PEER-REVIEWED PAPER

SCOPE MANAGEMENT USING PROJECT DEFINmON

RATING IND~

By Peter R. Dumont,1 Member, ASCE, G. Edward Gibson Jr.,2 Member, ASCE, and John R. FIsh3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Rekto on 10/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: It is widely accepted that poor scope definition is one of the leading causes of
project failure in the U.S. construction industry. Many owner and contractor companies un-
derstand this, however, they share the misconception that it is not economically feasible to
spend the time or money necessary to adequately define the scope of work early in a project's
life cycle. In other cases project participants are ignorant about the requirements for an ade-
quately defined scope of work. A tool called the project definition rating index (PORI) was
created to address these problems. The PORI is an easy-to-use, weighted checklist of 70 scope
definition elements allowing the user to measure and manage the level of scope definition as
project planning progresses. Results from 40 pilot projects will be presented showing that a
specific PORI point threshold provides some measure of confidence in project outcome. The
implications of this tool in the project scope management process will be explored. Conclu-
sions and recommendations about the PORI will be made for project management profes-
sionals.

INTRODUCTION lems. It is a simple and easy-to-use checklist that

identifies and precisely describes each critical element in
The downsizing and decentralization of many owner
a project scope definition package. The PDRI allows a
engineering organizations has forever altered the way
project team to quickly analyze the scope definition
that industrial construction projects will be pursued in
package and predict factors that may impact project risk.
the future. With these organizational changes has come
It is intended to evaluate the completeness of scope def-
internal business fragmentation, loss of experience and
inition, specifically on industrial construction projects, at
institutional memory, and the need to use and rely on
any point prior to the time a project is considered for
outside consultants to perform many project functions
authorization to perform detailed design and construc-
within businesses. The market-driven need to incorpo-
tion.
rate more complex technology into projects, while re-
For the purposes of this tool, industrial construction
ducing cost and schedule, combined with the organiza-
projects may include, but are not limited to the following
tional changes mentioned makes effective project scope
types of facilities:
planning, definition, and control imperative. Yet, it is
often challenging to ensure that effective scope manage-
• OiVgas production facilities
ment will take place under these circumstances.
The project definition rating index (PDRI) is a revo- • Refineries
• Chemical plants
lutionary tool created under the guidance of the Con-
• Pharmaceutical plants
struction Industry Institute (CII) to help with these prob-
• Paper mills
'Presented at the 1996 Project Management Institute Annual Sem- • SteeValuminum mills
inars and Symposium held in Boston. MA (October). • Power plants
'Proj. Engr.. S&B Engrs. & Constructors Ltd., 7825 Park Place • Manufacturing facilities
Blvd.• Houston. TX 77087. • Food-processing plants
2Assoc. Prof.• Dept. of Civ. Engrg.• ECJ 5.2. Univ. of Texas at
• Textile mills
Austin. Austin. TX 78712-1076.
'Dir. Proj. Quality Controls. Procurement. and Service. Process
Services Inc .. P.O. Box 86810. Baton Rouge. LA 70879. This paper will highlight the importance of scope def-
Note. Discussion open until March 1. 1998. To extend the closing inition and its direct impact on project success, specifi-
date one month. a written request must be filed with the ASCE Man- cally focusing on how recent industry trends are chang-
ager of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for ing the traditional project environment. Too often
review and possible publication on May 12, 1997. This paper is part
of the Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 13, No.5. Sep-
communication breakdowns between primary stakehold-
tember/October, 1997 ©ASCE. ISSN 0742-597X197/0005-0054- ers along with poorly defined objectives result in projects
0060/$4.00 + $.50 per page. Paper No. 14967. that fall short of their cost, schedule, and operational
54/ JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997

J. Manage. Eng. 1997.13:54-60.

 goals. It is apparent that the industry could benefit from
a resource that improves performance in these areas by
creating an "environment to win" for all project partic-
ipants.
