Development of the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI)

for Small Infrastructure Projects

by

Mohamed A. ElZomor

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

Approved July 2017 by the

Graduate Supervisory Committee:

Kristen Parrish, Chair

G. Edward Gibson, Jr.
Mounir El Asmar

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

August 2017
 ABSTRACT

Project teams expend substantial effort to develop scope definition during the front

end planning phase of large, complex projects, but oftentimes neglect to sufficiently plan

for small projects. An industry survey administered by the author showed that small

projects make up approximately half of all projects in the infrastructure construction

sector (by count), the planning of these projects varies greatly, and that a consistent

definition of “small infrastructure project” did not exist. This dissertation summarizes the

motivations and efforts of Construction Industry Institute (CII) Research Team 314a to

develop a non-proprietary front end planning tool specifically for small infrastructure

projects, namely the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for Small Infrastructure

Projects. The author was a member of CII Research Team 314a, who was tasked with

developing the tool in September 2015. The author, together with the research team,

scrutinized and adapted an existing infrastructure-focused FEP tool, the PDRI for

Infrastructure Projects, and other resources to develop a set of 40 specific elements

relevant to the planning of small infrastructure projects. The author along with the

research team supported the facilitation of seven separate industry workshops where 71

industry professionals evaluated the element descriptions and provided element

prioritization data that was statistically analyzed and used to develop a corresponding

weighted score sheet. The tool was tested on 76 completed and in-progress projects, the

analysis of which showed that small infrastructure projects with greater scope definition

(based on the tool’s scoring scheme) outperformed projects with lesser scope definition

regarding cost performance, schedule performance, change performance, financial

performance, and customer satisfaction. Moreover, the author found that users of the tool

i
on in-progress projects agreed that the tool added value to their projects in a timeframe

and manner consistent with their needs, and that they would continue using the tool in the

future. The author also conducted qualitative and quantitative similarities and differences

between PDRI – Infrastructure and PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects in support of

improved planning efforts for both types of projects. Finally, the author piloted a case

study that introduced the PDRI into an introductory construction management course to

enhance students’ learning experience.

ii
 DEDICATION

This dissertation is lovingly dedicated to my wife, Engy Maher and my children

Youssef and Layla. Their dedication and constant love have sustained me throughout my

life. Also, the continuous support and encouragement received by Mother, Dr. Elham, and

my father, Dr. Alaa, along with both my sister, Farida and brother, Khaled, were the main

force throughout my endeavor.

I strived to make you proud…

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Without Dr. Kristen Parrish, pursuit of this degree would only have been a dream

that a lot of us aspire for. I am forever indebted to my academic advisor, Dr. Parrish, for

her continuous support throughout my PhD journey. I would like to express my sincere

gratitude for her patience, motivation, and immense knowledge. She taught me how to be

a true scholar, as she always had patience and unconditional understanding. I consider

myself very fortunate to having Dr. Kristen as an advisor and mentor for my PhD study.

She will always be the scholar I aspire to. Thank you Dr. Parrish and that is the least I

could say.

In addition, I would like to thank the rest of my PhD committee: Dr. G. Edward

Gibson and Dr. Mounir ElAsmar, for their insightful comments and encouragement. Dr.

Gibson is the guru of front end planning and I’m privileged to having him inspire my

research. Similarly, Dr. Mounir’s impressive ambitions have motivated me remarkably

especially through his expertise in innovative project delivery systems and sustainable

construction.

My sincere thanks also goes to Dr. Nader Chalfoun my master advisor for his

precious support and Omar Youssef my teaching colleague for his exceptional guidance.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................xv

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1

1.1. Research Team 314a .................................................................................................2

1.1.1. Research Objectives .......................................................................................3

1.2. Project Domain .........................................................................................................4

1.3. Organization of the Dissertation ...............................................................................6

2 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESeS .....................................7

2.1. Problem Statement ....................................................................................................7

2.2. Research Hypotheses ................................................................................................8

2.3. Summary .................................................................................................................10

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................................................................11

3.1. Data Collection .......................................................................................................14

3.1.1. Developing the PDRI Elements and Score Sheet ........................................14

3.1.2. PDRI Element Prioritization ........................................................................15

3.1.3. Test PDRI Research Hypotheses .................................................................15

3.1.4. Small Project Definition ..............................................................................16

3.2. Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................17

v
CHAPTER Page

3.2.1. The Boxplot .................................................................................................18

3.2.2. Skewness ......................................................................................................20

3.2.3. Independent Samples t-tests .........................................................................20

3.2.4. Mann-Whitney U Test .................................................................................23

3.2.5. Correlation ...................................................................................................25

3.2.6. Regression Analysis .....................................................................................27

3.3. Limitations of the Data Analyses ............................................................................30

3.4. Summary .................................................................................................................31

4 LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................................32

4.1. Construction Industry Institute Research ................................................................32

4.1.1. The Construction Industry Institute (CII) ....................................................32

4.1.2. Early CII Research into Project Planning ....................................................33

4.1.3. Project Scope Definition Tools ....................................................................35

4.1.3.1. PDRI-Industrial ....................................................................................35

4.1.3.2. PDRI-Building......................................................................................41

4.1.3.3. PDRI-Infrastructure ..............................................................................45

4.1.3.4. PDRI – Small Industrial .......................................................................48

4.1.4. Other CII Front End Planning Research Supporting the Process ................51

4.1.4.1. Project Team Alignment ......................................................................51

4.1.4.2. Renovation and Revamp Projects.........................................................53

4.1.4.3. Integrated Project Risk Assessment .....................................................55

vi
CHAPTER Page

4.1.4.4. Information Flow to Support Front End Planning (2007)……………………..57

4.1.4.5. Optimizing Construction Input in Front End Planning (2009).............58

4.1.5. Efficacy of the PDRI tools ...........................................................................60

4.1.5.1. Front End Planning: Break the Rules, Pay the Price (2006) ................60

4.1.5.2. Adding Value through Front End Planning (2012) ..............................63

4.2. Small Project Research ...........................................................................................64

4.2.1. Managing the Engineering and Construction of Small Projects (1985) ......64

4.2.2. Manual for Small Special Project Management (1991) ...............................66

4.2.3. Developing an Effective Approach to the Procurement and Management of

Small Building Works within Large Client Organizations (1995)....................71

4.2.4. Small Projects Toolkit (2001) ......................................................................74

4.2.5. Budget and Schedule Success for Small Capital-Facility Projects (2002) ..75

4.2.6. Is a Small Project Really Different? (2005) .................................................77

4.2.7. PDRI – Small Industrial Projects (2015) .....................................................77

4.3. Literature Review Findings.....................................................................................78

4.4. Summary .................................................................................................................80

5 SMALL PROJECT PREVALENCE, PLANNING PRACTICES, AND

DIFFERENTIATORS OF SMALL PROJECTS IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR ............................................................................................82

5.1. Survey Development Methodology and Structure ..................................................82

5.2. Survey Respondent Solicitation ..............................................................................87

5.3. Survey Responses and Analysis..............................................................................87

vii
CHAPTER Page

5.3.2. Front End Planning Processes for Small Projects Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.3.3. Small Project vs. Large Project Differentiators ...........................................91

5.3.4. Discussion of Survey Results and Comments from Respondents ...............93

5.4. Summary .................................................................................................................94

6 PDRI DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ..............................................................................96

6.1. Background of the PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects .......................................96

6.2. PDRI Weighting Workshops ..................................................................................99

6.3. Workshop Process.................................................................................................100

6.4. Developing the PDRI Element Weights ...............................................................105

6.4.1. Normalizing Process ..................................................................................106

6.4.2. Screening the Data Using Boxplots ...........................................................110

6.4.3 Finalizing the PDRI Score Sheet ................................................................115

6.5. Analyzing the Weighted PDRI .............................................................................117

6.5.1. Element Weights for Project Types ...........................................................119

6.5.2. Comparison of Owners and Engineers/Contractors ...................................119

6.5.3. Comparison of People & Freight, Fluids and Energy Projects ..................123

6.6 Summary ................................................................................................................125

7 PDRI TESTING ............................................................................................................126

7.1. Completed Projects ...............................................................................................126

7.1.1. Testing Data ...............................................................................................127

7.1.2. Sample Characteristics ...............................................................................128

7.1.3. Project Performance Analysis ....................................................................131

viii
CHAPTER Page

7.1.3.1. Project Performance vs. PDRI Scores using Independent Samples t-tests

.........................................................................................................................133

7.1.3.2. Project Performance vs. PDRI Scores using Regression Analysis ....137

7.1.4. Change Performance (Alternative Method) ...............................................141

7.1.5. Analysis of Project Financial Performance and Customer Satisfaction ....143

7.1.6. Summary of Completed Project Performance Evaluation .........................145

7.2. In-Progress Projects ..............................................................................................148

7.3. Summary ...............................................................................................................150

8 COMPARISON OF THE PDRI - INFRASTRUCTURE VS. THE PDRI - SMALL

INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................................................................................152

8.1. Abstract .................................................................................................................152

8.2. Introduction ...........................................................................................................153

8.3. Other PDRI Research and Background ................................................................156

8.4. Comparison Methodology ....................................................................................158

8.5. Results and Discussion .........................................................................................159

8.5.1. Defining Small Infrastructure Projects ......................................................160

8.5.1.1. Distinguishing Between “Large” And “Small” Infrastructure Projects

.........................................................................................................................160

8.5.1.2. Front End Planning (FEP) Efforts For Small Infrastructure Projects 162

8.5.1.3. Front End Planning (FEP) Process of project Delivery for Infrastructure

Projects ............................................................................................................164

ix
CHAPTER Page

8.5.2. Quantitative evaluation of the Element Descriptions and Section Weights in both

Infrastructure PDRI Tools ...............................................................................165

8.5.2.1. Assessing The Content of the Element Descriptions for both

Infrastructure PDRI Tools ...............................................................................169

8.5.3. Comparing the Owner and Contractor Perspectives for both Infrastructure PDRI

Tools ................................................................................................................171

8.5.4. Comparison of Element Weights by Project Type ....................................175

8.5.5. Comparison of Target Scores.............................................................................178

8.6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................180

8.6. Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................181

9 INTEGRATING THE PDRI IN AN UNDERGRADUATE CONSTRUCTION

CLASSROOM: A PILOT STUDY ABOUT LEARNING CONSTRUCTION

MATERIALS, METHODS AND EQUIPMENT............................................................182

9.1. Abstract .................................................................................................................182

9.2. Introduction ...........................................................................................................183

9.3. Literature Review..................................................................................................184

9.3.1. Front end planning (FEP) and Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) tools

.........................................................................................................................184

9.3.2. Professional Tools in Construction Courses – (Literature demonstrates that

PDRI was never used in classroom) ................................................................188

9.4. Research Method ..................................................................................................189

x
CHAPTER Page

9.4.1. The course and project selected .........................................................................191

9.4.2. Students’ Self-reported Skill level .............................................................192

9.4.3. Corroborating the courses’ technical objective skills ................................193

9.5. Results and Discussion .........................................................................................194

9.5.1. Survey Questions to evaluate the student’s skill level ...............................194

9.5.2. Comparison of Student Performance in describing construction methods 197

9.5.3. In-class workshop activity .........................................................................199

9.6. Limitation and Future Research ............................................................................204

9.6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................206

10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................207

10.1. Research Objectives ............................................................................................207

10.1.1. Research Hypotheses ...............................................................................209

10.2. Advice to Users ...................................................................................................212

10.3. Research Contributions to Knowledge ...............................................................213

10.4. Research Limitations ..........................................................................................214

10.5. Recommendations for Future Research ..............................................................214

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................217

APPENDIX

A: PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS.....................................................................222

B : PDRI FOR SMALL INFRASTUCTURE PROJECTS DOCUMENTS....................227

xi
APPENDIX Page

C : DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FROM WEIGHTING WORKSHOPS .....................263

D : WEIGHTING WORKSHOP PRESENTATION AND EVALUATION FORMS ...276

E : EXAMPLE OF COMPLETED WEIGHTING WORKSHOP ASSESSMENT ........289

F : PDRI TESTING QUESTIONNAIRES ......................................................................295

G : IN-CLASS WORKSHOP ACTIVITY AND FINAL PROJECT RUBRIC ..............305

H : INFRASTUCTURE PDRI SELECTION GUIDE.....................................................310

xii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

3-1. Research and Data Analysis Methods ......................................................................... 12

4-1. Average Cost of Projects Used in PDRI Testing......................................................... 79

4-2. Small Project Definitions from Literature ................................................................... 80

5-1. Project Size Differentiators Posed in Survey .............................................................. 85

5-2. Small Infrastructure Project Definition From Survey Responses ............................... 95

6-1. Weighting Workshops ................................................................................................. 99

6-2. Excerpt of Data used for Normalizing Level 1 and Level 5 Weights for TX-160210-

O-4 ............................................................................................................................ 107

6-3. Workshop Participant Contribution Scores (Ranked Highest to Lowest) ................. 112

6-4. Results of Interpolation for Level 2, 3, and 4 Element Weights ............................... 116

7-1. Completed Small Infrastructure Projects used during Testing of the PDRI – Small

Infrastructure Projects tool ........................................................................................ 129

7-2. PDRI Scores vs. Project Performance Factors .......................................................... 132

7-3. In-Progress Projects Used During Testing of the PDRI-Small Infrastructure........... 149

8-1. Characteristics of Small and Large Infrastructure Projects ....................................... 161

8-2. Structural Comparison of PDRI – Small Infrastructure and PDRI - Infrastructure .. 166

8-3. Comparison of Section I (Basis of Project Decision) Elements in PDRI –

Infrastructure Projects and PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects ............................ 170

9-1. Course Learning Objectives for CON 252 ................................................................ 191

9-2. Student comments on Execution Requirements PDRI elements ............................... 201

xiii
Table Page

9-3. Student comments on Engineering / Construction Plan and Agreements PDRI

elements .................................................................................................................... 202

xiv
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page

3-1. Research Methodology Flow Chart……………………………………………….....13

3-2. Typical Boxplot ........................................................................................................... 19

3-3. Negative and Positive Skewness ................................................................................. 20

3-4. Sample t-test Output from SPSS™ ............................................................................. 23

3-5. Sample Mann-Whitney U Test Output from SPSS™ ................................................. 25

3-6. Sample Scatterplot from Microsoft Excel ................................................................... 26

3-7. Sample Regression Model ........................................................................................... 29

4-1. Influence and Expenditures Curve for the Project Life Cycle (CII 1994)................... 34

4-2. Sample Element Description from PDRI – Industrial ................................................. 38

4-3. PDRI – Industrial Projects Section and Category Weights, and Top 10 Highest

Weighted Elements ..................................................................................................... 40

4-4. PDRI–Industrial Projects Cost, Schedule, and Change Order Performance based on

200-Point Cutoff ......................................................................................................... 41

4-5. PDRI-Building Section and Category Weights, and Top 10 Highest Weighted

Elements...................................................................................................................... 44

4-6. PDRI-Building Cost, Schedule, and Change Order Performance based on 200-Point

Cutoff .......................................................................................................................... 45

4-7. PDRI-Infrastructure Section and Category Weights, and Top 8 Highest Weighted

Elements...................................................................................................................... 47

4-8. PDRI-Infrastructure Cost, Schedule, and Change Order Performance based on 200-

Point Cutoff................................................................................................................. 48

xv
Figure Page

4-9. PDRI- Small Industrial Section and Category Weights, and Top 8 Highest Weighted

Elements...................................................................................................................... 50

4-10. PDRI – Small Industrial Cost, Schedule, and Change Order Performance based on

300-Point Cutoff ......................................................................................................... 51

4-11. Three Dimensions of Alignment in the Project Environment (Taken from CII 1997)

..................................................................................................................................... 52

4-12. IPRA Element Risk Assessment Matrix (taken from CII 2013) ............................... 57

4-13. Small Works Spectrum .............................................................................................. 73

5-1. Prevalence of Small Projects within Survey Respondent Organizations .................... 88

5-2. Front End Planning Processes for Small Projects within Survey Respondent

Organizations .............................................................................................................. 89

5-3. Overall Usage of the PDRI Within Survey Respondent Organizations ...................... 90

5-4. Comparison of the Usage of the PDRI Within Survey Respondents of both Owner and

Contractor Organizations ............................................................................................ 90

5-5. Usage and Modification of the PDRI for Small Projects within Survey Respondent

Organizations .............................................................................................................. 91

5-6. Survey Responses Regarding Project Size Differentiation Metrics ............................ 92

6-1. PDRI SECTIONS, Categories, and Elements ............................................................. 98

6-2. Weighting Workshop Summary ................................................................................ 100

6-3. Example Element Description, A.5 Project Funding ................................................ 102

6-4. Sample of Workshop Weighting Category A ............................................................ 103

6-5. Boxplots of Category A, Definition Level 5 Weights ............................................... 111

xvi
Figure Page

6-6. Workshop Participant Contribution Scores (By Score Category) (n=65) ................. 113

6-7. PDRI Sections and Total Level 5 Weights ................................................................ 117

6-8. PDRI Categories and Total Level 5 Weights ............................................................ 118

6-9. Top Eight PDRI Elements by Weight (Definition Level 5) ...................................... 119

6-10. Comparison of Top Ten Definition Level 5 Ranks from Owners and

Engineers/Contractors ............................................................................................... 121

6-11. Comparison of Top Ten Definition Level 5 Ranks from People & Freight, Fluids

and Energy Projects .................................................................................................. 124

7-1. Average Schedule Performance by PDRI Score Grouping ....................................... 133

7-2. Independent Samples t-test Results for Schedule Performance at the 300 Point PDRI

Score Cutoff .............................................................................................................. 134

7-3. Average Cost Performance by PDRI Score Grouping .............................................. 135

7-4. Independent Samples t-test Results for Cost Performance at the 300 Point PDRI Score

Cutoff ........................................................................................................................ 136

7-5. Average Change Performance by PDRI Score Grouping ......................................... 136

7-6. Independent Samples t-test Results for Change Performance at the 300 Point PDRI

Score Cutoff .............................................................................................................. 137

7-7. Cost Performance Regression Analysis Summary .................................................... 139

7-8. Change Performance Regression Analysis Summary ............................................... 140

7-9. Schedule Performance Regression Analysis Summary ............................................. 141

7-10. Average Change Performance by PDRI Score Grouping ....................................... 142

xvii
Figure Page

7-11. Independent Samples t-test Results for Alternative Change Performance at the 300

Point PDRI Score Cutoff .......................................................................................... 143

7-12. Average Financial Performance and Customer Satisfaction Rating by PDRI Score

Grouping ................................................................................................................... 144

7-13. Mann-Whitney U Test Results for Financial Performance and Customer Satisfaction

at the 300 Point PDRI Score Cutoff.......................................................................... 145

7-14. Summary of Cost, Schedule, and Change Performance at the 300 Point PDRI Score

Cutoff ........................................................................................................................ 146

7-15. Regression Line and Confidence Intervals for Cost Performance .......................... 148

7-16. Boxplot of Cost Performance at 300-point PDRI Score Breakpoint ....................... 148

8-1. Survey Responses Regarding Typical FEP Processes Used in Practice (Note four

respondents did not answer this question) ................................................................ 163

8-2. Prevalence of Small Projects in Survey Respondents’ Organizations ...................... 164

8-3. The “Traditional” FEP Diagram, which describes most large infrastructure projects’

FEP (color) ................................................................................................................ 165

8-4. Concurrent FEP, which describes FEP on some Small Infrastructure Projects ........ 165

8-5. PDRI – Infrastructure Projects Logic Flow Diagram (Color) ................................... 168

8-6. PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects Logic Flow Diagram (Color) ......................... 169

8-7. Most Important Elements from Owner and Contractor Perspectives in the PDRI –

Small Infrastructure Projects (left column) and PDRI – Infrastructure Projects (right

column) ..................................................................................................................... 173

xviii
Figure Page

8-8. Most Important Elements for Various Infrastructure Project Types in the PDRI –

Small Infrastructure Projects (left column) and PDRI – Infrastructure Projects (right

column) ..................................................................................................................... 178

8-9. Comparison of PDRI – Infrastructure and PDRI – Small Infrastructure in terms of

target score ................................................................................................................ 179

9-1. Sample element description form the PDRI-Small Infrastructure............................. 187

9-2. Template for CON 252 students to report their updated material, method and

equipment selections based on the PDRI element description ................................. 194

9-3. Students’ self-reported gains in skill level from the pre-course to the post-course

survey ........................................................................................................................ 196

9-4. Comparison of Students’ Skill Level over the course of the Spring 2017 semester . 197

9-5. The rubric used for the student performance assessment .......................................... 198

9-6. Comparison of Students’ Method Grades in a semester without PDRI, Spring 2013, to

Spring 2016 ............................................................................................................... 198

xix
 CHAPTER ONE

1 INTRODUCTION

Planning efforts conducted during the early stages of a construction project,

known as pre-project planning or front end planning, have significantly more effect on

project success than efforts undertaken after detailed design and construction has begun

(Gibson et al., 1993). The Construction Industry Institute (CII), a research consortium

based out of the University of Texas at Austin, has made project planning and scope

definition a research focus area since the early 1990’s. CII has funded the development of

several front end planning decision support tools, namely the Project Definition Rating

Index (PDRI) tools. Past CII research teams created PDRI tools to provide project teams

with a structured approach for developing a good scope definition package, and

measuring the level of project scope definition (Gibson et al., 1993). Three such PDRI

tools were developed prior to 2013: PDRI-Industrial (CII, 1995), PDRI-Building (Cho

and Gibson, 2001), and PDRI-Infrastructure (Bingham and Gibson, 2010). Researchers

leveraged project performance data from more than 1,000 projects spanning more than

250 organizations and representing over US $88 Billion in expenditure to develop these

tools. Use of the tools supported effective front end planning that in turn supported

predictable project cost, schedule, and change performance outcomes (CII, 2010a).

CII desired to develop a front end planning tool for a long-overlooked and

ubiquitous project type: small projects. They began this effort in 2013 when they

convened CII RT 314 that developed a PDRI for small industrial (Collins et al., 2015).

This effort continued in 2015, when CII extended the work of RT 314 to RT 314a that

developed a PDRI for small infrastructure projects, described herein. The research

1
outlined in this dissertation describes the development of the PDRI for Small

Infrastructure Projects (PDRI – Small Infrastructure). The objective of this dissertation is

to outline the tool development methodology, tool testing, and conclusions in relation to

the work done by the research team developing the PDRI – Small Infrastructure. The

methodologies, testing processes, and conclusions presented are corroborated in this

dissertation by statistical analysis and supporting literature.

1.1. Research Team 314a

CII tasked Research Team 314a (RT 314a) with developing an effective, simple,

and easy to use scope definition tool (i.e., PDRI tool) specifically for small infrastructure

projects in September 2015. The team consisted of fourteen industry professionals from

CII member organizations who had experience with infrastructure construction activities,

and four academic members. A list of research team members and their organizations is

included at the end of this report.

The research team met every 8-10 weeks in various locations across the United

States between September 2015 and June 2016, with meetings lasting approximately one

and a half days each occurrence. The meetings were hosted by several of the research

team members, and facilitated by the academic team members. The purpose of the initial

team meeting was to clarify the objectives of the research effort, and outline a research

strategy. The research was executed during subsequent meetings, as well as between

meetings, through collaboration and individual efforts.

The author was one of the academic members of the research team, and served in

many capacities actively participating in and supporting the research effort. The author

joined RT 314a after the team drafted the element descriptions and conducted the survey
2
to differentiate between small and large infrastructure projects. The author’s primary role

was developing the PDRI – Small Infrastructure tool through data collection, analysis,

and interpretation, described in detail throughout this dissertation. In addition, the author

conducted a rigorous comparison between PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects and

PDRI – Infrastructure Projects and proposed a pilot study to use the PDRI tool in an

undergraduate construction management classroom. The author also served as the

primary author (or one of the primary authors) for several publications required by CII

that summarized the research effort and implementation of the tool. The author further

promoted the research through several administrative tasks, including team-member

coordination, preparation for team meetings and industry workshops.

1.1.1. Research Objectives

The research team set forth the following objectives:

1. Produce a user-friendly tool for measuring project scope definition of small

infrastructure projects with the following characteristics and functions:

• Based upon the PDRI – Infrastructure, yet tailored specifically to small

infrastructure projects

• Less time-consuming than the PDRI – Infrastructure

• Is easy to use, yet detailed enough to be effective

• Helps reduce total project costs

• Improves schedule performance

• Serves as a communication and alignment tool

• Supports decision-making

3
 • Identifies risks

• Reliably predicts project performance

• Is flexible among infrastructure project types

2. Test the tool by comparing the level of project scope definition during the front

end planning phase vs. corresponding project performance factors for a sample of

completed small infrastructure projects

1.2. Project Domain

Defining “small infrastructure project” was imperative for the research team so

that guidance could be provided to PDRI users as to which infrastructure-focused PDRI

would be most appropriate for their projects: PDRI – Infrastructure or PDRI – Small

Infrastructure. The research team determined, through literature review, discussions with

the other research team members, and industry survey responses (n=47), that typical

small infrastructure projects meet the following criteria:

1. An infrastructure project such as (or similar to):

o Security bollards

o Runway resurfacing and Highway resurfacing

o Intersection rebuilds

o Adding railroad track to existing roadbeds

o Access ramps

o Pipeline recoating and Pipeline asbestos abatement and re-insulation

o Fire protection water line relocation

o Meters and regulator stations

4
 o Transmission line

o Fiber optic line and conduit

o Natural gas pipeline service feeder

o Electrical duct bank insulation

2. A project closely aligning with the following characteristics:

o Total installed cost less than US $20 Million

o Engineering effort less than 5000 man-hours

o Part-time management availability of core team members

o Construction duration between 6 and 12 months

o Less than 10 core team members (i.e., project managers, project engineers,

owner representatives)

o Moderate project visibility external to organization

o Minimal to Moderate existing utility provider interface and coordination

o The number of jurisdictions involved between 1 and 3

The research team determined that these features are typical of small

infrastructure projects, but not a strict definition. This is due to the vast variability in how

small projects are defined across the infrastructure sector. It should also be noted that the

PDRI is a general-use tool, and was developed to assess a wide range of small

infrastructure projects. The project domain includes small infrastructure projects that

convey people and freight, fluids, and energy; these projects may be new construction

projects, renovation and revamp projects, small projects that are part of a program of

many similar projects, and shutdown/turnaround projects. Detail is provided throughout

5
this dissertation that support these assertions, along with the small infrastructure project

criteria listed above.

1.3. Organization of the Dissertation

This dissertation is organized into ten chapters, and includes several appendices

that provide important additional information including the PDRI – Small Infrastructure

tool itself, detailed statistical analysis, and examples of documents utilized for gaining

industry involvement during development of the tool. Chapter 1 provides an introduction

to the research team, research objectives, project domain, and the research report

structure itself. Chapter 2 provides the problem statement of the research, and the

hypotheses developed by the research team. Chapter 3 provides the research methodology

and framework utilized by the research team in developing the PDRI – Small

Infrastructure. Chapter 4 provides a summary of the CII front end planning research

thread, previous PDRI research projects and tools, research projects and tools that support

the PDRI, and previous research regarding small projects. Chapter 5 details the results of

an industry survey regarding the prevalence of small infrastructure projects, the planning

practices used for small infrastructure projects, and potential differentiators between

small and large infrastructure projects. Chapter 6 details the development process of the

PDRI element descriptions and weighted score sheet. Chapter 7 details the testing process

completed by the research team to test the efficacy of the tool. Chapter 8 provides a

detailed qualitative and quantitative comparison of the PDRI – Infrastructure Projects and

PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects. Chapter 9 details the results of introducing PDRI

into an undergraduate construction materials, method and equipment classroom. Chapter

10 provides the conclusions of the research, and offers recommendations for future work.
6
 CHAPTER TWO

2 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

The findings from the literature review (presented in Chapter 4) showed a need

for research into the front end planning of small infrastructure projects. There has been

little research work to date in this area, especially in studying the effects of front end

planning on small project success. The lack of research led the research team to develop a

set of hypotheses. This chapter establishes a problem statement, which can be addressed

by proving or disproving the research hypotheses.

2.1. Problem Statement

Small projects account for about half of the total number of projects in the

infrastructure sector, though the size and scope of small projects vary greatly.

Individually, small projects may appear insignificant to an organization’s yearly capital

expenditure, but cumulatively, small projects can make up a majority of the projects

completed. Oftentimes appropriate planning consideration is not given to small projects,

consistently leading to cost and schedule overruns. CII developed a suite of PDRI tools

(and several complementary tools) that have consistently been shown to improve project

cost and schedule performance of large, complex projects through enhanced front end

planning. Small project research studies have found that procedures or processes

designed for large projects typically are not effective for use on small projects, as they are

too cumbersome to be effective. The infrastructure construction sector could greatly

benefit from a user-friendly, non-proprietary tool to assist in defining project scope to

maximize project success on small projects.

7
 2.2. Research Hypotheses

The PDRI – Small Infrastructure is modeled directly after the previously

developed PDRI tools: industrial, building, infrastructure, and small industrial. These

PDRI tools all share the first two same basic research hypotheses. The author asserts that

(as has been done by each of the preceding PDRI research teams) that the PDRI score

indicates the current level of scope definition, and corresponds to project performance.

Cost, schedule, and change performance differences between projects with high and low

PDRI scores were tested to confirm this assertion. This testing methodology is described

in detail in Chapter 7. The specific hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis 1: A finite and specific list of critical issues related to scope definition

of small infrastructure projects can be developed.

A draft tool was developed by the research team and shared with industry experts

to test this hypothesis. Their feedback was collected and incorporated into the list of

scope definition elements. These elements comprise a finite and specific list of critical

issues related to scope definition of small infrastructure projects.

Hypothesis 2: Projects with low PDRI scores outperform projects with high PDRI

scores.

A draft tool was provided to industry professionals experienced in completing

small infrastructure projects to test this hypothesis. Specific project data regarding (1)

scope definition (based on the PDRI tool) along with cost and schedule budgets at the
8
beginning of detailed design, and (2) project cost, schedule, and change performance at

the completion of the projects, was collected and analyzed. PDRI scores were calculated

for each project and compared to the project performance data through statistical

analysis.

Hypothesis 3: The PDRI – Infrastructure Projects and PDRI – Small

Infrastructure Projects require similar level of project definition, between

Complete Definition – Level 1 and definition with Minor Deficiencies - Level 2,

during FEP to support predictable project outcomes.

Hypothesis three addresses the differences and similarities between PDRI –

Infrastructure Projects and PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects in terms of their

structure, content and weight of the elements, most critical planning elements, and target

PDRI score. Chapter 8 identifies qualitative and quantitative similarities and differences

between PDRI – Infrastructure Projects and PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects in

support of improved planning efforts for both types of projects.

Hypothesis 4: Undergraduate students in a materials, methods, and equipment

course will improve their self-reported skill level in using industry-based tools for

construction project management after being introduced to the PDRI in a single class

session.

Hypothesis 5: Following an in-class activity where undergraduates in a

materials, methods, and equipment course articulate how a given PDRI element impacts

9
the materials, methods, and equipment, the students will improve their performance in

selecting construction methods for a hypothetical project.

Hypotheses four and five (described in Chapter 9) address the need to increase the

deployment of the PDRI beyond the construction profession. Students, particularly

undergraduate students, may not be aware of tools such as the PDRI, and therefore, they

are often ill-equipped to employ such tools early in their careers. Indeed, literature

supports the notion that students require more knowledge of tools used in the profession

when they graduate from construction management programs. The author addresses this

gap by providing documentation of how a PDRI can be introduced into an introductory

construction management course, and discusses how he tested Hypotheses four and five

in this case study.

2.3. Summary

This chapter outlined the problem statement and research hypotheses. The

research problem is derived from a need to develop a user-friendly, non-proprietary tool

to assist in defining project scope and maximizing project success on small infrastructure

projects. The research hypotheses assert that the PDRI – Small Infrastructure can

effectively improve project performance in the same manner as previously developed

PDRI tools. The following chapters detail the research methodology and hypothesis

testing procedures used in this study.

10
 CHAPTER THREE

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter outlines the research methodology employed for producing and

testing the PDRI – Small Infrastructure. This methodology was developed and proven in

previous PDRI research (Cho and Gibson, 2001, Collins et al., 2015, CII, 1995, Bingham

and Gibson, 2010) and chosen due to its reliability in achieving the research objectives

and testing the hypotheses. Specific research methods and concepts including content

analysis, conceptualization, population sampling, data collection procedures, survey

research, questionnaire development, and statistical data analysis procedures are

described in this chapter.

Table 3-1 provides a summary of the research methods and data analysis

techniques utilized to develop the PDRI – Small Infrastructure. Figure 3-1 provides a

logic flow diagram of the research methodology, providing a visual representation of the

steps undertaken by the author and the research team to test the research hypotheses

described in Chapter 2. The following sections briefly describe the flowchart and the role

of the author and research team in each step.

11
 Table 3-1. Research and Data Analysis Methods

PDRI Development Research Method Data Analysis Method

Phase Employed Employed
Conceptualization
Develop PDRI Elements
Content Analysis
and Score Sheet
Focus Groups
Focus Groups Boxplots
Purposive Sampling Skewness
PDRI Element
Snowball Sampling
Prioritization
Field Research
Statistical Analysis
Survey Research Correlation
Case Studies Independent Sample t-test
Test PDRI Research
Statistical Analysis Mann-Whitney U Test
Hypotheses
Boxplots
Regression Analysis
Survey Research Mann-Whitney U Test
Purposive Sampling
Snowball Sampling
Small Project Definition
Focus Groups
Field Research
Statistical Analysis

12
Figure 3-1. Research Methodology Flow Chart

13
 3.1. Data Collection

Data collection was necessary to develop the PDRI elements, PDRI score sheet,

prioritization of the PDRI elements, testing of the research hypotheses, and defining

small projects in the infrastructure construction sector. The following sections provide an

overview of the data collection processes and associated research methods utilized.

3.1.1. Developing the PDRI Elements and Score Sheet

Chapter 4 details the literature review completed by the research team regarding

front end planning, previously completed PDRI research projects, and small projects. The

literature review is considered a form of content analysis, defined as a study of recorded

human communications (Babbie, 2013). Reviewing the documents provided a basis or

starting point for the research team to conceptualize the PDRI – Small Infrastructure.

Conceptualization is defined as the process whereby imprecise notions or concepts are

made more specific and precise (Babbie, 2013). The initial intent was to create a tool

with the same “look and feel” of the other PDRIs. The research team developed the PDRI

– Small Infrastructure element descriptions and associated score sheet through rigorous

discussion and debate after the tool was initially conceptualized, using the PDRI –

Infrastructure as a baseline. Individuals that participated in the PDRI weighting focus

groups (described in the next section) also reviewed the PDRI element descriptions and

provided feedback regarding suggestions for improvement. Detailed explanation of the

PDRI development process is provided in Chapter 6.

14
 3.1.2. PDRI Element Prioritization

A basic tenet of front end planning is that not all items to be assessed (i.e.,

elements) are equally critical to project success. Therefore, each element must be

prioritized relative to the total set of elements. Collecting input from all stakeholders

involved with small infrastructure projects regarding element prioritization would be

impossible. The research team utilized focus groups to gain prioritization data from a

subset of the total infrastructure construction stakeholder population, as had been done by

the previous PDRI research teams. Focus groups are simply a group of subjects

interviewed together, prompting a discussion (Babbie, 2013). Seven such focus groups

were convened to weight the PDRI elements. Purposive and snowball sampling

techniques were used to empanel the focus groups. Purposive sampling, also referred to

as judgmental sampling, is a method in which individuals are selected to be part of the

sample based on the researcher’s judgment as to which individuals would be the most

useful or representative of the entire population (Babbie, 2013). Industry experts with

substantial experience in the management and/or design of small infrastructure projects

were targeted to participate in the weighting workshops (i.e., focus groups). Snowball

sampling, or requesting that targeted individuals suggest other individuals with similar

expertise (Babbie, 2013) was used to increase workshop attendance. A detailed

description of the workshop procedures is provided in Chapter 6.

3.1.3. Test PDRI Research Hypotheses

Chapter 2 details three hypotheses the research team sought to test. Hypothesis 1

- that a finite list of critical issues relating to scope definition of small infrastructure

15
projects could be developed - was tested through the focus group sessions described in

the previous section, and detailed in Chapter 6. Hypothesis 2 - that projects with low

PDRI scores outperform projects with high PDRI scores - was tested through surveying

industry professionals through the use of a detailed questionnaire. A questionnaire is a

document containing questions designed to solicit information appropriate for analysis

(Babbie, 2013). RT 314a developed a multi-part questionnaire that solicited information

regarding PDRI Score, cost, schedule, change, and operating performance of recently

completed small infrastructure projects through a series of open-ended and closed-ended

questions. The author used statistical techniques (described later in this chapter) to test

the value of the tool through comparison of PDRI scores and project performance.

RT314a also developed a questionnaire for in-progress projects; projects currently

in the front end planning phase during the PDRI – Small Infrastructure testing timeframe.

Data collected on the in-progress projects were used as case studies, or an in-depth

examination of a single instance (Babbie, 2013). RT314a collected data on in-progress

projects to discern the various types of small infrastructure projects that the PDRI could

be used to assess, typical gap-lists generated, and to determine if value was added to the

in-progress projects during the assessments. Chapter 7 details the PDRI testing progress

of both completed and in-progress projects.

3.1.4. Small Project Definition

Defining “small project” as it relates to infrastructure projects was necessary to

distinguish the PDRI – Small Infrastructure from the PDRI – Infrastructure. The research

team developed a questionnaire (analyzed, and interpreted by the author) to gain industry

16
perspective regarding this definition. Open and closed-ended questions and a matrix of 16

separate potential small and large project differentiators were generated based on the

small project research previously completed by CII and others, described in Chapter 5.

The questionnaire also included a set of closed-ended questions regarding the prevalence

of small projects, and typical front end planning practices employed for small projects.

Purposive and snowball sampling was used to elicit responses, mainly through targeting

CII data liaisons and individuals associated with the research team members. Results

from the completed questionnaires were mixed. The questionnaire respondents agreed

with few of the metrics identified by the research team as being differentiators between

small and large projects. Many of the respondents noted that measures of “project

complexity” might be a better way to differentiate between small and large projects.

3.2. Data Analysis

The author used several statistical methods to analyze the data collected from the

questionnaires and weighting workshops. Statistical analysis allowed the author to

interpret the data, and provided a basis for the author to offer recommendations to the

research team and to CII membership at large. The next few sections describe the

statistical methods employed by the author, including boxplots, regression analysis, t-

tests, and Mann-Whitney U-tests. These methods were chosen due to their successful

usage on the previously developed PDRIs. Note that the Mann Whitney U-tests, were

only used during statistical data analysis for the PDRI – Small Industrial tool. Microsoft

Excel™ and SPSS™ were the two primary software platforms used to aggregate and

analyze data.

