Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI)

Revisited
G. Edward Gibson, Jr., Ph.D., P.E.
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering
The University of Texas at Austin

Agenda
What is PDRI?
How broadly used by CII members?
How organizations using PDRI?
What is the value of using PDRI?
How to use PDRI?
Lessons learned since the tools introduction?

What Is PDRI?

PDRI The Definition

An Acronym
Project Definition Rating Index

An Index
Score along a continuum representing the level
of scope definition

A Risk Management Tool

Identifies and measures risks related to project
scope definition

PDRI History
Born on date

PDRI Industrial: 1996

PDRI Buildings: 1999

Why Developed?

PDRI Composition

Industrial

Buildings

Sections:

Categories:

15

11

Elements:

70

64

70-1000

70-1000

Score:

SECTION I - BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION

Definition Level
CATEGORY
0
1
Element
A. MANUFACTURING OBJECTIVES CRITERIA (Maximum Score = 45)
A1. Reliability Philosophy
A2. Maintenance Philosophy
A3. Operating Philosophy

0
0
0

1
1
1

5
9
14
3
5
7
4
7
12
CATEGORY A TOTAL

20
9
16

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1

11
22
33
5
10
16
5
9
14
3
6
9
11
21
33
3
6
10
2
3
5
2
5
7
CATEGORY B TOTAL

56
26
23
16
55
17
8
12

10
21
39
8
17
28
CATEGORY C TOTAL

54
40

Score

B. BUSINESS OBJECTIVES (Maximum Score = 213)

B1.
B2.
B3.
B4.
B5.
B6.
B7.
B8.

Products
Market Strategy
Project Strategy
Affordability/Feasibility
Capacities
Future Expansion Considerations
Expected Project Life Cycle
Social Issues

C. BASIC DATA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (Maximum Score = 94)

C1. Technology
C2. Processes

0
0

2
2

0
0
0
0
0
0

2
3
2
2
1
2

D. PROJECT SCOPE (Maximum Score = 120)

D1.
D2.
D3.
D4.
D5.
D6.

Project Objectives Statement

Project Design Criteria
Site Characteristics Available vs. Required
Dismantling and Demolition Requirements
Lead/Discipline Scope of Work
Project Schedule

11

16

5
4

8
7

12
10

25
22
29
15
13
16

CATEGORY D TOTAL

E. VALUE ENGINEERING (Maximum Score = 27)

E1. Process Simplification
E2. Design & Material Alternatives Considered/Rejected
E3. Design for Constructability Analysis

Section I Maximum Score = 499

0
0
0

0
0
0

3
5
8
CATEGORY E TOTAL

8
7
12

SECTION I TOTAL

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable
1 = Complete Definition

2 = Minor Deficiencies
3 = Some Deficiencies

4 = Major Deficiencies
5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

PDRI Element Descriptions

(Example)
A1. Reliability Philosophy

A list of the general design principles to be considered to achieve dependable

operating performance from the unit. Evaluation criteria should include:
Justification of spare equipment
Control, alarm, and safety systems redundancy
Extent of providing surge and intermediate storage capacity to permit
independent shutdown of portions of the plant
Mechanical / structural integrity of components (metallurgy, seals,
types of couplings, bearing selection, etc.)

SECTION I - BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION

Definition Level
CATEGORY
0
1
Element
A. MANUFACTURING OBJECTIVES CRITERIA (Maximum Score = 45)
A1. Reliability Philosophy
A2. Maintenance Philosophy
A3. Operating Philosophy

0
0
0

1
1
1

5
9
14
3
5
7
4
7
12
CATEGORY A TOTAL

20
9
16

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1

11
22
33
5
10
16
5
9
14
3
6
9
11
21
33
3
6
10
2
3
5
2
5
7
CATEGORY B TOTAL

56
26
23
16
55
17
8
12

10
21
39
8
17
28
CATEGORY C TOTAL

54
40

Score

B. BUSINESS OBJECTIVES (Maximum Score = 213)

B1.
B2.
B3.
B4.
B5.
B6.
B7.
B8.