The PORI will be introduced as a resource to help
with this problem. It will be shown to be an effective
tool for preventing a poorly defined scope of work. The
structure and format of the PORI will be explained along
with a sample listing of the many benefits it can provide
the project team. A brief synopsis of how the PORI was
tested on 40 capital projects in order to validate its ac-
curacy and usefulness will be discussed. This will be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Rekto on 10/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
followed by an explanation of how today's rapidly
changing business environment, which has placed in-
creasingly rigorous pressures on project teams, further
reinforces the need in the U.S. construction industry for
a tool like the PORI. Finally, this paper will conclude
by describing how the PORI provides a structured ap-
proach to the project scope management process, thus
facilitating better scope definition.
BACKGROUND
Project scope definition is the process by which
projects are defined and prepared for execution. The in-
formation identified during this process is usually pre-
sented in the form of a project scope definition package.
A scope definition package is a detailed formulation of
a continuous and systematic strategy to be used during
the execution phase of a project to accomplish the proj-
ect objectives and fulfill the driving business need. This
package should include sufficient supplemental infor-
mation to permit effective and efficient detailed engi-
neering to proceed (Gibson et aI. 1995b).
Success during the detailed design, construction, and
start-up phases of a project is highly dependent upon the
completeness of the scope definition. Some construction
industry officials consider lack of scope definition to be
the most serious problem on construction projects (Smith
and Tucker 1983). A poorly defined project can experi-
ence considerable changes that may result in cost over-
runs and a greater potential for disputes. Inadequate
scope definition can lead to changes that may delay the
project schedule, cause rework, disrupt project rhythm,
and lower the productivity and morale of the workforce.
Previous research has shown that increased levels of
scope definition during the early planning, or preproject
planning, phase of a project can greatly improve the ac-
curacy of cost and schedule estimates as well as the
probability of meeting or exceeding project objectives
(Pre-Project 1995; Griffith and Gibson 1995; Hackney
1992; Hamilton and Gibson 1996; Merrow 1988; Mer-
row et al. 1981). Specifically, research by CII investi-
gated the importance of preproject planning on capital
projects and its influence on project success. This re-
search concluded that higher levels of preproject plan-
ning effort can result in significant cost and schedule
savings. In particular this research effort studied 53 cap-
ital facility projects, 17 of which had been executed with
a high level of preproject planning effort, 18 with a me-
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997/55
J. Manage. Eng. 1997.13:54-60.
dium level, and 18 with a low level. A comparison be-
tween high and low preproject planning efforts for these
projects revealed total potential cost and schedule per-
formance differentials as follows (Hamilton and Gibson
1996; Pre-Project 1994):
• A 20 percent cost saving with a high level of pre-
project planning effort
• A 39 percent schedule saving with a high level of
preproject planning effort
Obviously, improvement in project predictability and
savings of this magnitude can have a significant impact
on a venture's outcome. Oue to its importance, preparing
a scope definition package should receive a level of man-
agement attention commensurate with its potential for
impacting project performance. The PORI provides
project team members with a structured approach for
developing a quality scope definition package.
DESCRIPTION OF PORI
Most experienced industry participants recognize the
importance of scope definition during preproject plan-
ning and its potential impact on project success. Until
now, however, the industry has been lacking a practical,
nonproprietary method for determining the degree of
scope development on a project. The PORI is the first
publicly available tool of its kind. It allows a project
planning team to quantify, rate, and assess the level of
scope definition on industrial construction projects prior
to authorization for detailed design or construction. A
significant feature of the PDRI is that it can be utilized
to fit the needs of almost any individual project, small
or large. Elements that are not applicable to a specific
project can be zeroed out, thus eliminating them from
the final scoring calculation.
The PDRI consists of 70 elements in a weighted
checklist format. The 70 elements are divided into three
main sections and 15 categories. A complete list of the
sections, categories, and elements are given in Fig. I. In
addition, all elements are described in a detailed glos-
sary, including required level of effort and checklists
(Gibson and Dumont I996b). This is significant because
it provides industry with a common and definitive un-
derstanding of what constitutes complete definition of
each element.