17
 It should be noted that RT314a made every effort to keep confidential any

personal or proprietary information collected from individuals that provided data to

support the research effort. Responses were coded during the analysis as to make

anonymous all individual, organization, project, or client names or indicators.

3.2.1. The Boxplot

Boxplots are a commonly used method for graphically summarizing the

distribution of a data set (Morrison, 2009). The author utilized boxplots to analyze

element-weighting data collected during the industry workshops (described in Chapter

6,7), and completed project data collected to test the tool (described in Chapter 7).

Figure 3-2 details the typical values provided by a boxplot. The “box” highlights

the interquartile range of the dataset; values between the 25th and 75th percentile

(Morrison, 2009). Fifty percent of the dataset falls within this range. The median value is

also shown as a horizontal line. If the median does not fall at the center point of the

interquartile range, this denotes skewness to the dataset (Morrison, 2009), described

further in the next section. The boxplot will also indicate values that fall outside of the

interquartile range, namely outlier and extreme values. Outlier and extreme values can

skew the statistics of a dataset, specifically causing mean and/or median values to shift

away from the central point (Morrison, 2009). The largest and smallest observed-values

not considered outliers or extremes are indicated on the boxplot by a “whisker”, or lines

extending above and below the box.

18
 Values that are more than 3 box-lengths above
* the 75th percentile (extremes)
Values that are more than 1.5 box-lengths
above the 75th percentile (outliers)
Largest observed value that is not an outlier or
extreme

75th Percentile

Median

25th Percentile

Smallest observed value that is not an outlier

or extreme

Values that are more than 1.5 box-lengths

below the 35th percentile (outliers)
Values that are more than 3 box-lengths below
* the 25th percentile (extremes)

Figure 3-2. Typical Boxplot

A data point is considered an outlier value (X) if:

X < (Q1 – 1.5 IQR) or X > (Q3 + 1.5 IQR)

Where:

Q1 = 25th percentile value and Q3 = 75th percentile value

IQR = Interquartile range = Q1 – Q3

A data point is considered an extreme value (Y) if:

Y < (Q1 – 3 IQR) or Y > (Q3 + 3 IQR)

Where:

Q1 = 25th percentile value and Q3 = 75th percentile value

IQR = Interquartile range = Q1 – Q3

19
 3.2.2. Skewness

Statistical analysis methods, such as independent-sample t-tests, assume that a

dataset is normally distributed, or symmetric around some central value such as the mean

or median of the dataset (Morrison 2009). If a dataset is highly skewed, mean and median

calculations will also be skewed (Morrison, 2009). Outlier and extreme values described

in the previous section can lead to skewness. Figure 3-3 highlights positively and

negatively skewed distribution.

Negative Positive

Figure 3-3. Negative and Positive Skewness

3.2.3. Independent Samples t-tests

In theory, two groups may have the same mean, but the data within those groups

may be dispersed differently (Morrison, 2009). Groups with a tighter clustering of data

points around the mean value will have a higher statistical significance than those groups

where the data points are more dispersed (Morrison, 2009). Independent sample t-tests

are used to determine if the means of two groups are statistically different from one

another (Morrison, 2009). The author utilized independent sample t-tests to compare

projects at various PDRI score levels vs. project cost, schedule and performance values

(described in Chapter 7).

20
 The t-statistic is calculated as:

𝑥! ! 𝑥!
𝑡=
𝑠!! 𝑠!!
+
𝑛! 𝑛!

Where:

𝑛! and 𝑛! = sample sizes

𝑥! and 𝑥! = sample means

𝑠! and 𝑠! = sample standard deviations

The null hypothesis, or HO, is that the mean values of the two groups being tested

against each other are equal, or nearly equal (Morrison, 2009). The alternate hypothesis,

or H1, is that the mean values of the two groups being tested against each other are not

equal, or nearly equal (Morrison, 2009). The t-value derived from the t-statistic equation

is tested against a critical t-value, to test of the null hypothesis is to be accepted or

rejected (Morrison, 2009). The critical t-value is dependent on the degrees of freedom of

the samples (Morrison, 2009). Values derived from the t-tests also have an associated p-

value, or probability, which is used to determine if the difference between mean values of

the groups are statistically significant (Morrison, 2009). A confidence interval for the test

is stated; the typical confidence interval being 95 percent, which corresponds to an alpha

level (or rejection level) of 5 percent (Morrison, 2009). If the associated p-value from the

t-test is greater than .05 (i.e., 5 percent), then there is a greater than 5 percent chance that

the mean values of the two groups being compared are equal, or nearly equal, and the null

hypothesis is accepted. If the associated p-value from the t-test is less than or equal to .05

21
(i.e., 5 percent), then there is a less than 5 percent chance that the mean values of the two

groups being compared are equal, or nearly equal, and the null hypothesis is rejected.

An assumption of the t-test is that the two groups being compared have equal

variance (Morrison, 2009). The Levene’s test for Equality of Variance is used to

determine if two groups being compared have equal variance, if the sample size is small

(i.e., total sample size is less than 100 and if either group in the sample is less than 30).

Levene’s test is also an hypothesis test, where the null hypothesis, or HO, is that the

variances of the two groups being tested against each other are not equal, or nearly equal

(Morrison, 2009). The alternate hypothesis, or H1, is that the variances of the two groups

being tested against each other are equal, or nearly equal (Morrison, 2009). Levene’s test

also uses a p-value to determine statistical significance. If the associated p-value from the

test is greater than .05 (i.e., 5 percent), then there is a greater than 5 percent chance that

the variances of the two groups being compared are equal, or nearly equal, and the null

hypothesis is accepted. If the associated p-value from the t-test is less than or equal to .05

(i.e., 5 percent), then there is a les than 5 percent chance that the variances of the two

groups being compared are not equal, or nearly equal, and the null hypothesis is rejected.

Statistical tools such as SPSS™ can be utilized to perform t-tests. Figure 3-4

provides a sample SPSS™ Levene’s T-test output. As shown, the variances between the

two groups have equal variance (i.e., the p-value is .874, which is greater than .05), and

the two groups have a statistically significant difference (i.e., the p-value is .010, which is

less than .05). However, if Levene’s Mean test is statistically significant (p < .05), then

variances are significantly different and the assumption of equal variances is not met. In

that case, the Equal variances not assumed line would be used – for which SPSS adjusts
22
the test statistic (t), degreeds of freedom (df), and significance (p) as appropriate. Both

the top and bottom rows of the Levene’s T-test output provide the same information;

however, they use different tests to calculate the test statistic, which results in slightly

different calculations.

Levene's Test for

Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Equal variances
.025 .874 2.744 31 .010 6.09821 2.22233 1.56575 10.63068
assumed
Performance
Equal variances
2.704 22.039 .013 6.09821 2.25491 1.42230 10.77413
not assumed

Figure 3-4. Sample t-test Output from SPSS™

3.2.4. Mann-Whitney U Test

Mann-Whitney U Tests are used when comparing mean values of two groups

where data within the groups are based on a ranked order-scale (Wilcox, 2009). An

example of a ranked-order scale is a Likert scale. The Mann-Whitney U Test is similar to

t-tests, but is used for comparing means where equal variance cannot be assumed,

referred to as being nonparametric (Wilcox, 2009). The author utilized Mann-Whitney U

Tests to compare financial performance and customer satisfaction scores of completed

projects used to test the PDRI (described in Chapter 7).

The Mann-Whitney U statistic is calculated as:

𝑁! (𝑁! + 1)
𝑈 = 𝑁! 𝑁! + − 𝑅!
2
Where:

N1 and N2 = Sample sizes

23
 R1 = Sum total of ranks for Sample 1

The sampling distribution of U has a mean, 𝜇! , calculated as:

𝑁! 𝑁!
𝜇! =
2
The sampling distribution has a variance calculated as:

𝑁! 𝑁! (𝑁! + 𝑁! + 1)
𝜎!! =
12
The distribution of U is assumed to be a normal, or Z distribution. The Z value to
compare against the critical Z value of 1.96 is calculated as:

𝑈 − 𝜇!
𝑈=
𝜎!

Statistical tools such as SPSS™ can be utilized to perform Mann-Whitney U tests.

Figure 3-7 provides a sample SPSS™ output. The test statistics table is used to determine

if the there is a statistical difference between the two groups through the calculation of a

probability, or p-value. A confidence level for the statistical significance is stated; the

typical confidence level being 95 percent, which corresponds to an alpha level (or

rejection level) of 5 percent (Wilcox, 2009). If the p-value of the test is greater than .05

(i.e., 5 percent), then there is not a statistical difference between rank-order of the two

groups (Wilcox, 2009). If the p-value of the test is less than .05 (i.e., 5 percent), then

there is a statistical difference between rank-order of the two groups (Wilcox, 2009). As

shown, the test shown in Figure 3-5 does not show a statistically significant difference

between the two groups (i.e., the p-value is .191, or greater than .05).

24
 Mann-Whitney Test
Ranks

N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

1.00 19 17.63 335.00

Test Groups 2.00 12 13.42 161.00
Total 31
Test Statistics a

Group 1

Mann-Whitney U 83.000
Wilcoxon W 161.000
Z -1.308
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .191

Figure 3-5. Sample Mann-Whitney U Test Output from SPSS™

3.2.5. Correlation

Correlation, commonly denoted as r, measures the strength of the linear

relationship between a set of two quantitative variables (Sorola and Moore, 2010). The

author calculated correlation as part of the regression analysis performed to compare

PDRI scores and project performance of completed projects (described in Chapter 7).

Aggregated data in the form of dependent (Y) and independent (X) variables are

first graphed in the form of a scatterplot as shown in Figure 3-6. Independent variables,

or response variables, are graphed based on their position along the Y-axis, and

dependent variables, or explanatory variables, are graphed based on their position along

the X-axis (Sorola and Moore, 2010). Statistical tools such as Microsoft Excel™ and

SPSS™ can be utilized to create scatterplots.

25
 35

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Figure 3-6. Sample Scatterplot from Microsoft Excel

The independent variable is assumed to predict behavior of the dependent variable

(Sorola and Moore, 2010). The strength of the relationship is determined by how closely

the points follow a clear form or direction. Calculating r provides this determination.

r is calculated as:

1 𝑥! − 𝑥 𝑦! − 𝑦
𝑟=
𝑛−1 𝑠! 𝑠!

Where:

n = total sample size

𝑥 = sample mean value of x

𝑦 = sample mean of y,

𝑠! = sample standard deviation of x

𝑠! = sample standard deviation of y

26
 A positive r-value indicates a positive association between the variables, and a

negative r value indicates a negative association. r-values will always be numbers

between -1 and 1, where a value close to 0 indicates a weak correlation between the

variables and a value closer to -1 or 1 indicates a strong correlation (Sorola and Moore,

2010). Outlier and extreme values in the data set can skew these values.

3.2.6. Regression Analysis

A simple linear regression model attempts to model the relationship between one

independent (Y) and one dependent (X) variable, with the basic assumption that the

relationship between the variables behaves in a linear fashion (Waissi, 2015). The author

performed regression analysis to compare PDRI scores and project performance of

completed projects (described in Chapter 7).

Linear regression, also known as least squares estimation, uses formulas for

finding the y-intercept and slope of a line such that the sum of squares distances of the

data points from the line itself are kept to a minimum (Waissi, 2015).

The equation used to generate a regression line for linear bivariate regression is:

𝑌 = 𝑏! 𝑋 + 𝑏!

Where:
!!
b1 = slope or regression coefficient, calculated as b1 = r
!!

b0 = Y Intercept, calculated as b0 = 𝑦 - b1𝑥

The strength of the regression model (i.e., fit) is calculated as r2, where:

27
 𝑆𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑠 (𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙)
𝑟! =
𝑆𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑠 (𝑅𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛)

The r2 value, denotes how well the regression equation explains the dependency

between the X and Y variables. The r2 value will always be positive, and between 0 and

1. The r2 value denotes what percentage of the variation in the dependent variable (Y) is

explained by the dependent variable (X) (Waissi, 2015).

Statistical tools such as Microsoft Excel™ and SPSS™ can be utilized to perform

regression modeling. Figure 3-7 shows the trendline, regression equation and r2 value of

the scatterplot provided in Figure 3-7. As shown, the dependent variable (X) explains

approximately 74 percent of the variation in the independent variable (Y).

28
 35
y = 0.5911x + 1.2408
R² = 0.73902
30

25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Model Summary
Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square
Estimate
1 .860a .739 .730 4.42072
ANOVA a
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 1549.503 1 1549.503 79.288 .000b
1 Residual 547.197 28 19.543
Total 2096.700 29
Coefficients a
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 1.241 1.833 .677 .504
1
X .591 .066 .860 8.904 .000

Figure 3-7. Sample Regression Model

Figure 3-5 also includes the SPSS™ regression modeling output, which includes

the model summary, the analysis of variance (i.e., ANOVA) table, and the coefficients

table. The ANOVA table is used to determine of the regression model is statistically

significant through the calculation of a probability, or p-value (denoted as “Sig.” in

SPSS™). A confidence level for the statistical significance is stated; the typical

confidence level being 95 percent, which corresponds to an alpha level (or rejection

level) of 5 percent . If the p-value of the regression model is greater than .05 (i.e., 5

29
percent), then a significant portion of the total variability in the data is primarily due to

randomness, or error in the model (Waissi, 2015). If the p-value of the regression model

is less than .05 (i.e., 5 percent), then a significant portion of the total variability in the

data can be attributed to the relationship between the variables (Waissi, 2015). As shown,

the model given in Figure 3-7 is statistically significant (i.e., the p-value is .000, or less

than .05).

The coefficients table is used to determine if the model parameters (i.e., the y-

intercept and slope) are significantly different than zero. A confidence level for the

statistical significance is stated; the typical confidence level being 95 percent, which

corresponds to an alpha level (or rejection level) of 5 percent (Waissi, 2015). If the p-

value of the model parameter is greater than .05 (i.e., 5 percent), then the parameter is not

statistically different than zero (Waissi, 2015). If the p-value of the model parameter is

less than .05 (i.e., 5 percent), then the parameter is statistically different than zero

(Waissi, 2015). As shown, the constant (i.e., y-intercept) in the model given in Figure 4-6

is not statistically significant (i.e., the p-value is .504, or greater than .05), but the slope

(i.e., X) is statistically significant (i.e., the p-value is .000, or less than .05).

3.3. Limitations of the Data Analyses

Several limitations exist with this data analysis, as with any data analysis.

Optimally, the projects utilized to weight the PDRI, and the projects used to test the

PDRI would come from a random sample. In this case, the data collected came from

individuals who volunteered to participate in the research study. The RT314a stressed to

focus group members that both “good” and “bad” projects were desired. However, the

final selection of projects used during the workshop sessions came from the focus group
30
members themselves, and they seem to have disproportionally “bad” projects. As such,

generalizing the results of this study to the entire population is not possible.

The second limitation to this study stems from data collected during the testing

process. Collecting “after the fact” data required respondents to refer back to the point in

time just prior to the start of detailed design on the chosen projects. This point may have

been weeks, months, or even years prior to the volunteer completing the testing

questionnaire. This method may have led to inaccurate information due to memory lapse

of the project participants during that time period. Having knowledge of the actual project

outcomes may also have biased the respondent’s answers to be more or less favorable.

However, given the short schedule of the research investigation, tracking projects from

planning through completion was not possible.

3.4. Summary

This chapter outlined the research methodology employed for producing and

testing the PDRI – Small Infrastructure. Seven separate focus groups were empaneled to

gain industry perspective on the PDRI tool itself, as well as prioritization of the elements.

Questionnaires were developed to test the tool on both completed and in-progress

projects. A questionnaire was also developed to gain industry perspective on small

infrastructure projects. Various statistical methods were used to analyze the data

received.

31
 CHAPTER FOUR

4 LITERATURE REVIEW

The RT314a performed a literature review to establish a theoretical baseline

concerning previous research investigations into front end planning and small projects.

The articles and studies detailed in this chapter served as the starting point for the

research team to develop the PDRI – Small Infrastructure tool. This chapter introduces

and discusses relevant organizations, terms, research, and existing tools central to the

development of the tool.

4.1. Construction Industry Institute Research

This section details the literature review findings stemming from the Construction

Industry Institute, including the project definition rating index (PDRI) tools, and front

end planning tools associated with the PDRI.

4.1.1. The Construction Industry Institute (CII)

The Construction Industry Institute (CII) is a unique knowledge creation

organization and consortium of owner, engineering-contractor, and supplier firms that

join together to enhance the business effectiveness and sustainability of the capital

facility life cycle through research. The purpose of CII is to measurably improve the

delivery of capital facilities. This purpose is achieved through the funding of

collaborative research where academics and industry professionals unite to identify and

address significant opportunities for construction industry improvement. CII’s mission is

stated as (CII Website 2015):

32
 CII creates global, competitive, and market advantages for its members

through its research-based, member-driven creation of knowledge and CII

Best Practices. The institute’s ability to disseminate this knowledge and

assess its implementation gives members a decisive industry edge.

Employees of CII member organizations cooperatively engage with

leading academics to generate CII knowledge; this unprecedented

partnering of industry and academia creates the perfect forum for

identifying the most significant opportunities for industry improvement.

These industry participants and academics also benefit from the

professional development and career advancement the collaborative effort

provides.

Front end planning has been considered by CII to be a Best Practice for over 15

years, which has led to a considerable amount of research into this area. The development

of the PDRI – Small Infrastructure was sponsored by CII as a research investigation in

2015. Several key terms and definitions produced by previous CII research teams are

provided in the next few sections.

4.1.2. Early CII Research into Project Planning

Research into the relationship between pre-project planning impacts and facility

construction outcomes had not been conducted prior to 1991 (CII, 1994a). CII established

the Pre-Project Planning Task Force in 1991 to outline the functions involved in the pre-

project planning of capital facilities. The task force defined pre-project planning as “the

process of developing sufficient strategic information for owners to address risk and
33
decide to commit resources to maximize the chance for a successful project” (Gibson et

al., 1993). Pre-project planning is considered an important subset of the overall project

planning endeavor; it begins after the business leadership of an organization deems a

project concept desirable, and continues until the beginning of detailed design and

construction of a project (Gibson et al. 1995). Decisions made during the early stages of

the project life cycle have a much greater influence on a project’s outcome than those

made in later stages (CII, 1994a), illustrated in Figure 4-1.

Figure 4-1. Influence and Expenditures Curve for the Project Life Cycle (CII 1994)

The Pre-Project Planning Task Force developed a generic model expressing the

typical pre-project planning process (Gibson et al., 1993, CII, 1995), a quantitative study

comparing pre-project planning effort vs. project success factors (Hamilton and Gibson,

1996, Gibson and Hamilton, 1994), and culminated with a pre-project planning handbook

that detailed specific steps typical in planning capital projects (CII, 1995). The Task

34
Force found that well performed pre-project planning could reduce the total project

design and construction costs by as much as 20 percent, reduce the total project design

and construction schedule by as much as 39 percent, improve project predictability in

terms of cost, schedule, and operating performance, and increase the chance of a project

meeting stated environmental and social goals (CII, 1994a, Gibson and Hamilton, 1994,

Hamilton and Gibson, 1996).

4.1.3. Project Scope Definition Tools

CII initiated the development of three pre-project planning tools for quantifying,

rating, and assessing project planning efforts based on the conclusions found by the Pre-

Project Planning Task Force, namely the Project Definition Rating Index (i.e., PDRI)

tools, between the years of 1994 and 2013. Separate research teams developed tools to

specifically address large and small industrial projects, building projects, and

infrastructure projects. The purpose of the tools is three-fold: (1) to provide a structured

planning process for use during the front end planning phase of a project, (2) to provide a

quantitative measure (i.e., a score) of the level of scope definition of a project, and (3) to

correlate the level of scope definition to typical project success factors so that project

stakeholders can determine whether to move a project forward into detailed design and

construction.

4.1.3.1. PDRI-Industrial

CII formed the Front End Planning Research Team in 1994 to “produce effective,

simple, easy-to-use pre-project planning tools that extend the work of the Pre-Project

Planning Research Team so that owner and contractor companies can better achieve

35
business, operational, and project objectives” (CII, 1995). The 16 individuals (from both

industry and academia) that made up the research team were initially split into two

separate sub-teams: one team tasked with developing a tool for measuring project scope

development of industrial construction projects, and the other tasked with developing a

guideline for measuring alignment within project teams. (The outcomes of the alignment

research are provided in section 4.1.4.1).

The Front End Planning Research Team determined that, at a minimum, any tools

developed for measuring project scope definition should provide (CII, 1995):

• A checklist that a project team can use for determining the necessary steps to

follow in defining the project scope

• A listing of standardized scope definition terminology throughout the construction

industry

• An industry standard for rating the completeness of the project scope definition to

facilitate risk assessment and prediction of escalation, potential for disputes, etc.

• A means to monitor progress at various stages during the pre-project planning

effort

• A tool that aids in communication between owners and design contractors by

highlighting poorly defined areas in a scope definition package

• A means for project team participants to reconcile differences using a common

basis for project evaluation

• A training tool for companies and individuals throughout the industry

36
 • A benchmarking tool for companies to use in evaluating completion of scope

definition versus the performance of past projects, both within their company and

externally, in order to predict the probability of success on future projects.

The research team developed the Project Definition Rating Index-Industrial

Projects (PDRI-Industrial) to address these challenges. The research team considered

industrial projects to include the following types of facilities (CII, 1995):

• Oil/gas production facilities

• Chemical plants

• Paper mills

• Power plants

• Food processing plants

• Textile mills

• Pharmaceutical plants

• Steel/aluminum mills

• Manufacturing facilities

• Refineries

The PDRI – Industrial tool includes two main components: a structured list of

descriptions detailing specific elements that should be addressed during the front end

planning phase of industrial projects, and a weighted score sheet that corresponds to the

element descriptions. The purpose of the weighted score sheet is to quantitatively gauge

the scope definition of a project. The research team identified 70 elements critical to the

planning of industrial construction projects. The research team divided the elements into

three separate sections (Basis of Project Decision, Front End Definition, Execution
37
Approach), and further divided the elements into 15 categories. This arrangement places

similar elements together for ease of discussion during pre-project planning assessments.

Each element also has a detailed narrative that provides description of the element, and

certain additional items to consider when assessing a project. Figure 4-2 provides an

example of element A.1 Reliability Philosophy from the PDRI – Industrial. The structure

of each element in the PDRI is typical of Figure 4-2.

A.1 Reliability Philosophy

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

operating performance from the unit/facility or upgrades instituted for this

project. Evaluation criteria should include:

Justification of spare equipment

Control, alarm, security and safety systems redundancy, and access control

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)

Identify critical equipment and measures to be taken to prevent loss due to

sabotage or natural disaster

Other

**Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects**

Potential impacts to existing operations

Figure 4-2. Sample Element Description from PDRI – Industrial

38
 The research team hypothesized that all elements within the PDRI were not

equally important regarding their potential impact to overall project success. The team

convened two workshops where 54 project managers and estimators experienced with a

variety of industrial construction projects provided input concerning the relative

importance (i.e., weight) of each element included in the PDRI. The team developed the

PDRI score sheet based on the element prioritization data provided by the workshop

participants, deriving a scoring scheme for the score sheet such that a lower score

indicates a project with a greater level of scope definition, while a higher score indicates

a lesser amount of scope definition. Each element in the PDRI was given five potential

levels of definition, ranging from complete definition (i.e., Level 1) to little to no

definition (i.e., Level 5). The workshop participants provided weights for each element at

each score level.

The typical PDRI scoring scheme is such that a project with all elements assessed

as Level 1 totals 70, and a project with all elements assessed as Level 5 totals 1000. Level

2, 3, and 4 scores range between the Level 1 and Level 5 scores. Any elements deemed

not applicable during a project assessment would lower the potential total project score

on a pro-rata basis, depending on the weighting of non-applicable elements. Figure 4-3

provides a section and category breakdown of the finalized PDRI – Industrial Projects

score sheet, based on definition Level 5 weights of the elements in each section and

category. Figure 4-3 also provides the top ten highest weighted elements in the PDRI –

Industrial Projects, based on the definition Level 5 weights. These ten elements were

deemed to be the most critical to project success of all of the 70 elements included in the

tool, hence the most critical to address during front end planning of an industrial project.

39
 Section Weight
I. Basis of Project Decision 499
II. Basis of Design 423
III. Execution Approach 78
1000

Category Weight
A. Manufacturing Objectives Criteria 45
B. Business Objectives 213
C. Basic Data Research & Development 94
D. Project Scope 120
E. Value Engineering 27
F. Site Information 104
G. Process/Mechanical 196
H. Equipment Scope 33
I. Civil, Structural & Architectural 19
J. Infrastructure 25
K. Instrument & Electrical 46
L. Procurement Strategy 16
M. Deliverables 9
N. Project Control 17
P. Project Execution Plan 36
1000

Element Weight
B.1 Products 56
B.5 Capacities 55
C.1 Technology 54
C.2 Processes 40
G.1 Process Flow Sheets 36
F.1 Site Location 32
G.3 Piping & Inst. Diagrams (P&ID's) 31
D.3 Site Characteristics (Avail. Vs. Req) 29
B.2 Market Strategy 26
D.1 Project Objectives Statement 25
384/1000

Figure 4-3. PDRI – Industrial Projects Section and Category Weights, and Top 10
Highest Weighted Elements

40
 The team confirmed the element weightings through testing of the PDRI-

Industrial on 40 completed projects, totaling over $3.3 billion in expenditure (CII, 1995).

The research team determined through analyzing the 40 completed projects that projects

with PDRI scores lower than 200 statistically outperformed projects with PDRI scores

above 200 regarding cost, schedule, and change order performance. Figure 4-4 provides a

summary of the PDRI-Industrial testing results at the 200-point PDRI score cutoff.

PDRI Score
Performance < 200 > 200 Δ
5% below 14% above
Cost 19%
budget budget
1% behind 12% behind
Schedule 11%
schedule schedule
2% of 8% of
Change Orders 6%
total cost total cost
(n=20) (n=20)

Figure 4-4. PDRI–Industrial Projects Cost, Schedule, and Change Order

Performance based on 200-Point Cutoff

4.1.3.2. PDRI-Building

The Front End Planning Research Team concluded that separate PDRI tools

should be developed for industrial, building, and infrastructure Projects. The success of

the PDRI-Industrial tool led CII to form Research Team 155 in 1998 for the purpose of

developing a PDRI tool specifically for building projects. The PDRI-Building was

developed for building projects, excluding residential houses, performed in both the

public and private sector, and was most applicable to multi-story or single story

commercial, institutional, or light industrial facilities such as (Cho and Gibson, 1999):
41
 • Offices

• Banks

• Medical facilities

• Institutional buildings

• Dormitories

• Hotels/motels

• Warehouses

• Churches

• Recreational/athletic facilities

• Industrial control buildings

• Schools

• Research and laboratory facilities

• Nursing homes

• Stores/shopping centers

• Apartments

• Parking structures

• Light assembly/manufacturing

• Airport terminals

• Public assembly/performance halls

Research Team 155 utilized the same development and testing procedure

established by the Front End Planning Research Team (CII, 1995) when developing the

PDRI-Building. The team identified 64 elements critical to the planning of building

42
construction projects. The elements were broken into three separate sections (Basis of

Project Decision, Basis of Design, Execution Approach), and further broken down into

11 categories. Each element had a detailed narrative providing description of the element,

and certain additional items to consider when assessing a project. The element

descriptions were structured similar to the PDRI-Industrial element descriptions, shown

in Figure 4-2.

The team convened seven workshops in various locations across the United States

where 69 project managers, architects and engineers experienced with a variety of

building construction projects provided input concerning the relative importance (i.e.,

weight) of each element included in the PDRI. The team used the element prioritization

data provided by the workshop participants to develop the weighted PDRI score sheet.

The team used the same scoring scheme as the PDRI-Industrial, where scores range from

70-1000, and a lower score indicates a greater level of scope definition.

Figure 4-5 provides a section and category breakdown of the finalized PDRI score

sheet, based on definition Level 5 weights of the elements in each section and category.

The sections and categories are listed from highest total weight to lowest total weight.

Figure 4-5 also provides the top ten highest weighted elements in the PDRI-Building,

based on the definition Level 5 weights. These ten elements were deemed to be the most

critical to project success of all of the 64 elements included in the tool, hence the most

critical to completely address during front end planning of a building project.

43
 Section Weight
I. Basis of Project Decision 413
II. Basis of Design 428
III. Execution Approach 159
1000

Category Weight
A. Business Strategy 214
B. Owner Philosophies 68
C. Project Requirements 131
D. Site Information 108
E. Building Programming 162
F. Building/Project Design Parameters 122
G. Equipment 36
H. Procurement Strategy 25
I. Deliverables 11
J. Project Control 63
K. Project Execution Plan 60
1000

Element Weight
A.1 Building Use 44
A.5 Facility Requirements 31
A.7 Site Selection Considerations 28
A.2 Business Justification 27
C.6 Project Cost Estimate 27
A.3 Business Plan 26
C.2 Project Design Criteria 24
C.3 Evaluation of Existing Facilities 24
A.6 Future Expans./Alt. Considerations 22
F.2 Architectural Design 22
275/1000

Figure 4-5. PDRI-Building Section and Category Weights, and Top 10 Highest
Weighted Elements

The team confirmed the element weightings through testing of the PDRI tool on

33 completed building projects, totaling nearly $900 million in expenditure. The team

determined through analyzing the 33 completed projects that projects with PDRI scores

44
lower than 200 statistically outperformed projects with PDRI scores above 200 regarding

cost, schedule, and change order performance, the same as the PDRI-Industrial. Figure 4-

6 provides a summary of the PDRI-Building testing results at the 200-point PDRI score

cutoff.

PDRI Score
Performance < 200 > 200 Δ
1% above 6% above
Cost 5%
budget budget
2% behind 12% behind
Schedule 10%
schedule schedule
7% of 10% of
Change Orders 3%
budget budget
(n=16) (n=17)

Figure 4-6. PDRI-Building Cost, Schedule, and Change Order Performance based
on 200-Point Cutoff

4.1.3.3. PDRI-Infrastructure

CII formed Research Team 268 in 2008 to develop a PDRI tool specifically for

Infrastructure projects. The research team defined an infrastructure project as (Bingham

and Gibson, 2010):

An infrastructure project is defined as a project that provides transportation,

transmission, distribution, collection or other capabilities supporting commerce or

interaction of goods, service, or people. Infrastructure projects generally impact multiple

jurisdictions, stakeholder groups and/or a wide area. They are characterized as projects

with a primary purpose that is integral to the effective operation of a system. These

collective capabilities provide a service and are made up of nodes and vectors into a grid

system (e.g., pipelines (vectors) connected with a water treatment plant (node)).

45
 Research Team 268 utilized the same development and testing procedure

established by the Front End Planning Research Team (CII, 1995) and Research Team

155 (Cho and Gibson, 1999) when developing the PDRI – Infrastructure. The team

identified 68 elements critical to the planning of infrastructure construction projects. The

elements were broken into three separate sections (Basis of Project Decision, Basis of

Design, Execution Approach), and further broken down into 13 categories. Each element

had a detailed narrative providing a description of the element, and certain additional

items to consider when assessing a project. The element descriptions were structured

similar to the PDRI – Industrial and PDRI – Building element descriptions, shown in

Figure 4-2.

The team convened six workshops in various locations across the United States

and Great Britain where 64 industry professionals representing multiple owner and

contractor organizations experienced with a variety of infrastructure construction projects

provided input concerning the relative importance (i.e., weight) of each element included

in the PDRI. The team used the element prioritization data provided by the workshop

participants to develop the weighted PDRI score sheet. The team used the same scoring

scheme as the PDRI – Industrial and PDRI – Building, where scores range from 70-1000,

and a lower score indicates a greater level of scope definition.

Figure 4-7 provides a section and category breakdown of the finalized PDRI score

sheet, based on definition Level 5 weights of the elements in each section and category.

The sections and categories are listed from highest total weight to lowest total weight.

Figure 4-7 also provides the top eight highest weighted elements in the PDRI-

Infrastructure, based on the definition Level 5 weights. These eight elements were

46
deemed to be the most critical to project success of all of the 68 elements included in the

tool, hence the most critical to completely address during front end planning of an

infrastructure project.

Section Weight
I. Basis of Project Decision 437
II. Basis of Design 293
III. Execution Approach 270
1000

Category Weight
A. Project Strategy 112
B. Owner/Operator Philosophies 67
C. Project Funding and Timing 70
D. Project Requirements 143
E. Value Analysis 45
F. Site Information 119
G. Location and Geometry 47
H. Associated Structures and Equipment 47
I. Project Design Parameters 80
J. Land Acquisition Strategy 60
K. Procurement Strategy 47
L. Project Control 80
M. Project Execution Plan 83
1000

Element Weight
A.1 Need and Purpose Documentation 44
A.2 Investment Studies & Alternate Assess. 28
C.3 Contingencies 27
L.2 Design and Construction Cost Estimates 25
B.1 Design Philosophy 22
C.2 Preliminary Project Schedule 22
D.3 Evaluation of Compliance Requirements 22
D.4 Existing Environmental Conditions 22
234/1000

Figure 4-7. PDRI-Infrastructure Section and Category Weights, and Top 8 Highest
Weighted Elements

47
 The team confirmed the element weightings through testing of the PDRI tool on

22 completed infrastructure projects, totaling over $6 billion in expenditure. The team

determined through an analysis of the 22 completed projects that projects with PDRI

scores lower than 200 statistically outperformed projects with PDRI scores above 200

regarding cost, schedule, and change order performance, the same as the PDRI-Industrial

and PDRI-Building. Figure 4-8 provides a summary of the PDRI-Infrastructure testing

results at the 200-point PDRI score cutoff.

PDRI Score
Performance < 200 > 200 Δ
2% under 23% above
Cost 25%
budget budget
5% behind 29% behind
Schedule 24%
schedule schedule
3% of 10% of
Change Orders 7%
total cost total cost
(n=13) (n=9)

Figure 4-8. PDRI-Infrastructure Cost, Schedule, and Change Order Performance

based on 200-Point Cutoff

4.1.3.4. PDRI – Small Industrial

CII formed Research Team 314 in 2013 to develop a PDRI tool specifically for

Small Industrial projects. Research Team 314 utilized the same development and testing

procedure established by the Front End Planning Research Team (CII, 1995), Research

Team 155 (Cho and Gibson, 1999) and Research Team 113,when developing the PDRI –

Small Industrial. The team identified 41 elements critical to the planning of small

industrial construction projects. The elements were broken into three separate sections

(Basis of Project Decision, Basis of Design, Execution Approach), and further broken
48
down into 8 categories. Each element had a detailed narrative providing a description of

the element, and certain additional items to consider when assessing a project. The

element descriptions were structured similar to the PDRI-Industrial, PDRI-Infrastructure

and PDRI-Building element descriptions, shown in Figure 4-2.

The team convened five workshops in various locations across the United States

where 65 industry professionals representing multiple owner and contractor organizations

experienced with a variety of infrastructure construction projects provided input

concerning the relative importance (i.e., weight) of each element included in the PDRI.

The team used the element prioritization data provided by the workshop participants to

develop the weighted PDRI score sheet. The team used the same scoring scheme as the

PDRI – Industrial, PDRI – Infrastructure and PDRI – Building, where scores range from

70-1000, and a lower score indicates a greater level of scope definition.

Figure 4-9 provides a section and category breakdown of the finalized PDRI score

sheet, based on definition Level 5 weights of the elements in each section and category.

The sections and categories are listed from highest total weight to lowest total weight.

Figure 4-9 also provides the top eight highest weighted elements in the PDRI – Small

Industrial, based on the definition Level 5 weights. These eight elements were deemed to

be the most critical to project success of all of the 41 elements included in the tool, hence

the most critical to completely address during front end planning of a small industrial

project.

49
 Section Weight
I. Basis of Project Decision 288
II. Basis of Design 425
III. Execution Approach 287
1000

Category Weight
A. Project Alignment 153
B. Project Performance Requirements 135
C. Design Guidance 133
D. Process/Product Design Basis 145
E. Electrical and Instrumental Systems 71
F. General Facility Requirements 76
G. Execution Requirements 129
Engineering/Construction Plan and
H. 158
Approach
1000

Element Weight
A.1 Project Objectives Statement 47
A.2 Project Strategy and Scope of Work 45
H.2 Project Cost Estimate 39
Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams
D.3 36
(P&ID’s)
A.4 Location 36
G.5 Shutdown/Turnaround Requirements 32
B.2 Capacities 31
C.3 Project Site Assessment 29
295/1000

Figure 4-9. PDRI- Small Industrial Section and Category Weights, and Top 8

Highest Weighted Elements

The team confirmed the element weightings through testing of the PDRI tool on

42 completed infrastructure projects, totaling over $151 Million in expenditure. The team

determined through an analysis of the 42 completed projects, that projects with PDRI

scores lower than 300 statistically outperformed projects with PDRI scores above 300
50
regarding cost, schedule, and change order performance. Figure 4-10 provides a summary

of the PDRI – Small Industrial testing results at the 300-point PDRI score cutoff.

PDRI Score
Performance < 300 > 300 Δ
2% under 14% above
Cost 16%
budget budget
7% behind 22% behind
Schedule 15%
schedule schedule
13% of 16% of
Change Orders 3%
total cost total cost
(n=24) (n=16)

Figure 4-10. PDRI – Small Industrial Cost, Schedule, and Change Order
Performance based on 300-Point Cutoff

4.1.4. Other CII Front End Planning Research Supporting the Process

CII has funded several research projects to further investigate aspects of front end

planning that should be addressed along with project scope definition. These aspects

include project team alignment, renovation and revamp projects, integrated project risk

assessment, information flow to support front end planning, and optimizing construction

input during front end planning.

4.1.4.1. Project Team Alignment

An objective of the CII Front End Planning Research Team was to investigate

alignment during the pre-project planning phase. The team defined alignment as “The

condition where appropriate project participants are working within acceptable tolerances

to develop and meet a uniformly defined and understood set of project objectives”

51
(Griffith and Gibson, 2001). The project objectives are formed in the early stages of

project development, must meet the business requirements and overall corporate strategy

of the project stakeholders, and have a critical impact on project success (CII, 1997).

Alignment in the project environment was found to exist in three dimensions, shown in

Figure 4-11. Without commitment to the project objectives by all project stakeholders

within the three dimensions, there is no alignment (CII, 1997).