Products
Market Strategy
Project Strategy
Affordability/Feasibility
Capacities
Future Expansion Considerations
Expected Project Life Cycle
Social Issues

C. BASIC DATA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (Maximum Score = 94)

C1. Technology
C2. Processes

0
0

2
2

0
0
0
0
0
0

2
3
2
2
1
2

D. PROJECT SCOPE (Maximum Score = 120)

D1.
D2.
D3.
D4.
D5.
D6.

Project Objectives Statement

Project Design Criteria
Site Characteristics Available vs. Required
Dismantling and Demolition Requirements
Lead/Discipline Scope of Work
Project Schedule

11

16

5
4

8
7

12
10

25
22
29
15
13
16

CATEGORY D TOTAL

E. VALUE ENGINEERING (Maximum Score = 27)

E1. Process Simplification
E2. Design & Material Alternatives Considered/Rejected
E3. Design for Constructability Analysis

Section I Maximum Score = 499

0
0
0

0
0
0

3
5
8
CATEGORY E TOTAL

8
7
12

SECTION I TOTAL

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable
1 = Complete Definition

2 = Minor Deficiencies
3 = Some Deficiencies

4 = Major Deficiencies
5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

How Broadly Used?

PDRI Usage Among CII Members

PDRI USAGE

PDRI TYPE

Not
Applicable
(3)
Both
(15)
Not Used
(24)

Industrial Only
(22)

Used
(43)

Building Only
(6)

N = 70

How Being Used?

Usage
As a checklist in early project development (81%)
As a gate check before moving to the next project
phase (72%)
In conjunction with other front end planning
measurement methods (72%)
As a means of measuring or benchmarking front-end
planning process performance (70%)
More than once on most projects (42%)

Usage
(continued)

Others:
As an audit tool (42%)
In a modified form for small or unusual projects
(33%)
To help capture lessons-learned (28%)
With the help of an outside facilitator (19%)

The Value

Understanding PDRI Scores

1000 Points

0 Points

LOWER IS BETTER!!

What does a score mean?

A continuum
Relative to timing
Only as valid as effort/seriousness
Accuracy (the real score) can be improved
with facilitation
Perhaps is not the most important output
of the assessment

Comparison of Projects with PDRI

Above and Below 200 Industrial Projects
PDRI Score

Performance

< 200

> 200

Cost

4% below budget

6% over budget

Schedule

3% behind of schedule

11% behind schedule

Change Orders

6% of budget

8% of budget

(N=62)

(N=44)

PDRI The Results

EXAMPLE:
$55 Million Industrial Project, 24-Month Schedule
< 200
Cost

> 200

$53 million

$58 million

Schedule 25 months

27 months

Comparison of Projects with PDRI

Above and Below 200 Building Projects
PDRI Score

Performance

< 200

> 200

Cost

1% over budget

10% over budget

Schedule

On schedule

21% behind schedule

Change Orders

7% of budget

11% of budget

(N=18)

(N=74)

How to Use

Assessing a Project
What it SHOULDNT BE

Performed
in a
vacuum

Time Needed for Assessing a Project

Two-and-a-half to four hours initially
Less later

Observations
Official sanctioning of activity
Part of process
Small cadre of facilitators
Training
Does not plan
Risk mitigation process

Summary

Benefits of PDRI to Owners

Well planned projects
Better team alignment and communication
Improved risk assessment
Ability to make tradeoff decisions
Can be used in developing
a portfolio

Benefits of PDRI
to Designers and Contractors
Ability to measure scope
Avenue to communicate
Reconcile differences
Standardized scope package
Monitor progress
Minimize design rework

In Summary
PDRI works!
PDRI is not as easy as it appears
Score is good, process of getting
there is better

PDRI Publications
PDRI Industrial Projects
CII Implementation Resource 113-2

PDRI Building Projects

CII Implementation Resource 155-2

http://construction-institute.org/pdri/

Implementation Session
Participants
Steve Campbell NASA
John Fish

Ford, Bacon, and Davis

Edd Gibson

UT Austin

Bob Herrington

Jacobs

Jim Nelson

3M

Javid Talib

Black and Veatch

Come Join Us!

Location: Georgia B
Times:

Wednesday 10:45-11:45 am
1:00-2:00 pm