The PDRI has been proven beneficial as a
• Checklist that a project team can use for determin-
ing the necessary steps to follow in defining the
project's scope
• Listing of standardized scope definition terminol-
ogy for use throughout the construction industry
• Industry standard for rating the completeness of the
project scope definition to facilitate risk assess-
ment, prediction of escalation, evaluation of poten-
tial for disputes, etc.
• Means to monitor progress at various stages during
the preproject planning effort
 I. BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION
A. Manufacturing Objectives
A 1. Reliability Philosophy
A2. Maintenance Philosophy
A3. Operating Philosophy
B. Business Objectives
B1. Products
B2. Market Strategy
B3. Project Strategy
B4. Affordability I Feasibility
B5. Capacities
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Rekto on 10/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
86. Future Expansion Considerations
B7. Expected Project Life Cycle
88. Social Issues
C. Basic Data Research & Development
C1. Technology
C2. Processes
D. Project Scope
D1. Project Objectives Statement
D2. Project Design Criteria
D3. Site Characteristics Available vs. Req'd
D4. Dismantling & Demolition Requirements
D5. Lead I Discipline Scope of Work
D6. Project Schedule
E. Value Engineering
E1. Process Simplification
E2. Design & Material Alternatives
Considered I Rejected
E3. Design for Constructability Analysis
II. FRONT END DEFINITION
F. Site Information
F1. Site Location
F2. Surveys & Soil Tests
F3. Environmental Assessment
F4. Permit Requirements
F5. Utility Sources With Supply Conditions
F6. Fire Protection & Safety Considerations
G. Process I Mechanical
G1. Process Flow Sheets
G2. Heat & Material Balances
G3. Piping & Instrumentation Diags.
(P&ID's)
G4. Process Safety Management (PSM)
G5. Utility Flow Diagrams
G6. Specifications
G7. Piping System Requirements
G8. Plot Plan
FIG. 1. Project Definition Rating Index (PORI) Sections, Categories, and Elements
• Tool that aids in communication between owners
and design contractors by highlighting poorly de-
fined areas in a scope definition package
• Means for project team participants to reconcile
differences using a common basis for project eval-
uation
• Training tool for companies and individuals
throughout the industry
• Benchmarking tool for companies to use in eval-
uating the completeness of scope definition versus
561 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING 1 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997
J. Manage. Eng. 1997.13:54-60.
G9. Mechanical Equipment List
G10.Line List
G11 .Tie-in List
G12.Piping Specialty Items List
G13.1 nstrument Index
H. Equipment Scope
H1. Equipment Status
H2. Equipment Location Drawings
H3. Equipment Utility Requirements
I. Civil, Structural, & Architectural
11. Civil I Structural Requirements
12. Architectural Requirements
J. Infrastructure
J1. Water Treatment Requirements
J2. Loading I Unloading I Storage
Facilities Requirements
J3. Transportation Requirements
K. Instrument & Electrical
K1. Control Philosophy
K2. Logic Diagrams
K3. Electrical Area Classifications
K4. Substation Requirements I Power
Sources Identified
K5. Electrical Single line Diagrams
K6. Instrument & Electrical Specs.
III. EXECUTION APPROACH
L. Procurement Strategy
L1. Identify Long Lead I Critical
Equipment & Materials
L2. Procurement Procedures and Plans
L3. Procurement Responsibility Matrix
M. Deliverables
M1.CADDI Model Requirements
M2.Deliverables Defined
M3.Distribution Matrix
N. Project Control
N1. Project Control Requirements
N2. Project Accounting Requirements
N3. Risk Analysis
P. Project Execution Plan
P1. Owner Approval Requirements
P2. Engr. I Constr. Plan & Approach
P3. Shut Down I Turn-Around
Req'mts.
P4. Pre-Commissioning Turnover
Sequence Requirements
P5. Startup Requirements
P6. Training Requirements
the performance of past projects, both within their
company and externally, in order to predict the
probability of success on future projects
HOW PORI WAS DEVELOPED
The elI research team that developed the PDRI was
formed in 1994 to produce effective, simple, and easy-
to-use scope definition tools so that owners and contrac-
 tors could better achieve business, operational, and
project objectives (Pre-Project Planning Tools: PDRI
and Alignment, in press, 1997). The team's objective
was to quantify preproject planning efforts, specifically
scope definition, and correlate them to the predictability
of achieving project objectives. Its goal was to develop
a tool for measuring project scope development that
would be based on industry best practices. This tool
would consist of a weighted index of critical scope def-
inition elements and be titled the project definition rating
index (PORI).