Figure 4-11. Three Dimensions of Alignment in the Project Environment (Taken

from CII 1997)

The team developed a list of critical issues found to have the greatest effect on

team alignment and project success through a series of three workshops and 54 structured

interviews with industry professionals (Griffith and Headley, 1995). The team also

developed a tool called the Alignment Thermometer used to assess how well a project

team is aligned during front end planning. The ten most critical alignment issues are (CII,

2010a):
52
 1. Stakeholders are appropriately represented on the project team

2. Project leadership is defined, effective, and accountable

3. The priority between cost, schedule, and required project features is clear

4. Communication within the team and with stakeholders is open and effective

5. Team meetings are timely and productive

6. The team culture fosters truth, honesty, and shared values

7. The pre-project planning process includes sufficient funding, schedule, and scope

to meet objectives

8. The reward and recognition system promotes meeting project objectives

9. Teamwork and team building programs are effective

10. Planning tools (e.g., checklists, simulations, and work flow diagrams) are

effectively used

4.1.4.2. Renovation and Revamp Projects

CII Research Team 242 studied renovation and revamp (R&R) projects for the

purpose of offering support to the case for performing adequate front end planning on

R&R projects. The team defined a R&R project as “one that is focused on and existing

facility and includes the act, process, or work of replacing, restoring, repairing, or

improving this facility with capital or non-capital funds. It may include additional

structures and systems to achieve a more functional, serviceable, or desirable condition,

including improvement in: profitability; reliability; efficiency; safety; security;

environmental performance; and/or compliance with regulatory requirements” (CII,

2010a). The team completed a review of R&R projects through a survey of individuals

employed by CII member organizations, and a case study of completed projects by these
53
organizations. The team stated that some R&R projects may be small, while other may be

hundreds of millions of dollars in cost, and that 30 percent of projects completed by CII

member organizations were considered R&R projects at that time (CII, 2010a). The team

found that the planning of R&R projects differs from greenfield projects in that such

projects are fraught with the risk of unknown existing site conditions, and are oftentimes

undertaken while a facility is still in operation (CII, 2010a). The absence of a proper

planning approach can result in disputes, delays, and cost increases (CII, 2010a). The

research team identified several unique characteristics to planning for R&R projects

including:

• Safety and security issues of work force interfacing with existing conditions

• Unforeseen site conditions more prevalent

• Scope definition, estimating the amount of work more difficult

• Scheduling intensity, higher in many cases

• Shutdown issues occur on many projects

• Greater need to interface with operations/tenants, maintenance, and construction

personnel

• Additional schedule constraints occur due to operational interfaces

• Different funding sources, including both local capital and non-capital funds

The team’s study of R&R projects led to them updating certain elements within

the PDRI – Industrial, PDRI – Infrastructure and the PDRI – Building with specific items

to consider when planning a project that included an R&R component, or was completely

an R&R project.

54
 The team also developed a separate tool specifically for

shutdown/turnaround/outage (STO) projects, called the Shutdown/Turnaround Alignment

Review (STAR) tool, as STO projects were found to make up a significant portion of

R&R projects completed by CII member organizations (CII, 2014a).

Shutdown/turnaround/outage is defined as “A project or portion of a project that is

executed during a planned disruption in normal use or operation where return to service is

a business priority.” STO projects were described as “a single point in time where

multiple projects converge to a point of “time-constrained” integration and rapid schedule

execution” (CII, 2010a). The STAR tool was developed to complement the PDRI,

providing measurement of key planning attributes unique to STO’s. The STAR tool tests

the alignment or preparedness of these multiple projects to be completed during the STO

so that associated risks can be identified and acted upon (CII, 2010a).

4.1.4.3. Integrated Project Risk Assessment

CII Project Team 181 developed a risk assessment tool in 2003 for the purpose of

assessing risk on any project, but specifically complex projects in unfamiliar venues or

locations. Initially named the International Project Risk Assessment tool, or IPRA tool,

the title was updated in 2013 to Integrated Project Risk Assessment due to the wide

applicability of the tool to domestic projects along with international projects.

The team found several definitions for risk as it relates to construction, such as

“the potential for loss or injury”, “the exposure to the chance occurrences of events that

adversely or favorably affect project objectives as a consequence of uncertainty”, and

“the presence of potential or actual threats or opportunities that influence project

objectives during project planning, construction, and commissioning; and these

55
objectives are in the form of cost, schedule and quality” (CII, 2013). Coordinating risk

management between disparate project stakeholders is not typically done in a formalized

manner on most construction projects. Risk comes from different viewpoints depending

on the project stakeholder: engineers/contractors/designers see technical risks, owners

and developers see economic and financial risk, safety and health professionals see

hazard impact/mitigation risk (CII, 2013). Several benefits to project success exist when

project stakeholders collaboratively identify and manage risk, including:

• Allows for early identification or hazards and opportunities

• Communicates risks between project participants

• Identifies and manages uncertainty

• Identifies and considers worst case scenarios

• Established ownership of risks and risk mitigation actions

• Enhance risk-based decision-making

The IPRA tool is a structured risk identification and assessment process, designed

for use as part of an overall risk assessment strategy. The IPRA was developed with

participation from 113 industry professionals, including 26 structured interviews to help

develop the element descriptions, four workshops in North America, and was tested on

15 completed projects, and seven in-process projects. The IPRA consists of four sections

(commercial, location, facilities, production/operations), 14 categories, and 82 elements,

and is applicable to industrial, building, and infrastructure projects. Each element/risk

item is ranked depending on two factors: the likelihood of occurrence of the risk, and the

potential impact to the project if the risk were to materialize. Figure 4-12 provides the

IPRA Risk Assessment Matrix used to visually summarize project risks. The IPRA tool is
56
to be used three times during project planning: validation of the project feasibility, project

definition, and decision to proceed. The tool provides a structure for project teams to

develop mitigation strategies once risks are defined, and to continually assess identified

risks throughout the planning and construction process.

Figure 4-12. IPRA Element Risk Assessment Matrix (taken from CII 2013)

4.1.4.4. Information Flow to Support Front End Planning (2007)

CII Research Team 221 studied information flow to support the front end

planning process of engineer-procure-construct (EPC) projects. The objectives of the

research were to identify the information flow activities in front end planning and their

interrelationships, identify the information requirements for front end planning activities,

and provide recommendations for improving information flow to support front end

planning. The team found that “The quality of information and the manner in which
57
information flows, with respect to its comprehensiveness, correctness, and completeness,

can either enhance or hinder the successful execution of work” (George, 2007). Front end

planning is both information intensive and information dependent, and successful front

end planning is dependent on the utilization of information that is generated and/or

managed both internally and externally to project organizations ((George, 2007). It is

important to identify when and what information is required within the planning process

and how the generation or exchange of information can be improved within each

individual phase of project delivery. The lack of availability or inadequacy of necessary

information during front end planning will diminish the likelihood of successful project

performance (George, 2007).

The team developed logic flow diagrams for 33 information flow activities

showing the interrelationships between information flow tasks on typical EPC projects.

The research team found that successful projects executed the information flow activities

successfully and efficiently, devoted more time and resources to the execution of

information flow activities, and the activities had all of the necessary information

available when needed (George, 2007).

4.1.4.5. Optimizing Construction Input in Front End Planning (2009)

CII Research Team 241 studied how construction input during front end planning

could improve project performance. The purpose of the research was to develop a CII

best practice related to maximizing the value for construction input during front end

planning to bring significant improvements in construction and commissioning phases of

projects to improve project performance (Gokhale et al., 2009). The team found three

58
principal barriers impeding on the involvement of construction input during front end

planning:

1. Silos between design, construction and ownership, causing stakeholders to

optimize their own interests rather than the overall project

2. Traditional contract models that institutionalize non-collaborative approaches

3. The lack of a decision tool to allow project managers to prioritize activities

requiring construction input during front end planning

The team developed the Construction Input Assessment Tool (CIAT) through

literature review, case studies, and industry questionnaires. The purpose of the tool is

assist project decision makers in identifying and prioritizing key construction items and

activities that require construction input during front end planning (Gokhale et al., 2009).

The team used the PDRI-Industrial and PDRI-Building tools as a baseline, but utilized

only those elements that required construction input during front end planning. Usage of

the CIAT tool consists of four steps:

1. Assess the level of construction input necessary (on a scale of zero percent to 100

percent) for a project based on the element description within the tool, and

determine if there is sufficient in-house expertise to successfully address the

construction related issues.

2. A high-level assessment of the project concerning necessary construction input,

comparing the current level of construction input versus the target level of

construction input thought to be needed (from step one)

59
 3. A detailed-level assessment of the project concerning necessary construction

input, comparing the current level of construction input versus the target level of

construction input thought to be needed (from step one)

4. Final result of the assessment, comparing the target level of construction input

(taken from step one) and comparing that to the high level and detailed level

assessments (from steps two and three) to highlight which elements have

sufficient construction input, and which elements need additional construction

input.

4.1.5. Efficacy of the PDRI tools

CII twice sought to determine the efficacy of their front end planning research.

The next section describes these two studies, and highlights several continuous

improvement areas where the front end planning tools have been updated to meet the

ever-changing field of construction.

4.1.5.1. Front End Planning: Break the Rules, Pay the Price (2006)

CII Research Team 213 investigated the importance and value of the front end

planning process, the resources required to perform the front end planning process

effectively, and to outline key “rules” to the front end planning process (CII, 2006). The

team utilized the CII Benchmarking and Metrics programs to collect project data

regarding:

• The cost of front end planning

• Project performance (i.e., cost, schedule, change orders) based on assessing

projects with the PDRI-Industrial and PDRI-Building tools

60
 • Typical percentage of design completion at the end of scope definition

• Comparison of the Pre-Project Planning performance index vs. cost, schedule, and

change performance

• Comparison of alignment during front end planning vs. cost, schedule, and change

performance.

The research team found that (CII, 2006):

• Four percent of total installed cost was spent on front end planning for all

projects. This percentage was slightly higher for small projects

• Projects scoring below 200 (with the PDRI – Industrial and PDRI – Building)

performed better than those scoring above 200 regarding cost, schedule, and

change performance

• Projects with 20 percent of design completed at the end of frond end planning

performed better than projects with a lesser amount of design completed at the

end of front end planning

• Projects with Pre-Project Planning Index scores above the median mark (i.e., 7.9

out of 10) performed better than projects scoring below the median mark

regarding cost, schedule, and change performance. Higher Pre-Project Planning

Index scores (i.e., closer to 10) equate to more intensive front end planning.

(Note: the Pre-Project Planning Index was developed by the CII Benchmarking

and Metrics group to determine the relative level of front end planning at project

authorization to expend funds for design and construction.)

• Projects with Alignment Index scores above the median mark (i.e., 7.8 out of 10)

performed better than projects scoring below the median mark regarding cost and
61
 schedule performance. Higher Alignment Index scores (i.e., closer to 10) equate

to more aligned projects

The team completed several other tasks, including replacing the term pre-project

planning with front end planning, believing that the planning process includes efforts

performed during the project, not just before as pre-project planning implied, and to

better relate to industry specific terminology. The team also updated the PDRI –

Industrial and PDRI – Building tools, and also developed an html based tool/process map

to replace the pre-project planning handbook that had been developed by the Pre-Project

Planning Task Force in 1991. The team concluded with developing a set of critical

success factors, or “rules”, for front end planning (CII, 2006):

• Develop and consistently follow a defined front end planning process

• Ensure adequate scope definition prior to moving forward with design and

construction; use front end planning tools

• Define existing conditions thoroughly

• Select the proper contracting strategy early

• Align the project team, including key stakeholders

• Build the project team, including owner stakeholders and consultants

• Include involvement from both owners and contractors

• Staff critical project scoping and design areas with capable and experienced

personnel

• Identify and understand risks of new project types

• Address labor force skill and availability early in planning because this issue can

effect project success

62
 • Provide leadership at all levels for the front end planning process, including

executive and project, owner, and contractor

4.1.5.2. Adding Value through Front End Planning (2012)

The second objective of CII Research Team 268 (beyond developing the PDRI –

Infrastructure tool) was to study how organizations have utilized the CII front end

planning tools since the time of the 2006 study. The team was also tasked with updating

the front end planning toolkit, and developing an overarching front end planning

publication titled “ Adding Value Through Front End Planning” that pulled together the

20 years of front end planning research completed by CII.

The team found that front end planning products sold by CII had been

downloaded 39,585 times between the years of 1985 to 2011 (Bosfield and Gibson Jr.,

2012). The team also surveyed the 116 CII member organizations to determine

specifically what tools were CII members currently using. Fifty-nine responses were

received to their survey, and the team completed 15 in-depth follow-up interviews. The

team found that (Bosfield and Gibson Jr., 2012):

• Seventy-eight percent of respondents used at least one CII front end planning tool,

mainly the PDRI-Industrial

• The overall usage of front end planning tools was higher for owners than

contractors.

• Forty-two percent of respondents stated that the PDRI was included in their

organization’s budgetary approval process

63
 • Ninety percent of respondents felt that the PDRI tools had a positive impact in

their planning process effectiveness

• The PDRI tools were mainly used on medium to large projects, but sometimes for

small projects.

• The most prevalent reason cited by respondents for not using CII front end

planning tools included not being familiar with the tools, or using different tools.

One respondent stated (regarding the difficulty of tool usage): “We do small

projects, $1 million to $50 million and the PDRIs are too complex. When we get

time we’re going to simplify the PDRI Industrial for our use.”

4.2. Small Project Research

Past work by CII, published in 1991 and 2003, described the difficulty of defining

the term “small project.” RT 314, convened in 2013, focused their investigation defining

small industrial projects and developing a PDRI tool for such projects. Research Team

314a felt it imperative to review previous research studies into small projects to ensure

the PDRI – Small Infrastructure tool addressed and conformed with any significant

research findings in the area. The next sub-sections describe handbooks, manuals, and

research studies that provided the research team background into the various definitions

of “small project,” as well as small project characteristics, suggestions for effective

management, and success factors for small projects.

4.2.1. Managing the Engineering and Construction of Small Projects (1985)

The Managing the Engineering and Construction of Small Projects handbook was

developed for the purpose of providing a practical management method for project

64
engineers tasked with managing small industrial projects, but not experienced with

project management. Small projects can include maintenance, upgrading, revamps,

turnarounds and outages, research, engineering, plant improvements, light construction,

or environmental work, and can be capital or non-capital expensed projects. Westney

(1985) defines small projects as having one or more of the following characteristics:

• Cost levels from $5,000 to $50,000,000

• Cost levels less than 5 percent of annual budget for projects

• Numerous other similar projects take place concurrently

• Labor and equipment resources shared with other projects

• The company doing the project is, itself, small

Westney (1985) states that small projects can be just as important as large

projects, and sometimes even more important. The value of successfully competing a

small project can be far greater than the project itself, an example being a turnaround

project being completed on an essential manufacturing process. The plant’s profitability

can be significantly reduced if the project takes too long, causing valuable production to

be lost. Westney (1985) also states that the total cost of small projects is not small at all;

the aggregate cost of all small projects in a facility may be substantial.

Westney (1985) asserts that one of the most difficult aspects of managing small

projects is dealing with multiple projects at once, which is typically not an issue with

large projects. The projects will also all be at various stages (i.e., design and

procurement, under construction, start-up) of completion, causing project engineers to

constantly change their priorities. Other typical issues with small projects include

(Westney, 1985):
65
 • Many small projects occur in an active production environment

• Organizations are not designed for projects (i.e., project being managed by

production engineers not project managers). Management lacks formal

procedures, methods, and data to properly plan, estimate, and manage projects

• Standard approaches used for large projects don’t work for small projects.

• Many small projects are revamps within active production facilities, which

imposes many constraints such as restricted access to project sites, hot work

permits, construction personnel working around production personnel, (where

production takes priority over construction), unpredictable nature of plant

operations causes frequent changes to scheduled work site access, and access to

knowledgeable plant personnel.

• Projects in manufacturing plants often experience significant increases to the

scope of work due to specific scope items not being apparent until work has

progressed to a certain point.

4.2.2. Manual for Small Special Project Management (1991)

The CII Small Projects Action Team was tasked with developing a

comprehensive manual for managing small projects that was based on adapting generally

accepted management techniques developed for large projects to small projects. The

action team focused on small projects in four categories: engineering only, construction

only, Engineer-Procure-Construct (EPC), and revamp (a term encompassing rebuild,

retrofit, shutdown, add-on, and upgrade, but not maintenance).

66
 The team found many problems and characteristics typical of small projects,

including (CII 1991):

• The word “small” – dictionary definition is little, puny, meager, insignificant,

unimportant. Using the word small may cause such projects to be seen as

unimportant, hence undeserving of traditional management attention.

• Inexperienced Management – least experienced project managers used for small

projects. The best management personnel are saved for large projects

• Combined Operating/Construction Responsibilities – operations or maintenance

personnel tasked with managing small projects, even though they are seldom

adequately prepared to do so

• Multiple Project Responsibilities – Project managers have simultaneous

responsibility for multiple projects, taxing the manager’s ability to give each

project its due attention

• Multiple Individual Responsibilities – individuals assigned to small projects are

responsible for multiple functions. There is less attention paid to comprehensive

look-ahead planning as the “squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

• Safety and Quality Easily Compromised – Adequate attention not given to safety

and quality due to lack of time and dedicated functional staff

• Short Duration – The typical short project duration provides insufficient time for

detailed planning and in-process correction of problems. Personnel are still

climbing the learning curve when the project is completed.

67
• Poor Career Attractiveness – Individuals tend to seek the stability of large projects

as opposed to small projects, which are seen as having low visibility, questionable

job security, involving frequent movement, and being non-career enhancing.

• Lost Expertise – Many experienced engineers and constructors that have

traditionally served as mentors to younger personnel have left the workforce due

to economic conditions, creating a lost generation of valuable experience

• High Loss Potential – Economic risks vs. project value (and profit) are much

higher proportionately on small projects than large projects

• Poor Scope Definition – Poor scope definition effects both small and large

projects, but can be devastating to small projects due to limited response time

available for scope changes

• Poor Basis for Control – Limited availability of project managers and limited time

leads to lack of established baselines for project control

• Inapplicability of Company Standard Control Systems – Robust control systems

design for large projects may be overwhelming to small projects if not simplified

and adapted

• Contractor Competence – Contractors accustomed to large projects tend to avoid

small projects. If they do undertake them, they tend to overkill them. Some small

contractors are excellent, while others lack the necessary skills and resources.

• Lack of Computer Literacy – Small contractors sometimes lack experience with

or appreciation of the potential for computerization or automation of project

management functions

68
 • Regulatory Requirements Applicability – Safety, health, environmental, and

government regulations apply with equal force to large and small projects

• Subcontracting vs. Direct Hire – Subcontractors may be necessary to obtain

desired skills, but the project schedule may be extended due to the time needed to

select an appropriate subcontractor, and addressing any scope changes. The use of

direct-hires involves problems with timely recruitment of properly skilled

personnel.

• Remote Location – Problems of remoteness: logistics, personnel availability,

communication, are more challenging for small projects than large projects due to

the limited number of project management staff

The team developed a detailed manual for addressing the typical problems and

characteristics related to managing small projects, with nine focus areas including

organizational structure and guidelines, planning, in-process management, revamp

projects, contracts and contract administration, project controls, total quality

management, safety and health, and environmental protection. Each focus area in the

manual includes a description of the issue, and ways that organizations can plan,

structure, and manage small projects to address the issue. The team also chose to refer to

“small” projects as “special” projects in an attempt to remove the negative stigma

associated with the project type.

One of team’s the most significant findings was that due to the wide variations in

relative size, complexity, schedule duration and cost of projects executed by an even less

homogeneous cross section of owners, architects, engineers and constructors, it was

impossible to clearly define “small project.” The team asserted, “If the project is felt to be

69
small relative to the culture and available resources within an executing entity, then it is

indeed a small project. ” The team suggested that one possible method for differentiating

between small and large projects might be to list the typical characteristics of large

projects, and if a project lacks several of these characteristics, then it would be considered

small. The characteristics commonly associated with large projects were identified as

(CII, 1991):

• Has full-time staff

• Staff large enough to have functional specialists

• Company standard procedures are applicable (i.e., small project may need

their own)

• Standard company control systems and reporting procedures are used (i.e.,

small projects may need their own)

• Duration is long enough to permit personnel to progress comfortably up the

learning curve and to have time to adjust to in-process problems and mistakes

• Receives considerable management attention

• Takes a significant percentage of company resources or capabilities

The team ultimately concluded that the boundary between large and small

projects could not be strictly defined, after much debate amongst the team members. The

team chose to instead provide (in an appendix to the manual) a listing of possible small

project parameters, including:

• Length of project: 1-15 months engineering only, 1-14 months for construction

only, 2-30 months for EPC

70
 • Personnel hours: 200-65,000 work hours for engineering only, 2,500 – 500,000

for construction only, 1,500 – 750,000 for EPC

• Cost: less than 5 percent of an organizations annual construction budget, cost

under $50,000,000, $2,000 - $3,500,000 for engineering, $100,000 - $25,000,000

for construction only, $100,000 - $100,000,000 for EPC

• Management Approach: part-time management

• Controls Involved: simpler controls than large projects due to compressed time

and multiple responsibilities of the management team

• Other: one or a few design disciplines, very few crafts, project execution

completely within the control of an operating plant manager, ratio of engineering

to construction higher than normal, ratio of manual to non-manual personnel costs

in the construction phase higher than normal

4.2.3. Developing an Effective Approach to the Procurement and

Management of Small Building Works within Large Client Organizations

(1995)

Griffith and Headley (1995) summarized a major research study into the

procurement and management of small building “works” (i.e., projects) within large

owner-organizations in the United Kingdom. Griffith and Headley (1995) found that little

previous research had been undertaken regarding small projects, and that the level of

commitment needed to undertake small projects successfully is underestimated in many

organizations. Griffith and Headley (1995) asserted that small projects require thorough

and dedicated procurement, organization, and management if they are to be efficient and

71
cost effective and that the specific tools, techniques, and procedures required must be

appropriate to the nature and scale of projects.

Data from interviews and case studies highlighted two common problems the

exist in small project procurement and management: the failure to recognize the

fundamental characteristics of small projects and how these influence procurement and

management approach, and from the misconceptions regarding the significance,

composition, and value of small project loading within organizations Griffith and

Headley (1995). The study also found that small projects are not managed as efficiently

and effectively as they might be, and that no recognized procedure or practice existed for

the management of small projects. Ineffective management of small projects was found

to be due to project managers becoming organizationally consumed in reacting to events,

the need to authorize each and every job and inevitably lack sufficient time to manage the

organizational small projects workload and each individual job in the sense that modern

management techniques are applied to other processes in different industries.

Griffith and Headley (1995) defined small projects as featuring certain

characteristics that make them discernable from other types of building projects,

including:

• Limited cost

• Low complexity

• Short duration

• Limited inputs (materials and labor)

• Harbor practical and financial uncertainty due to lack of scope definition

• Utilize limited formal documentation

72
 • Diverse in basic characteristics (size, value, complexity)

• Occur in active environments

Griffith and Headley asserted that these categorizations are oftentimes arbitrary,

typically done with a level of cost as the differentiator. They contended that using a level

of cost or type of work alone to different between project classes is insufficient and that

projects should be looked at holistically through an appreciation of their particular

characteristics within the core business and operation of the client organization. Griffith

and Headley (1998) also asserted that small works fall along a spectrum that takes in to

consideration their characteristics and classes, as shown in Figure 4-13.

Figure 4-13. Small Works Spectrum

73
 4.2.4. Small Projects Toolkit (2001)

The CII Executing Small Capital Projects research team (RT 161) developed the

Small Projects Toolkit in 2001 to assist project managers in improving small project

programs and small project execution. The team asserted that small project execution is

important due to 40-50 percent of capital budgets being spent on small projects for the

purpose of increasing production capacities, improving product quality, improving

efficiencies, and maintaining functionality of a plant for continued operation and

production (CII, 2001). The team defined small projects at projects having a total

installed cost range between $100,000 and $2,000,000 (CII, 2001).

The toolkit outlines small project best practices in the areas of front end planning,

design, procurement, construction, start-up and commissioning, people, small projects

organizations, processes, small projects controls, contracting, safety, health and

environment, and technology and information systems. Regarding front end planning, the

research team found that the planning of small projects must be completed in an

environment with a compressed timeframe, few dedicated project resources, and a

variable funding process. Having an owner representative/leader with profound

knowledge of a facility and plant personnel to facilitate scope definition and plant input

and approval, a clear, succinct, detailed identification of project scope prior to funding to

avoid continued design improvements to the end, and funding processes that are clear,

dependable, and make sense are the front end planning issues that can have the strongest

impact on small project success. The team suggested several best practices for small

project design and management, including (CII, 2001):

• Standardization of equipment and designs

74
 • Larger project contingencies

• Project checklists

• Small project program team, providing consistency and continual improvement

from quarter to quarter

• Separate funding for front end planning of small projects

• Dependable project funding

• Modified PDRI, even though the tools were not specifically design for small

projects where many of the elements may be not applicable

4.2.5. Budget and Schedule Success for Small Capital-Facility Projects (2002)

Gao et al. (2002) provides the results of a literature review and industry survey

(completed by 36 respondents) to determine what constitutes success on small projects,

specifically if there was a difference between success factors for large and small projects.

Small projects used in the survey were “theoretically limited” to those projects not less

than $100,000, and no more than $2,000,000. Gao et al. (2002) found that the most

frequently noted project success factors (from both the literature and survey) were cost,

schedule, technical performance, client satisfaction, and that these factors did not differ

between small and large projects. Gao et al. (2002) highlighted several attributes of small

projects and small project execution within project organizations, including:

• The significance of front end planning for small projects should not be

underestimated. Scope changes, schedule slippage, delayed work, communication

issues, and shifting priorities were the most frequently noted by survey

respondents regarding problems encountered on small projects. Enhanced project

75
 scope definition can best address these issues. The front end planning process in

many organizations was not well defined.

• When large project processes are imposed on small project programs, they may

likely contribute to bureaucratic inefficiency in the small project delivery system.

Those attempting to use large project procedures on small projects had less

project success.

• Small projects consisted of 16% of total capital project budgets for survey

respondents, but were 80% of the work volume (based on the number of projects)

• Firms with capital budgets below $20 million, or had a ratio of small to large

projects at or above 20 percent, were classified as having a small project focus.

Firms with a small project focus had more projects complete five percent below

budget, and completed on or before the target date

• Contractors with binding agreements to provide maintenance work in addition to

small capital project work were able to maintain a consistent workforce, the

primary advantage being better budget performance. However, maintenance

work must be concurrently scheduled with small projects, possibly producing

more delays for project sites where maintenance and capital projects are

performed at the same time.

• The projects that used a core management group for small capital facility projects

showed a benefit in schedule performance due to improved communication

processes and reduced potential for conflicts.

76
 4.2.6. Is a Small Project Really Different? (2005)

Liang et al. (2005) sought to outline the differences between the project

performance of small and large projects. Small projects were defined as projects having:

• Total installed cost between $100,000 and $5,000,000

• Duration of 14 months or less

• Site work hours up to 100,000

• Project does not require full-time project management resources or significant

percentage of company resources

• Any level of complexity and nature including maintenance and expense projects

Project data was collected from CII member organizations through the

development and administration of a multi-part electronic questionnaire, and selected

projects taken from the CII Benchmarking and Metrics database. The portion of the

questionnaire described in Liang et al. (2005) dealt only with project performance

differences between small and large projects. Small projects were found (through

statistical analysis) to have more variable cost, schedule, and change order performance

(from the owner and contractors perspectives) than large projects based on an analysis of

356 projects.

4.2.7 PDRI – Small Industrial Projects (2015)

Research Team 314 developed a PDRI for small industrial projects, as described

previously (see Section 4.1.3.4). They defined a small industrial project to align with the

following characteristics:

o Total installed cost less than US $10 Million

77
 o Construction duration between 3 and 6 months

o Project funding approval at a regional or corporate level

o Moderate project visibility to owner management

o 7 to 9 core team members (i.e., project managers, project engineers, owner

representatives)

o Part-time management availability of core team members

o None to minimal external permitting required

o None to local/state permits required

o 3 to 4 separate trade contractors

4.3. Literature Review Findings

The primary focus of the CII front end planning tools to date has been to improve

project performance on large, complex projects, excepting RT 314, which developed the

PDRI – Small Industrial Projects. This point is highlighted in Table 4-1, showing the

average cost of projects utilized for the testing phase of the PDRI for Industrial, Building,

and Infrastructure. Several of the small project research studies noted that procedures or

processes designed for large projects scenarios are typically not effective for use on small

projects, as they are too cumbersome to be effective. Several studies also noted the

importance of front end planning for small projects; that it should not be underestimated,

and that in many organizations the process is not well defined. All of these factors

confirmed for Research Teams 314 and 314a the need to develop front end planning tools

specifically for smaller projects.

78
 Table 4-1. Average Cost of Projects Used in PDRI Testing

Number of Total
Average Project
Projects Expenditure
Cost
Collected (Approximate)
PDRI for Industrial Projects 40 $3,300,000,000 $82,500,000
PDRI for Building Projects 33 $889,500,000 $26,954,545
PDRI for Infrastructure Projects 22 $6,080,000,000 $276,363,636
PDRI for Small Industrial Projects 65 $151,770,118 $3,794,253

The review of small project-related literature highlighted for the research team

that a consistent definition of “small project” did not exist, as shown in Table 4-2. This

lack of definition suggested that the research team would need to develop a definition of

small project for the purpose of guiding industrial PDRI users to the appropriate tool. The

small project literature did highlight several common attributes to be considered for

successfully completing small projects that should be incorporated into a front end

planning tool for small projects, such as having project management with the appropriate

level of expertise (i.e., experienced managers, not new-hires in training), realizing that

many small projects are R&R and/or completed as part of a larger program of projects,

and completed in active environments, and that the aggregate importance of small

projects should not be underestimated; the criticality of small projects oftentimes

outweigh their cost.

79
 Table 4-2. Small Project Definitions from Literature

References Cost Duration Other

Numerous other projects taking
Westney $5,000 to $50 place concurrently, labor and
N/A
(1985) million equipment resources shared with
other projects
$2,000-$3.5 million 1-15 months small
for engineering only, engineering-only Personnel hours - 200-65,000 for
$100,000-$25 projects, 1-14 engineering only, 2,500-500,000 for
CII (1991) million for months for construction only, 1,500-750,000
construction only, construction only, for EPC, part-time management,
$100,000-$100 2-30 months for simpler project controls
million for EPC EPC
Griffith and Low complexity, limited inputs,
Headley Limited cost 1-3 months limited formal documentation,
(1995) occur in active environments
Total installed cost Site work hours up to 100,000, part-
Liang et al.
between $100,000 14 months or less time project management, any level
(2005)
and $5 million of complexity
3-6 months of
(Collins et Less than $10 7 to 9 core team members, part time
construction
al., 2015) million availability of staff
duration

4.4. Summary

The literature review provided the theoretical baseline concerning previous

research investigations into front end planning and small projects that was utilized by

Research Team 314 and 314a to develop the PDRI – Small Industrial Projects and PDRI-

Small Infrastructure Projects, along with their companion Selection Guides. The literature

review highlighted that the front end planning research focus by CII over the past 25

years has consistently provided construction project stakeholders with tools to improve

80
project performance. This has been accomplished through the development of PDRI tools

for industrial, building, and infrastructure projects, as well as complementary tools for

R&R projects, shutdown/turnaround/outage projects, project team alignment, integrated

project risk assessment, information flow into front end planning, and construction input

during front end planning. The literature also showed that the preceding PDRI tools were

developed for large projects, and that tools developed for large projects are typically not

effective for use on small projects.

81
 CHAPTER FIVE

SMALL PROJECT PREVALENCE, PLANNING PRACTICES, AND

5

DIFFERENTIATORS IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

The RT314a concluded that a sufficient and consistent definition of what

differentiates a small project from a large project did not exist, based on a thorough

literature review as discussed in Chapter 4. The RT314a determined that additional

information should be sought from industry to clarify the current metrics used to

differentiate between small and large infrastructure projects, as well as the prevalence of

small projects, and typical front end planning practices employed for small projects. RT

314a developed a survey using previous small project research to poll industry members

familiar with infrastructure projects. The next few sections describe the survey

methodology, structure, response, and results.

5.1. Survey Development Methodology and Structure

RT 314a developed a multi-part survey of 26 open-ended and closed-ended

questions to collect information on small project prevalence, planning practices, and

metrics used in industry to differentiate between small and large infrastructure projects.

The survey instrument was developed and administered with the CII Select Survey

system, a proprietary online survey tool owned by CII.

The survey included two questions regarding the prevalence of small

infrastructure projects. The first question asked, “On a cost basis, what percentage of

your organization’s yearly capital construction budget would be considered small

projects?” The second question asked, “On a count basis, what percentage of your

organization’s yearly capital construction budget would be considered small projects?”

82
Each question included six possible response ranges, including < 10 percent, 11-30

percent, 31-50 percent, 51-70 percent, 71-90 percent, and > 90 percent, and the

respondents were asked to choose one response range for each question. The survey did

not include a definition for “small project”. Survey respondents were to answer the

questions based on their organization’s definition.

The survey included four questions regarding front end planning practices for

small infrastructure projects. The first question asked, “What is your organization’s front

end planning process for projects that meet your definition of a small project?” Six

possible front end planning processes were posed, including: (1) front end planning

happens only at the program/portfolio level, (2) dedicated task force for all small

projects, (3) internally developed scope definition tools, (4) structured stage gate, (5) ad

hoc, and (6) none. Respondents were asked to select all that applied to their organization.

Three questions asked specifically about the respondents familiarity with the

PDRI tools, and if these tools were used during the front end planning of small projects.

The first question asked, “How often has your organization used the Project Definition

Rating Index (PDRI) tool in the past?” Four separate options were given, including on a

few selected projects, on most projects, on all projects, and never, and the survey

instructed respondents to choose one of the four. The second question asked, “Does your

organization use the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for projects that meet your

definition of a small project?” The third question asked, “Has your organization

developed a modified PDRI or other tool for projects that meet your definition of a small

project?” Respondents were asked to choose “yes” or “no” to the second and third

83
questions. If the respondent chose yes to the third question, they were prompted to

describe the modified PDRI or other tool used in their organization.

The research team took 16 separate metrics from the literature review and their

own experience that they felt could differentiate small infrastructure projects from large.

The research team gave each metric a set of associated “break points” for small and large

projects, some of which were numerical (i.e., above or below US $20 Million of total

installed cost), while others were scaled (i.e., none to local/state permits versus local/state

to national permits). The break points were based on the literature review, as well as the

experience of the research team members. Table 5-1 shows the 16 metrics and associated

break points. RT 314a developed separate, multi-part questions for each of the 16 metrics

asking if (1) the metrics were used (within the respondent’s organization) as a

differentiator between small and large infrastructure projects, and (2) if the metric was

used as a differentiator, was the associated break point correct. Each part of the questions

could be answered “yes” or “no”. If the respondent answered yes to the first portion of

the question regarding the metric itself, but no to the second portion of the questing

regarding the break points, they were prompted to provide the break point that was used

in their organization. Each of the questions provided the respondents with the option to

provide any additional comments that they may have regarding the metric or break points

posed.

84
 Table 5-1. Project Size Differentiators Posed in Survey

Complexity Factor Small Projects Large Projects

Total Installed Cost* <$20 Million >$20.1 Million
Engineering Effort* < 5000 Hours > 5000 Hours
Construction Duration** 6-12 Months >18 Months
Number of Core Team
<10 individuals >10 individuals
Members**
Availability of Core Team Combination of part-time and
Part-time availability
Members** full-time to completely full-time
Project Visibility External to
Moderate Significant
Organization (Public)
Extent of Permitting None to moderate permitting Significant permitting
Number Jurisdictions Involved 1-3 jurisdiction > 5 jurisdictions
Existing Utility Provider
Minimal to Moderate Significant
Interface & Coordination
Sources of Funding Singular Multiple
Types of Permits None to local/state permits Local/state to national permits
Number of Trade Contractors 3-4 separate trade contractors 7-8 separate trade contractors
Extent of Public Outreach Effort Minimal to Moderate Significant
Management of Public Outreach
Project Team Corporate Executives
Effort
Right Of Way (ROW)
Minimal to Moderate Significant
procurement effort
Right Of Way (ROW) parcels
1-2 parcels >5 parcels
required
* More than 50% of respondents reported this factor as a differentiator between small and large
projects
** More than 48% of respondents reported this factor as a differentiator between small and large
projects

Table 5-1 provides suggestions about how to determine the appropriate PDRI tool

for use on an infrastructure project, but should not be used as a strict guideline. Note the

complexity factors appear according to order of importance reported by survey

85
respondents; that is, total installed cost is the most important factor for differentiating

small projects from large, while the number of Right of Way (ROW) parcels required is

the least important differentiator. While Table 5-1 provides guidance as to factors to

consider, the values that serve as delineators between small and large projects will vary

from one organization to another. For instance, in some organizations, projects with total

installed costs of $20 million may be considered 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 of PDRI – Small Infrastructure should keep in mind that RT 314a

developed the tool only for assessing small projects. The tool is not intended as a short

cut to use in lieu of assessing a project with PDRI – Infrastructure Projects. Some

organizations may wish to base the selection criteria on the characteristics of their typical

projects; however, RT 314a’s research validated the PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects

for projects meeting the criteria presented in Table 5-1.

Two open-ended questions were posed at the end of the survey, asking “If you

could improve the PDRI to make it more applicable to projects that meet your definition

of small project, what would you include or exclude?” and “Please add any additional

comments you have about improving planning for small projects as compared to large

projects.” The survey also provided for the respondent an option to provide their name

and organizational affiliation.

86
 5.2. Survey Respondent Solicitation

The research team determined that surveying individuals from CII member

organizations could provide substantial insight into the prevalence of and planning

practices for small infrastructure projects, as CII member organizations cover a vast

cross-section of the infrastructure sector. CII provided the research team with contact

information for approximately 190 practitioners from their member database that had

agreed to provide data for ongoing research projects, namely the “CII Data Liaisons.” RT

314a sent an email to each of the CII data liaisons with a brief description of the study

and a solicitation to complete the survey through a provided website link. The industry

members of Research Team 314a were also asked to complete the survey. Each

individual was asked to pass along the solicitation to any other practitioner that they felt

might be interested in providing data regarding the prevalence and planning practices of

small infrastructure projects. Moreover, the Research Team 314a sent the survey to their

own professional network to increase the breadth of perspectives included in the survey.

In total, the survey was sent to 211 people.

