI is effective even when used very early in the
planning process. Individual planners can use the tool at
this point to identify potential problems and to organize
their work effort.
• A facilitator provides a neutral party to help maintain con-
sistency when scoring projects.
• The team or individual scoring the project should focus
on the scoring process, rather than the final score, in order
to honestly identify deficiencies.
HOW TO USE PDRI
Ideally, the project team gets together to conduct a PDRI
evaluation at various points during preproject planning. Ex-
perience has shown that the scoring process works best in a
team environment with a neutral facilitator familiar with the
process. This facilitator provides objective feedback to the
team and controls the pace of the meeting. If this arrangement
is not possible, an alternate approach is to have key individuals
evaluate the project separately, then evaluate it together and
reach a consensus. Even an individual using the PDRI as a
checklist can provide an effective method for project evalua-
tion (CII 1999).
The PDRI can be easily integrated into the early planning
process when project scope is developed and verified. Specif-
ically, the PDRI can help improve completion of the five major
subprocesses of preproject planning (scope management): ini-
tiation, scope planning, scope definition, scope verification,
and scope change control (PMI 1996; Dumont et al. 1997):
• Initiation: The PDRI can help define the overall project
requirements for developing and assembling the project
team. It can help all stakeholders involved in the project
understand scope definition requirements and objectives.
The PDRI also can be used in developing a baseline for
understanding the current level of project definition of the
building.
• Scope Planning: The PDRI can help the project team de-
termine which elements are the most critical in the build-
ing project scope package. The hierarchy of PDRI sec-
tions, categories, and elements can form the basis of a
work breakdown structure (WBS) for proper scope plan-
ning. The PDRI also assists in developing project mile-
stones, standardizing terminology, and communication
among project participants. The ultimate results of scope
planning will be a scope management plan and a scope
statement.
• Scope Definition: The PDRI provides a structured ap-
proach to project scope definition for building projects.
Detailed element descriptions in a checklist format help
ensure that each appropriate element is adequately ad-
dressed. The PDRI can be used to score the completeness
of the project scope package during the planning process
in order to measure progress, assess risk, and redirect fu-
ture effort. It also can assist in assigning work responsi-
bilities to the scope definition WBS.
If the organization has well-documented preproject
planning procedures and standards in place, many of the
elements may be partially defined when project planning
begins. An organization may want to standardize many of
the PDRI elements as much as possible to improve cycle
time of planning activities.
• Scope Verification: PDRI scores reflect the quality and
completeness of the project scope package from the proj-
ect participant’s perspective. Analysis of these scores can
facilitate risk assessment by highlighting the building
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001 / 121
project’s weak areas. It can provide a benchmark for com-
parison against the performance of past projects in order
to predict the probability of future success. Project eval-
uation can be conducted by both owners and contractors
either separately or together to ensure a fair assessment
and a consensus among all stakeholders. The detailed el-
ement descriptions in the tool provide an objective basis
for discussion regarding the need for additional informa-
tion in the scope package. This is important because often
facility owners are not aware of the level of definition
necessary for contractors to successfully complete the
project. Finally, it can be used as one indicator in making
the decision whether to authorize the project to move for-
ward with development of construction documents and
construction.
• Scope Change Control: When used effectively, the PDRI
forces good, written scope definition. Therefore, when
scope changes occur, the affected areas can be identified
more easily. The PDRI allows the project team to refocus
effort during project execution on any elements that were
not well defined early on and take appropriate action to
improve their definition. It also provides a basis for ‘‘les-
sons learned’’ during future endeavors.
CONCLUSIONS
The PDRI is a scope development tool that applies to build-
ings such as institutional, offices, light manufacturing, medical
facilities, etc., in the project size range of $1–50 million and
has been effectively used on larger as well as smaller projects.
It is an effective tool that allows a planning team to assess the
probability of achieving project objectives during preproject
planning. It can be used as:
• A checklist that a project team can use for determining
the necessary steps to follow in defining the project scope
• A listing of standardized scope definition terminology
throughout the building construction sector
• An industry standard for rating the completeness of the
project scope definition package to facilitate risk assess-
ment and prediction of escalation, potential for dis-
putes, etc.
• A means to monitor progress at various stages during the
front end planning effort
• A tool that aids in communication and alignment between
owners and design contractors by highlighting poorly de-
fined areas in a scope definition package
• A means for project team participants to reconcile differ-
ences using a common basis for project evaluation
• A training tool for organizations and individuals through-
out the industry
• A benchmarking tool for organizations to use in evaluat-
ing completion of scope definition versus the performance
of past projects, both within their organization and exter-
nally, in order to predict the probability of success on
future projects
The PDRI can assist owners, developers, designers, and
contractors. Facility owners, developers, and lending institu-
tions can use it as an assessment tool for establishing a comfort
level at which they are willing to move forward on projects.
Designers and constructors can use it as a means of negotiating
with owners in identifying poorly defined project scope defi-
nition elements and to develop a written, detailed basis for
design.
The planning process is inherently iterative in nature and
any changes that occur in assumptions or planning parameters
need to be resolved with earlier planning decisions. The PDRI
provides a forum for all project participants to communicate
and reconcile differences using an objective tool as a common that the PDRI along does not ensure project success, but
basis for project scope evaluation. The PDRI target score (200 should be coupled with sound business planning, alignment,
points) may not be as important as the team’s progress over and good project execution to greatly improve the probability
time in resolving issues that harbor risk. It should be noted of meeting or exceeding project objectives.