In order to achieve its objective, the research team
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Rekto on 10/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
began by examining past research in project scope de-
velopment. J. W. Hackney (1992) pioneered one of the
first attempts to quantify and define the specific elements
required for proper scope definition. Although his work
is excellent it has not been widely accepted, perhaps due
to its complexity. Apart from Hackney's work, however,
the research team found the industry lacking in a non-
proprietary method for benchmarking the level of pre-
project planning effort or the degree of scope develop-
ment on a project. From these findings the research team
realized that its primary challenge was to develop a sim-
ple and easy-to-use tool for project scope development.
This tool must identify and precisely define each critical
element in a scope definition package and allow a project
team to quickly predict factors impacting project risk.
To develop a detailed list of the required elements
within a good scope definition package the research team
utilized four primary sources: the expertise of the re-
search team, an extensive literature review, documenta-
tion from a variety of owner and contractor companies,
and a separate workshop of project managers and esti-
mators. Initial topic categories were obtained from Hack-
ney, previous ell work, and through using the team's
internal expertise. This preliminary list was expanded
using scope development documentation and best prac-
tices from 14 owner and contractor companies. Through
affinity diagramming and nominal group techniques, the
list was further refined and agreement reached regarding
exact terms and nomenclature of element descriptions.
Once this was completed a focus group of six individuals
representing one owner and three engineering/construc-
tion companies who had not seen the approach previ-
ously was held to "fine tune" the list of elements and
their descriptions. This list, which forms the basis fo the
PORI, was presented earlier in Fig. 1. Oue to the need
for brevity the detailed element descriptions are not in-
cluded in this document.
Element Weighting
The research team hypothesized that all elements were
not equally important with respect to their potential im-
pact on overall project success. Therefore, each element
needed to be weighted relative to the others. Higher
weights were to be assigned to those elements whose
lack of definition could have the most seriously negative
effect on project performance.
To develop credible weights the research team invited
54 experienced project managers and estimators from 31
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997/57
J. Manage. Eng. 1997.13:54-60.
owner and contractor companies to two workshops. At
each workshop the participants were asked to weight
each element in importance based upon their own ex-
perience. A total of 38 weighted score sheets resulted
from the workshops.
The weighting process is fairly complex and beyond
the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say that each of the
38 weighted score sheets were based on a standard
project that the respondent, or respondent team, had re-
cently completed. The respondent scored each element
based on the impact that it would have on the total in-
stalled cost of the facility in question in terms of level
of definition. Each score sheet then was normalized to
1,000 points and averaged. Statistical tests were per-
formed looking at standard deviation, skewness, and kur-
tosis of the individual elements, and adjustments were
made. This input was used to determine the individual
element weights. These weights comprise the PORI
score sheet that can be found in a separate document
entitled PDRI:Project Definition Rating Index, Industrial
Projects (Gibson and Oumont 1996b). Additional infor-
mation on this research methodology can be found in
Gibson and Oumont (l996a).
The weighted PORI score sheet is used to evaluate the
level of completeness of the project scope definition.
Each of the 70 elements is subjectively evaluated by key
project stakeholders based on its level of definition ver-
sus its corresponding description. Summing the individ-
ual element evaluations and their corresponding weights
leads to a single PORI score for the project, which can
range from zero to 1,000. The lower the total score, the
more well defined the project. Higher weights signify
that certain elements within the score sheet lack adequate
definition and should be reexamined prior to project au-
thorization.
Validating PDRI
Although the PORI weights were based upon the ex-
pertise of 54 experienced project managers and estima-
tors, the document is opinion based and, therefore, was
tested on actual projects to verify its viability as a tool.