5.3. Survey Responses and Analysis

The survey was open for approximately two-month period between November

2015 and January 2016. In total, 47 responses (out of the 211 individuals contacted) to

the survey were received, approximately a 23 percent response rate. Individuals from 47

separate organizations completed the survey, a listing of which is included in Appendix

A. The breakdown of the organizational types between survey respondents is 28

87
Contractors (60%) and 19 owners (40%). The respondents from owner organizations

were less than those from contractor organizations.

Figure 5-1 provides a summary of the responses regarding the prevalence of small

projects within the survey respondent’s organizations during the fiscal year prior to

survey being completed. Both the Owner and Contractor respondents estimated that less

than 50 percent of projects completed during the preceding fiscal year met their definition

of small project on a cost basis, while the majority of both Owners and Contractors felt

that more than 50 percent of projects were small on a count basis.

Figure 5-1. Prevalence of Small Projects within Survey Respondent Organizations

88
 5.3.2. Front End Planning Processes for Small Projects

Figure 5-2 provides a summary of the responses regarding the typical front end

planning processes used for small projects. Responses ranged across all eight possible

processes, with “internally developed scope definition tool” and “Ad hoc” being the most

prevalent, and receiving the highest number of responses. A few respondents also

selected “Other” (not shown in Figure 5-2). The only respondent that selected “Other”

and provided a comment offered “currently being revised” as their comment5.

Figure 5-2. Front End Planning Processes for Small Projects within Survey

Respondent Organizations

Figures 5-3, 5-4 and 5-5 provide a summary of the responses regarding PDRI familiarity

and usage on small projects. A majority of respondents stated that they had used the

PDRI on only a few selected projects, as shown in Figure 5-3, and the PDRI tools had

mostly not been used (or modified for use) for small projects, as shown in Figure 5-5.

89
Figure 5-3. Overall Usage of the PDRI Within Survey Respondent Organizations

Figure 5-4. Comparison of the Usage of the PDRI Within Survey Respondents of

both Owner and Contractor Organizations

90
 Figure 5-5. Usage and Modification of the PDRI for Small Projects within Survey

Respondent Organizations

5.3.3. Small Project vs. Large Project Differentiators

Figure 5-6 summarizes the survey responses regarding adequacy of the sixteen

separate metrics posed as possible differentiators between small and large projects, listed

in the rank-order of their associated yes and no responses. Respondents only clearly

agreed (i.e., responded “yes”) that three of the metrics posed were used in their

organizations to differentiate between small and large projects: total installed cost,

engineering effort, and Sources of Funding. Three of the metrics had total agree/disagree

(i.e., yes and no) responses that were very close and could be considered possible

differentiators: Construction Duration, Availability of Core Team Members and Number

of Core Team Members. Respondents clearly disagreed (i.e., responded “no”) with ten of

the metrics, including: Project Visibility External to Organization (Public), Extent of

Permitting, Types of Permits, Number of Trade Contractors, Management of Public

91
Outreach Effort, Extent of Public Outreach Effort, Number Jurisdictions Involved, ROW

parcels required, ROW procurement effort, Existing Utility Provider Interface &

Coordination.

Figure 5-6. Survey Responses Regarding Project Size Differentiation Metrics

92
 5.3.4. Discussion of Survey Results and Comments from Respondents

The responses shown in Figure 5-2 matched the assumptions of the research team

prior to the survey, as well as the results found in Gao et al. (2002), that the number of

small projects completed in many organizations is substantial, but do not make up a large

percentage of the total capital expenditure. The amount of expenditure is still

considerable though, with a majority of the respondents estimating that 11-30 percent or

31-50 percent of their capital expenditure is spent on small projects while approximately

half of their total number of projects are small projects.

Total installed cost was the metric most agreed upon by the survey respondents,

as shown in Figure 5-6. This finding aligns with previous research, as well as the

opinions of the research team, that cost alone is the most common differentiator in most

organizations as to what is considered a small vs. a large project. Approximately fifty

percent of the participants agree that less than $20 million is the break point regarding

what is considered a “small project,” but responses suggest that the break point can range

from $10 million to $40 million. These responses show that with such a large discrepancy

across the industry, defining a specific dollar amount as the sole differentiator would not

be valid. Responses regarding engineering effort follow a similar logic to total installed

cost. Most respondents agreed that this metric differentiates small projects from small,

and many support the break point suggested (5,000 hours). Interestingly, equal numbers

of respondents agreed and disagreed that construction duration differentiates small

projects from large. The majority of the respondents that felt construction duration

differentiated small and large projects also agreed with the breakpoint of 12 months;

93
however four respondents suggested a different breakpoint ranging from 6, 9, 12 and 18

months..

Comments regarding the metrics that had varied agree/disagree responses,

provided insight that project complexity should be considered when planning for a small

project. Of the remaining metrics, approximately 60% of respondents felt that the

following metrics would not differentiate a small project from a large one: Project

Visibility External to Organization (Public), Extent of Permitting, Types of Permits,

Number of Trade Contractors, Management of Public Outreach Effort, Extent of Public

Outreach Effort, Engineering Effort, Number Jurisdictions Involved, ROW parcels

required, ROW procurement effort, Existing Utility Provider Interface & Coordination

5.4. Summary

Research Team 314a surveyed 47 individuals from CII member organizations to

discern the current metrics utilized to differentiate between small and large industrial

projects, as well as the prevalence of small projects, and typical front end planning

practices employed for small projects. The survey results showed that small projects

make up approximately half of the projects completed in the infrastructure sector,

planning of these projects varies greatly across the industry, and based on industry

perceptions, the metrics posed were largely considered inappropriate for use in

differentiating between small and large projects. Survey respondent commentary also

suggested that a PDRI tool specifically for small projects should be less granular than the

PDRI tools used for large projects, and such a tool should require less time to assess a

project’s scope definition.

94
 Table 5-2 provides the definition for “small industrial project” gleaned from the

survey responses. The author in conjunction with Research Team 314a utilized the

definition provided in Table 5-2 to help weighting workshop volunteers select

appropriate projects for use, described further in the next chapter.

Table 5-2. Small Infrastructure Project Definition From Survey Responses

PROPOSED METRICS INDICATORS

Total Installed Cost Less than $20 Million
Engineering Effort Less than 5000 Hours
Construction Duration 6-12 Months
Number of Core Team Members Less then 10 individuals
Availability of Core Team Members Part-time availability
Project Visibility External to Organization (Public) Moderate
Extent of Permitting None to moderate permitting
Number Jurisdictions Involved 1-3 jurisdiction
Existing Utility Provider Interface & Coordination Minimal to Moderate
Sources of Funding Singular
Types of Permits None to local/state permits
Number of Trade Contractors 3-4 separate trade contractors
Extent of Public Outreach Effort Minimal to Moderate
Management of Public Outreach Effort Project Team
Right Of Way (ROW) procurement effort Minimal to Moderate
Right Of Way (ROW) parcels required 1-2 parcels

Research Team 314a determined that all of the metrics considered in the survey

might be more suitably thought of as indicators of the level of project complexity, as

opposed to differentiators between small and large projects, based on the comments

provided by the survey respondents.

95
 CHAPTER SIX

6 PDRI DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

This chapter details the steps involved in developing the PDRI – Small

Infrastructure. Specifically, the chapter outlines the results of data obtained during

weighting workshops, and how input obtained from these workshops was used to develop

the final PDRI element descriptions and weights. This chapter includes a description of

workshop facilitation, participant demographics, and data screening techniques, along

with findings from the analyses of the finalized PDRI, and instructions on “how to use”

the PDRI – Small Infrastructure.

6.1. Background of the PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects

The thorough analysis of planning tasks recommended for infrastructure projects

completed by CII Research Team 268 led to the development of the PDRI –

Infrastructure. The tool has successfully been used to assess the level of scope definition

on many infrastructure construction projects across the globe since its initial publication.

Research Team 314a felt it prudent to use this document as the baseline for developing

the PDRI – Small Infrastructure element descriptions.

The team was initially broken down into three sub-teams, each separately

focusing on one of the three PDRI sections (Basis of Decision, Basis of Design,

Execution Approach). The sub-teams reviewed and scrutinized the element descriptions

in each section for applicability to small projects over the course of five months and

several separate team meetings. The sub-teams utilized brainstorming sessions during

team meetings, web-based conference calls, and individual reviews to complete this

evaluation. Non-pertinent elements and “items to-be considered” bullets were removed,
96
re-written, or combined with other elements. New elements were developed as

necessary. The entire research team thoroughly reviewed all of the elements during four

separate team meetings, and decided upon the final set of element descriptions after

rigorous discussion and debate. The team broke the 40 element descriptions into three

sections and eight categories to keep the same “look and feel” structure as the previously

developed PDRIs.

Industry volunteers familiar with small infrastructure projects were asked to

provide feedback regarding the element descriptions during the weighting workshops

(described in further detail in the following sections). The workshop facilitators noted all

items brought up during workshop discussions. Each participant could also record

additional thoughts on “Suggestions for Improvement” sheets. Appendix E includes a

sample copy of this form. The author along with RT 314a reviewed all comments

collected during the workshops, and revised the element descriptions as appropriate after

the comments were thoroughly vetted by the entire research team. No elements were

added or deleted after the workshop sessions had begun. Figure 6-1 shows the finalized

list of element descriptions. Appendix B includes the complete list of elements and their

descriptions.

97
 I. BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION
A. Project Alignment B. Project Requirements
A.1 Need & Purpose Statement B.1 Functional Classification & Use
A.2 Key Project Participants B.2 Physical Site
A.3 Public Involvement B.3 Dismantling & Demolition Requirements
A.4 Project Philosophies
A.5 Project Funding
A.6 Preliminary Project Schedule

II. BASIS OF DESIGN

C. Design Guidance D. Project Design Parameters
C.1 Lead/Discipline Scope of Work D.1 Capacity
C.2 Project Codes and Standards D.2 Design for Safety & Hazards
C.3 Topographical Surveys & Mapping D.3 Civil and Structural
C.4 Project Site Assessment D.4 Mechanical and Equipment
C.5 Environmental & Regulatory Consideration D.5 Electrical and Controls
C.6 Value analysis D.6 Operations and Maintenance
C.7 Construction Input

E. Location And Geometry F. Associated Structures & Equipment

E.1 Schematic Layouts F.1 Support Structures
E.2 Alignment and Cross-Section F.2 Hydraulic Structures
E.3 Control of Access F.3 Miscellaneous Elements
F.4 Equipment List

III. EXECUTION APPROACH

Engineering/Construction Plan And
G. Execution Requirements H.
Agreements
G.1 Land Acquisition Strategy H.1 Design/Construction Plan & Approach
G.2 Utility Adjustment Strategy H.2 Project Cost Estimate and Cost Control
G.3 Procurement Strategy H.3 Project Schedule and Schedule Control
G.4 Owner Approval Requirements H.4 Project Quality Assurance & Control
G.5 Intercompany and Interagency Coordination H.5 Safety, Work Zone & Transportation Plan
H.6 Project Commissioning/Closeout

Figure 6-1. PDRI SECTIONS, Categories, and Elements

98
 A basic tenet of front end planning is that not all items to be assessed are equally

critical to project success. Certain elements are higher in the hierarchical order than

others with respect to their relative importance. An analysis was necessary to “weight”

the elements accordingly. The next section describes in detail the weighting workshop

sessions held to gather feedback from industry professionals familiar with small

infrastructure projects regarding the sufficiency and prioritization of the elements

developed by the research team

6.2. PDRI Weighting Workshops

The author in conjunction with RT 314a collected element weighting data through

focus group sessions, referred to as “weighting workshops.” This method was

successfully utilized by each of the previous PDRI research teams, the details of which

can be found in Gibson Jr and Whittington (2009). Workshops were held in multiple

locations in an effort to gain a variety of industry perspectives related to typical small

infrastructure projects. Industry members of the research team hosted the workshops, and

recruited industry professionals to participate. Table 6-1 provides the workshop locations,

dates, and number of participants.

Table 6-1. Weighting Workshops

Location Date Number of Participants

Houston February 10th, 2016 20

rd
Tempe February 23 , 2016 5
st
Mobile March 1 , 2016 6
th
New York March 10 , 2016 10
th
Detroit April 6 , 2016 15
th
London, UK April 14 , 2016 8
st
Tempe 2 April 21 , 2016 7

99
 The seventy-one workshop participants represented multiple owner and contractor

organizations, industries, and geographic sectors. A list of participating organizations can

be found in Appendix A. The industry participants were professionals such as project

managers, project engineers, program managers, engineering managers, and construction

managers. Figure 6-2 provides some demographical background information about the

participants and the projects they used for reference during the workshops.

• 71 Weighted PDRI forms completed

• 71 participants
• 1,261 Collective years of experience
o 17 years (on average) estimating/project management experience
o 60% of experience (on average) related to small projects
o 51% of experience (on average) related to infrastructure construction projects
• 43 Organizations represented

• $529 Million in project cost represented

Figure 6-2. Weighting Workshop Summary

6.3. Workshop Process

Research Team 314a facilitated each of the workshop sessions hosted by several

industry members from RT 314a. All industry members were tasked with recruiting

practitioners familiar with small infrastructure projects to participate in the workshop

sessions. Research Team 314a sent information packets electronically to all confirmed

workshop participants prior to each session; these included background information about

the research study and the purpose of the workshop itself. Similar information packets

were sent out prior to all of the workshop sessions. Potential workshop participants were

asked to review all of the “pre-read’ information prior to the workshop sessions, which

included familiarizing themselves with specific front end planning and project
100
performance details of a sample small infrastructure project recently completed by their

organization that met the small project “definition” developed by the research team. The

sample project would be used as reference throughout the workshop session.

Workshop participants were also provided with a packet at the beginning of each

session that included: an agenda for the session, instructions for evaluating the PDRI,

PDRI – Small Infrastructure element descriptions, blank weighting factor evaluation

sheets, participant background information sheet, suggestions for improvement sheet,

copies of the workshop session presentation slides, and an unweighted score sheet.

Appendix D includes a copy of a typical workshop session packet. The packet contents

were color-coded to assist in describing and collecting each research instrument.

Each session began with a Microsoft PowerPoint™ presentation (included in

Appendix D) that briefly described the objectives of the workshop, background of the

research project, background of the PDRI, and instructions for evaluating the PDRI –

Small Infrastructure documents. Each of the forty PDRI element descriptions were then

reviewed, one by one, once the background presentation was complete. Figure 6-3

provides an example element description for element A.5 Project Funding.

101
 A.5 Project Funding

Funding of projects can come from various sources and must be identified,
budgeted and documented for the project. Preliminary cost estimates are
required to determine how much funding a project needs, and in turn, whether
or not the project is worth pursuing. Items to consider should include:

¨ Congruity with local infrastructure projects and programs

¨ Comparison of funding options (public vs. private, expense vs. capital)
¨ Cash flow, spend plan, funding participants, cost drivers and
contingencies
¨ Initial estimates (e.g., engineering, construction, right-of-way, and
operating costs)
¨ Input into any required funding approval documents
¨ Other (user defined)

Figure 6-3. Example Element Description, A.5 Project Funding

Workshop participants were asked to consider all pertinent factors that could

effect project success related to each element, including changes in project schedule, cost,

or scope changes. Participants were then asked to assign two weights to each element

based on their sample project: the first weight was to be based on if the items described in

the element were completely defined and accounted for just prior to beginning detailed

design, and the second weight was to be based on if the items described in the element

were not defined or accounted for at all just prior to detailed design. The weights

correspond to Level 1 and Level 5 scope definition, respectively. Workshop facilitators

encouraged participants to think of the weights as a contingency for each element, i.e.,

what contingency would you assign to this element if it were completely defined, or

incomplete or poorly defined, at a point just prior to detailed design. Preceding PDRI

research teams concluded that participants involved in the weighting workshops tended to

provide linear interpolation of their contingency responses for definition levels 2, 3, and
102
4. The research team chose not to collect contingency amounts for these definition levels

from the workshop participants, due to these values being fairly simple to calculate. The

interpolation calculation method used by the author is described in detail later in this

chapter.

Participants recorded the two weights as contingency amounts on blank weighting

factor evaluation sheets. Contingency was defined as the element’s individual impact on

total installed cost, stated as a percentage of the overall estimate at the point just prior to

the commencement of detailed project design. Contingency amounts were to be given as

integers. Figure 6-4 provides an example of how a workshop participant would record the

contingency amounts.

SECTION I - BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION

Definition Level
CATEGORY
N/A 1 2 3 4 5 Comments
Element
A. PROJECT ALIGNMENT
A.1 Project Objectives Statement 10% 30%
A.2 Project Strategy and Scope of Work 4% 25%
A.3 Project Philosophies 0% 22%
A.4 Location X

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

Figure 6-4. Sample of Workshop Weighting Category A

The workshop facilitators conveyed that if an element were completely defined

just prior to detailed design, it would logically have a lower contingency than if the

element was not defined at all. The facilitators further explained that any amount of

contingency could be given, as long as a relative consistency of element importance (as

103
compared to the balance of elements in the tool) was kept for all responses. Participants

were provided time at the end of each session to review their weights and ensure

consistency of their responses.

It was noted that some elements (and possibly entire categories) might not be

applicable to the projects being referenced by the participants. Non-applicable elements

were described as elements that truly would not need to be considered during front end

planning. Participants were instructed to indicate an element was not-applicable (i.e.,

N/A) by making a check in the N/A column, and not to list contingency amounts for

either Level 1 or Level 5 definition (see Figure 6-4). Non-applicable elements were to be

recorded separately from elements that would not need any contingency (i.e., zero

percent contingency for Level 1 definition) if the element were completely defined prior

to detailed design. Assessing the elements in this fashion mitigated the possibility of

receiving incorrect data that could possibly skew the overall responses during the data

analysis.

The facilitators addressed any questions posed by the workshop participants as the

elements were individually reviewed. Adequate time was provided for participants to

assess each element, but not enough time to “over think” the elements, keeping a

consistent flow throughout the session. Participants were asked to record additional

thoughts/comments about specific elements or the PDRI in general in either the

comments section of the blank weighting factor evaluation sheets, or the suggestions for

improvement sheet. Research Team 314a reviewed all commentary received, and

incorporated it into the PDRI element descriptions and score sheet where applicable. The

comments were reviewed by the entire research team during subsequent team meetings.

104
 Following the review of the element descriptions, the facilitator asked each

participant to fill out an unweighted score sheet for their project, where they assessed the

level of definition for each element at the end of front end planning. This data, along with

the project performance data the participants provided, was used to test the effectiveness

of the PDRI – Small Infrastructure in predicting project performance. Chapter 7 discusses

PDRI testing.

In summary, the weighting workshops for PDRI – Small Infrastructure largely

followed the methodology used by Research Team 113, PDRI – Industrial, Research

Team 155, PDRI – Building, and Research Team 268, PDRI – Infrastructure. The key

difference was that the team collected PDRI testing data at the workshop, rather than

following the workshop. Industry practitioners were asked to weight each element based

on relative importance to typical small infrastructure projects. The workshops were very

successful in both collecting weighting data and receiving insight from experience

industry professionals on the value and use of the tool. The workshops also allowed the

researchers to expediently collect data to test the tool, namely project performance data

and a PDRI assessment of the project using the unweighted score sheet. Workshop data

was used to develop a weighted score sheet for the PDRI, as described in the next section,

and to test the PDRI – Small Infrastructure, as described in Chapter 7.

6.4. Developing the PDRI Element Weights

The author reviewed the weighting factor evaluation sheets for completeness after

each workshop. Responses from six workshop participants were not used in the data

analysis: one due to unresponsive answers (the participant did not follow instructions),

another provided an out of scope project (industrial project), three due to lack of
105
sufficient industry experience (i.e., less than 5 years). Finally, the author along with RT

314a removed one response from one organization, as that organization would otherwise

have accounted for more that 10% of the data collected, which the author felt could skew

the sample. The research team deemed data from the remaining responses satisfactory for

analysis, and that data was normalized for statistical comparison.

6.4.1. Normalizing Process

The workshop facilitators did not provide a contingency range to the workshop

participants. The only stipulation posed was that the contingency amounts provided

should indicate the relative importance of each element as compared to the balance of

elements in the tool. For example, if an element were given a Level 5 contingency

amount of 20 percent, this element would be twice as critical to project success as an

element that received a Level 5 contingency amount of 10 percent. This same consistency

could be used by a separate workshop participant, but with different contingency

amounts. For example, instead of using 20 percent and 10 percent, another participant

may use 50 percent and 25 percent. In relative terms, both of these participants weighted

the elements equally, with one element being twice as important to project success as the

other. An issue arises when attempting to compare the responses from these two

workshop participants, as the numerical values appear to be drastically different, when in

fact both participants assign equal relative importance to the two elements at hand.

Normalizing, or adjusting values to match a standard scale, is necessary to compare

responses such as these.

The normalizing process consisted of four steps: (1) compiling all workshop

participant data, (2) calculating non-applicable element weights, (3) calculating

106
normalizing multipliers, and (4) calculating adjusted element weights. Figure 6-2 gives

an excerpt of the data used for the normalization process for participant TX-160210-O-4

(Texas workshop on February 10, 2016, owner participant number 4). This figure is used

throughout the explanation of the four normalization steps. The same methodology was

used for all workshop participants. The research team chose to use the same scale as the

previously developed PDRIs (e.g., sum of all Level 1 definitions equals 70, the sum of all

Level 5 definitions equals 1000) for the normalization process.

Table 6-2. Excerpt of Data used for Normalizing Level 1 and Level 5 Weights for
TX-160210-O-4

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Contingency Non-Applicable
Normalizing Multiplier Normalized Weight
Weight Elements
Added Added
Level 1 Level 5
Element Level 1 Level 5 Weight Weight Level 1 Level 5
Multiplier Multiplier
for 1's for 5's
A.1 10 40 - - 1.18 3.63 18.2 145.3
A.2 1 10 - - 1.18 3.63 1.8 36.3
A.3 N/A N/A 1.6 20.6 1.00 1.00 1.6 20.6
A.4 2 30 - - 1.18 3.63 3.6 109.0
A.5 N/A N/A 1.7 28.5 1.00 1.00 1.7 28.5
A.6 1 10 - - 1.18 3.63 1.8 36.3
B.1 N/A N/A 1.2 23.6 1.00 1.00 1.2 23.6
B.2 1 5 - - 1.18 3.63 1.8 18.2
- - - - - - - - -
G.1 N/A N/A 1.9 33.6 1.00 1.00 1.9 33.6
G.2 1 3 - - 1.18 3.63 1.8 10.9
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
H.6 2 6 - - 1.18 3.63 3.6 21.8
Totals 35 246 6.4 106.3 - - 70.00 1000.00

107
Step 1 – Compiling all workshop participant data

• In total, Research Team 314a collected data on 71 completed projects.

Immediately, the author had to remove two projects from this sample – one was

not an infrastructure project and one participant did not provide any project

performance data. Weighting data from the remaining 69 workshop participants

were compiled into one Microsoft Excel™ spreadsheet. Each participant was

given an alphanumeric code based on the workshop in which they participated in,

and the type of organization they represented. For example, TX-160210-O-4

stands for the Texas workshop, date of workshop, “O” denotes the participant

represents an Owner organization, and participant number 4. The alphanumeric

code was created to keep personal workshop participant and proprietary project

information guarded.

• The data was categorized by element and definition level weights provided by the

participants

• The Level 1 and Level 5 weights were totaled. As shown in columns 1 and 2, the

total Level 1 and Level 5 elements weights given by workshop participant TX-

160210-O-4 were 35 and 246 respectively.

Step 2 – Calculating Non Applicable Element Weights

• Non applicable elements notwithstanding, the basic process for normalizing a

participant’s Level 1 responses would be to divide 70 by the total Level 1 element

weights, or 35 in this case. As shown in columns 1 and 2, four elements, A.3, A.5,

B.1 and G.1, were not applicable to the project assessed by TX-160210-O-4. As

previously stated, non-applicable elements should lower the potential Level 1 and

108
 Level 5 scores on a pro-rata basis depending on the element weighting. To take

this into account, weights were added to the non-applicable elements based on the

average weight of that element from all workshop participants that considered the

element applicable (shown in columns 3 and 4).

• The total Level 1 and Level 5 non-applicable elements weights attributed to

workshop participant TX-160210-O-4 were 6.4 and 106.3, respectively.

Step 3 - Calculating Normalizing Multipliers

• Equation 1 shows the calculation for the Level 1 normalizing multiplier, used to

normalize the Level 1 responses to a total score of 70.

70 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 1 𝑁𝑜𝑛 − 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠

𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑟 =
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 1 𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠

• Equation 2 shows the calculation for the Level 5 normalizing multiplier, used to

normalize the Level 5 responses to a total score of 1000.

𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑀𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑟

1000 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 5 𝑁𝑜𝑛 − 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠

=
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 5 𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠

• The Level 1 and Level 5 normalizing multipliers calculated for workshop

participant TX-160210-O-4 were 1.1818 and 3.63, respectively.

Step 4 – Calculating adjusted element weights

109
 • Each individual element weight was multiplied by the normalizing factors to

determine the participant’s adjusted Level 1 and Level 5 weights, shown in

columns 7 and 8. The result of totaling the adjusted weights for each element

(including those considered non-applicable) at definition Level 1 and Level 5

equal 70 and 1000, respectively.

In summary, the normalization process for PDRI-Small Infrastructure followed

the methodology used by Research Team 113, PDRI – Industrial, Research Team 155,

PDRI – Building, Research Team 268, PDRI – Infrastructure, and Research Team 314,

PDRI – Small Industrial. Workshop participant weighting scores were normalized to a

standard scale for comparison purposes. The next section describes the screening of the

adjusted element weights.

6.4.2. Screening the Data Using Boxplots

The author sought to include only those data sets that were as close to a normal

distribution as possible to determine appropriate mean element weights that would be

used to create the weighted score sheet. The author utilized SPSS™ and Microsoft

Excel™ to calculate the descriptive statistics (e.g., mean, median, standard deviation,

variance, skewness) after the adjusted element weights were developed. Analysis of

descriptive statistic data revealed that several of the elements were either moderately or

highly skewed, indicating that responses from several of the participants were skewing

the overall data set.

The author generated boxplots in SPSS™ detailing the interquartile range,

median, outliers (shown as circles in Figure 6-5), and extreme values (shown as stars in

Figure 6-5) for each element, at both Level 1 and Level 5 weights to visually identify
110
participant weights that were skewing the mean element weights. Figure 6-5 shows the

boxplots for six element weights at definition Level 5 in Category A.

Range of Values

Elements

Figure 6-5. Boxplots of Category A, Definition Level 5 Weights

The author utilized Microsoft Excel™ to derive the interquartile range, median,

outlier, and extreme value thresholds associated with each element. The author

highlighted individual workshop participant element weights considered outliers or

extreme, and calculated the total number of outliers and extremes per participant. The

author also calculated “Contribution scores” (i.e., the amount a participant was skewing

the data) for each workshop participant based on the number of outlier and extreme

values. The contribution scores were calculated as:

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = 3 𝑥 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑠 + 1 𝑥 (𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑟𝑠)

111
 Table 6-3 shows each workshop participant’s contribution score. Figure 6-6

provides the contribution scores (by score category) in a bar chart format. Viewing the

weighting data in this fashion highlighted the contribution score ranges skewing the mean

element weights the most, and ranges of scores that were relatively higher than the total

workshop participant set.

Table 6-3. Workshop Participant Contribution Scores (Ranked Highest to Lowest)

112
 14
12

Number of Workshop Participants

12
10 9 9

8
6
6 5 5
4
4 3
2 2 2 2 2
2 1 1
0 0
0

Contribution Scores

Figure 6-6. Workshop Participant Contribution Scores (By Score Category) (n=65)

Previous PDRI research teams had contemplated five options for removing data

that was skewing the mean element weights. The first option was to decide if the outliers

and extremes were still valid data points and use all data sets and points to determine the

element weights. The second option was to throw out entire data sets, or workshop

participants, who had contribution scores deemed “too high” or “too low” or “too far

away from mean” by the research team. The third option was to keep all data sets but

remove only the data points that were outliers or extremes on any given element. The

fourth option was a combination of options two and three, to remove entire data sets for

the workshop participants whose contribution score was determined to be “too high” by

the research team, similar to option two, but also remove any remaining outliers and

extremes on individual elements, similar to option three. The fifth and final option was to

remove only those data points that were calculated as extremes and leave the data points

calculated as outliers.

113
 Option two, to remove entire data sets of those workshop participants whose

contribution scores were determined to be “too high”, was used. This was the option

chosen by all of the previous PDRI research teams, and Research Team 314a deemed it

prudent for this research effort. The team determined that workshop participants with a

contribution score greater than ten should be removed from the data set. This was a

logical conclusion based on the groupings of scores shown in Table 6-3 and Figure 6-6.

Data sets from six workshop participants (TX-160210-O-18, AL-160301-C-2, NY-

160310-C-3, NY-160310-C-5, NY-160310-C-9, LD-160414-C-1) were removed from the

total data set.

The author utilized the same procedure for normalizing weights and calculating

adjusted element weights on the remaining workshop participant element weights. The

author also used the same procedure to create boxplots, and calculate interquartile range,

median, outlier, and extreme value thresholds, and contribution scores. Appendix C

includes the set of boxplots from this analysis. The author found that several workshop

participants had contribution scores that could be considered “too high” (i.e., higher than

ten) after completing the second round of analysis. The author realized that after

removing these data sets from the total data set, the mean element scores were only

slightly adjusted, and that this slight adjustment would make little difference when

developing the final PDRI score sheet. No further workshop participant responses were

removed from the analysis based on this determination.

The next section describes the procedures used for finalizing the PDRI – Small

Infrastructure score sheet, including interpolation of scores for Levels 2, 3, and 4, and

rounding of element weights.

114
 6.4.3 Finalizing the PDRI Score Sheet

The individual Level 1 and Level 5 element scores were developed through the

data analysis described in the previous section, as the typical 70-1000 PDRI scoring

range was used during the normalization process. The next step was to determine the

Level 2, 3, and 4 element weights. Calculating these scores was done by linear

interpolation between the Level 1 and Level 5 scores already established. The weights

were calculated as follows:

Level 2 Weight = ((Level 5 Weight – Level 1 Weight) / 4) + Level 1 Weight

Level 3 Weight = ((Level 5 Weight – Level 1 Weight) / 4) + Level 2 Weight

Level 4 Weight = ((Level 5 Weight – Level 1 Weight) / 4) + Level 3 Weight

The calculations used to determine the adjusted element weights for Levels 1 and

5, and interpolated weights for Level 2, 3, and 4 produced non-integer numbers.

Rounding of each number was necessary to complete the PDRI score sheet, as only

integers are used as weights on the PDRI score sheets. A standard rounding procedure

was used, where numbers with decimals equal to or greater than .50 were rounded up,

and numbers with decimals less than .50 were rounded down. This held true for a

majority of the weights, but a few of the element weights that were just below .50 were

rounded up instead of down so that the Level 1 and Level 5 scores could exactly equal 70

and 1000, respectively. Adjusting numbers in this fashion was deemed acceptable by the

research team, as the PDRI is not necessarily a precision tool; slight adjustments to scores

make little difference to project success. Table 6-4 provides the results of the

interpolation calculations (including rounding).

115
Table 6-4. Results of Interpolation for Level 2, 3, and 4 Element Weights

116
 The author completed a final check of the element weights for definition Levels

1-5 and a weighted score sheet created after the data interpolation. Appendix B provides

the weighted score sheet. The score sheet has a definition level 0 added for elements not

applicable to projects being assessed with the tool.

6.5. Analyzing the Weighted PDRI

The weighted element score sheet can be used to highlight sections, categories,

and elements of greatest importance to project success. Reviewing only the highest

weighted elements could be a method to quickly assess a project if a project team had

limited time. Project teams should focus on the sections, categories and elements that

have the highest contribution to the PDRI score. Section II, Basis of Design, has the

highest total score. Elements in this section have the highest probability to effect project

success if the scope of a project were such that all categories would be pertinent. Figure

6-7 shows the PDRI sections and their corresponding Level 5 weights.

Section Weights
SECTION I - BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION 275
SECTION II - BASIS OF DESIGN 470
SECTION III - EXECUTION APPROACH 255
Total 1000

Figure 6-7. PDRI Sections and Total Level 5 Weights

Figure 6-8 provides a breakout of each of the three sections based on their

categories. Category A, Project Alignment, carries the highest weight of all of the

categories, followed by Category C, Design Guidance, and Category H,

Engineering/Construction Plan And Agreements. If a project team wanted to focus on

117
specific elements that would have the highest impact on project success, concentrating on

elements with the highest weights would be prudent.

Category Weights
Section I
A. Project Alignment 189
B. Project Requirements 86
Section II
C. Design Guidance 187
D. Project Design Parameter 132
E. Location and Geometry 72
F. Associated Structures & Equipment 79
Section III
G. Execution Requirements 122
H. Engineering/Construction Plan and Agreements 133

Figure 6-8. PDRI Categories and Total Level 5 Weights

Figure 6-9 provides a listing of the top eight PDRI elements based on Definition

Level 5 weight. The workshop participants judged these elements as being the most

critical to project success for people and freight, fluids, and energy small infrastructure

projects. The top eight elements make up nearly 30 percent of the total weight of all

elements. Four of the eight elements are included in Section I, three elements are

included in Section II, and one element is included in Section III.

118
 Definition
Rank Element Element Description Level 5 Section
Weights
1 A.1 Need & Purpose Statement (Highest) 55 I
2 B.2 Physical Site 39 I
3 G.1 Land Acquisition Strategy 35 III
4 A.6 Preliminary Project Schedule 34 I
5 C.4 Project Site Assessment 32 II
6 C.1 Lead/Discipline Scope of Work 31 II
C.5 Environmental & Regulatory Considerations 31 II
8 A.4 Project Philosophies 30 I
Total 287

Figure 6-9. Top Eight PDRI Elements by Weight (Definition Level 5)

6.5.1. Element Weights for Project Types

The author along with Research Team 314a were curious about how different

small infrastructure project subsets were represented within the PDRI, in addition to

understanding the blended results of the small infrastructure project types (represented by

the workshop participants). The question was “how would the element weights change if

a select group of participants or project types were evaluated separately?” The author

analyzed the data in the following two ways to address this question:

• Element weight ranking by owners vs. engineers/contractors

• Element weight ranking on People & Freight, Energy, and Fluids projects

The next section describes the results of this analysis.

6.5.2. Comparison of Owners and Engineers/Contractors

Thirty-eight workshop participants were owners and 33 were

engineers/contractors, of the 71 total workshop participants used for developing the

119
weighted PDRI score sheet. The author categorized and analyzed the element weights

reported by these workshop participants separately to discern if there was a significant

difference between the two data sets. Figure 6-10 details the top ten elements based on

Definition Level 5 ranks of the two groups. Although there were differences between the

two data sets, in general, the element weight rankings were fairly similar. The analysis

also highlighted areas where owners and engineers/contractors would typically differ in

ranking the importance of different project aspects.

120
 Owners
Definition Level 5
Rank Element Element Description
Weight
1 A.1 Need & Purpose Statement 48
2 G.1 Land Acquisition Strategy 38
3 B.2 Physical Site 35
4 C.4 Project Site Assessment 33
5 H.2 Project Cost Estimate and Cost Control 32
E.1 Schematic Layouts 32
C.1 Lead/Discipline Scope of Work 32
8 A.6 Preliminary Project Schedule 31
A.4 Project Philosophies 31
10 C.3 Topographical Surveys & Mapping 30
Total 342

Engineers/Contractors
Definition Level 5
Rank Element Element Description
Weight
1 A.1 Need & Purpose Statement 64
2 B.2 Physical Site 44
3 C.5 Environmental & Regulatory Considerations 42
4 A.6 Preliminary Project Schedule 39
5 A.5 Project Funding 37
6 C.4 Project Site Assessment 31
C.1 Lead/Discipline Scope of Work 31
8 G.1 Land Acquisition Strategy 30
9 H.3 Project Schedule and Schedule Control 29
D.1 Capacity 29
Total 376

Figure 6-10. Comparison of Top Ten Definition Level 5 Ranks from Owners and
Engineers/Contractors

Elements A.1, Need & Purpose Statement, and B.2 Physical Site ranked in the top

three highest weighted elements for both owners and contractors/engineers. This shows a

consensus of how important it is to understand what the objectives of the project are, how

the objectives will be accomplished, and what financial considerations will be necessary

to complete the objectives of typical small infrastructure projects. The other four

121
elements included in the top ten for Owners and Contractors/Engineers were A.6

Preliminary Project Schedule, C.4 Project Site Assessment, C.1 Lead/Discipline Scope of

Work and G.1 Land Acquisition Strategy.

Owners highly ranked elements such as A.1, Need & Purpose Statement, G.1

Land Acquisition Strategy and B.2 Physical Site. These elements stress the importance of

understanding operational characteristics of the project, as opposed to construction

characteristics. An operational focus would be expected of an owner more than a

contractor/engineer, as they will “live with” the final outcomes of the project long after

construction is completed.

Engineers/contractors highly ranked elements such as C.5 Environmental &

Regulatory Considerations, A.6 Preliminary Project Schedule, A.5 Project Funding, C.4

Project Site Assessment and H.3 Project Schedule and Schedule Control. These elements

emphasize a typical area of project scope on many infrastructure construction projects,

the environmental assessment, as well as the project schedule and site, in addition to the

funding of a project. It is incumbent for engineers/contractors to address these project

aspects during front end planning if small infrastructure projects are to be successful for

those actually designing and building them.

The difference in rankings is not enough to warrant the creation of separate

PDRIs for owners and engineers/contractors, but does suggest areas where these different

groups may want to focus their efforts during front end planning to mitigate the potential

of future risks related to project unknowns. In the end, RT 314a felt that it was important

to keep the PDRI blended with both owner and engineer/contractor perspectives to better

represent a true risk level during assessment.

122
 6.5.3. Comparison of People & Freight, Fluids and Energy Projects

This tool and these descriptions have been developed to address a variety of types

of small infrastructure projects that are “horizontal” in nature and connect nodes (e.g.,

buildings and industrial facilities) in different systems. Three basic varieties of projects

are addressed in this tool: 1) projects that convey people and freight, such as runway

resurfacing and intersection rebuilds, 2) projects that convey fluids, such as

reconditioning pipelines and pipeline relocations, and 3) projects that convey energy,

such as transmission lines or electrical ductbank insulation.