APPENDIX I. PDRI FOR BUILDINGS SCORE SHEET, WEIGHTED

122 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001

JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001 / 123
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers would like to thank CII and the members of the CII PDRI
for Building Projects Research Team for supporting this research inves-
tigation. Without their assistance, this work would not have been possible.
Chung-Suk Cho was formerly a graduate student in the Department of
Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin.
124 / JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001
REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (2000). Quality in the con-
structed project—a guide for owners, designers, and constructors, 2nd
Ed., Reston, Va.
Billings, K. (1993). Master planning for architecture, Van Nostrand Rein-
hold, New York.
Cherry, E. (1999). Programming for design: from theory to practice, Wi-
ley, New York.
Cho, C. S., Furman, J. C., and Gibson, G. E. (1999). ‘‘Development of
the project definition rating index (PDRI) for building projects.’’ Res.
Rep. 155-11 Prepared for Construction Industry Institute, University
of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Cho, C. S. (2000). ‘‘Development of the project definition rating index
(PDRI) for building projects.’’ PhD thesis, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Uni-
versity of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Cho, C. S., and Gibson, G. E., Jr. (2000). ‘‘Development of a project
definition rating index (PDRI) for general building projects.’’ Proc.,
Constr. Congr. VI, ASCE, Reston, Va., 343–352.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1995). ‘‘Pre-project planning hand-
book.’’ Special Publ. 39-2, Austin, Tex.
Construction Industry Institute (CII). (1999). ‘‘Project definition rating
index (PDRI), building projects.’’ Implementation Resour. 155-2, Aus-
tin, Tex.
Dumont, P. R., Gibson, G. E., and Fish, J. R. (1997). ‘‘Scope management
using project definition rating index.’’ J. Mgmt. Engrg., ASCE, 13(5),
54–60.
Gibson, G. E., and Dumont, P. R. (1996). ‘‘Project definition rating index
(PDRI).’’ Res. Rep. 113-11 Prepared for Construction Industry Insti-
tute, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / DECEMBER 2001 / 125
Gibson, G. E., and Hamilton, M. R. (1994). ‘‘Analysis of pre-project
planning effort and success variables for capital facility projects.’’ Rep.
Prepared for Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, Tex.
Gibson, G. E., Liao, S., Broaddus, J. A., and Bruns, T. A. (1997). ‘‘The
University of Texas System capital project performance, 1990–1995.’’
OFPC Paper 97-1, University of Texas System, Austin, Tex.
Griffin, C. W. (1972). Development building: the team approach, Wiley,
New York.
Griffith, A. F., Gibson, G. E., Hamilton, M. R., Tortora, A. L., and Wilson,
C. T. (1999). ‘‘Project success index for capital facility construction
projects.’’ J. Perf. Constr. Fac., ASCE, 13(1), 39–45.
Haviland, D., ed. (1996). The architect’s handbook of professional prac-
tice. Volume 2: The project, American Institute of Architects, Washing-
ton, D.C.
O’Reilly, A. (1997). ‘‘Project definition rating index for buildings.’’ MS
thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Pena, W. (1987). Problem seeking: an architectural programming primer,
3rd Ed., AIA Press, Washington, D.C.
Preiser, W. F. E. (1993). Professional practice in facility programming,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (1996). A guide to the project man-
agement body of knowledge, Upper Darby, Pa.