Forty validation projects ranging in authorized sizes
from $1,000,000 to $635,000,000 were scored with the
PORI. Together these projects represent greater than $3.3
billion in authorized cost. The types of projects included
chemical, petrochemical, refining, gas production, power
plants, and manufacturing facilities. Each was con-
structed between 1988 and 1995. A PORI score was
computed for each project based upon the level of def-
inition at project authorization prior to detailed design
and construction. (Note that all of these projects were
scored "after the fact.")
A success rating based upon cost performance, sched-
ule performance, percentage design capacity attained at
six months, and plant utilization attained at six months
also was computed for each project. This success rating
had been used in previous research regarding preproject
planning (Hamilton and Gibson 1996).
A statistical analysis revealed that the PORI score and
project success variables were linearly rated with a co-
 TABLE 1. Summary of Cost, Schedule, and Change Order
Mean Performance versus Authorization Estimate for
Project Definition Rating Index (PORI) Validation Projects
PORI Score
<200 >200 Difference
Performance (%) (%) (%)
(1 ) (2) (3) (4)
Cost -5 +14 19
Schedule -I +12 13
Change orders +2 +8 6
(n = 20) (n = 20) - proach to give them guidance.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Rekto on 10/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
efficient of determination (R 2 ) of 0.39 between the two
(Pre-Project Planning Tools: PDRI and Alignment, in
press, 1997). A low PDRI score represents a project def-
inition package that is well defined and, in general, cor-
responds to an increased probability for project success.
Based on the analysis of the validation projects, the
research team found that a trend existed between low
PDRI scores and high project success levels. Table 1
shows the difference in subgroup means between
projects that scored less than 200 (out of 1,000 total
points) and those that scored greater than 200. (For ex-
ample, a cost performance of "-5%" indicates that the
mean of final project cost for the 20 projects scoring 200
and below was 5% less than the cost estimate at author-
ization.) The 200 point cutoff was used because it was
a logical break in the data set and also corresponded to
projects that met most of their authorization objectives.
Note the significant 19% difference in cost perfor-
mance and the 13% difference in schedule. The sample
set of validation projects is relatively small, however the
magnitude of these numbers confirms the conclusion that
better scope definition can correlate to savings in terms
of both time and money. Although not shown the stan-
dard deviations for the "less than 200" group were
much smaller as well, indicating less variation.
The PDRI alone will not ensure successful projects
but, if combined with sound business planning, team
alignment, and good project execution, it can greatly im-
prove the probability of meeting or exceeding project
objectives.
PORI AND RECENT INDUSTRY TRENDS
Reduced Cycle Times
In today's rapidly changing business environment it is
becoming increasingly important for companies to re-
duce project cycle times in order to get products to the
market sooner. Although it is not the ideal situation,
owners often feel that market demand or other pressures
warrant authorization of projects with underdeveloped
definition. Pushing a project into the field prematurely
can adversely affect the accuracy of cost and schedule
estimates. However, if owners decide to proceed with
projects that have poorly defined scopes, the ability to
quickly and accurately predict factors that may impact
project risk becomes more critical. The PDRI can help
the project team identify and focus on the few major
elements (those with higher relative weights) that will
have the greatest ability to influence project success.
58/ JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997
J. Manage. Eng. 1997.13:54-60.
Downsizing
Another trend emerging in the industry is the down-
sizing of owner companies and the elimination of in-
house detailed design capabilities. With this downsizing
has come the loss of many experienced personnel as well
as the institutional memory and expertise required for
sufficient project planning. Younger, less experienced
engineers now are being asked to prepare scope pack-
ages without adequate mentoring or a structured ap-
Much of the responsibility for detailed design is now
being assumed by engineering and construction contrac-
tors. Contractor-led project definition is prevalent on
roughly one-third of all projects today, whereas 20 years
ago, it rarely occurred (Merrow and Yarossi 1994). How-
ever, contractors often are not capable of taking on the
responsibility of effectively leading the definition phase
of a project. This often results in projects with poor cost,
schedule, or operational performance. It is apparent that
contractors could benefit from a tool such as the PDRI
that would provide a detailed checklist for determining
the necessary steps to follow in defining a project scope
as well as a means to evaluate their performance peri-
odically throughout the process.