Workshop participants were asked to provide typical small infrastructure projects

recently completed in their organization, aligned to People & Freight, Fluids, or Energy

project types. Twenty-four projects were people & freight related, twenty-nine were

fluids related and 17 projects were energy related, of the 71 total projects used by the

workshop participants for the final PDRI element weighting. The element weights

reported on these projects (regardless of owner or engineer/contractor participant) were

categorized separately and analyzed to discern if there was a significant difference

between the three data sets. Figure 6-11 details the top ten elements based on Definition

Level 5 ranks of the three project types (People & Freight, Fluids, and Energy). The

analysis shows some differences between the three data sets, but in general, the element

weight rankings were fairly similar. This is analogous to the owner and

engineer/contractor comparison described in the previous section.

123
 People & Freight
Definition
Rank Element Element Description
Level 5 Weight
1 A.1 Need & Purpose Statement 46
2 B.2 Physical Site 42
3 A.5 Project Funding 40
4 C.4 Project Site Assessment 35
5 C.5 Environmental & Regulatory Considerations 34
E.1 Schematic Layouts 34
7 A.4 Project Philosophies 32
G.1 Land Acquisition Strategy 32
9 A.6 Preliminary Project Schedule 31
10 G.2 Utility Adjustment Strategy 30
Total 356

Fluids
Definition
Rank Element Element Description
Level 5 Weight
1 A.1 Need & Purpose Statement 71
2 B.2 Physical Site 41
3 D.1 Capacity 34
4 A.6 Preliminary Project Schedule 36
5 C.5 Environmental & Regulatory Considerations 33
6 C.1 Lead/Discipline Scope of Work 32
7 A.4 Project Philosophies 31
G.1 Land Acquisition Strategy 31
9 C.3 Topographical Surveys & Mapping 29
10 E.1 Schematic Layouts 28
Total 366

Energy
Definition
Rank Element Element Description
Level 5 Weight
1 G.1 Land Acquisition Strategy 56
2 A.6 Preliminary Project Schedule 40
3 A.1 Need & Purpose Statement 39
4 C.4 Project Site Assessment 37
5 C.1 Lead/Discipline Scope of Work 36
6 B.2 Physical Site 35
H.3 Project Schedule and Schedule Control 35
8 A.3 Public Involvement 33
9 H.2 Project Cost Estimate and Cost Control 32
C.5 Environmental & Regulatory Considerations 32
Total 375

Figure 6-11. Comparison of Top Ten Definition Level 5 Ranks from People &
Freight, Fluids and Energy Projects
124
 Five elements are ranked in the top ten highest weighted elements for People &

Freight, Fluids, and Energy Projects: A.1 Need & Purpose Statement, B.2 Physical Site,

C.5 Environmental & Regulatory Considerations, G.1 Land Acquisition Strategy, and

A.6 Preliminary Project Schedule. This consistency confirms that the PDRI – Small

Infrastructure is suitable for assessing People & Freight, Fluids, and Energy Projects.

Research Team 314a felt it prudent to keep a blended PDRI to reflect the issues of People

& Freight, Fluids, and Energy small infrastructure project types.

6.6 Summary

This chapter outlined the process that the author in conjunction with Research

Team 314a followed to develop the PDRI – Small Infrastructure. Data was primarily

collected through several workshops held across the United States and the United

Kingdom. The workshop facilitation was described and the process of weighting

elements was given. This chapter also discusses interesting comparisons of element

weights based on workshop participant affiliation (i.e., Owner versus

Engineer/Contractor) and project types.

125
 CHAPTER SEVEN

7 PDRI TESTING

This chapter summarizes the testing process for the PDRI – Small Infrastructure.

The purpose of the testing process was to determine the efficacy of the PDRI – Small

Infrastructure tool to predict project success. Research Team 314a utilized two methods

to test the efficacy of the tool: statistically comparing PDRI scores vs. cost, schedule,

change, financial performance, and customer satisfaction, on a sample of recently

completed small infrastructure projects, and soliciting industry volunteers to assess

projects currently in the front end planning phase (i.e., in-progress projects) with the tool.

This chapter describes the testing questionnaires, supporting statistical analysis data, and

conclusions derived from the statistical analysis.

7.1. Completed Projects

Research Team 314a collected completed project data in order to test the

hypothesis that scores derived by assessing a project with the PDRI – Small

Infrastructure tool correlate to levels of project performance. A higher PDRI score

indicates incomplete scope definition during front end planning, leading to poor project

performance. A lower PDRI score indicates sufficient scope definition, leading to

improved project performance.

Research Team 314a sought People & Freight, Fluids, and Energy infrastructure

projects that met the “small project” definition provided in Chapter 5. Workshop

participants provided the data for PDRI testing. The team asked that volunteers provide

126
project data on both “successful” and “unsuccessful” projects so that a thorough analysis

of typical small infrastructure projects could be completed.

7.1.1. Testing Data

Research Team 314a developed a multi-part questionnaire of open and closed-

ended questions to collect information on recently completed successful and unsuccessful

small infrastructure projects. Appendix E includes a copy of the questionnaire (Project

Background). The Project Background sheet solicited information about:

• Project name, location, facility type

• If the project was new construction, renovation/revamp, or both

• If the project would be considered people & freight, fluids or energy related

• Project driver (maintenance/replacement, production process improvement,

technology upgrade, governmental regulation, etc.)

• Project Design information, both planned and actual

• Project schedule information, both planned and actual

• Project cost information, both planned and actual

• Project change information

• Operating performance information (i.e., if the project met operating

expectations)

• Financial information (i.e., level of approval, financial measurement used to

authorize the project, if the project met financial expectations)

• Customer satisfaction with the project

127
 As previously mentioned, workshop participants were asked to evaluate a small

infrastructure project their organization had recently completed, assessing the level of

definition for each of the elements provided in the PDRI – Small Infrastructure tool and

presented at the workshop. The participants were also asked to provide detailed project

background and performance information. The participants determined the level of scope

definition the project team responsible for planning the project had achieved just prior to

the start of detailed design and construction based on the PDRI scoring scheme, and

recorded the levels on the un-weighted PDRI score sheet (see Appendix E).

7.1.2. Sample Characteristics

Research Team 314a distributed the Project Background sheet electronically to

each industry member of Research Team 314a, as well as to each of the workshop

participants. RT 314a sent the sheet out in advance of the workshop to allow participants

to collect the data over time and in their office, where accessing the required project

performance data would be easiest. In total, the Research Team 314a collected data on 71

completed projects. Immediately, the author had to remove two projects from this sample

– one was not an infrastructure project and one participant did not provide any project

performance data. The remaining 69 projects represent $529 million in project

expenditure. The sample projects were constructed in two separate countries, and

included renovation an revamp projects, new construction projects, and projects that

included both. The sample projects included 24 people & freight, 29 fluids, and 17

energy projects. The author calculated the PDRI scores for each of the completed projects

based on the levels of definition noted in each participant’s unweighted score sheet. The

PDRI scores ranged from 97 to 595, with an average score of 317. Table 7-1 provides a
128
breakdown of the completed project sample. It should be noted that eight of the 69

projects used in testing were above the $20 million cost threshold noted in the small

project definition developed by the research team. The author in conjunction with RT

314a chose to keep these projects in the testing sample as they represented projects

considered “small” by the organizations that submitted them, yet removed the seven

projects (identified in Table 7-1) that are less than $100,000 and greater than $50 million

when calculating the PDRI target score.

Table 7-1. Completed Small Infrastructure Projects used during Testing of the
PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects tool

129
Table 7-1 (Continued). Completed Small Infrastructure Projects used during
Testing of the PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects tool

130
 7.1.3. Project Performance Analysis

Research Team 314a sought to determine what a “good” PDRI score would be,

where “good” meant a score threshold (i.e., level of scope definition) that a project team

should achieve prior to moving a small infrastructure project forward into detailed

design. Three separate project performance factors (i.e., schedule, cost, change) were

calculated and compared to each project’s corresponding PDRI score at seven separate

scoring thresholds with increments of 50 (i.e., 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500) to

discern if and how project performance changed as PDRI scores increased. The author

also conducted the analysis with increments of 25 (i.e., 200, 225, 250, 275, 300, 325, 350,

375, 400, 425, 450, 475, 500). However, the author, in conjunction with the research

team, agreed to ignore these increments to align with previous PDRI tools’ cutoff scored

which were analyzed with increments of 50. The author calculated schedule, cost, and

change performance of the projects in the sample using the following formulas:

𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

𝑆𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 =
𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

Where:
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
= 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐷𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
= 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 − 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝐷𝑎𝑡𝑒

𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 − 𝐵𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡

𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 =
𝐵𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡

𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑂𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠 + 𝑁𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑂𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠

𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 =
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡

131
The positive change order costs added to the absolute value of negative change order

costs was calculated to determine the total change order costs on the projects. Calculating

the total change order costs in this manor allowed the author to discern the total cost

“turbulence” (i.e., additions and subtractions) of the projects.

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 7-2. The values shown in Table 7-2

are averages of the project performance factors for the projects included in each sub-

group (i.e., the projects with scores above and below each threshold). As shown, projects

that scored above and below the 300-point PDRI score threshold maintained the second

highest difference in cost performance of any of the thresholds tested and at the same

time recorded differences in both the Schedule and Change Performance. A 2 percent

difference in schedule performance was shown between projects scoring above and

below 300, and a 21 percent cost performance difference was shown. Change

performance for the 200, 350 and 500 categories showed equal differences (i.e., three

percent to zero percent) for projects scoring above and below the PDRI score thresholds.

Table 7-2. PDRI Scores vs. Project Performance Factors

132
 The author utilized independent samples t-tests, boxplots, and regression analysis

to determine if a statistical difference existed between project scoring above and below

the 300-point PDRI score threshold. The next few sections describe this analysis. Note

that the author use different sample sizes for the different performance metrics based on

data received; stated another way, not all projects provided the complete set of

performance data required for analysis.

7.1.3.1. Project Performance vs. PDRI Scores using Independent Samples t-

tests

7.1.3.1.1 Schedule Performance

The author summed schedule performance factors for projects scoring above and

below the 300-point PDRI score cutoff. The author then calculated a mean value of the

schedule performance factors. Figure 7-1 shows the comparison of the mean schedule

performance factors for projects with PDRI scores above and below 300.

Figure 7-1. Average Schedule Performance by PDRI Score Grouping

133
 The author found the mean schedule performance difference was two percent

between projects with PDRI scores above and below the 300 point cutoff, where projects

scoring below 300 averaged a 4 percent schedule duration increase as compared to the

planned schedule duration, and projects scoring above 300 averaged a 6 percent schedule

duration increase as compared to the planned schedule duration. An independent samples

t-test was performed to determine if a statistical difference existed between the schedule

performances of the two groups. Figure 7-2 provides the schedule performance

independent samples t-test results from SPSS™. As shown, the variances were assumed

to be equal based on the results of the Levene’s test (p value = 0.086), but there was not a

statistical difference at a 95% confidence interval between the two groups based on the p-

value of 0.942.

Figure 7-2. Independent Samples t-test Results for Schedule Performance at the 300

Point PDRI Score Cutoff

7.1.3.1.2 Cost Performance

The author summed cost performance factors for projects scoring above and

below the 300-point PDRI score cutoff, and calculated a mean value of the cost

performance factors in each sub sample. Figure 7-3 shows the comparison of the mean

134
cost performance factors for projects with PDRI scores below and above 300,

respectively.

Figure 7-3. Average Cost Performance by PDRI Score Grouping

The author found the mean cost performance difference was 21% between

projects with PDRI scores above and below the 300 point cutoff. Projects scoring below

300 averaged a 3 percent cost increase as compared to the planned project cost, and

projects scoring above 300 averaged a 24 percent cost increase as compared the planned

project cost. An independent samples t-test was performed to determine if a statistical

difference existed between the cost performances of the two groups. Figure 7-4 provides

the cost performance independent samples t-test results from SPSS™. As shown, the

variances were assumed not to be equal based on the results of the Levene’s test (p value

= .000). SPSS automatically calculates the p-value when the variances are not equal; it is

evident in the second row of the analysis output (equal variance not assumed) and

consequently increasing the p-value above the critical significance level of 0.05.

Therefore, there was a statistical difference at a 95% confidence interval between the two

groups based on the p-value of .048.

135
 Figure 7-4. Independent Samples t-test Results for Cost Performance at the 300

Point PDRI Score Cutoff

7.1.3.1.3 Change Performance

The author summed change performance factors for projects scoring above and

below the 300 point PDRI score cutoff, and a mean value of the change performance

factors was calculated. Figure 7-5 shows the comparison of the mean change

performance factors for projects with PDRI scores above and below 300.

Figure 7-5. Average Change Performance by PDRI Score Grouping

The author found that the mean performance difference was 5% between projects

with PDRI scores above and below the 300 point cutoff, where projects scoring below

136
300 averaged total change orders of approximately percent of the final project cost, and

projects scoring above 300 averaged total change orders of approximately 12 percent of

the final project cost. An independent samples t-test was performed to determine if a

statistical difference existed between the change performances of the two groups. Figure

7-6 provides the cost performance independent samples t-test results from SPSS™. As

shown, the variances were not assumed to be equal based on the results of the Levene’s

test (p value = .003), and there was not a statistical difference at a 95% confidence

interval between the two groups based on the p-value of .324.

Figure 7-6. Independent Samples t-test Results for Change Performance at the 300

Point PDRI Score Cutoff

7.1.3.2. Project Performance vs. PDRI Scores using Regression Analysis

The author completed a regression analysis to compare the cost performance

factors of the sample projects against their normalized PDRI scores to discern if a linear

relationship existed between the variables. Cost performance was considered the

dependent variable, and the associated PDRI score was considered the independent

variable. Regression analysis was also used to test the hypothesis that a lower PDRI score
137
indicates sufficient scope definition, which leads to improved project performance.

Improved project performance could also be considered less variable project

performance. The distribution of performance factors for projects with lower PDRI scores

should be tighter. As PDRI scores rise, so would the variability in project performance,

leading to a wider distribution of project performance factors.

Figure 7-7 provides the summary of the regression analysis and Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) for cost performance. The r-value of .317 indicates that there is a

positive correlation between PDRI score and cost performance. The r2 value of 0.10

indicates that approximately 10 percent of the variability in the cost performance is

explained by the PDRI score, meaning that over 90 percent of the variability is not

explained by the PDRI score. The p-value of .024 corresponding to the f-test in the

ANOVA table indicates that the regression is significant at a 95% confidence level (p-

values less than .05 denote statistical difference for a 95% confidence interval). Given

that the survey results (see Table 5-1) indicated that cost was the most common

differentiator between small and large infrastructure projects, Research Team 314a

wanted to ensure that projects scoring below the PDRI target score would contribute to

predictable cost performance, i.e., the change in cost performance should be statistically

significant at a 95% confidence interval for the target score (300 in this case). RT 314a

checked for statistical significance at a 90% confidence interval for the cost, schedule and

change performance, yet the results reflected statistical significance for only the cost and

change performance. Research Team 314a decided to keep the 95% confidence interval,

and notes that the change performance (p value = .055) was very close to statistically

significant at the 95% confidence interval.

138
 Figure 7-7. Cost Performance Regression Analysis Summary

Figure 7-8 provides the summary of the regression analysis and Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) for change performance. The r2 value of 0.07 indicates that

approximately 7 percent of the variability in the change performance is explained by the

PDRI score, meaning that nearly 93 percent of the variability is not explained by the

PDRI score. The p-value of .055 corresponding to the f-test in the ANOVA table

indicates that the regression is not significant at a 95% confidence level.

139
 Figure 7-8. Change Performance Regression Analysis Summary

Figure 7-9 provides the summary of the regression analysis and Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) for Schedule performance. The r2 value of 0.007 indicates that

approximately 1 percent of the variability in the change performance is explained by the

PDRI score, meaning that nearly 99 percent of the variability is not explained by the

PDRI score. The p-value of .592 corresponding to the f-test in the ANOVA table

indicates that the regression is not significant at a 95% confidence level.

140
 Figure 7-9. Schedule Performance Regression Analysis Summary

7.1.4. Change Performance (Alternative Method)

The author tested an alternative method for change performance due to the

minimal difference shown in the base analysis method. Change order costs and actual

project costs (at completion of the projects) taken from the testing questionnaires were

used to derive alternative change performance factors for each submitted completed

projects. The alternative method change performance was calculated as:

141
 𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑂𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠 + 𝑁𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑂𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠
𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 =
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡

The positive change order costs added to the negative change order costs was

calculated to determine the actual change order costs on the projects. The method was

chosen as total project changes are typically summed in this fashion when calculating the

final total installed cost of a project, where:

𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡

= 𝑂𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 + 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠

The author summed the alternative change performance factors for projects

scoring above and below the 300 point PDRI score cutoff, and a mean value of the

alternative change performance factors was calculated. Figure 7-10 demonstrates the

completed projects scoring below 300 averaged total change orders of 11 percent of the

final project cost, and projects scoring above 300 averaged total change orders of 21

percent of the final project cost, a 10 percent mean change performance difference.

Figure 7-10. Average Change Performance by PDRI Score Grouping

142
 Figure 7-11 provides the alternative change performance independent samples t-

test results from SPSS™, which was performed to determine if a statistical difference

existed between the change performances of the two groups. As shown, the variances

were assumed not to be equal based on the results of the Levene’s test (p value = .020),

but there was not a statistical difference at a 95% confidence interval between the two

groups based on the p-value of .058 (p-values less than .05 denote statistical difference

for a 95% confidence interval).

Figure 7-11. Independent Samples t-test Results for Alternative Change

Performance at the 300 Point PDRI Score Cutoff

7.1.5. Analysis of Project Financial Performance and Customer Satisfaction

The author sought to determine if lower PDRI scores (i.e., better scope definition)

indicate better financial performance and customer satisfaction for the completed

projects. Most workshop participants that submitted completed project data noted in their

questionnaires the project’s financial performance and customer satisfaction, each on a

scale of one to five. For financial performance, a score of one equated to the project

falling far short of expectations at authorization, and a score of five equated to the project

far exceeding expectations at authorization. For customer satisfaction, a score of one

143
equated to the overall success of the project being very unsuccessful, and a score of five

equated to the overall success of the project being very successful.

The financial performance and customer satisfaction ratings were summed for

projects scoring above and below the 300 point PDRI score cutoff, and mean values of

each were calculated. Figure 7-13 shows the comparison of the mean financial

performance and customer satisfaction ratings for projects with PDRI scores above and

below 300.

Figure 7-12. Average Financial Performance and Customer Satisfaction Rating by

PDRI Score Grouping

Completed projects with PDRI scores below 300 had better mean financial

performance and customer satisfaction ratings than projects with PDRI scores above 300,

as shown in Figure 7-12. The author performed a Mann-Whitney U Test to determine if a

statistical difference existed between the financial performance and customer satisfaction

of the two groups. Figure 7-13 provides the Mann-Whitney U Test results from SPSS™.

As shown, the financial performance rank-order differences were statistically different at

144
a 95% confidence level between the two groups based on a calculated p-value of .033,

but customer rank-order differences were not statistically different at a 95 percent

confidence level between the groups based on a calculated p-value of .134 (p-values less

than .05 denote statistical difference for a 95% confidence interval).

Figure 7-13. Mann-Whitney U Test Results for Financial Performance and

Customer Satisfaction at the 300 Point PDRI Score Cutoff

7.1.6. Summary of Completed Project Performance Evaluation

The results of the completed-project analysis showed that projects with PDRI

scores lower than 300 outperform projects with PDRI scores above 300 regarding cost

performance, schedule performance, change performance, financial performance, and

customer satisfaction. Figure 7-14 summarizes the mean cost, schedule, and change

performance factors for project with PDRI scores above and below 300.
145
 PDRI Score
Performance < 300 > 300 Δ
Cost 3% above budget 24% above budget 21%
(N=51) (N=29) (N=22)

Schedule 4% behind schedule 6% behind schedule 2%

(N=43) (N=23) (N=20)

Change Orders* 7% of budget 12% of budget 5%

(N=53) (N=29) (N=24)

Figure 7-14. Summary of Cost, Schedule, and Change Performance at the 300 Point

PDRI Score Cutoff

The independent samples t-test and regression analysis tests for cost performance

were both statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level. No statistically

significant difference was found for schedule performance and change performance, with

change performance calculated with two separate methods. The opinion of the research

team was that statistical significance was not found for schedule and change performance

for two reasons. First, changes to project scope after front end planning is complete (both

addition and deletion) can drastically affect even well-planned projects, as the original

scope of small projects is limited and more sensitive to change. Second, concurrency of

design and construction, which may be a reality of small infrastructure projects, may play

a role in schedule and change performance. Change orders will typically be necessary to

complete projects to meet the owner’s needs if the design intent is incomplete during

front end planning.

Note that regression analysis was performed as part of the hypothesis testing;

specifically, regression analysis tested the hypothesis that projects with lower PDRI

scores indicate projects with better cost, schedule, and change performance. Regression

analysis is a statistical method used to determine the dependency between two variables,
146
and to understand the magnitude of their association (Wilcox, 2009), as noted in Chapter

3. The greater the association, the closer the coefficient of determination, or r2 value, will

be to 1. Regression analysis may not be an accurate assessment method for this research,

as it would be impossible to ever achieve an r2 value at or close to 1 with the hypothesis

that lower PDRI scores indicate projects with greater levels of scope definition, and

higher PDRI scores indicate projects with lesser levels of scope definition. This is

evidenced in Figure 7-7 showing the regression analysis of cost performance. The

regression is statistically significant, but the r2 value is .100, meaning that on 10 percent

of the variability in the cost performance of the sample of completed projects is explained

by the PDRI score.

Lesser scope definition would arguably equate to more variable cost, schedule,

and change performance on projects, meaning that the distribution of performance factors

would be wider as PDRI scores grow larger. With wider distributions of project

performance, less of the variability can be explained through regression. The red dashed

lines in Figure 7-15 highlight this point, showing the width of the 95% confidence

intervals based on the regression equation calculated for cost performance. It would be

expected that the distribution of cost performance factors would generally match these

intervals if additional projects with PDRI scores greater than 400 were collected,

analyzed, and plotted.

147
 Figure 7-15. Regression Line and Confidence Intervals for Cost Performance

This point is further emphasized with the boxplots provided in Figure 7-16,

showing the distribution of cost performance factors for sample projects with PDRI

scores above and below 300. As shown, the distribution of cost performance values for

sample projects with PDRI scores greater than 300 have a greater spread than the sample

projects with PDRI scores lower than 300. In general, the cost performance factors for

projects scoring above 300 are also higher than the projects scoring below 300, indicative

of additional costs being necessary to complete projects with less scope definition.
Cost Performance

Figure 7-16. Boxplot of Cost Performance at 300-point PDRI Score Breakpoint

Breakpoint 300

7.2. In-Progress Projects

148
 The author along with RT 314a created a separate multi-part questionnaire to

observe the effectiveness of the PDRI tool to develop a scope definition package on

projects currently in the front end planning phase, and distributed it electronically to

workshop participants that expressed an interest in using the tool as well as members of

RT 314a. In total, the tool was used to assess scope definition of seven separate small

infrastructure projects by seven organizations. Table 7-3 lists the projects, which

comprise budgeted total project expenditure of approximately US $35.5 million. The

projects covered an all of infrastructure project types, with one people & freight, one

fluids and four energy projects, with budgeted costs ranging from $300,000 to nearly US

$13 million.

Table 7-3. In-Progress Projects Used During Testing of the PDRI-Small

Infrastructure

N: New P: People & Freight Total

Project PDRI
R: Renovation/Revamp E: Energy Installed Cost
Number Score
B: Both F: Fluids (Estimated)
P.1 R E $2,100,000 86
P.2 N E $13,300,000 113
P.3 B F $2,762,000 482
P.4 B P $4,000,000 306
P.5 N E $302,000 84
P.6 R E $13,000,000 276
P.7 R Not Provided Not Provided 231
Total Project Expenditure $35,464,000
Average Project Expenditure $5,910,667

The author analyzed each of the completed questionnaires, and found that the

average time to complete a project assessment was 1.5 hours, with an average of 6

individuals in each assessment. The author also found that the overall feedback from

users was positive. Users noted that the tool performed well in identifying critical risk
149
issues during the front end planning process, and spurred important conversations about

elements not yet considered by the project teams. Two participants indicated that

assessing a project with the tool added value to the front end planning process assessment

while one didn’t, however all participants agreed that they would use the tool again to

assess a future project.

7.3. Summary

The research team collected data on 76 projects, 69 completed projects and seven

in-progress projects, with an overall expenditure of over $564 million to test the efficacy

of the PDRI – Small Infrastructure tool. The data showed a difference regarding

schedule, cost, change, financial performance, and customer satisfaction on projects with

PDRI scores below 300 compared to projects with PDRI scores above 300. The author

and research team determined that a project scoring below 300 would be appropriate to

move forward into detailed design based on three factors:

• The 300-point cutoff had substantial percentage difference (between projects

scoring above and below the mark) across all the project performances (schedule,

cost, and change), based on the performance factors of the sample projects used

during the testing process.

• The 300-point cutoff had the greatest statistical difference (between projects

scoring above and below the mark) in cost performance of any of the score levels

tested, based on the performance factors of the sample projects used during the

testing process.

• The 300-point cutoff liaised with the PDRI – Small Industrial Projects score.

150
It should be noted that this score differs from the PDRI – Infrastructure, PDRI –

Buildings, and PDRI – Industrial tools which all suggest a 200 point PDRI score cutoff as

being appropriate to move a project forward into detailed design.

Users of the tool on in-progress projects stated that the tool facilitated the

identification of critical risk issues during the front end planning process, and spurred

important conversations about elements not yet considered by the project teams.

Moreover, in-progress projects agreed to use the tool again in the future, and that

assessment times were much shorter (averaging 1.5 hours) than typical assessment times

when using the PDRI – Infrastructure, which typically take 2 to 5 hours to complete.

Several limitations exist with this data analysis, as with any data analysis. A

majority of the data collected and used for this analysis came from individuals who were

asked to refer back to a point in time just prior to the start of detailed design on their

chosen projects, which may have been weeks, months, or even years prior to the testing

questionnaire being completed. This method may have led to slightly inaccurate

information due to memory lapse of the project participants during that time period.

Having knowledge of the actual project outcomes may also have biased the respondent’s

answers to be more favorable. Also, the sample of completed projects used in this

analysis is relatively small as compared to the total population of small infrastructure

projects completed each year across the globe, which easily numbers in the thousands.

151
 CHAPTER EIGHT

COMPARISON OF THE PDRI - INFRASTRUCTURE VS. THE PDRI - SMALL

8

INFRASTRUCTURE

This Chapter addresses hypotheses three, which is that both PDRI – Infrastructure

Projects and PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects require similar level of project

definition, between Complete Definition – Level 1 and definition with Minor

Deficiencies - Level 2, during FEP to support predictable project outcomes.

8.1. Abstract

Despite the need to reform and maintain the deteriorating infrastructure in the

United States, as well as create new infrastructure to meet the needs of future generations,

the construction industry often struggles to deliver infrastructure projects that meet their

budgeted cost and planned schedule. Infrastructure projects play a critical role in the built

environment, as they connect building and industrial projects to energy, water, and other

utilities, as well as to each other. These types of projects may present unique planning

challenges, as they may involve right-of-way acquisitions or adjustments, include more

underground construction than building or industrial projects, and may require more

interfacing with the public than other types of construction projects. One successful tool

that assists in planning such projects is an evidence-based tool, the Project Definition

Rating Index (PDRI), which supports the front-end-planning (FEP) for projects. PDRI –

Infrastructure Projects and PDRI – Small Infrastructure projects effectively facilitate FEP

efforts for infrastructure projects. Both tools provide a structured checklist of element

descriptions and an accompanying score sheet that supports alignment among project

stakeholders through providing an assessment of a project’s level of scope definition.

152
During the FEP phase of a project, which is prior to detailed design and construction,

testing of these infrastructure tools suggests that a more defined project during FEP leads

to more predictable cost, schedule, and change performance; that is, infrastructure

projects with lower PDRI scores usually maintain more robust cost and schedule

performance than those with higher PDRI scores.

This chapter provides a definition of a small infrastructure project as well as a

detailed comparison of PDRI – Infrastructure and PDRI – Small Infrastructure projects.

Specifically, the author distinguish between the two PDRIs in terms of their structure,

content and weight of the elements, most critical planning elements, and target PDRI

score. This chapter contributes to the FEP body of knowledge by: (1) characterizing a

small infrastructure project based on 16 factors of complexity, five of which were

corroborated via a survey of practitioners, and (2) identifying qualitative and quantitative

similarities and differences between PDRI – Infrastructure and PDRI – Small

Infrastructure Projects in support of improved planning efforts for both types of projects.

The author along with RT 314a identified the Total Installed Cost (TIC) to be the main

differentiator between small and large infrastructure projects, with small infrastructure

projects having a TIC cap of $20M while larger projects exceed $20M. The author’s

analyses show that both small and large infrastructure project types require similar levels

of project definition, namely between Complete Definition (Level 1) and definition with

Minor Deficiencies (Level 2) during FEP to support predictable performance outcomes.

8.2. Introduction

An infrastructure project is defined as a capital project that provides

transportation, transmission, distribution, collection, or other capabilities that support

153
commerce or interaction of goods, service or people (Bingham and Gibson, 2016, CII,

2010a); typically, an infrastructure project is “horizontal” in nature and acts as a vector

that connects building and industrial “nodes” within the built environment. Infrastructure

projects may convey people and freight, such as highways, railroads, and tunnels; they

may convey fluids, such as pipelines, open channels, and pumping stations; or they may

convey energy, such as transmission lines, electrical towers and substations (CII, 2010a).

The American Society of Civil Engineers rates the U.S. infrastructure once every four

years; in 2017 ASCE reported a score of “D+” for infrastructure, confirming that the U.S.

infrastructure systems are declining due to negligence, overuse, insignificant investment

and poor construction (Canning, 1998, ASCE, 2017). Studies by ASCE further indicate

that the U.S. requires approximately $3.6 trillion to construct and revamp the

infrastructure to achieve an acceptable level. In response to this need, the U.S. has

allocated and spent funds to improve the infrastructure systems, but there is still more to

do. Perhaps more importantly, infrastructure projects are often plagued by cost and

schedule overruns that reduce the effectiveness of allocated funds to meet infrastructure

need (Agarwal et al., 2016).

Numerous construction management best practices focus on delivering success once a

project begins construction (e.g., (Becerik-Gerber et al., 2012, Becker et al., 2014, Caldas

et al., 2014, Rajendran et al., 2012, Song et al., 2009, Thomas et al., 1989, Griffith and

Gibson, 2001). Research shows that arguably the best way to deliver predictable project

outcomes, though, is not only to focus on best practices during construction, but also

spend time on the front end planning (FEP) of projects prior to authorizing their funding

and subsequent construction (CII, 1999, CII, 2008, CII, 2010a, Gibson et al., 1993,

154
Gibson and Hamilton, 1994, Hamilton and Gibson, 1996). FEP begins after the business

leadership of an organization deems a project concept desirable, and continues until the

beginning of detailed design and construction of a project (Gibson and Hamilton, 1994).

Decisions made during this phase of the project life cycle have a much greater influence

on a project’s outcome than those made in later stages (Gibson et al., 1993, CII, 1994a).

FEP is a fundamental process of developing sufficient strategic definitions and

information with which the project’s stakeholders can address and assess risks in order to

maximize the possibilities of a successful project (Hamilton and Gibson, 1996).

The Construction Industry Institute (CII) developed several PDRI tools to assist

project teams throughout FEP by providing a structure for assessing the project’s level of

definition during FEP. The first PDRI tool was developed for industrial projects and its

success led to development of similar tools that focused on building and infrastructure

projects (CII, 1995, CII, 1999, CII, 2010a). Research shows that PDRIs support

successful project delivery; in fact, well performed FEP can reduce the total project

design and construction costs by as much as 20%, reduce the total project design and

construction schedule by as much as 39%, improve project predictability in terms of cost,

schedule, and operating performance, and increase the chance of a project meeting stated

environmental and social goals (Cho and Gibson, 2001, Bingham and Gibson, 2016,

Gibson and Hamilton, 1994, CII, 1994a, Hamilton and Gibson, 1996).

As most previous research efforts were not focused on small projects directly, there is

a research gap in the area of FEP for small infrastructure projects. Meanwhile, the

cumulative effect of poorly planned small infrastructure projects can have a major impact

on an organization’s bottom line; consequently, Research Team 314a (RT 314a)

155
developed the PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects specifically to address this project

type (Burke et al., 2016, ElZomor et al., 2016a). This chapter defines small infrastructure

projects and summarizes the differences between small and large infrastructure projects.

The chapter contributes new insights into the infrastructure body of knowledge through

comparison of the small and large infrastructure PDRI tools. The author discusses the

qualitative and quantitative similarities and differences between PDRI – Small

Infrastructure and PDRI – Infrastructure Projects.

8.3. Other PDRI Research and Background

Much of the infrastructure project planning literature focuses on large and

complex infrastructure projects (Haimes and Jiang, 2001, Karlaftis and Peeta, 2009, Nasir

et al., 2015). Nasir et al. (2015) utilized a FEP tool to predict the productivity and

schedule performance for large infrastructure projects. Aktan et al. (2016) recommended

a common international ontology for infrastructure and acknowledged that infrastructure

has been classified into sectors, but did not define the differences between these

infrastructure project sectors. Bocchini et al. (2013) established a framework of risk

assessment for large infrastructure projects while Ke et al. (2010) discussed the risk

allocation in public-private partnership of infrastructure projects.

Some planning literature does focus on small projects, but it does not provide insight

to small infrastructure projects specifically. Liang et al. (2005) attempted to differentiate

between small and large projects in general without representing a specific project type,

and provided guidance for owners to identify small projects and their criticality. Gao et al.

(2002) revealed that the number of small capital facility projects completed in many

organizations is substantial, thus these smaller projects deserve the same level of
156
planning as their larger counterparts; however, their research also did not differentiate

between building, industrial and infrastructure project types (CII, 2002). These findings

are consistent with those of past CII investigations, which showed that these types of

small projects are handled differently than large projects and pose unique risks (Collins et

al., 2016). However, even past CII work did not specifically address infrastructure

projects. Yet, in most infrastructure owner organizations, approximately half of the

number of projects completed in a fiscal year are considered small (Burke et al., 2016),

and thus this project type deserves study (ElZomor et al., 2016a).

CII convened RT 314a in May 2015 to develop a PDRI for small infrastructure

projects, PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects. This team comprised 20 participants,

including the author and 13 practitioners whose professional responsibilities include

planning, managing, and executing small infrastructure projects spanning the people and

freight, fluids, and energy project types. This section provides an introduction to their

work, which serves as the background to the analysis presented in the chapter.

Liang et al. (2005) provide a detailed discussion of PDRI – Small Infrastructure

development. This discussion is outside the scope of this chapter, however, the author

present salient details of the PDRI structure and development required to understand the

balance of this chapter. The PDRI is an index that assesses the level of project definition

during the FEP phase of a project. A PDRI comprises a structured checklist of elements

and descriptions that support scope definition on various project types and a

corresponding set of “weights” for those elements, one for each level of scope definition.

Research Teams develop element weights based on practitioner input and a normalization

process, as described in CII (1995, 1999, 2015). The weight of a given element measures

157
its importance relative to other elements. For example, if an element has a Level 5

weighting of 10, and another has a Level 5 weighting of 20, then the latter is twice as

important as the former. PDRI scores range from 70 (well-defined project scope) to 1,000

(poorly defined scope), with a lower score indicating a better definition of project scope.

8.4. Comparison Methodology

To define a small infrastructure project, RT 314a surveyed organizations involved

in infrastructure projects, asking respondents if characteristics of “small” projects found

in literature were indeed used in practice to differentiate small projects from large. The

survey sought to gain a better understanding of the following questions: (1) How do

organizations define a “small infrastructure project?; (2) What is the prevalence of small

projects in the infrastructure sector?; and (3) How do organizations plan for such projects?

The team developed the survey in an electronic format and distributed it to 210

infrastructure project practitioners. Forty-seven of these survey recipients responded (a

23 percent response rate). The author investigated these responses to: distinguish between

large and small infrastructure projects in terms of project characteristics, determine the

importance of FEP efforts for small infrastructure projects, and identify different

processes of project delivery for small infrastructure projects.

To identify qualitative and quantitative similarities and differences between PDRI –

Infrastructure and PDRI – Small Infrastructure projects, the author compared the tools in

four ways:

(1) Quantitatively comparing the Section Weights and Element Descriptions:

The author analysed the structural differences within PDRI – Small Infrastructure

158
 and PDRI – Infrastructure via an assessment of the content of the element

descriptions and a comparison of element weights within the two infrastructure

PDRIs.

(2) Comparing Owner and Contractor Perspectives in the PDRI –

Infrastructure and PDRI – Small Infrastructure Tools: The author identified

the highest weight elements, as ranked by practitioners from both Owner and

Contractor organizations, in both the PDRI – Infrastructure and PDRI – Small

Infrastructure tools.

(3) Comparing Infrastructure Project Types: The author compared the top

planning elements across infrastructure project types (People and Freight, Energy

and Fluid projects) in both the PDRI – Infrastructure and PDRI – Small

Infrastructure tools.

(4) Comparing Target Scores from the PDRI – Infrastructure and PDRI – Small

Infrastructure Projects Tools: The author compares the target score of PDRI –

Infrastructure and PDRI – Small Infrastructure to understand the differences in

the level of definition required to achieve predictable project outcomes on large

and small infrastructure projects.

8.5. Results and Discussion

In this section, the author explores the outcomes of the surveys to: (1) define the

different project phases of both small and large infrastructure projects, and (2) validate

the definition of small infrastructure projects through defining the complexity associated

with small and large infrastructure projects. Subsequently, the author discusses the

159
qualitative and quantitative similarities and differences between PDRI – Small

Infrastructure and PDRI – Infrastructure Projects based on the four comparisons

discussed in the methodology.

8.5.1. Defining Small Infrastructure Projects

8.5.1.1. Distinguishing Between “Large” And “Small” Infrastructure

Projects

RT 314a developed a list of 16 project characteristics that case study research,

literature review and experience suggested differentiate large infrastructure projects from

their smaller counterparts. Table 8-1 lists these characteristics, including project cost,

number of team members from different disciplines, and length of construction schedules,

among others. The author and research team created a survey that asked practitioners to

either agree or disagree with each characteristic and the differentiating value for that

characteristic (Burke et al., 2016). The majority of survey respondents agreed with five of

the characteristics and their associated thresholds: total installed cost (where small

projects cost less than US $20 Million), engineering effort (where small projects require

5,000 hours or less), construction duration (where small project duration ranges from six

to twelve months), availability of core team members (where small projects include part-

time management), and number of core team members (where small projects maintain

less than 10 core team members i.e., project managers, project engineers, and owner

representatives). Other characteristics for differentiating small projects from large,

developed by the author and research team but not corroborated by the survey

respondents, include source of funding, project visibility to owner management, extent of

160
external permitting required, number of local/state permits required, and number of

separate trade contractors. Table 8.1 presents project characteristics in order of

importance, as reported by survey respondents; that is, total installed cost is the most

important characteristic for differentiating large infrastructure projects from small, while

the number of Right Of Way parcels required is the least important.

Table 8-1. Characteristics of Small and Large Infrastructure Projects

Project Characteristic Small Projects Large Projects

Total Installed Cost* <$20 Million >$20.1 Million
Engineering Effort* < 5000 Hours > 5000 Hours
Construction Duration** 6-12 Months >18 Months
Number of Core Team Members** <10 individuals >10 individuals
Combination of part-time
Availability of Core Team Members** Part-time availability and full-time to completely
full-time
Project Visibility External to
Moderate Significant
Organization (Public)
None to moderate
Extent of Permitting Significant permitting
permitting
Number Jurisdictions Involved 1-3 jurisdiction > 5 jurisdictions
Existing Utility Provider Interface &
Minimal to Moderate Significant
Coordination
Sources of Funding Singular Multiple
Local/state to national
Types of Permits None to local/state permits
permits
3-4 separate trade 7-8 separate trade
Number of Trade Contractors
contractors contractors
Extent of Public Outreach Effort Minimal to Moderate Significant
Management of Public Outreach Effort Project Team Corporate Executives
Right Of Way (ROW) procurement
Minimal to Moderate Significant
effort
Number Of Right Of Way (ROW)
1-2 parcels >5 parcels
parcels required
* More than 50% of respondents reported this factor as a differentiator between small and large
projects
** More than 48% of respondents reported this factor as a differentiator between small and large
projects
Several respondents explained that the characteristics would not necessarily be

used to differentiate between small and large projects, but would be useful in their

organizations for determining project complexity. Small infrastructure projects should not
161
be differentiated from large projects solely on the basis of project cost levels within an

organization or across the industry at large. Survey responses indicated that project

complexity is the true differentiator between ‘small’ and ‘large’ infrastructure projects.

CII’s Research Team 305 defined project complexity as the degree of interrelatedness

between project attributes and interfaces, and their consequential impact on predictability

and functionality (CII, 2014b). They concluded that with selected management strategies

in place to control diverse project attributes and interfaces, the probability that projects

can be successful and predictable is increased. Infrastructure projects range from projects

with little to no complexity (i.e., simple maintenance projects such as re-surfacing or pipe

replacement) to highly complex projects (i.e., a subway project or major river crossing).

The rigor of planning efforts expended on a project should align with the project’s

complexity.

8.5.1.2. Front End Planning (FEP) Efforts For Small Infrastructure Projects

The respondents were asked to consider seven typical FEP procedures and select

those used in their organizations to plan for small infrastructure projects. There was also

an option to select “other” and describe a procedure used by their organization but not

listed. Figure 8-1 shows the categories of all survey responses; overall, these responses

indicate that the organizations commonly depended on more than one method, and most

frequently include “structured stage gate”, “ad hoc” and “internally developed scope

definition tools”. From these results, the author recognized that the planning processes for

small infrastructure projects vary across the infrastructure sector, and even within

organizations.

162
 Figure 8-1. Survey Responses Regarding Typical FEP Processes Used in Practice

(Note four respondents did not answer this question)

Figure 8-2 presents responses to questions concerning the cost and count of small

infrastructure projects completed in the survey respondents’ organizations during the

prior fiscal year. Sixty percent of survey respondents identify as working for contractor

organizations and 40% identify as working for owner organizations. As shown, both the

Owner and Contractor respondents estimated that 11-30 percent of projects completed

during the preceding fiscal year met their organization’s definition of small project on a

cost basis. Owners report 31-70 percent of the total number of projects completed in the

previous fiscal year met their organization’s definition of a small project. By contrast,

contractors report that 51-70 percent of the total number of projects completed by their

organization in the previous fiscal year met their organization’s definition of “small.”

These responses illustrate that small projects make up about half of the number of

163
projects completed, but account for less than half of the capital expenditure in the

infrastructure sector each year.

Figure 8-2. Prevalence of Small Projects in Survey Respondents’ Organizations

8.5.1.3. Front End Planning (FEP) Process of project Delivery for

Infrastructure Projects

Figures 8-3 and 8-4 illustrate two possible sequences for the FEP phase of projects.

The PDRI was originally envisioned as a decision-support tool for determining whether

or not to fund detailed design and construction. Research supports the notion that

employing the tool more than once prior to detailed design and construction can have

benefits for project performance (CII, 1995, CII, 1999, CII, 2010a, CII, 2015). RT 314a

found that for small infrastructure projects, certain phases of FEP may overlap, which

made determining two or more application points for the PDRI – Small Infrastructure

Projects tool challenging.

164
 Figure 8-3. The “Traditional” FEP Diagram, which describes most large

infrastructure projects’ FEP (color)

Figure 8-4. Concurrent FEP, which describes FEP on some Small Infrastructure

Projects

8.5.2. Quantitative evaluation of the Element Descriptions and Section

Weights in both Infrastructure PDRI Tools

Table 8-2 shows a structural comparison of PDRI – Infrastructure and PDRI –

Small Infrastructure. The only quantitative similarity between them is the number of

sections; both PDRIs include the same three sections, Basis of Project Decision (Section

I), Basis of Design (Section II), and Execution Approach (Section III). PDRI – Small

165
Infrastructure includes approximately fifty percent fewer categories and elements than its

counterpart PDRI – Infrastructure; however, the number of pages of element descriptions

was decreased by only about 25%. Given that the PDRI – Small Infrastructure element

descriptions incorporate the critical content from PDRI – Infrastructure, it follows that

despite decreasing the number of elements, the total number of pages does not decrease

by the same factor. The greatest reduction in the number of elements within PDRI –

Small Infrastructure is in Section I, with 60% fewer elements, followed by Section II,

with 50% fewer elements than in PDRI – Infrastructure, largely due to combining several

elements of PDRI – Infrastructure into a single element in PDRI – Small Infrastructure

(Table 8-2). Section II of PDRI – Small Infrastructure, Basis of Design, includes fifty

percent of the total number of elements in that tool (20 elements in this case); therefore

Section II of the PDRI – Small Infrastructure is the most critical.

Table 8-2. Structural Comparison of PDRI – Small Infrastructure and PDRI -

Infrastructure

PDRI – Small PDRI –

Comparison Δ
Infrastructure Infrastructure

Overall
Number of Sections 3 3 0
Number of Categories 8 16 -8
Number of Elements 40 68 -28
Number of Pages of Element Descriptions 28 39 -11
Elements per Section
Section I - Basis of Project Decision 9 23 -14
Section II - Basis of Design 20 23 -3
Section III - Execution Approach 11 22 -11
Weight per Section
Section I - Basis of Project Decision 275 (27.5%) 437 (43.7%) -162
Section II - Basis of Design 470 (47%) 293 (29.3%) 177
Section III - Execution Approach 255 (25.5%) 270 (27.0%) 15
Total 1000 (100%) 1000 (100%)

166
 The relative weight of Section I compared to Section II (Basis of Project Decision

and Basis of Design, respectively) varies between PDRI – Small Infrastructure and PDRI

– Infrastructure. The most important (i.e., highest weighted) section in PDRI – Small

Infrastructure is Section II, Basis of Design, with 470 points while for PDRI –

Infrastructure, the highest weighted section is Section I, Basis of Project Decision with

437 points. This aligns with the notion that large infrastructure projects often require a

robust decision making effort to define the project scope and location while less complex

or “small” infrastructure projects may already have these items defined prior to FEP. For

example, in a “large” highway project the project team must determine the exact location

and routing of the highway. For a ”smaller” highway project (e.g., re-paving) the location

need not be determined as part of the FEP efforts, as this may be considered a

maintenance activity that requires a prompt action in a pre-determined location. For

PDRI – Small Infrastructure projects, Section II (Basis of Design) is more critical

especially for those with concurrent FEP (Figure 8-4), as design begins “earlier”.

While the relative weights of the Sections may suggest that different priorities exist

for small and large infrastructure projects, a closer examination of the categories that

comprise the Sections tells a different story. For instance, in both PDRI – Infrastructure

Projects and PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects, determining the project need and

purpose (part of Category A in both tools) is critical. In fact, Category A is the second-

highest weighted category in PDRI – Infrastructure (Figure 8-5) and the highest weighted

category in PDRI – Small Infrastructure. (Figure 8-6). Figure 8-5 outlines the logic flow

for PDRI – Infrastructure and Figure 6 outlines the same for PDRI – Small Infrastructure.

In general, while the Section weights vary between the tools, similar categories surface as

167
most important, mainly those related to understanding the purpose of the project and the

stakeholders involved (Category A in both tools), as well as the design constraints

(Category E in PDRI – Infrastructure and Category C in PDRI – Small Infrastructure) and

parameters (Category I in PDRI – Infrastructure and Category D in PDRI – Small

Infrastructure). Thus, the author conclude that much of the shift in weight from Section I

of PDRI – Infrastructure to Section II in PDRI – Small Infrastructure is due to the

reduction in number of elements to consider in Section I, and the relatively larger portion

of elements to consider in Section II, for PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects.

Figure 8-5: PDRI – Infrastructure Projects Logic Flow Diagram (Color)

168
 Figure 8-6: PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects Logic Flow Diagram (Color)

8.5.2.1. Assessing The Content of the Element Descriptions for both

Infrastructure PDRI Tools

The author in conjunction with RT 314a analysed the element descriptions of both

PDRIs to determine how the elements from the PDRI – Infrastructure compare to those in

PDRI – Small Infrastructure. Table 8-3 illustrates examples of elements that are identical

between PDRI – Infrastructure and PDRI – Small Infrastructure. It also shows elements

from PDRI – Infrastructure that were combined to create a single element in PDRI –

Small Infrastructure. Note the majority of elements in PDRI – Small Infrastructure are

shared from PDRI – Infrastructure, albeit with some edits. Those common elements,

critical to both large and small infrastructure projects, align in title and description to

ensure that PDRI users consider and define these key scope elements regardless of the

project’s size and complexity. The combined elements group several related PDRI –
169
Infrastructure element descriptions into a single PDRI – Small Infrastructure element. For

example, PDRI – Infrastructure includes several elements discussing project philosophies:

Design Philosophy, Operating Philosophy, and Maintenance Philosophy while PDRI –

Small Infrastructure joins those elements into element A3, Project Philosophies. This, and

similar changes enables small project teams to complete their PDRI assessment of their

project in less time, but still cover those scope elements relevant to small projects. Project

teams that implemented the PDRI – Small Infrastructure during their FEP efforts report

that it took about 90 minutes to complete the PDRI – Small Infrastructure assessment and

the tool added value to the FEP process and the project as a whole (ElZomor et al.,

2016a).

Table 8-3. Comparison of Section I (Basis of Project Decision) Elements in PDRI –

Infrastructure Projects and PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects

170
 8.5.3. Comparing the Owner and Contractor Perspectives for both

Infrastructure PDRI Tools

Figure 8-7 compares the Top 10 Most Important Elements identified by owners to

those identified by contractors in the PDRI – Infrastructure Projects. Note both owners’

and contractors’ top ten most important elements include Need and Purpose

Documentation, Design & Construction Cost Estimates, Investment Studies &

Alternatives Assessment, Contingencies, Preliminary Project Schedule, Evaluation of

Compliance Requirements, and Capacity (CII, 2010a). It comes as no surprise that both

owners and contractors of large infrastructure projects would mutually rank these

elements in their top ten highest elements; these elements stress the importance of

understanding the design, cost and schedule of the construction project to be able to

commit adequate resources to a large infrastructure project. Owners’ Top 10 most

important elements also include Geotechnical Characteristics, Design Philosophy, and

Key Team Member Coordination. This seems reasonable, as these elements may

represent scope items that can be costly if overlooked, and would be more likely to cost

an owner money than a contractor money. On the other hand, contractors’ Top 10 most

important elements also include Funding and Programming, Existing Environmental

Conditions, and Functional Classification & Use, likely because these items are within

the contractor’s purview. The ranking of these elements show that contractors feel these

elements need to be well defined in order to mitigate future risks and project unknowns,

and thus increase the likelihood of delivering a large infrastructure project on schedule

and on budget.
171
In PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects, both owners and contractors ranked Need &

Purpose Statement, Land Acquisition Strategy, Physical Site, Project site Assessment,

Preliminary Project Schedule, and Lead/Discipline Scope of Work in their top 10 most

important elements (Figure 8-7). These six common elements emphasize the importance

of understanding the preliminary requirements that need to be committed to the project,

by both owners and contractors. Owners’ Top 10 most important elements also include

Project Cost Estimate and Cost Control, Schematic Layouts, Project Philosophies and

Topographical Surveys & Mapping. These four elements demonstrate the owners’ focus

on ensuring they get the project they want for the price they can afford. Contractors’ Top

10 most important elements also include Environmental & Regulatory Considerations,

Project Funding, Project Schedule and Schedule Control, and Capacity. These elements

illustrate the contractors’ focus on addressing these project aspects during front end

planning to anticipate cost, schedule and change orders that may result from the small

infrastructure project, and ensure that the project can be delivered on time and within the

allocated budget.

172
 Figure 8-7. Most Important Elements from Owner and Contractor Perspectives in
the PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects (left column) and PDRI – Infrastructure
Projects (right column)

In both PDRI – Infrastructure Projects and PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects,

both owners and contractors ranked the Need & Purpose Statement/Documentation

element as the most important. This establishes a consensus of how vital it is to identify

the objective(s) of the project early on, how the objective(s) will be accomplished, and

the financial considerations required to complete the infrastructure project, regardless of

size. In addition, for PDRI – Small Infrastructure, both owners and contractors include

the Physical Sites element in their top three most important elements, demonstrating the

significance of defining the physical site and its correlation to the success of a small

infrastructure project. Further, for PDRI – Infrastructure, both owners and contractors

included the Investment Studies & Alteration Assessment and Contingencies elements

within their top four most important elements, illustrating the importance of the

173
feasibility analysis and assessment to the success of a large infrastructure project. Figure

8-7, section A demonstrates that owners of both small and large infrastructure projects

rank the following PDRI elements in their Top 10: Project Philosophies, Design

Philosophy, Topographical Surveys & Mapping, and Geotechnical Characteristics. This

seems reasonable, as these elements are generally the responsibility of owners. These

elements inform the overall design, ensure the desired levels of service and lay out

guidelines to maintain adequate and safe operations, respectively. Similarly, section B of

figure 8-7 shows that contractors that work on both small and large infrastructure projects

include Environmental & Regulatory Considerations, Existing Environmental Conditions,

Project Funding, and Funding & Programming in their Top 10 most important elements.

These elements focus on payment and environmental requirements, and more directly

impact the contractor’s day-to-day activities than the owners selected elements, so here to,

the selection of elements seems reasonable.

Although the authors note some difference in the most important elements from

the owner versus contractor perspective, in general the owners and contractors provided

similar weights for the highest ranked elements for both the small and large infrastructure

PDRIs. Thus, it is appropriate to have a single PDRI tool that both owners and

contractors can implement during FEP for their infrastructure projects. This analysis also

suggests areas where these different groups may want to focus their efforts during FEP to

mitigate their unique unforeseen risks related to an infrastructure project.

174
 8.5.4. Comparison of Element Weights by Project Type

Figure 8-8 compares the top 10 most important elements, highest-weighted, based

on infrastructure project type (People & Freight, Fluids, and Energy).

In PDRI –Infrastructure, four common elements appear in the ten highest-

weighted elements for People & Freight, Fluids and Energy Projects. Figure 8 shows

these elements, namely Need & Purpose Documentation, Investment Studies &

Alternatives Assessment, Design & Construction Cost Estimates, and Preliminary Project

Schedule. This consistency confirms that the PDRI – Infrastructure is suitable for

assessing People & Freight, Fluids and Energy Projects. Likewise, the first three highest

weighted elements within each of the three project types were similar. The analysis also

illustrates weighting differences among elements of PDRI –Infrastructure dependent on

project type. Only People & Freight projects highly rate Funding & Programming,

Existing Environmental Conditions, and Environmental Documentation; meanwhile, only

Fluids projects highly rate Geotechnical Characteristics, and Functional Classification &

Use. Lastly, only Energy projects highly rate Key Team Member Coordination,

Determination of Utility Impacts, and Future Expansion & Alteration Consideration.

These differences seem reasonable, as they speak to the nature of construction (e.g.,

given the relative prevalence of underground work in fluids projects, geotechnical

considerations seem more critical) as well as the stakeholders involved (e.g., energy

projects often involve utilities, so it follows that these projects may focus more on utility

impacts than other project types).

175
 In PDRI – Small Infrastructure, five common elements rank in the ten highest-

weighted elements for People & Freight, Fluids, and Energy Projects. Figure 8 lists these

five elements, 1) Need & Purpose Statement, 2) Physical Site, 3) Environmental &

Regulatory Considerations, 4) Land Acquisition Strategy, and 5) Preliminary Project

Schedule. The consistency of the three highest-weighted elements within each of the

project types confirms that the PDRI – Small Infrastructure is suitable for assessing all

project types. The analysis also confirms differences in weights for PDRI – Small

Infrastructure elements dependent on project type. These differences largely relate to the

nature of these different project types. For instance, People & Freight projects highly rate

Project Funding, and Utility Adjustment Strategy elements; this seems reasonable as the

success of these projects depend on consistent funding and the ability to move utilities to

make room for the project. Fluids projects highly rate Capacity and Topographical

Surveys & Mapping; this too seems reasonable as these projects may be controlled by the

topography of the site and the capacity of existing pipes. Energy projects highly rate

Lead/Discipline Scope of Work, Project Schedule and Schedule Control, Public

Involvement, and Project Cost Estimate and Cost Control. Perhaps more than other types,

Energy projects may be subject to “not in my backyard” mentality, explaining the

importance of public involvement on this project type. It also seems that energy projects

require more clarity about cost, schedule, and discipline-specific scope of work, which

may be attributable to the cost growth, unforeseen conditions, and complex work

breakdown structures common for projects of this type, or the fact that they are generally

“for profit” undertakings. Although the comparison displays some differences between

176
the three data sets, the element weights are fairly similar, as in the owner and contractor

comparison.

The common critical elements in both small and large People & Freight projects

(section A of Figure 8-8) include Project Funding and Funding & Programming. This

indicates that the success of People & Freight projects may be more dependent on

funding than other types of infrastructure projects. This seems reasonable given the

public funding associated with many People & Freight projects. Topographic Surveys &

Mapping and Geotechnical Characteristics are elements that only Fluid projects deem

critical (section B of Figure 8-8), regardless of size. This seems reasonable given the

importance of topography and geotechnical conditions to construct structures that will

efficiently move fluids. Energy projects seem to show the most variance based on size

(section C of Figure 8-8). Perhaps this is due to the nature of projects in the author’s

sample of projects, or perhaps this is because large energy projects tend to involve more

stakeholders than other project types (on average), while small projects may be subject to

“scope creep” so it is critical to clearly lay out cost and schedule control during FEP.

Both the People & Freight and Fluid Projects maintain very similar elements, suggesting

that both PDRI – Small Infrastructure and PDRI – Infrastructure are suitable for assessing

project scope definition for those infrastructure project types. Even for Energy projects,

both tools seem appropriate, given that they allow PDRI users to focus on the unique

scope elements that can be critical for projects of different sizes.

177
 Figure 8-8. Most Important Elements for Various Infrastructure Project Types in
the PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects (left column) and PDRI – Infrastructure
Projects (right column)

8.5.5. Comparison of Target Scores

The author determined the target score for each of the infrastructure PDRIs via

statistical analyses (see (CII, 2010a, ElZomor et al., 2016a). Statistical tests confirm that

lower PDRI scores, in both PDRI – Infrastructure and PDRI – Small Infrastructure,

correlate to improved project performance, with improved cost performance being

statistically significant in both cases. For “large” infrastructure projects, the author

analyzed 22 completed projects with an approximate expenditure of $6.1 billion. This

analysis revealed that PDRI scores lower than 200 outperformed projects with PDRI

scores above 200, in terms of a project’s cost, schedule, and change order performance,
178
with cost being statistically significant (CII, 2010a). Similarly, an analysis of 69

completed small infrastructure projects with an approximate expenditure of $529 million

proved that projects with PDRI scores lower than 300 outperformed projects with PDRI

scores above 300 in terms of schedule, cost and change order performance, with cost

being statistically significant (ElZomor et al., 2016a). Figure 8-9 demonstrates the two

target scores of PDRI – Small Infrastructure and PDRI – Infrastructure in relation to the

level of definition. This comparison illustrates that smaller infrastructure projects need

less definition during front end planning to achieve an equivalent predictability as their

larger counterparts in terms of cost, schedule and change performance. Almost all

elements in a small infrastructure project can have definition level 2 and achieve

predictable cost and schedule performance. By contrast, larger infrastructure projects

require that nearly half of the elements have definition level 1 in order to achieve

predictable cost and schedule performance.

Figure 8-9. Comparison of PDRI – Infrastructure and PDRI – Small Infrastructure

in terms of target score
179
 While the predictability of success is the same for large and small infrastructure

projects with PDRI scores below the target score, the target scores differ between large

and small infrastructure projects. On the one hand, a large infrastructure project requires

a “Completely Defined” level of definition or definition with Minor Deficiencies to

achieve its planned schedule, budgeted cost and reduce the magnitude of changes. That is,

for a large infrastructure project to achieve a score of 200, the majority of element

descriptions must be between definition Level 1 and 2 otherwise the score will exceed the

200-point target score, which indicates the project performance is at risk. On the other

hand, small infrastructure projects could tolerate less definition and maintain the same

level of project performance as its larger counterpart. For example, small infrastructure

projects with a schedule of 12 months or less may not have the time for scope evolution

as it does in a larger projects, so less definition early on would not negatively impact

project performance. Even if small projects require a change, the changes are often

simpler to make, as the project is limited in scope and may require fewer team members

to approve than a large project would. Concurrent project phasing may also explain why

a small infrastructure project requires less definition, as the project may be able to adapt

in real time to changes in scope.

8.6. Conclusion

Infrastructure projects represent a significant portion of the U.S. economy, as well

as the bulk of work for transportation agencies and utilities nationwide. Successfully

planning and executing these projects is vital to maintaining access to critical goods and

services throughout the nation. PDRI – Infrastructure and PDRI – Small Infrastructure

tools assist in the front end planning efforts for large and small infrastructure projects,
180
respectively. This chapter presented the definition of small infrastructure projects, and

compared such projects to large infrastructure projects. The definition and comparison

yielded contributions to the FEP body of knowledge; first defining a small infrastructure

project based on literature review and a survey of infrastructure project practitioners, and

secondly, confirming that both small and large infrastructure projects require similar level

of project definition, between Complete Definition – Level 1 and definition with Minor

Deficiencies - Level 2 during FEP to support predictable project outcomes. The latter

contribution is counterintuitive to the planning efforts assigned to the different project

sizes. The chapter also illustrates the similarity in priorities for owners and contractors on

both small and large projects, as indicated by similar weighting of PDRI elements in both

the PDRI – Infrastructure and PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects tools. Likewise,

critical elements for various project types remain consistent in the PDRI tools for both

small and large projects. These findings confirm that a single PDRI tool for each project

size provides value across stakeholders and project types.

8.6. Acknowledgements

Research Team 314a thanks the Construction Industry Institute for providing

funding for this research. In addition, this study would not have been possible without the

efforts of the members of CII Research Team 314a, PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects,

and numerous other companies and individuals that participated in this research. All

support is gratefully acknowledged, and the author note that the opinions and findings

presented in this chapter reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the

views of CII or any of the contributors to the Research Team or the research project.

181
 CHAPTER NINE

INTEGRATING THE PDRI IN AN UNDERGRADUATE CONSTRUCTION

9

CLASSROOM: A PILOT STUDY ABOUT LEARNING CONSTRUCTION

MATERIALS, METHODS AND EQUIPMENT

This Chapter will be submitted for publication in the peer-reviewed journal of

ASCE, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. Most of the

text appears exactly as in the manuscript with the exception of text and figure formatting.

This chapter addresses hypotheses four and five.

9.1. Abstract

Increasingly, construction practitioners expect, and in some cases require, that

their new hires have knowledge of, and competence in, tools used in the construction

industry. Some advanced courses may focus on “tools” used in construction practice for

instance a course in Building Information Modeling (BIM). However, most introductory

construction courses do not teach students about project management tools used in

industry, e.g., scheduling software, front end planning (FEP), or site logistics planning,

instead concentrating on the theory underlying such tools. This paper presents a case

study where authors introduced a project management tool, the Project Definition Rating

Index (PDRI), into an introductory construction management course (Construction

Materials, Methods, and Equipment). Results of this in-class activity suggest that

introducing the PDRI improves students’ understanding of construction methods and how

methods impact a construction project. This paper presents successes and challenges from

this case study and provides suggestions for future use of the PDRI in construction

materials and methods courses.

182
 9.2. Introduction

The engineering education process include ineffective educational paradigms, tiring

introductory courses and repetitive learning methods, must undergo dramatic changes in

order to meet future schooling challenges (Felder, 2012, Sheppard et al., 2008). Rather

than embracing creative problem solving and employing professional tools within lower-

division curriculum, engineering courses are taught in a straightforward way based on

fragmented concepts (Sallfors et al., 2000, Forcael et al., 2014). This timeworn pedagogy

does not encourage complex problem solving, nor prepare undergraduates for their future

careers. Higher education in the 20th century is viewed as a pillar that forms the primary

backbone of our economy (Oakes et al., 2015, Sullivan and Rosin, 2008). As such, many

graduating students, especially in the field of construction, find themselves interviewing

for positions that not only require technical and professional skills, but more importantly

proficiency with the software tools used within the industry (Hersh and Merrow, 2015).

To this end, a robust construction engineering and management education should be

implemented to prepare lower division students in exceeding the demands of the market.

The construction industry utilizes the PDRI to improve the predictability of

project performance and define the scope of a project during front end planning (CII,

1994). This paper presents results from a case study where the authors introduced the

PDRI in a Building Construction Materials, Methods, and Equipment course at Arizona

State University. Specifically, this paper describes the in-class activity and outputs along

with lessons learned, recommendations for future courses, and limitations. Results of the

ASU case study indicate that students feel that learning about the PDRI improves their

understanding of project scope and risk, as indicated through responses to two questions
183
included in a pre- and post-course survey. Results further suggest that undergraduate

construction management students improved their understanding of materials, methods,

and equipment based on the in-class activity, as evidenced by their deliverable from said

activity. Indeed, student performance in the “methods” area of the final report rubric in

the semester that the PDRI was introduced is improved compared to previous semesters.

The paper closes with a discussion of how other instructors and educators can

integrate the PDRI, or another project management tool, into an introductory construction

management course. The paper contributes to the construction management education

body of knowledge through providing a proof of concept that integrating an industry tool

into undergraduate construction materials, methods, and equipment course enhances

students’ learning and skills in said course.

9.3. Literature Review

Front end planning (FEP) has a significant impact on project success since it

supports project stakeholders in setting up the project’s concept, defining the scope and

mitigating risks. Because of the aforementioned justifications, it is fundamental to

introduce construction students to additional professional tools that are used in the

industry especially FEP tools, which are overlooked by the construction curricula.

9.3.1. Front end planning (FEP) and Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) tools.

Planning efforts conducted during the early stages of a construction project,

known as pre-project planning or front end planning, have significantly more effect on

project success than efforts undertaken after detailed design and construction has begun

184
(Gibson et al., 1993). Gibson and Hamilton (1994) showed that effective front end

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

Construction Industry Institute (CII) has created a suite of tools to quantitatively measure

the level of scope definition on projects prior to detailed design as part of their front-end,

or pre-project, planning research efforts. CII’s Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI)

allows a project team to assess, quantify, and rate the level of scope definition and

readiness for project execution, prior to detailed design and construction (CII, 1997, CII,

2001, CII, 2006). 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 tool for proactive project management.

FEP planning is considered an important subset of the overall project planning

endeavor; it begins after the business leadership of an organization deems a project

concept desirable, and continues until the beginning of detailed design and construction

of a project (Hamilton and Gibson, 1996). Research into the relationship between pre-

project planning impacts and facility construction outcomes had not been conducted prior

to 1991 (CII, 1994b). CII established the Pre-Project Planning Task Force in 1991 to

outline the functions involved in the pre-project planning of capital facilities. The task

force defined pre-project planning as “the process of developing sufficient strategic

information for owners to address risk and decide to commit resources to maximize the

chance for a successful project” (Gibson et al., 1993). CII initiated the development of

five pre-project planning tools for quantifying, rating, and assessing project planning

efforts based on the conclusions found by the Pre-Project Planning Task Force, namely
185
the Project Definition Rating Index (i.e., PDRI) tools, between the years of 1994 and

2017. These five PDRI tools are PDRI-Industrial (Gibson and Dumont, 1996), PDRI-

Building (Cho and Gibson, 2001), PDRI-Infrastructure (Bingham and Gibson, 2010),

PDRI – Small Infrastructure (Collins et al., 2015) and PDRI – Small Infrastructure . The

purpose of the tools is three-fold: (1) to provide a structured planning process for use

during the front end planning phase of a project, (2) to provide a quantitative measure

(i.e., a score) of the level of scope definition of a project, and (3) to correlate the level of

scope definition to typical project success factors so that project stakeholders can

determine whether to move a project forward into detailed design and construction.

The PDRI tools consist of two main components to meet these objectives: a

structured list of descriptions detailing specific elements that should be addressed during

the front end planning phase, and a weighted score sheet that corresponds to the element

descriptions. The element description is divided into three separate sections (Basis of

Project Decision, Front End Definition, Execution Approach), and further divided into

multiple categories. This arrangement places similar elements together for ease of

discussion during pre-project planning assessments. Each element also has a detailed

narrative that provides description of the element, and certain additional items to consider

when assessing a project. Fig. 9.1 provides an example of an element description H.1

Design/Construction Plan and Approach from the PDRI Small Infrastructure Projects

(CII, 2017).The format for describing each element shown in Fig. 9.1 is typical of all

other PDRI tools as well. CII’s research outcomes included the development of a generic

model expressing the typical pre-project planning process (Hamilton and Gibson, 1996,

Gibson et al., 1993), a quantitative study comparing pre-project planning effort vs.
186
project success factors (Gibson and Hamilton, 1994), and culminated with a pre-project

planning handbook that detailed specific steps typical in planning capital projects (CII,

1994b). The quantitative study found that well-performed pre-project planning could

reduce the total project design and construction costs by as much as 20 percent, and

reduce the total project design and construction schedule by as much as 39 percent

(Hamilton and Gibson, 1996, Gibson et al., 1993).

Figure 9-1. Sample element description form the PDRI-Small Infrastructure

187
 9.3.2. Professional Tools in Construction Courses – (Literature demonstrates

that PDRI was never used in classroom)

Upper-level construction education integrates multiple professional tools in their

curriculum to enhance the learning environment (Clevenger et al., 2010). Abudayyeh et

al. (2000) demonstrated that lower-level classes in construction education rather focuses

more on theories and understanding the fundamentals with limited innovative pedagogies,

in addition to reduced exposure to how the construction process does actually operate.

However, some lower-level construction courses do include industry practitioners in

classes through construction site visits and guest lectures. Becerik-Gerber et al. (2011)

identified some upper-level construction courses that integrate “tools” used in

construction practice, e.g., a course in Building Information Modeling (BIM), virtual

reality or front end planning. Unfortunately, lower-level construction students lack the

opportunity to learn from these tools in their early academic careers as students are rarely

exposed to the actual construction project management tools used in field. However in

light of the changes of teaching method in construction education, the authors have tested

and implemented several advanced techniques into a construction materials and methods

lower-level course (ElZomor et al., 2016b, Ghosh et al., 2015, Antaya and Parrish, 2014).

The educational means are shifting from the traditional theory-based curriculum to PBL,

VI, problem solving with open-ended solutions and hands-on projects. Research has

shown that these innovative pedagogies helped students better understand and visualize

construction projects.

Although the PDRI tool has demonstrated tangible design, scope and schedule

benefits to different projects, it remains a tool that is only used in the professional field
188
and not integrated into a construction syllabus. This represents a gap in the literature,

students’ understanding and skill competency of professional tools. This study addresses

this gap, providing documentation of how a PDRI can be introduced into an introductory

construction management course, and discussing the results of such an introduction. This

study investigated two hypotheses (representing hypotheses 4 and 5 in the overall scheme

of this dissertation):

Hypothesis 1: Undergraduate students in a materials, methods, and equipment

course will improve their self-reported skill level in using industry-based tools for

construction project management after being introduced to the PDRI in a single

class session.

Hypothesis 2: Following an in-class activity where undergraduates in a materials,

methods, and equipment course articulate how a given PDRI element impacts the

materials, methods, and equipment, the students will improve their performance

in selecting construction methods for a hypothetical project.

9.4. Research Method

The PDRI tool was introduced in the classroom through a one-class activity. The

authors introduced two categories from Section III, Execution Approach, of the PDRI –

Small Infrastructure Projects, totaling ten PDRI elements. All PDRI tools include the

main three sections (I. Basis of Project Decision, II. Basis of Design and III. Execution

Approach), yet each PDRI tool does discuss different categories and elements. For this

workshop the authors selected section III, Execution Approach, of the element

description that closely represents section III in all developed PDRI tools. The execution

189
approach section includes two categories G. Execution Requirements and H.

Engineering/Construction Plan And Agreements and each section includes five and six

elements respectively. The PDRI tool aligns with project types building, industrial and

infrastructure. Since the small PDRIs inherently consist of less scope than large projects,

the authors opted to use one of the small PDRI project tools to accommodate for a 75-

minute in-class activity; CII developed two small PDRI tools, PDRI – Small Industrial

(Collins et al., 2015) and PDRI – Small Infrastructure. The authors believe that all

vertical construction projects have a horizontal small infrastructure element that ties the

project to the existing infrastructure system. Therefore, it was effective to utilize PDRI –

small Infrastructure tool in the classroom to further develop the student’s awareness

about actual complexities of construction projects. Also this case study serves in

informing students about the effective means adopted by professionals to define the scope

of projects and identify potential risks. In turn, the authors anticipated this

implementation would lead to students improving their self-reported technical skill level

in addition to developing their competency to articulate and solve interdisciplinary

project challenges. The assessment of this implementation was based on testing the two

hypotheses. Hypothesis one is tested through an indirect measurement of evaluating the

students’ self-reported skill level. Hypothesis two included an indirect assessment that

corroborates the courses’ technical objective skills through an in-class workshop activity

in addition to a direct assessment of comparing students’ performance in describing

construction methods.

190
 9.4.1. The course and project selected

Construction Methods, Materials and Equipment (CON 252) is a lower-division

construction management course taught each semester at Arizona State University. CON

252 focuses on vertical construction with a ground-up approach: it begins with content on

earthwork and building foundations, and progresses towards building materials, building

construction methods, and finally installed building equipment. This course seeks to

summarize the materials used in building construction and the methods employed to

place them on a construction site. This helps students to identify and understand the most

common building construction materials and methods for various building types, thus, it

focuses on lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001, Krathwohl, 2010).

Specifically, Table 9-1 show CON 252 eight course learning objectives.

Table 9-1. Course Learning Objectives for CON 252

• Explain the vernacular of building design and construction including

terminology, units of measure, standard designations, sizes, graduations,
testing methods, reference standards, and regulatory codes.
• Summarizing the basic processes of designing and constructing a
building
• Explaining the most common systems of excavation and building
foundation systems
• Explaining the most common types of building structural systems
• Describing systems used to keep structures free from water infiltration
and remember the systems used to do this, including roofing, caulking,
etc.
• Summarizing mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and vertical
transportation systems
• Explaining the advantages of different construction methods and
material
• Utilize teamwork and team-building skills to integrate information from
various team members and present construction method and material
options and explain the advantages of each in written, oral, and graphical
communication

191
 During Spring 2015 and 2017 the focus of the CON 252 final project was heat

mitigation. Since increasing temperatures in the Phoenix valley (the area surrounding

ASU’s campus) are an issue that all CON 252 students can relate to, the final project for

CON 252 asked teams of students to develop prototype buildings for multi-family, retail,

office, and “other” building types. The project specifically required students to address

how their prototype building would mitigate heat exposure, and explain how all

construction endeavors, including materials, methods, and equipment used would

strategically combat the issue of heat vulnerability in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Each

general contractor team (represented by a team of 4 or 5 students) prepared a

Construction Proposal that describes their team, their approach to their specific building

type, and their construction methods for that building type.

9.4.2. Students’ Self-reported Skill level

The indirect assessment was conducted through a pre- and post-course survey to

analyze the students’ self-reported technical skill level in relation to understanding and

utilizing professional construction tools. Surveys were deployed two times during the

Spring 2017 semester to assess the students’ self-reported skill levels in technical course

objectives. The authors worked with Arizona State University’s University Office of

Evaluation and Educational Effectiveness (UOEEE) to create evaluation instruments and

statistical analysis that assess the student’s technical skills (Chester et al., 2017). These

surveys were deployed twice, at the start and the end of the Spring 2017 semester. The

questions were consistent on each of the two surveys, and the students voluntarily

completed both surveys in class. Students developed personal identification codes for the

pre-course surveys, and they utilized the same codes for the post- course surveys. Using
192
these codes, researchers were able to match pre-course and post-course responses to gain

better insight into changes in students’ self-reported skills. Moreover, the authors decided

to include a direct measurement to evaluate the student’s skill level. This was conducted

through comparing the rubric grades of the construction methods section in the student’s

final projects in the semester that the PDRI was introduced to previous semesters without

the PDRI.

9.4.3. Corroborating the courses’ technical objective skills

The students were required to fill in worksheets that correlate between the PDRI

element description and their knowledge of construction materials, methods and

equipment. Students were divided into eight groups for the in-class activity, according to

their final project groups. This activity documented how the students enhanced their

understanding of project scope, identifying of project risk “delays” and defining the

various impacts of materials, methods and equipment on the project, which were not part

of the CON 252 course learning objectives. This activity mirrors a PDRI weighting

workshop (e.g., (CII, 2010b, CII, 1995, CII, 1999, CII, 2015, CII, 2017)) where firstly,

the students are introduced to the PDRI as a tool and concept, then they are required to

read the element description and collectively discuss each element’s impact on the

material, method and equipment selections for their final project, if any. Figure 9-2 show

the template that was provided to the students to report their updated selections and

provide their comments. The element description prompts discussion between students

about how each element impacts the project, specifically in terms of material, method,

and equipment choices. The goal of the in-class activity was to have students improve

193
their understanding of construction materials, methods, and equipment through

evaluating PDRI element descriptions and articulating their impacts on materials,

methods and Equipment.