Multiple Small Projects
The age of the megaproject has probably passed.
Many of the companies surveyed by the CII research
team while developing the PDRI indicated that they are
allocating more of their capital funds towards the con-
struction of multiple small projects. As one project man-
ager commented, "I have 50 small projects for every
large project. The PDRI is a great tool for large projects,
but small project management is where I really need
help." The answer is, the PDRI is well suited for small
projects also. In just a short amount of time (approxi-
mately two hours or less) a PDRI evaluation of a project
can highlight the most important elements that must be
addressed before project execution is authorized (Gibson
et al. 1995a). Identifying the critical few elements that
can directly impact performance is paramount on small
projects. Currently several owners and contractor com-
panies are successfully pursuing unique methods of scal-
ing down the PDRI for use on small or discipline-spe-
cific projects.
INTEGRATING PORI WITHIN PROJECT SCOPE
MANAGEMENT
The PDRI can significantly improve execution of the
project scope management phase of the project life cy-
cle. This phase is shown pictorially in Fig. 2 as devel-
oped by the Project Management Institute (PMI). The
PDRI can be integrated easily into this phase as a tool
for planning, developing, and verifying project scope. It
provides an industry approved "road map" that can as-
sist a project team towards reaching or exceeding its
objectives. Specifically, the PDRI can help improve
completion of the five major subprocesses of scope man-
agement: initiation, scope planning, scope definition.

I I
Initiation Scope Planning
FIG. 2. Project Scope Management OvervIew (Project Management Institute 1996)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Rekto on 10/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
scope verification and scope change control. The follow-
ing discussion includes ideas for using the PORI to fa-
cilitate successful completion of each of these subpro-
cesses:
1. Initiation. The PORI can help define the overall
project requirements for developing and assem-
bling the project team. It can help all stakeholders
involved in the project understand its scope defi-
nition requirements. The PORI also can be used in
developing a baseline for understanding the current
level of project definition. This, in tum, can assist
in creating the project charter.
2. Scope planning. The PORI can help the project
team determine which elements are the most criti-
cal in the project scope package. The hierarchy of
PORI sections, categories, and elements can form
the basis of a work breakdown structure (WBS) for
proper scope planning. The PORI also can assist in
developing project milestones, standardizing ter-
minology (either between owners and contractors
or between multiple owners involved in joint-ven-
ture operations) and in communication with con-
sultants. The ultimate results of scope planning will
be a scope management plan and a scope state-
ment.
3. Scope definition. The PORI provides a structured
approach to project scope definition. Detailed ele-
ment descriptions in a checklist format help ensure
that each appropriate element is adequately ad-
dressed. The PORI can be used to score the com-
pleteness of the project scope package during the
planning process in order to measure progress, as-
sess risk, and redirect future effort. It also can assist
in assigning work responsibilities to the scope def-
inition WBS.
4. Scope verification. PORI scores reflect the quality
and completeness of the project scope package.
Analysis of these scores can facilitate risk assess-
ment by highlighting the project's weak areas. It
can provide a benchmark for comparison against
the performance of past projects in order to predict
the probability of future success. Project evalua-
tions can be conducted by both owners and con-
tractors either separately or together to ensure a fair
assessment and a "meeting of the minds" among
all stakeholders. The detailed element descriptions
in the tool provide an objective basis for discussion
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997/59
J. Manage. Eng. 1997.13:54-60.
Project Scope
Management
I I
Scope Definition Scope Scope Change
Verification Control
regarding the need for additional information in the
scope package. This is important because often
owner companies are not aware of the level of def-
inition necessary for contractors to successfully
complete the project. Finally, it can be used as one
indicator in making the decision of whether to au-
thorize the project for detailed design and construc-
tion.
5. Scope change control. When used effectively, the
PORI forces good scope definition. Therefore,
when scope changes occur the affected areas can
be identified more easily. The PORI allows the
project, team to refocus effort during project exe-
cution on any elements that were not well defined
early on, perhaps due to time or financial con-
straints, and take action to improve their definition.