Figure 9-2. Template for CON 252 students to report their updated material,
method and equipment selections based on the PDRI element description

To corroborate the findings of the in-class activity, the authors compare student

performance on the final construction proposals. Specifically, the authors compare the

rubric grades for the construction methods documented in the student’s final projects.

They compare performance in the semester that the PDRI was introduced (Spring 2017)

to students’ performance on the same metric in the semester where PDRI was not

included (Spring 2015).

9.5. Results and Discussion

9.5.1. Survey Questions to evaluate the student’s skill level

The pre- and post surveys included two questions that ask students to self report

their current skill level for each of the following skill areas (a) “Utilizing tools adopted

by professionals to understand project scope and risk” and (b) “Identifying required

activities to complete a project based on the elements of the Project Definition Rating
194
Index (PDRI)” labeled as “SkillScopeRisk” and ”SkilldentPDRI” respectively in figure 3.

The survey utilized a five-point scale: 1 = “no knowledge”, 2 = “beginner” (some

experience or basic knowledge), 3 = “proficient” (can utilize at a satisfactory level), 4 =

“advanced” (can utilize better than most), and 5 = “expert” (can utilize with a superior

level of skill and teach to others).

In Spring 2017, the majority of CON 252 students, 38 out of 40, were

undergraduates. The student body for this course includes freshmen (34%), sophomores

(29%), juniors (26%) and seniors (8%) and Master students (2%). CON 252 is a required

course for construction management majors and approximately 80% of the students

enrolled are construction management majors. Other student majors include construction

engineering, architecture, and Business Administration, among others.

Figure 9.3 confirms that CON 252 students improved their PDRI skills over the

course of the semester. Whereas at the beginning of the course about 6% of the students

rated themselves as having “no knowledge” and 41% reported “beginners” in Utilizing

tools adopted by professionals to understand project scope and risk, by the end of the

course none of the students reported “no knowledge” and only 19% reported they were

“beginners”. Thus, students shifted from “no knowledge” to higher skill levels. In fact,

the percentage of students reporting “Advanced” tripled by the end of the course.

Similarly, 24% of students reported “no knowledge” in Identifying required activities to

complete a project based on the elements of the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI)

in the pre-course survey, and by the post-course survey, only 4% reported “no

knowledge”. Fifty-five percent of students reported “no knowledge” and “beginner”

195
before the course, while after the course, this shifted, with 71% of students reporting they

were “Proficient” or “advanced”.

Figure 9-3. Students’ self-reported gains in skill level from the pre-course to the
post-course survey

Figure 9-4 demonstrates that the post-course medians for skills related to the in-

class PDRI activity were between “proficient” and “advanced”. This represents an

increase, as the pre-course medians were between “beginner” and “proficient”. The

students’ gains in the self-reported skill levels are noticeable post the introduction of the

PDRI. The authors link the increase in median skill level to the in-class PDRI exercise

since the course eight objectives didn’t focus on either scope or risk elements, that the

PDRI introduced. The PDRI not only did enhance the student’s self-reported skill levels

but also familiarized the students with professional FEP tools. The authors surmised that

students’ skills in identifying risks associated with project scope (SkillScopeRisk in

Figure 9-4) may have increased due to both the in-class PDRI exercise and participating

in the CON 252 course. This result supports hypothesis 1 that lower division
196
construction students in a materials and methods course improved their own self-reported

skill level in using industry-based tools for construction project management after being

introduced to the PDRI in one class session. To this end, the integration of professional

tools into lower division construction method classes help student develop their skills

beyond the set course learning objects especially that these tool inspire depth to their

understanding of the course.

Figure 9-4. Comparison of Students’ Skill Level over the course of the Spring 2017
semester

9.5.2. Comparison of Student Performance in describing construction

methods

As a direct assessment of the change in students’ ability to articulate and describe

construction methods, the authors compared student grades for the construction methods

portion of the final project. Specifically, the authors compare the “construction methods”

line of the final project rubrics from Spring 2017, to Spring 2015 (a semester when the

PDRI was not implemented). Figure 9-5 illustrates the rubric used for this assessment

(Appendix G includes the complete set of Rubric and the in class workshop sheet). Figure

9-6 shows that the grades of CON 252 students increased from 55% of students scoring
197
an “A” in Spring 2015 to 75% of students scoring an “A” when the PDRI was

implemented (Spring 2017). Also, none of the Spring 2017 students scored less than a “B”

while during Spring 2015, approximately ten percent of students scored a “C”. This

assessment verifies hypothesis two, as the student performance improves when the PDRI

tools is implemented.

Figure 9-5. The rubric used for the student performance assessment

Figure 9-6. . Comparison of Students’ Method Grades in a semester without PDRI,

Spring 2013, to Spring 2016

The authors attribute the improvement in grades of the method section to the in-

class PDRI activity. The PDRI presents and discusses several construction execution

approaches that the CON 252 students may not otherwise have knowledge of, given the

scope of the CON 252 learning objectives (Table 9-1). For example, the PDRI explicitly

requires students to consider a Work Zone Safety and Transportation plan (element H5),
198
which is not typically covered in the CON 252 curriculum. However, following the

inclusion of the PDRI activity in the Spring 2017 semester, the instructor noted that

multiple student reports describe the transportation plan associated with their proposed

project. Similarly, more students discussed their procurement plans in detail, likely based

on their exposure to this topic in the PDRI exercise. Utilizing the PDRI in class

broadened students’ understanding of project scope and seemed to also enhance their

understanding of the construction methods that may be used for each of the areas of

project scope outlined in the course learning objectives (e.g., foundations, structural

system).

9.5.3. In-class workshop activity

To articulate how a given PDRI element impacts undergraduates in a materials

and methods course, students were asked to participate in a 75-minute in-class activity.

The activity introduced students to a section of the PDRI, Section III – Execution

Approach, and then students worked in their final project groups to analyze how, if at all,

these elements would impact their material, method and equipment decisions for their

final projects. The authors then coded the students’ comments for each element to relate

the comment to a CON 252 course-learning objective.

Section III consists of two categories (G – Execution Requirements and H –

Engineering / Construction Plan and Agreements) with five elements in category G and

six in H. CII (2017) provided details for these two categories along with their element

description. Table 9-2, demonstrate the students comments on four of the five Execution

Requirements elements, which are G2. Utility Adjustment Strategy, G3. Procurement

Strategy, G4. Owner Approval Requirements and G5. Intercompany and Interagency
199
Coordination. Several teams have identified various elements of the PDRI that impacted

the selection of material, method and equipment for their final project. Five groups

mentioned the importance of Owner approval as a factor that impacts the alternatives of

material, method and equipment. Four groups mentioned the impact of Long-lead items

on the planning and procurement of material and equipment, which also impacts the

method of construction activities. Similarly, category H. Engineering/Construction Plan

And Agreements includes six elements that focus on ensuring successful design,

engineering, construction and closeout; these elements are, H1. Design/Construction Plan

& Approach, H2. Project Cost Estimate and Cost Control, H3. Project Schedule and

Schedule Control, H4. Project Quality Assurance & Control (QA/QC), H5. Safety, Work

Zone & Transportation Plan and H5. Project Commissioning/Closeout. Table 9-3, show

that several teams valued that the element description impacted their selection of material,

method and equipment. For example, seven groups mentioned that cost estimate and

control influences the methods, materials and equipment used on a project, while six

groups encouraged the projects’ stakeholders involvement in schedule as it impacts the

method, material and equipment. Also, five groups stated that the construction

methodology needs to be planned and documented, as it will impact the material and

equipment selections. Finally, four groups mentioned the importance of Quality

Assurance & Quality Control as it controls the materials, method and equipment used in

the project, equally students highlighted the criticality of the work zone control plan

implemented as it reflects safety which impacts materials, methods and equipment

choices as well.

200
Table 9-2. Student comments on Execution Requirements PDRI elements

201
Table 9-3. Student comments on Engineering / Construction Plan and Agreements
PDRI elements

202
 Students’ comments in table 9-2 and 9-3 demonstrated how the element

description impacted their selection of materials, methods, and equipment used for their

final projects. This aligns with hypothesis 2 that undergraduates in a materials and

methods course will articulate how a given PDRI element impacts the materials, methods,

and equipment sections on a project following a 75-minute introduction to a set of PDRI

elements. The authors expected depth in students’ final presentation due to the

introduction of the PDRI, since the PDRI introduced other learning objectives that were

not part of the eight course learning objectives. Although most of the students’ comments

were not part of the course objectives, their comments can be associated with the courses’

learning objectives. The introduction of the PDRI developed the students’ understanding

of construction projects especially that this tool provides a rounded perspective of how

projects are scoped and managed. The PDRI also encourages students to consider various

elements, requirements and stakeholders of the construction process, which usually are

overlooked in a lower-division construction management course. For example, students’

explored construction safety, procurement strategies, approvals and coordination with

officials in an introductory construction course in Spring 2017, and this is the first time

the authors explicitly saw students understand these elements of the construction process.

The students leveraged the introduction of PDRI to develop clearer descriptions of

construction methods and equipment in their final projects. Based on the student

comments, the authors also recognize that introducing the PDRI in an undergraduate

construction class developed students’ understanding of construction risk. When the

student responses were coded, many discussed “potential delays,” and “potential cost

overruns,” and “safety concerns,” among others, that in fact describe construction project
203
risk. While only a handful of students used the word “risk” in their comments on the

worksheet (tables 9-2 and 9-3), most students articulated risk in an implied sense. The

authors felt that students did a better job of selecting materials, methods and equipment

for their final construction proposals as a result of the PDRI activity, as discussed in the

following section.

9.6. Limitations and Future Research

While the authors endeavoured to develop a transferable, 75-min activity that

introduced the PDRI in an undergraduate construction management session their study

includes limitations. Limitations comprise the framework development as well as the

assessment methods implemented. Specific limitations include:

• Using PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects: This activity was implemented

into a construction class that focuses on buildings. The authors decided to use the

PDRI - Small infrastructure projects instead the PDRI – Building projects since

the latter PDRI requires more time to be introduced in a classroom. The results

demonstrate that lower-division construction students enhanced their skills when

introduced to the PDRI tool. Perhaps if CII developed a PDRI tool that discusses

only small building projects, then all students that take a class on building

construction materials and method, i.e. most CM undergraduates, would be able

to use such a tool to improve their understanding of projects.

• Introducing only one section of the PDRI element description: Despite the fact

that the authors intended to conduct this activity during a one class session, this

reflects a limitation since it is challenging to go through a full set of element

description, three sections, in a 75-min class. Therefore, future research could

204
 investigate increasing the duration of the activity to three lectures where the first

is an introduction, the second explains the element description of a complete

PDRI tool and the third requires students’’ to participate in the in-class workshop.

• Student Self-Reported Skill Level: It seemed surprising that so many students

indicated that they had PDRI knowledge in the pre-course survey, as this did not

match the authors’ observations in class when the PDRI was introduced. Students

may over estimate their own actual skill levels, so results reported in this paper,

may not be replicable if the framework is implemented at another institution.

• Assessment of Student Self-Reported Skill Level: This research did not include

a direct assessment of students’ skill level related to ability to articulate and

define project scope and risk. However, the authors leveraged final report grades

of the “method” section as a metric to assess of the effectiveness of students’

understanding of materials, methods, and equipment based on the in-class

activity.

• Assessment of student performance: While the same instructor in both the

Spring 2015 and Spring 2017 semesters determined the “method” assessment

metric, student populations did change. Thus, their demographics may have also

been different, e.g., the Spring 2017 students may have been pre-disposed to

higher scores based on their incoming GPA, or other factors.

• A Pilot Study: This implementation is a proof of concept and a first-time case

study that was examined during the spring 2017 semester. However, since the

initial results of the case study are promising, the instructor is planning to

incorporate it again in her CON 252 class at Arizona State University.

205
 • Include the activity early during the semester: The authors deemed to include

this activity during the second to last week of classes, however the activity might

suitably be introduced in the second third of the semester, so that the PDRI can

inform the project and students can build on its content rather than only using it as

a tool that updates their projects.

9.6. Conclusion

This research’s aim was to expose construction students to the real world of

building construction applications, through piloting an in-class workshop that integrates a

FEP tool into the classroom. The authors anticipated that implementing the PDRI, FEP

tool, into lower division construction courses could aid in bridging the gap between

theoretical learning and the actual application of professional practices. The introduction

of the PDRI equips students with an additional tool that properly equips them for their

professional careers. The study utilized direct and indirect analyses that confirm the

effectiveness of the 75-minute in-classroom activity. Results of this case study suggest

that introducing the PDRI support students’ understanding of construction methods, also

the PDRI improves their ability to articulate how methods can impact a construction

project, which was reflected in their course performance.

206
 CHAPTER TEN

10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter provides the conclusions of the PDRI - Small Infrastructure research,

and the recommendations of the research based on the research results.

10.1. Research Objectives

The research team initially set forth the following objectives:

1. Produce a user-friendly tool for measuring project scope definition of small

infrastructure projects with the following characteristics and functions:

• Based upon the PDRI – Infrastructure, yet tailored specifically to small

infrastructure projects

• Less time-consuming than the PDRI – Infrastructure

• Is easy to use, yet detailed enough to be effective

• Helps reduce total project costs

• Improves schedule performance

• Serves as a communication and alignment tool

• Supports decision-making

• Identifies risks

• Reliably predicts project performance

• Is flexible among infrastructure project types

2. Test the tool by comparing the level of project scope definition during the

front end planning phase vs. corresponding project performance factors for a

sample of completed small infrastructure projects

207
 The research results presented in this dissertation have met all of the stated

research objectives. An extensive literature review highlighted the value of implementing

the front end planning tools developed by CII, the lack of a non-proprietary tool

specifically for small infrastructure projects, and the inherent differences between small

and large projects. The members of Research Team 314a utilized the existing literature to

develop a simple, easy to use tool specifically for small infrastructure projects, a project

type found to make up approximately half of completed projects (by count) each year in

the infrastructure sector. Seventy-one industry professionals participated in seven

separate weighting workshops providing valuable feedback on the tool’s element

descriptions, in addition to providing input for element prioritization, and data project

data that was used to develop an infrastructure PDRI selection guide. The tool was tested

on 69 completed projects with an overall expenditure of over US $529 million, which

showed a difference regarding schedule, cost, change, and financial performance, and

customer satisfaction on projects with PDRI scores below 300. These results demonstrate

the ability of the tool’s scoring scheme to highlight the risk factors most important to

address during the front end planning of small infrastructure projects, and the negative

impacts to project performance if they are not properly addressed. The tool is also

currently being used in industry, with every indication that its implementation within

organizations will provide just as much value as the preceding PDRIs have. Feedback

from industry professionals that test the tool on seven separate in-progress projects (with

overall project budgets totaling more that $35 million) suggested that the tool provides an

effective platform for aligning team members to project goals, and individuals that the

PDRI added value to their projects.

208
 A survey of CII member organizations showed that planning practices for small

infrastructure projects vary greatly across the industry, and even within organizations.

The PDRI – Small Infrastructure was designed to provide a structured approach to the

industry for the purpose of improving project performance. The PDRI – Small

Infrastructure was also developed so that it is flexible enough to be used on a wide

assortment of small infrastructure project types, but detailed enough to add value to the

front end planning process. The number of elements within the tool is significantly lower

than the PDRI – Infrastructure, but this was not done simply for the purpose of lowering

the assessment time. The purpose of front end planning is to sufficiently define scope

items necessary to complete a project, and the rigor of that process should match the rigor

of the project itself. The detail within the PDRI – Small Infrastructure element

descriptions is sufficient for assessing the scope definition of infrastructure projects with

a lesser amount of project scope, hence less project complexity.

10.1.1. Research Hypotheses

The specific hypotheses were as follows:

Hypothesis 1: A finite and specific list of critical issues related to scope definition

of small infrastructure projects can be developed.

The PDRI – Infrastructure tool was used as a baseline to develop the PDRI –

Small Infrastructure. Element descriptions within the PDRI – Infrastructure were

reviewed, scrutinized, adapted, and revised by the research team, leading to the

development of 40 elements specifically for assessing small infrastructure projects.

209
Seventy-one industry professionals reviewed and prioritized the elements, with 69 of

them providing sufficient feedback to develop a final set of element descriptions and

corresponding score sheets, as described in Chapter 5. The tool was also tested on seven

in-progress projects, of which the users noted the effectiveness of the tool to sufficiently

address key issues in the front end planning of small infrastructure projects.

Hypothesis 2: Projects with low PDRI scores outperform projects with high PDRI

scores.

The results of the completed-project analysis showed that projects with PDRI

scores lower than 300 outperform projects with PDRI scores above 300 regarding cost

performance, schedule performance, change performance, financial performance, and

customer satisfaction, as described in Chapter 7. Independent samples t-tests (p-value of

.048) indicated that the cost performance is statistically significant and the regression

analysis (p-value of .024) for cost performance was also statistically significant at a 95

percent confidence level. On the other hand, no statistically significant difference was

found for schedule performance and change performance when conducing the t-test and

the regression analysis.

Hypothesis 3: The PDRI – Infrastructure Projects and PDRI – Small

Infrastructure Projects require similar level of project definition, between

Complete Definition – Level 1 and definition with Minor Deficiencies - Level 2,

during FEP to support predictable project outcomes.

210
 The results confirm that both small and large infrastructure projects require

similar level of project definition during FEP to support predictable project outcomes.

This contribution is counterintuitive to the planning efforts assigned to the different

project sizes. The comparison also illustrates the similarity in priorities for owners and

contractors on both small and large projects, as indicated by similar weighting of PDRI

elements in both the PDRI – Infrastructure and PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects

tools. Likewise, critical elements for various project types (i.e., energy, fluids, people and

freight) remain consistent in the PDRI tools for both small and large projects. These

findings confirm that a single PDRI tool for each project size provides value across

stakeholders and project types.

Hypothesis 4: Undergraduate students in a materials, methods, and equipment

course will improve their self-reported skill level in using industry-based tools for

construction project management after being introduced to the PDRI in a single

class session.

Hypothesis 5: Following an in-class activity where undergraduates in a

materials, methods, and equipment course articulate how a given PDRI element

impacts the materials, methods, and equipment, the students will improve their

performance in selecting construction methods for a hypothetical project.

211
 Results of this pilot in-class activity verify that introducing the PDRI supports

students’ improvement in self-reported skill levels and improve their ability to develop

appropriate construction methods for a hypothetical project as described in Chapter 9.

10.2. Advice to Users

The PDRI – Small Infrastructure is intended for use as a scope assessment, project

alignment, and risk assessment tool. The tool was designed so that it can be used only

once during front end planning, or successively if time allows. If the tool is used only

once, the earlier in the front end planning process the better. Project teams are urged not

to solely focus on the scores derived through using the tool. Even projects that score

below the 300-point threshold suggested in this document might still have significant

issues that should be addressed prior to moving a project forward into detailed design and

construction. Disregarding these risk issues might significantly affect project

performance.

The PDRI – Small Infrastructure was designed for use on smaller, less complex,

infrastructure projects, NOT as a shortcut to the PDRI – Infrastructure tool. Users are

urged to closely consider the attributes of their project through use the Infrastructure

PDRI Selection Guide (Appendix H) or other internally developed guidelines, and choose

the PDRI tool that best suits their project. The PDRI – Small Infrastructure (or any PDRI)

should also not be used to forecast project performance. The results provided in this

report are based on a small sample size of completed and in-progress projects, but these

projects may not be representative of the entire population of infrastructure projects.

212
 10.3. Research Contributions to Knowledge

The research completed by the author (in conjunction with the research team) has

provided contributions to four bodies of knowledge: (1) the current front end planning

body of knowledge, (2) the small projects body of knowledge, (3) the infrastructure body

of knowledge, and (4) the construction education body of knowledge. The most

substantial contribution to the front end planning and small projects bodies of knowledge

was the development of a novel, non-proprietary tool specifically for the front end

planning of small infrastructure projects. The development of the tool has not only

expanded the long-standing CII Best Practice of frond end planning, but also greatly

contributed to the limited small projects research base. Moreover, the testing results

provide quantitative proof that a greater level of scope definition during the front end

planning of small infrastructure projects drastically affects cost and schedule

performance. This research contributes to the infrastructure body of knowledge in two

ways: (1) it characterizes a small infrastructure project based on 16 factors of complexity,

five of which were corroborated via a survey of practitioners, and (2) it identifies

qualitative and quantitative similarities and differences between PDRI – Infrastructure

and PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects in support of improved planning efforts for both

types of projects. The research contributes to the construction education body of

knowledge by providing a proof of concept of a methodology for instructors to introduce

the PDRI, or another project management tool, into an introductory construction

management course.

213
 10.4. Research Limitations

The research described in this dissertation was limited to the infrastructure

construction sector. The PDRI – Small Infrastructure would not be appropriate for use on

projects in the building or industrial construction sectors, but the methods that have been

outlined could be used to develop a tool for small building projects. The data collected

for testing of the PDRI – Small Infrastructure was also a relatively small sample of all

small infrastructure projects completed across the industry. The testing results provided

in the dissertation may not be accurate for all small infrastructure projects, or all

infrastructure-focused organizations. Moreover, the data was primarily collected from

industry professionals and organizations based out of North America and the United

Kingdom. The author (and research team) made every effort to collect data from a

diverse group of individuals and organizations, but again, the results provided in the

dissertation may not be accurate for all small infrastructure projects, or all infrastructure-

focused organizations.

Chapters 8 and 9 also discuss specific limitations related to the comparison of

PDRI tools for infrastructure projects and the introduction of the PDRI – Small

Infrastructure Projects into a construction management classroom, respectively.

10.5. Recommendations for Future Research

The author, in conjunction with the research team, recommends four areas of

future research regarding small projects. Development of an HTML-based front end

planning toolkit specifically for small projects could provide great value to industry. The

current CII front end planning toolkit was designed for use on large, complex projects,

214
and used the pre-project planning handbook developed by the Pre-Project Planning Task

Force as a baseline. The structured, phase-gated front end planning process is embedded

in the toolkit, with links to the PDRI – Industrial, PDRI – Building, and PDRI –

Infrastructure, as well as the other complementary front end planning tools developed by

CII. This structure is too cumbersome for use on small projects, similar to the preceding

PDRI tools themselves. A new toolkit could be developed using the Manual for Small

Special Project Management (CII 1991) and Small Projects Toolkit (CII 2002) (described

in Chapter 4) as a baseline. These documents include substantial information regarding

the planning and execution of small projects, which could be reviewed and updated to

develop a toolkit pertinent to the current construction environment.

CII Executing Small Capital Projects Research Team (CII 2002) suggested that a

small project program team best manages small projects, where the project managers

within this team are solely responsible for the small projects completed within an

organization. Future researchers could perform case studies to determine if there is a

statistically significant difference (regarding project performance) between organizations

that utilize small project program teams vs. those that assign small projects to project

managers that are also responsible for large projects.

Future researchers could also perform case studies to discern how use of the PDRI

– Small Infrastructure specifically affects project change, specifically cost and schedule

changes. Chapter 7 detailed the procedures used by RT 314a to test the efficacy of the

PDRI – Small Infrastructure, but the project performance differences that were found

came from a sample of completed projects. The PDRI – Small Infrastructure has been

used on seven in-progress projects, but the final cost, schedule and change performances

215
of these projects are not known at the time of this publication. Future researchers could

compare the performance of these seven projects that utilized the PDRI – Small

Infrastructure to in-progress projects of similar complexity and scope that do not employ

the PDRI – Small Infrastructure. Researchers would thus need to expand their inquiry

within or outside of organizations who have already provided in-progress data to test the

efficacy of the tool. Understanding the efficacy of the PDRI – Small Infrastructure to

improve project performance may provide further incentive for organizations to use the

tool.

Lastly, the author suggests that a final PDRI tool be developed for small building

projects. Empirical evidence would suggest that small projects are just as prevalent in the

building sector and wrought with similar project performance issues as the industrial and

infrastructure sectors. Further extending the CII front end planning focus towards small

building projects could greatly benefit the buildings and educational sectors, as the PDRI

– Small Infrastructure and PDRI – Small Industrial have done for the infrastructure and

industrial sectors, respectively. Perhaps if CII developed a PDRI – Small building Project

tool, then all undergraduate students taking a building construction materials and method

course, i.e. most Construction Management (CM) undergraduates, will be able to use a

concise building-related PDRI tool to improve their understanding of building

construction projects. The author introduced PDRI –Small Infrastructure Projects into a

Construction Management classroom during Spring 2017 at Arizona State University.

The results of this pilot study demonstrate that lower-division construction students

enhanced their skills as well as their performance when introduced to the PDRI tool.

216
REFERENCES

ABUDAYYEH, O., RUSSELL, J., JOHNSTON, D. & ROWINGS, J. 2000. Construction

engineering and management undergraduate education. Journal of construction
engineering and management, 126, 169-175.

AGARWAL, R., CHANDRASEKARAN, S. & SRIDHAR, M. 2016. Imagining

Construction’s Digital Future. Available:
http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-
infrastructure/our-insights/imagining-constructions-digital-future [Accessed
10 March 2017].

AKTAN, A., MOON, F., BARTOLI, I. & SJOBLOM, K. 2016. Identification of

Infrastructure Systems. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 23, 11 pp.

ANDERSON, L. W., KRATHWOHL, D. R. & BLOOM, B. S. 2001. A Taxonomy for

Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: a Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives, New York, NY, Longman.

ANTAYA, M. C. L. & PARRISH, K. 2014. Assessing comprehension with student-

developed construction games. age, 24, 1.

ASCE. 2017. 2017 Infrastructure Report Card [Online]. Reston, VA: American Society
of Civil Engineers. Available: http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
[Accessed 10 March 2017].

BABBIE, E. R. 2013. The basics of social research, Cengage Learning.

BECERIK-GERBER, A. A., BURCIN, KU, K. & JAZIZADEH, F. 2012. BIM-enabled

virtual and collaborative construction engineering and management. Journal of
Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 138, 234-245.

BECERIK-GERBER, B., GERBER, D. J. & KU, K. 2011. The pace of technological

innovation in architecture, engineering, and construction education: integrating
recent trends into the curricula. Journal of Information Technology in Construction
(ITcon), 16, 411-432.

BECKER, T. C., JASELSKIS, E. J. & EL-GAFY, M. 2014. Improving predictability of

construction project outcomes through intentional management of indirect
construction costs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140,
04014014.

BINGHAM, E. & GIBSON, G. 2010. Development of the project definition rating index
(PDRI) for infrastructure projects. Arizona State University.

BINGHAM, E. & GIBSON, G. E. J. 2016. Infrastructure Project Scope Definition Using

Project Definition Rating Index. Journal of Management in Engineering, 04016037.
217
BOCCHINI, P., FRANGOPOL, D. M., UMMENHOFER, T. & ZINKE, T. 2013.
Resilience and sustainability of civil infrastructure: Toward a unified approach.
Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 20, 04014004.

BOSFIELD, R. & GIBSON JR., G. E. 2012. Data Analysis on the Implementation of

Successful Front End Planning Processes. . CII Research Report 268-12. Austin,
TX: Construction Industry Institute.

BURKE, R., PARRISH, K. & GIBSON JR., G. E. Defining Small Projects in Developing
the PDRI for Small Infrastructure Projects. Construction Research Congress 2016,
31 May - 2 June 2016 Puerto Rico. ASCE, 10 pp.

CALDAS, C. H., MENCHES, C. L., REYES, P. M., NAVARRO, L. & VARGAS, D. M.

2014. Materials Management Practices in the Construction Industry. Practice
Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 20, 04014039.

CANNING, D. 1998. A database of world stocks of infrastructure, 1950–95. The World

Bank Economic Review, 12, 529-547.

CHESTER, M., PARRISH, K., COSGROVE, J. & ELZOMOR, M. 2017. Urban

Sustainablility Lab [Online]. http://urbansustainability.lab.asu.edu/index.php:
asu.edu. [Accessed 2017].

CHO, C.-S. & GIBSON, G. 2001. Building project scope definition using project
definition rating index. Journal of architectural engineering, 7, 115-125.

CHO, C.-S. & GIBSON, G. E. J. 1999. Development of a Project Definition Rating Index
(PDRI) for General Building Projects By

CII 1991. Manual for Special Project Management: A Special Publication. Report from
Small Projects Action Team. Austin, TX.

CII 1994a. “Analysis of Pre-Project Planning Effort and Success Variables For Capital
Facility Projects”. Source Document 105 prepared for Construction Industry
Institute, University of Texas at Austin, Austin Texas.

CII 1994b. Pre-Project Planning: Beginning A Project the Right Way. Publication 39-1,
Austin, TX. Construction Industry Institute.

CII 1995. Research Report 113-11. Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for Industrial
Projects. . Construction Industry Institute. Austin, TX.

CII 1997. Pre-Project Planning Tools: PDRI and Alignment Research Summary 113-1.
Austin, TX.

CII 1999. Research Report 155-11. Development of the Project Definition Rating Index
(PDRI) for Building Projects. Construction Industry Institute. Austin, TX.
218
CII 2001. Small Project Execution. Research Summary 161-1. Austin, TX.

CII 2002. Research Report 161-11. Factors Impacting Small Capital Project Execution.
Construction Industry Institute. Austin, TX.

CII 2006. Front End Planning: Break the Rules, Pay the Price. Research Summary 213-1.
Austin, TX.

CII 2008. Implementation Resource 155-2 PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index -
Building Projects (3rd ed.). Austin, TX. Construction Industry Institute.

CII 2010a. Development of the Project Definition Rating Index for Infrastructure
Projects. Construction Industry Institute. Austin, TX.

CII 2010b. Research Resource 268-11 PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index -
Infrastructure Projects. Construction Industry Institute. Austin, TX.

CII 2013. Integrated Project Risk Assessment. Implementation Resource 181-2. Austin,
TX.

CII 2014a. Front End Planning for Renovation and Revamp, Version 1.1. Implementation
Resource 242-2. Austin, TX.

CII 2014b. Research Summary 305-1: Measuring Project Complexity and Its Impact.
Construction Industry Institute. Austin, TX.

CII 2015. Implementation Resource 314-2 PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index - Small
Industrial Projects. . Construction Industry Institute. Austin, TX.

CII 2017. Implmentation Resource 314a-2. Project Definition Rating Index - Small
Infrastructure Projects.

CLEVENGER, C. M., OZBEK, M., GLICK, S. & PORTER, D. Integrating BIM into
construction management education. EcoBuild Proceedings of the BIM-Related
Academic Workshop, 2010.

COLLINS, W., PARRISH, K. & EDWARD GIBSON JR, G. Comparison of Front End
Planning Practices for Small and Large Industrial Construction Projects.
Construction Research Congress 2016, 2016. 150-158.

COLLINS, W., PARRISH, K. & GIBSON, G. E. 2015. Development and utilization of

the project definition rating index for index for small industrial projects.

ELZOMOR, M., BURKE, R., PARRISH, K. & GIBSON, G. E. J. 2016a. Development

of the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for Small Infrastructure Projects.
Research Report 314a-11. Austin, TX.: Construction Industry Institute.

219
ELZOMOR, M., PARRISH, K., MANN, C. & CHESTER, M. Positioning students to
understand urban sustainability strategies through vertical integration: Years 1
through 3. 2016 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 2016b New Orleans.
American Society for Engineering Education.

GAO, Z., SMITH, G. R. & MINCHIN JR, R. E. 2002. Budget and schedule success for
small capital-facility projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 18, 186-193.

GEORGE, R. 2007. Information flow to support front end planning.

GHOSH, A., PARRISH, K. & CHASEY, A. 2015. Implementing a Vertically Integrated

BIM Curriculum in an Undergraduate Construction Management Program.
International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 11, 121-139.

GIBSON, G. & DUMONT, P. R. 1996. Project definition rating index (PDRI) for
industrial projects. Construction Industry Institute Implementation Resource, 113-2.

GIBSON, G., KACZMAROWSKI, J. & LORE, H. 1993. Modeling Pre-Project Planning

for the Construction of Capital Facilities–Source Document 94. Construction
Industry Institute, Austin, TX.

GIBSON, G. E. J. & HAMILTON, M. R. 1994. Analysis of Pre-Project Planning Effort

and Success Variables for Capital Facility Projects. Construction Industry Institute,
the University of Texas at Austin, source document 102.

GIBSON JR, G. E. & WHITTINGTON, D. A. 2009. Charrettes as a method for engaging

industry in best practices research. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 136, 66-75.

GOKHALE, S., HASTAK, M. & OH, E. 2009. Optimizing construction input in front
end planning. Report RR241-11, Construction Industry Institute, University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.

GRIFFITH, A. & GIBSON, G. E. J. 2001. Alignment during preproject planning. Journal

of Management in Engineering, 17, 69-76.

GRIFFITH, A. & HEADLEY, J. D. 1995. Developing an effective approach to the

procurement and management of small building works within large client
organizations. Construction Management and Economics, 13, 279-289.

HAIMES, Y. Y. & JIANG, P. 2001. Leontief-based model of risk in complex

interconnected infrastructures. Journal of Infrastructure systems, 7, 1-12.

HAMILTON, M. & GIBSON, G. E. J. 1996. Benchmarking preproject planning effort.

Journal of Management in Engineering, 12, 25-33.

220
KARLAFTIS, M. G. & PEETA, S. 2009. Infrastructure planning, design, and
management for big events. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 15, 1-2.

KE, Y., WANG, S. & CHAN, A. P. 2010. Risk allocation in public-private partnership
infrastructure projects: comparative study. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 16,
343-351.

KRATHWOHL, D. R. 2010. A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory

Into Practice, 41, 212-218.

LIANG, L., THOMAS, S. R. & GIBSON, G. E. Is a small project really different?

Construction Research Congress 2005: Broadening Perspectives, 2005. ASCE, 1-
10.

MORRISON, J. 2009. Statistics for engineers: an introduction, John Wiley & Sons.

NASIR, H., HAAS, C. T., CALDAS, C. H. & GOODRUM, P. M. 2015. An Integrated

Productivity-Practices Implementation Index for Planning the Execution of
Infrastructure Projects. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 22, 04015022.

RAJENDRAN, S., CLARKE, B. & ANDREWS, R. 2012. Quality Management in

Construction. Professional Safety, 57, 37.

SONG, L., MOHAMED, Y. & ABOURIZK, S. M. 2009. Early contractor involvement in

design and its impact on construction schedule performance. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 25, 12-20.

SOROLA, C. & MOORE, D. S. 2010. Student Solutions Manual for Practice of Statistics
for Business and Economics, Macmillan.

THOMAS, H. R., SANVIDO, V. E. & SANDERS, S. R. 1989. Impact of material

management on productivity-A case study. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 115, 370-384.

WAISSI, G. 2015. Applied Statistical Modeling. 2nd Addition. . Tempe, AZ. .

WESTNEY, R. E. 1985. Managing the engineering and construction of small projects,

Dekker New York; Basel.

WILCOX, R. R. 2009. Basic statistics, Oxford Univ. Press.

221
 APPENDIX A
PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS

222
 PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects Research Team

Rebekah Burke Student, Arizona State University

Eskil Carlsson CSA Group, Contractor Chair

Mike Davidson PTAG

Mohamed Elzomor Student, Arizona State University

G. Edward Gibson, Jr. Arizona State University

Dustin Giles Burns & McDonnell

Shannon Grey Occidental Oil and Gas

Paul Katers American Transmission Company, Owner Chair

Robert Mitrocsak Architect of the Capitol

Tom Nelson Hargrove Engineers + Constructors

Charles Obi Smithsonian Institute

Kristen Parrish Arizona State University

Luis Pinto Faithful + Gould

David Sonntag DTE Energy

Derek Wedel Global Infrastructure Partners

Leroy Yong The Williams Company

Michael Burns

Former Members:

Brad Lynch TransCanada

Scott Penrod Walbridge

223
 Organizations Participating in Small Project Definition Survey

AZCO Inc Architect of the Capitol

Bentley Systems Astrazeneca
Burns & McDonnell (x3) DTE Energy
CBI Eastman Chemical Company
Chicago Bridge and Iron GIP
CSA Group (x2) Huntsman
Day & Zimmermann Maricopa County
Eichleay Inc. MBP
Fluor ONEOK
Hargrove Engineers + Constructors, Inc. (x2) OPG
Hazen and Sawyer PSE&G
IHI E&C SABIC
Leidos SI
Markham Contracting Co., Inc. Smithsonian Institution (x2)
Parsons (x2) Southern Company (x2)
PFI The Williams Companies, Inc.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
PTAG INC Science
SBM Offshore
Supreme Group
Wade Trim
Walbridge
Wood Group Mustang, Inc.
Zachry Holdings, Inc

224
 Organizations Participating in Weighting Workshops

AECOM BP
Arcadis (x2) City Of Phoenix (x2)
Barton Malow Company (x2) City Of Peoria
Bechtel Infrastructure (x3) City Of Surprise
Black & Veatch (x3) Con Edison (x2)
Burns & McDonnell (x3) Consumers Energy (x2)
CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, DTE Energy (x4)
Inc.
D & B Engineers Edinburgh Airport (x2)
Dragados USA (x2) Gatwick airport (x2)
Eichleay Inc. Greater Toronto Airports Authority (x2)
Engineering Design Technologies, Inc. Huntsman Corporation
Faithful & Gould Maricopa County Department of
Transportation
Hargrove Engineers + Constructors (x2) Mount Sinai Hospital
JS VIG Construction Occidental Oil & Gas Corporation (x10)
L.S Brinker Company Smithsonian Institution
Markham Contracting The Williams Companies, Inc. (x3)
MWH Town of Gilbert
S & B Infrastructure NYC DOT
Siemens
Sunland Construction, Inc.
Sunland Field Service, Inc
Wade Trim
Walbridge

225
 Organizations Providing Testing Data for In-Process Projects

American Transmission Company (x2) Hargrove Engineers & Constructors

DTE Energy Burns & McDonnell
Smithsonian Institution Gatwick Airport

226
 APPENDIX B
PDRI FOR SMALL INFRASTUCTURE PROJECTS DOCUMENTS

227
228
229
230
231
232
233
 PDRI ELEMENT DESCRIPTIONS

RT 314a 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 sheets; they are organized in a hierarchy by section, category,
and then element. The score sheet consists of three main sections, each of which contains
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 of each element by evaluating its
definition level.
It should be noted that RT 314a developed this tool and these descriptions to address
a variety of types of small infrastructure projects that are “horizontal” in nature and
connect nodes in different types of infrastructure systems. Three basic varieties of
projects are addressed in this tool: 1.) projects that convey people and freight, such as
highways and roads, 2.) projects that convey fluids, such as pipelines and open channels,
and 3.) projects that convey energy, such as transmission lines or microwave corridors.
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. If a sub-
element is not applicable to the project that the user is assessing, then it should be
ignored. Note: the PDRI—Buildings Projects (Implementation Resource 152-2) and the
PDRI—Industrial Projects (Implementation Resource 113-2) should be used singly or
combined for the vertical (node) aspects of the infrastructure project as deemed
appropriate. Detailed user information is provided in Chapter 1 of this document.
Particular focus should be maintained to ensure that no gaps develop at the interfaces of
234
the vertical and horizontal elements during the project management team’s FEP process.
The sections, categories and elements are organized as discussed below.
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 project’s business objectives and drivers.