It also provides a basis for "lessons learned" dur-
ing future endeavors.
CONCLUSIONS
The PORI is an easy-to-use tool that can greatly im-
prove scope management efforts on industrial construc-
tion projects. Poor scope definition has been shown to
be one of the leading causes of project failure in our
industry. The PORI, when implemented effectively, can
greatly improve the probability of project success by re-
ducing the potential for failure due to poorly defined
scopes. Although it was developed for use on industrial
construction projects the writers feel that similar tools
can be created for other project management applica-
tions. For information on how to develop one for other
business needs, see the methodology outlined in Gibson
and Dumont (l996a). The writers also recommend that
companies should consider incorporating the PORI as a
standard tool to assist in their scope development and
management processes.
The PORI can benefit both owner and contractor com-
panies. Owner companies can use it as an assessment
tool for establishing a comfort level at which they are
willing to authorize projects. Contractors can use it as a
means of identifying poorly defined project scope defi-
nition elements. The PDRI provides a means for all
project participants to communicate and reconcile dif-
ferences using an objective tool as a common basis for
project scope evaluation. Any company wishing to im-
prove performance on their industrial construction
projects will find the PDRI to be a simple, effective, and
powerful tool.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers would like to thank the Construction In-
dustry Institute for supporting this research investigation.
They would also like to especially thank the members
of the Front End Planning Research Team for their ef-
forts. Peter Dumont was formerly a graduate student at
The University of Texas at Austin.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Gibson, G. E., Jr., and Dumont, P. R. (1996a). Project definition rating
index (PDRI) for industrial projects. Cll Res. Rep. 113-11. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Rekto on 10/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Industry Inst., Austin, Tex.
Gibson, G. E., Jr., and Dumont, P. R. (1996b). PDR1: project definition
rating index, industrial projects. Const. Industry Inst. Implementa-
tion Resour. 113-2. Constr. Industry Inst., Austin, Tex.
Gibson, G. E., Jr., Dumont, P. R., and Griffith, A. E (1995a). "Pre-
project planning tools." Proc., Constr. Industry Inst. Annu. Conf.,
Constr. Industry Inst., Austin, Tex.
Gibson, G. E., Kaczmarowski, J. H., and Lore, H. E. (1995b). "Pre-
project-planning process for capital facilities." J. Constr. Engrg.
and Mgmt., ASCE, 121(3),312-318.
Griffith, A. E, and Gibson, G. E., Jr. (1995). "Project communication
60 I JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING I SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997
J. Manage. Eng. 1997.13:54-60.
and alignment during pre-project planning." Proc., PMI '95 Conf.,
76-83.
Hackney, J. W. (1992). Control & management of capital projects,
2nd Ed., McGraw-Hili Inc., New York, N.Y.
Hamilton, M. R., and Gibson, G. E. (1996). "Benchmarking pre-
project planning effort." J. Mgmt. in Engrg., ASCE, 12(2),25-33.
Merrow, E. W. (1988). Understanding the outcomes of megaprojects:
a quantitative analysis of very large civilian projects. RANDIR-
3560-PSSP. The Rand Corp., Santa Monica, Calif.
Merrow, E. W., Phillips, K. E., and Myers, C. W. (1981). Understand-
ing cost growth and peTj'ormance shortfalls in pioneer process
plants. RANDIR-2569-DOE. The Rand Corp., Santa Monica, Calif.
Merrow, E. W., and Yarossi, M. E. (1994). "Managing capital
projects: where have we been-where are we going?" Chern.
Engrg., 101(10), 108-111.
Pre-project planning: beginning a project the right way. (1994). Publ.
39·1, Const. Industry Inst., Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Pre-project planning handbook.. (1995). Special Publ. 39-2, Constr.
Industry Inst., Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.
Project Management Institute. (1996). A guide to the project manage-
ment body of knowledge. Project Management Institute. Upper
Darby, PA.
Smith, M. A., and Tucker, R. L. (1983). An assessment ofthe potential
problems occurring in the engineering phase of an industrial
project. Rep. to Texaco, Inc. Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.