Categories:
A – Project Alignment
B – Project 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 – Project Design Parameters
E – Location and Geometry
F – Associated Structures & Equipment

SECTION III: EXECUTION APPROACH

This section consists of elements that should be evaluated for a full understanding
of the owner’s strategy and required approach for executing the project
construction and closeout.

Categories:
G – Execution Requirements
H – Engineering/Construction Plan and Agreements

The following pages contain detailed descriptions for each element in the PDRI.
235
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 project’s business objectives and drivers.

A. PROJECT ALIGNMENT

The elements in this category align key stakeholders around “whys, whats, and hows”
of the project in order to meet the needs of the organization.

A1. Need & Purpose Statement

This statement defines why the project is necessary, or being proposed, and its
objectives. The statement should outline the relative priority among cost,
schedule, and quality and address alternatives. All team members need to
understand the objectives and constraints related to the project. The need and
purpose statement should document:
¨ Project drivers (e.g., profitability, value/benefit, regulatory, safety, security)
¨ Desired project results (e.g., compliance, capacity, efficiency, refurbishment)
¨ Project constraints (e.g., community, geographic, governmental concerns)
¨ Preliminary project schedule of sufficient detail for alternative duration comparison
¨ Alternative considerations (e.g., routing(s), acquisition strategy(ies), technology(ies))
¨ Stakeholder identification and management process
¨ Preliminary surveys (e.g., population, land use, infrastructure)
¨ Location of nodes such as interchanges, stations, control points and depots
¨ Other (user-defined)
** Additional items to consider for renovation & revamp projects**
¨ Renovation & revamp project’s compatibility with existing facilities
** If this is an instance of a repetitive program**
¨ Ensure alignment of project statement with program statement.

A2. Key Project Participants

The roles and responsibilities of the key project participants should be identified
and documented. Establishing a positive team relationship among all key project
236
 participants helps to ensure shared understanding of project objectives and
facilitate an efficient, successful project. All key participants must be competent
in their roles in the project at hand, informed of the project decisions and given
the opportunity to attend project-planning meetings as appropriate. Key project
participants may include:
¨ Project sponsor
¨ Project, design, and construction engineers, managers, and leads
¨ Project management support (e.g., project controls personnel, procurement, and
budget officers)
¨ Operations & maintenance personnel
¨ Internal support groups (e.g., environmental, regulatory, economists, land and right-
of way planners, marketing)
¨ Health, Safety and Environment personnel (including Hazard and Operability Study
(HAZOP), Hazard Identification Study (HAZID))
¨ External (e.g., local, regional, and national governmental authorities, agencies and
officials, customers, business partners)
¨ Other (user-defined)
** If this is an instance of a repetitive program**
¨ Establish communication and identify synergies with other teams performing related
projects within the repetitive program.

A3. Public Involvement

Most infrastructure projects require informing the public of the project’s scope
and measuring their attitude regarding the development process. The required
level and type of public involvement for the project should be documented.
Community involvement efforts may include meetings with key stakeholders as
well as public meetings and hearings. Issues to consider should include:
¨ Policy determinations regarding mandatory vs. voluntary public involvement,
including notification procedures, types (e.g., press releases, public
meetings/hearings), and responsibilities
¨ Input of public involvement information into any deliverables (Environmental Impact
Statements, Public Hearing Notices, or other)
¨ Local support/opposition
237
 ¨ Available website content
¨ Other (user-defined)
** If this is an instance of a repetitive program**
¨ Leverage public outreach efforts for the program; ensure the project is aligned with
program outreach efforts

A4. Project Philosophies

A list of general design philosophies should be developed and documented to

inform the overall design, ensure the desired levels of service and lay out
guidelines to maintain adequate and safe operations. Philosophies should include:
¨ Design philosophy
¨ Design life and life cycle cost studies, including compatibility with long-
range goals and other infrastructure improvement programs and
technology upgrades
¨ Configuration strategy, including geometric/alignment, access, and
utilities; compatibility with other uses or adjacent projects and facilities
¨ Reliability and safety requirements
¨ Operating philosophy
¨ Daily level of service or capacity requirements including operating
schedules
¨ Alternative or redundant operating procedures
¨ Operational security and risk mitigation
¨ Maintenance Philosophy
¨ Maintenance and repair cycles (e.g., monitoring requirements, warranties,
use of third-party maintenance personnel, preventative, funding sources)
¨ Equipment access needs and provisions
¨ Government regulated maintenance (includes safety) and environmental
considerations
¨ Other (user-defined)
** Additional items to consider for renovation & revamp projects**
¨ Potential impacts to existing and adjacent operations, buildings and facilities
¨ Maintenance impact of renovation

238
 ¨ Common/spare parts (repair versus replace existing components)
¨ Compatibility of maintenance philosophy for new systems and equipment with
existing use and maintenance philosophy
¨ Coordination of the project with any maintenance projects
** If this is an instance of a repetitive program**
¨ Ensure alignment of project philosophies with program philosophies

(For more information on design, operating and maintenance philosophies, see

CII IR 268-2, PDRI—Infrastructure Projects, Category B.)

A5. Project Funding

Funding of projects can come from various sources and must be identified,
budgeted and documented for the project. Preliminary cost estimates are required
to determine how much funding a project needs, and in turn, whether or not the
project is worth pursuing. Items to consider should include:
¨ Congruity with local infrastructure projects and programs
¨ Comparison of funding options (public vs. private, expense vs. capital)
¨ Cash flow, spend plan, funding participants, cost drivers and contingencies
¨ Initial estimates (e.g., engineering, construction, right-of-way, and operating costs)
¨ Input into any required funding approval documents

A6. Preliminary Project Schedule

A preliminary project schedule should be developed, identifying the primary

critical path, including major risk components. It should be documented, analyzed
and agreed upon by the key project participants. Issues to consider should include:
¨ Milestones (e.g., funding approval, environmental, permitting, contracts, engineering,
construction, commissioning and start up)
¨ The procurement plan (long-lead or critical pacing of equipment/material and
contracting)
¨ Required submissions and approvals (e.g., environmental, regulatory)
¨ Contingencies (e.g., weather, site conditions, scope change, float, unusual schedule
considerations)
** Additional items to consider for renovation & revamp projects**

239
 R&R projects require a high level of planning to minimize risk because they
interface with existing operations and are many times performed in conjunction
with other on-going projects. Shutdowns/turnarounds/outages are special cases in
that they are particularly constrained in terms of time and space, requiring very
detailed plans and schedules.
¨ The schedule should contain input from appropriate personnel to coordinate required
disruptions
** If this is an instance of a repetitive program**
¨ Ensure alignment of project schedule with program schedule.

B. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

The elements in this category address high-level requirements informing the basis of
design. These elements should define success criteria.

B1. Functional Classification & Use

An essential step in understanding the overall project requirements is the

determination and documentation of the functions that the project is to serve.
Examples of functional types could include:
¨ Types of product(s) to be conveyed (e.g., people, freight, fluids, energy, data)
¨ Location (e.g., interstate/intrastate, domestic/international, urban/rural,
underground/above ground, on-shore/off-shore)
¨ Modes and types of conveyance:
¨ Transportation (i.e., automobiles, aircraft, ships)
¨ Conveyors (e.g., gravity, power, belt)
¨ Pressure or gravity – pipelines
¨ Heat or energy transfer (e.g., conduction or electromagnetic)
¨ Other (user-defined)

B2. Physical Site

The project should have a documented assessment comparing the project-specific

requirements with the available site characteristics for any and all sites considered
for the project in order to determine a site’s feasibility, including high level
requirements for adaptation and future growth. Items to consider should include:
240
 ¨ Utility considerations (e.g., existing utility identification, access and adjustment;
additional or different utilities)
¨ Type of buildings/structures
¨ Land area (terrain, laydown, turn around, temporary workspace, camp, parking,
stockpile, borrow pits, storage facilities)
¨ Accessibility during and after construction (e.g., roads, approaches, bridges)
¨ Amenities (e.g., food service, change rooms, medical, recreation, emergency)
¨ Security (setbacks, sight lines, clear zones, access and egress, fencing, gates, barriers,
goal posts, lighting)
¨ Existing utility identification and adjustment (utility corridors, alignment with
existing right-of-way, timelines for agreements and relocation, required clearances
and boundaries, access points, associated permits and regulations)
¨ Possible expansion or alteration of current project (e.g., vertical/horizontal expansion,
increase in capacity, future quality constraints)
¨ Potential compliance issues (e.g., stormwater, natural resource surveys, cultural
resource surveys, pollutants and environmental compliance issues, climatic data)
¨ Existing plans, codes, and standards (e.g., coastal zone management, intracoastal and
navigable waterways, railroad, regional transportation authorities, special private land
issues, jurisdictional plans)
** Additional items to consider for renovation & revamp projects**
¨ Complete condition assessment of existing facilities and above- and below-ground
infrastructure
¨ As-built accuracy and availability (i.e., update/verify as-built documentation prior to
project initiation)
¨ Temporary service provisions and detours
¨ Uncertainty of “as-found” conditions (e.g., structural integrity; sub-base conditions;
hazardous materials; location, condition and capacity of piping, electrical system
components, installed equipment, and existing safety devices)
¨ Other (user-defined)

B3. Dismantling & Demolition Requirements

A scope of work should be defined and documented for the decommission and
removal of existing infrastructure that is associated with the project. This scope of
work should list specific items that will be decommissioned/dismantled and be
241
comprehensive enough to inform decision making. Evaluation criteria should
include:
¨ Timing/sequencing
¨ Regulatory procedures and standards; health, safety and security requirements (e.g.,
decontamination and purge requirements, de-energize and isolation)
¨ Handling of dismantled equipment/ materials (including hazardous)
¨ Other (user-defined)
** Additional items to consider for renovation & revamp projects**
¨ Ensure that existing conditions (e.g., asphalt condition, pipe condition) and their
impact on scope are clearly documented
¨ Potential reuse of existing dismantled or demolished equipment and material
¨ Physical identification of extent of demolition to clearly define limits
¨ Segregation of demolition activities from new construction, and operations (e.g.,
physical disconnect or “air gap”)
** If this is an instance of a repetitive program**
¨ Compatibility of this project with program’s dismantling/demolition requirements

242
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.

C. DESIGN GUIDANCE

The elements in this category identify items to be considered to support detailed

design.

C1. Lead/Discipline Scope of Work

A complete, generally discipline-oriented, narrative description of the project

should be documented that lays 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:
¨ 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
¨ Other (user-defined)
** Additional items to consider for renovation & revamp projects**
¨ Identification of specific interface or coordination efforts with operations and
owner’s staff

C2. Project Codes and Standards

The codes, standards, and guidelines that govern the project design have been
identified and documented, as well as evaluated, for schedule and cost impact.
Items to consider should include:
¨ National, local or organizational/corporate codes
¨ Local, state/provincial, and national government permits
¨ Regulatory and utility commissions, including construction
¨ Marine, waterway, and wetland
243
 ¨ Air quality
¨ Transportation, including road, railroad, air space or ports
¨ Security and fire
¨ Utilization of design standards (e.g., owner’s, contractor’s, mixed)
¨ Alignment of criteria between the project and existing system/facilities
¨ Health, Safety and Environment (HS&E)
¨ Future expansion considerations
¨ Other (user-defined)
**Additional items to consider for renovation & revamp projects**
¨ Evaluation of original intent of codes and regulations, and any “grandfathered”
requirements
¨ Setting design goals to take advantage of system or facility outages/shutdowns
¨ Verification of accuracy of as-built drawings
¨ Reconciliation of as-built specifications against current specifications
**If this is an instance of a repetitive program**
¨ Applicability of existing criteria and permits for this project
¨ Compatibility of project’s specifications with program’s specifications

C3. Topographical Surveys & Mapping

A reconnaissance of the corridor/site should be conducted. This study should

document the details of the preferred corridor/location, (or in some cases develop
locational options). The study should include:
¨ Verify existing geographic, topographic, mapping, and right-of-way information,
including geographical information system (GIS) data
¨ Requirements for right-of-entry and surveying consultants
¨ Preliminary topographic survey, including recovery of existing monuments
¨ Above and below ground utility information (e.g., crossing and/or parallel corridor)
¨ Existing conflicting structures
¨ Sensitive areas (e.g., environmental, historical, cultural, archaeological)
¨ Property descriptions and exhibits, including landowners, land use and zoning
¨ Inherent parcel issues that may cause difficulties in right-of-way acquisition,
including special property owner concerns
¨ Other (user-defined)

244
C4. Project Site Assessment

The actual conditions pertaining to the selected project corridor, access or site
should be identified and documented. Geotechnical or hydrological characteristics
that can affect the project should be considered. Items to evaluate and consider
should include:
¨ All previous and new geotechnical information
¨ Soil compaction, seismic, and foundation requirements (i.e., rock)
¨ Soil treatment or removal/replacement requirements
¨ Existing access issues with corridor/site (i.e., overhead interferences)
¨ Factors such as light, dust, noise, emissions, and erosion control
¨ Weather and climate impact
¨ Hydraulic information with corridor/site:
¨ Surface, groundwater, and meteorological characteristics
¨ Waves, tides and currents
¨ Ground cover and erosion concerns
¨ Flood plain characteristics
¨ Potential impacts of future development and affected communities/agencies
¨ Other (user-defined)

C5. Environmental & Regulatory Considerations

Environmental and regulatory considerations affecting the project design

approach have been defined and documented. Items to evaluate and consider
should include:
¨ Identification of national, regional, and local jurisdictional environmental assessment
requirements
¨ Environmental documentation (e.g., waterway, wetland, flora, fauna, noise
implications in documents such as an environmental impact statement if required)
¨ Environmental requirements (e.g., stormwater runoff, air quality, monitoring)
¨ Other (user-defined)
** Additional items to consider for renovation & revamp projects**
¨ Project requirements within existing environmental commitments (e.g., avoidance,
compensation, enhancements, minimization)

245
 ¨ Existing environmental mitigation and remediation plans affecting current project

(For more information on environmental and regulatory issues, see CII IR 268-2,
PDRI—Infrastructure Projects, Elements F4 and F5.)

C6. Value Analysis

The process for conducting value analysis studies (e.g., value engineering (VE),
value management, value methodology, design simplification studies, material
alternatives selection) should be documented. Items to consider should include:
¨ Policy requirements, accountabilities, procedures, and deliverables
¨ Assessment of redundancies and overcapacity
¨ Commonality, flexibility, and/or discretionary scope items
¨ Controls simplification
¨ Cost effective materials and construction techniques
¨ Sustainability considerations (e.g., use of local materials, pollution abating concrete,
recycled materials, LED lighting, and so on)
¨ Use of modularized and prefabricated components
¨ Life-cycle analysis, including operations and maintenance considerations
¨ Other (user-defined)

(For more information on value analysis issues, see CII IR 268-2, PDRI—
Infrastructure Projects, Elements E1, E2 and E3.)

C7. 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, potentially including
contractors. Elements of constructability to consider should include:
¨ 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)

246
 ¨ Developing site layouts in relation to surveys for construction infrastructure and
logistics, including laydown areas and hoisting requirements (e.g., construction
equipment placement, lift paths, rigging, and line of sight)
¨ Developing a detailed installation plan for infrastructure including oversized loads
and equipment
¨ Other (user-defined)
**Additional items to consider for renovation & revamp projects**
¨ “Installability” (e.g., small components/modules/pre-assembly to facilitate
installation in congested areas)
¨ Opportunities to perform as much work as possible outside, low-congestion periods,
shutdowns and outages

D. PROJECT DESIGN PARAMETERS

The elements in this category focus on items that support and inform detailed design.
(For more information on project design parameters, see Category I in the PDRI—
Infrastructure Projects.)

D1. Capacity

Design output or benefits to be gained from this project should be evaluated and
documented. Capacity requirements should include:
¨ Details of required flows (vehicles, people, fluids, electrical power) related to the
type of project:
¨ People and freight (e.g., traffic capacity, number of lanes, pavement
thickness, interchanges, tolling, runway orientation)
¨ Fluids (e.g., piping, flow rate, friction and head loss, hydraulic profile)
¨ Energy (e.g., transmission line capacity, bandwidth capacity,
telecommunication media, transformers and switching gear)
¨ Redundancy and provisions for future expansion
¨ Major equipment requirements, availability and limitations
¨ Integration into and limitations of existing infrastructure
¨ Communication/control requirements
¨ Capacity/availability of support systems
¨ Other (user-defined)

247
 ** Additional items to consider for renovation & revamp projects**
¨ Tie-in points
¨ Accuracy of existing capacity information

D2. Design for Safety & Hazards

A formal process for identifying and mitigating safety and environmental hazards
of the final project should be documented. This process is used to identify
potential risk of injury to the environment or populace for certain types of
infrastructure projects. Many jurisdictions, or organizations, will have their own
specific compliance requirements; for example, in the United States, OSHA
Regulation 1910.119 compliance is required for oil and gas conveyance. The
owner should clearly communicate the requirements, methodology, and
responsibility for the various activities to the project team. Issues to consider
include:
¨ Handling of hazardous materials (i.e., nuclear, hydrocarbon, explosives)
¨ Operational Safety features
¨ People and Freight (i.e., clear zones, barrier placement, sight distances)
¨ Fluids (i.e., anti-corrosives, explosives, carcinogens)
¨ Energy (i.e., setbacks, electromagnetic pulse, microwave exposure)
¨ Containment requirements
¨ Confined space
¨ Air monitoring
¨ Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP) requirements
¨ Other (user-defined)

D3. Civil and Structural

A clear statement of civil and structural requirements should first be identified or

developed and then documented as the basis of design. This documentation
should include:
¨ Owner specifications/standards (e.g., basis for design loads, capacity, material
procurement, vulnerability and risk assessments)
¨ Physical and seismic requirements
¨ Overall project site plan including future expansion
248
 ¨ Construction materials (e.g., concrete, steel) meet client and jurisdictional standards
¨ Sustainability considerations, including certification
¨ Interim traffic or by-pass control plans
¨ Definition of nomenclature and documentation requirements for civil drawings (e.g.,
grading/drainage/erosion control/landscaping, corrosion control/ protective coatings,
minimum clearances)
¨ Other (user-defined)
**Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects**
¨ Existing structural conditions (e.g., foundations, building framing,
harmonics/vibrations)
¨ Potential effect of noise, vibration, and restricted headroom
¨ Underground interference
**If this is an instance of a repetitive program**
¨ Compatibility of project’s civil and structural requirements with program’s
requirements

D4. Mechanical and Equipment

Mechanical and equipment design requirements should first be identified or

developed, and then documented as the basis of design. This documentation
should include:
¨ Owner specifications/standards, material sourcing requirements
¨ Life cycle cost/sustainability considerations
¨ Environmental condition requirements for equipment (e.g., air quality, operating
temperatures)
¨ System monitoring (e.g., cameras, sensors, monitors, electronic signage, conveyor
systems)
¨ System redundancy requirements
¨ Support system requirements (e.g., water treatment, fire protection requirements,
emissions control, utility support requirements, traffic control devices/signals)
¨ Piping requirements
¨ Seismic requirements
¨ Other (user-defined)
**Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects**

249
 ¨ Renovation projects’ alteration of existing mechanical design assumptions
¨ Potential reuse of existing equipment and systems for renovation project
¨ New bypasses and tie-in requirements
**If this is an instance of a repetitive program**
¨ Compatibility of project’s mechanical and equipment requirements with program’s
requirements

D5. Electrical and Controls

A clear statement of electrical design and control requirements should be

identified or developed, and then documented as the basis of design. This
documentation should include:
¨ Owner specifications/standards, material sourcing requirements
¨ Life cycle cost/sustainability considerations
¨ Power sources with available voltage/amperage
¨ Electrical substations, location of electrical service and distribution equipment
¨ Uninterruptable power source (UPS) and/or emergency power requirements
¨ Lightning/grounding requirements
¨ Voice, data, and video communications requirements
¨ Security/access control systems
¨ Other (user-defined)
**Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects**
¨ Integration of new technology with existing systems, including interface issues
¨ Safety systems compromised by new technology
¨ Renovation projects’ alteration of existing electrical design assumptions
¨ Potential reuse of existing equipment and systems for renovation project
**If this is an instance of a repetitive program**
¨ Compatibility of project’s electrical and controls requirements with program’s
requirements

D6. Operations and Maintenance

A clear statement of operations and maintenance design requirements should first

be identified or developed, and then documented as part of the basis of design.
Items to consider include:

250
 ¨ Accessibility and egress requirements for operations and maintenance (e.g.,
manholes, platforms, vaults)
¨ Required provisions for safe maintenance/operation including out of service
¨ Temporary structures for maintenance
¨ Storage and fabrication facilities for repair parts
¨ Surface finishes (e.g., paint and hot-dip galvanized)
¨ Right-of-way vegetative clearing and maintenance
¨ Remote monitoring/operating capabilities
¨ Other (user-defined)

E. Location and Geometry

This category considers schematic layouts, horizontal and vertical alignment, cross-
sectional elements, and control of access all contain key location and geometric
information important to the design success of the project.

E1. Schematic Layouts

Schematic layouts show the plan view that includes basic information necessary
for the proper review and evaluation of the proposed improvement should be
documented. The schematic is essential for use in public meetings and
coordinating design features. Issues to consider include:
¨ General project information (e.g., boundary limits, speed or volume, and
classification)
¨ Location of structures (e.g., interchanges, main lanes, frontages, ramps, levees,
channels, ditches, towers, utilities, coordinates, and drainage structures)
¨ Integration and compatibility with existing facilities
¨ Right-of-way limits, including overhead and underground impacts
¨ Master plan showing zoning and jurisdictional boundary information
¨ Location/arrangement drawing to identify the location of each major project item
(e.g., location, including coordinates, coordination of location among all items and
interfaces with existing facilities)
¨ Other (user-defined)
** Additional items to consider for renovation & revamp projects**
¨ Renovation work in relation to existing structures

251
 ¨ Clear identification of existing systems and equipment to be removed, rearranged, or
to remain in place
¨ Known detours or bypasses

E2. Alignment and Cross-Section

Horizontal and vertical alignment along with cross sectional elements of the final
design help establish the project boundaries. It is important that the proper
alignment be selected according to the system’s design speed, pressure pipe
hydraulics, open channel hydraulic parameters, existing and future roadside or
adjacent development, subsurface conditions, and topography, among other
parameters. Optimized cross-sections are also important design elements to
reduce right-of-way width and control cost and schedule. Issues to evaluate and
consider should include:
¨ Horizontal and vertical geometry referenced to a surveying control system
¨ Design exceptions or waivers identified and validated
¨ Pipeline or power line corridors and easements
¨ Crossover grades and profiles
¨ Vertical lift
¨ Vertex data
¨ Upstream and downstream control structures/parameters
¨ Constrained right-of-way zones areas (i.e., choke points, cut and fill slopes, retaining
walls)
¨ Horizontal and vertical clearances to obstructions
¨ Horizontal directional drilling (HDD)/tunneling feasibility
¨ Other (user-defined)

E3. Control of Access

Permanent access requirements for maintenance and operations need to be defined

and documented. Access control should be coordinated with right-of-way
acquisition, including access deeds and restrictions. Issues to consider should
include:
¨ Entrance/exit locations and length
¨ Growth capacity

252
 ¨ Safety and security of access
¨ Controlled access systems, including life safety requirements
¨ Split-parcel and other access requirements
¨ Access to pumping or support stations, valves, bypasses and other tie-ins
¨ Manholes and cleanouts
¨ Pretreatment, including bar screens, grit removal, grinders, and compactors access
¨ Utility access requirements (temporary and permanent)
¨ People and freight access (e.g., bypasses, runways, trunk tie-ins)
¨ Other (user-defined)

F. Associated Structures & Equipment

Infrastructure projects have associated structures and equipment that must be

considered in the project for inclusion in design and to determine right-of-way
requirements.

F1. Support Structures

Support structure requirements for the project should be defined and documented.
Infrastructure projects often require support structures for conveyance
requirements along the extent of the right-of-way, e.g., bridges for freight, fluids,
or pipelines. Issues to consider should include:
¨ Structure locations
¨ Materials of construction as well as foundation requirements
¨ Details of required structures related to the type of project:
¨ People and freight (e.g., retaining walls and abutments, toll plazas)
¨ Fluids (e.g., thrust blocks, pipe racks, valve and pumping stations, bridges)
¨ Energy (e.g., towers, duct banks, switching substations)
¨ Safety tolerances (e.g., maximum height, loads and capacities, minimum clearances)
¨ Vertical and horizontal alignment
¨ Special load requirements (e.g., seismic, ice, wind, thermal and heavy load)
¨ Other (user-defined)
** Additional items to consider for renovation & revamp projects**
¨ Current condition and life expectancy
¨ Temporary signage

253
 ¨ Maximum construction bridge loading
¨ Bypasses or temporary conveyance
¨ Detour bridge requirements or lane rerouting

F2. Hydraulic Structures

In the analysis or design of drainage facilities, the relative importance of the

facility will determine the appropriate investment of time, expense, concentration,
and completeness. Basic data components inherent in a design or analysis of any
pipeline, channel, or highway drainage facility should be documented and
include:
¨ Surveys of existing characteristics/estimates of future characteristics
¨ Discharge estimates
¨ Constraints

When documenting hydraulic structure requirements, issues to consider include:

¨ Open channels, tunnels, and outfall structures (right-of-way and environmental
impacts)
¨ Storm drain systems, including inlets/outlets
¨ Emergency spillways/collection basins/culverts
¨ Fluid energy abatement
¨ Hydraulic routing/hydraulic channel controls
¨ Life-cycle maintenance considerations and costs
¨ Other (user-defined)
** Additional items to consider for renovation & revamp projects**
¨ Condition and life expectancy of existing structures
¨ Bypasses or temporary conveyance

F3. Miscellaneous Elements

In addition to typical pipeline, water channel, energy, and/or roadway design

elements, the following features may require consideration and planning. These
items should be identified and listed, and should include:
¨ Details of required miscellaneous elements related to the type of project:
¨ People and freight (e.g., noise abatement or blast deflection walls, border
and immigration facilities, toll plazas, sidewalks, signage)
254
 ¨ Fluids (e.g., hazardous material traps, emergency spillway area, storm
septors)
¨ Energy (e.g., fencing, berms or containment structures, visual architectural
blending structures)
¨ Longitudinal barriers, rip-rap/gabions/soil retaining structures
¨ Maintenance and storage yards/parking facilities
¨ Extended shoulders for service
¨ Other (user-defined)

F4. Equipment List

Project-specific installed equipment should be defined and listed. The purchaser

of equipment should be clearly identified in the equipment list. Items to consider
should include:
¨ Details of required equipment related to the type of project:
¨ People and freight (e.g., benches, bus shelters, signs, traffic control
devices)
¨ Fluids (e.g., turbines/compressors/pumps, grinders/clarifiers/tanks/basins)
¨ Energy (e.g., transformers, electrical substations, breakers, disconnect
switches, protection and control equipment)
¨ Modularized control rooms
¨ Emergency generators
¨ A tabulated list of utility requirements for all major installed equipment (e.g., power,
water, fuel, air, specialty gasses)
**Additional items to consider for renovation & revamp projects**
¨ Identification of systems and equipment as new, existing or relocate, remove
¨ Clear definition of any modifications to existing systems and equipment, and
verification of compliance with existing codes

SECTION III – EXECUTION APPROACH

255
 This section consists of elements that should be evaluated for a full understanding
of the owner’s strategy and required approach for executing the project
construction and closeout.

G. EXECUTION REQUIREMENTS

The elements in this category focus on ensuring successful land acquisition,

procurement, owner approvals and key project participant coordination.

G1. Land Acquisition Strategy

A plan and process for attaining land or other real estate rights should be
established and documented, as these items are almost always on the critical path.
The execution of contractual agreements may be required with local public
agency (LPA) participants and establishes responsibilities for the acquisition of
right-of-way, particularly those parcels that may cause delay. In some cases, an
agreement must be entered into before a project is released for right-of-way
acquisition. Issues to consider should include:
¨ Identification and prioritization of long-lead parcels and easements
¨ Acquisition plan (e.g., responsible parties, acquisition process, relocations,
abatements, appraisal responsibility and process)
¨ Advance land acquisition requirements (e.g., protective buying, hardship acquisition,
land donations, multi-owner parcels)
¨ Master agreement that governs local agency and joint venture advance funding
(including supporting documentation and transmittal memos)
¨ Cost participation and work responsibilities between the owner and LPAs or others to
include reimbursement for purchased parcels, appraisals, property acquisitions and
improvements
¨ Prerequisites to secure right-of-way project release on non-federal-aid projects
¨ Coordination of hydraulic design with requirements for land acquisition
¨ Construction needs (e.g., spoil disposal, temporary access, easements, private roads,
other land owner requirements)
¨ Other (user-defined)

256
 (For more information on land acquisitions, see CII IR 268-2, PDRI—
Infrastructure Projects, Elements J1, J2, J4 and J5.)

G2. Utility Adjustment Strategy

A strategy to address utility adjustment for the project should be developed and
documented. Items to address should include:
¨ Identification and prioritization of long-lead utilities, public or private
¨ Utility adjustment plan (e.g., responsible parties, adjustment process, payment
responsibility, relocations, abatements, quality control responsibility)
¨ Compatibility with local regulations and procedures to include crossing permits,
encroachment permits, and approval process
¨ Agreement that governs local agency or joint venture advance funding and cost
participation (including supporting documentation and transmittal memos)
¨ Long-term operation and maintenance responsibility to include utility agreements
¨ Other (user-defined)
(For more information on utility strategy, see CII IR 268-2, PDRI—Infrastructure
Projects, Elements J2 and J3.)

G3. Procurement Strategy

A procurement strategy should be developed and documented that identifies the

methods for design and construction delivery, 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 a small project. The identification and delivery of long lead/critical
equipment and material are especially important. This strategy should also include
procuring professional services. Issues to consider should include:
¨ Procedures and plans for procuring professional services (e.g., design, consulting,
testing) and construction services (e.g., design/build, construction management (CM)
at risk, design-bid-build)
¨ Bid evaluation, terms and conditions, and selection of vendors/suppliers
¨ Specific guidelines for small, disadvantaged business and local content requirements

257
 ¨ Identification, tracking and expediting of long lead time equipment and material,
including vendor data to support design
¨ A procurement responsibility matrix (including authority and responsibility for
engineering, design and professional services, construction, materials, commissioning
and start-up materials)
¨ Quality requirements of materials and services, including acceptance testing and
onsite vendor support service
¨ Other (user-defined)

G4. Owner Approval Requirements

Owner requirements including deliverables, submittals, approvals, and major

interactive review meetings should be defined and documented. Items to consider
should include:
¨ Project deliverables list including frequency, due dates and timing of
submittal/approvals
¨ Project Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed (RACI) Matrix
¨ Computer hardware, software, computer aided drafting and design (CADD), and
physical model requirements
¨ Document review and approval processes for issuing subcontracts, purchase orders,
changes or modifications
¨ Define specific hold points for owner reviews, inspections and/or witness to testing
¨ Invoicing process, scheduling process, change management procedures, reporting
format, and timing
¨ Other (user-defined)
** If this is an instance of a repetitive program**
¨ Compatibility of this project with program’s owner approval process.

G5. Intercompany and Interagency Coordination

Public and private coordination may be required during project execution, and
agreements should be in place to ensure efficient project delivery, and coordinated
at the appropriate levels. Coordination entities to consider should include:
¨ Owners/funding sources
¨ Key contractors and suppliers

258
 ¨ Local and state historic, natural resources, environmental, air quality, fish & wildlife,
habitat conservation, parks, flood control, preservation offices
¨ Emergency management organizations (e.g., law enforcement or the U.S. Federal
Emergency Management Agency)
¨ Transportation, railroad agencies, utility companies
¨ Other (user-defined)

H. ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND AGREEMENTS

The elements in this category focus on ensuring successful design, engineering,

construction and closeout.

H1. Design/Construction Plan & Approach

The methodology for engineering and constructing the project should be

documented. These items should include:
¨ Project work breakdown structure (WBS)
¨ Contracting plans (e.g., logistics, labor/resource availability, partnering/strategic
alliances, work week schedule/restrictions)
¨ Project staffing plans (e.g., definition of roles, responsibilities, experience,
licenses/registrations, and other special skills/credentials, critical personnel)
¨ Project risk mitigation plan and contingency forecast/allowance
¨ Integration of other plans into construction execution (right-of-way management,
environmental monitoring/controls, stormwater pollution prevention, utility
adjustment, safety and health program, public space plan)
¨ Other (user-defined)
** If this is an instance of a repetitive program**
¨ Compatibility of this project with program’s engineering and construction plan and
approach

H2. Project Cost Estimate and Cost Control

Project teams should develop and document cost estimates throughout planning
and execution that include the required level of detail and accuracy for the project
phase. The estimates should be used to manage contingencies, and track and
control costs. Budget management responsibilities should be outlined and
assigned in a formal project controls plan. Issues to consider should include:
259
 ¨ Direct and indirect design, engineering, construction, commissioning and
contingency costs
¨ Right-of-way and utility adjustment cost
¨ Incentives, disincentives, penalties, and liquidated damages
¨ Environmental, permitting, and public communication costs
¨ Taxes, financing fees, and utility consumption costs
¨ Procedures for cost control have been developed and may include information
sources, cash flow, payment schedules, cost breakdown structure, change
management, estimate forecast and budget tracking, project and financial control
software
¨ Other (user-defined)

H3. Project Schedule and Schedule Control

An appropriately detailed project schedule, for use during design and

construction, has been developed, documented, and analyzed. A method for
measuring and reporting progress should be established and documented, with
responsibilities assigned in accordance with organizational requirements. Key
stakeholders should agree upon this schedule. Items to consider should include:
¨ Input from appropriate project personnel (e.g., owner/operations/third party,
design/engineering, construction/estimating, procurement, environmental/permitting,
right-of-way, utility adjustments)
¨ Conformance with preliminary project schedule including milestones and appropriate
contingency
¨ Specific schedule considerations (e.g., tracking of outage dates, hourly schedule,
commissioning, procurement of long lead items, right-of-way land acquisition,
required submissions and approvals)
¨ Schedule control procedures (e.g., software, responsibility, resource loading,
reporting requirements)
¨ Other (user-defined)
**Additional items to consider for renovation & revamp projects**
¨ A schedule should contain input from traffic or flow control management personnel
to coordinate disruptions

260
H4. Project Quality Assurance & Control

Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures for the project should
be established and documented, and should include assignment of responsibilities
for approvals. The QA/QC plan should incorporate owner requirements, design
review, material origin/sourcing/traceability requirements, shop/source inspection
plans, definition of owner witness/hold points, material management plans, field
inspections and documentation requirements/inspections for governing
authorities/permits/local codes. These procedures should include:
¨ Assurance of contracted professional services
¨ Responsibility for QA/QC during design and construction
¨ Quality management system requirements, including audits (i.e., International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9000)
¨ Environmental quality control
¨ Oversight of submittals, Requests for Information (RFIs), changes and modifications,
progress photos, redlines/conformed to construction/as-builts
¨ Performance testing to assure conformance to specifications (e.g., coating, welding,
slump test, compression test)
¨ Correction of non-conforming materials, equipment, and construction
¨ Other (user-defined)

H5. Safety, Work Zone & Transportation Plan

A plan should be developed and documented that establishes a full understanding

of project logistics and safety, clearly showing provisions for safe and efficient
operation of all modes of transportation that are adjacent to or concurrent with the
project during construction. It should include considerations for the safety of
construction workers, inspection personnel and the general public. It should be
compliant with organizational, national, regional, and local jurisdictional and
permitting requirements. Issues to consider should include:
¨ Transportation agency requirements for traffic control devices and routing or other
compliance publications
¨ Traffic and work zone control plan (e.g., signage, safety equipment, clear zone
protection devices)

261
 ¨ Special permitting and logistics (e.g., equipment or materials transport, oversize
loads or barges, rail, special space permits)
¨ Safety for motorists and workers (e.g., work zone safety, safety personnel
requirements, safety orientation, planning, communication and incentives)
¨ Requirements for maintenance and operation for construction access
¨ Staging area for material handling, and plan for hazardous material movement and
handling
¨ Other (user-defined)

H6. Project Commissioning/Closeout

A project commissioning and closeout plan should be documented to make sure

that the project has a smooth transition to operations. The owner’s/user’s
operations and maintenance personnel should be involved in the development of
this plan. Items to consider should include:
¨ Sequence of turnover tied to schedule, including system identification and priority
¨ Contractor’s and owner’s required level of involvement in pre-commissioning,
training and testing
¨ Start-up process defined with responsibilities (e.g., start-up goals, leadership,
sequencing of start-up, quality assurance/quality control, work force)
¨ Commissioning and closeout documentation (e.g., project data books, turnover
manuals, as-built drawings, warranties)
¨ Training requirements
¨ Lessons learned feedback
¨ Administrative closeout (e.g., final payments, contractual closeout)
¨ Other (user-defined)

262
 APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FROM WEIGHTING WORKSHOPS

263
 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ELEMENTS A.1 – A.6

BOXPLOTS FOR ELEMENTS A.1 – A.6 (LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 5)

Range of Values

Elements

264
Range of Values

Elements

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ELEMENTS B.1 – B.3

265
 BOXPLOTS FOR ELEMENTS B.1 – B.3 (LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 5)

Range of Values

Elements
Range of Values

266
 Elements
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ELEMENTS C.1 – C.7

BOXPLOTS FOR ELEMENTS C.1 – C.7 (LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 5)

Range of Values

Elements

267
Range of Values

Elements

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ELEMENTS D.1 – D.5

268
 BOXPLOTS FOR ELEMENTS D.1 – D.5 (LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 5)

Range of Values

Elements
Range of Values

269
 Elements

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ELEMENTS E.1 – E.3

BOXPLOTS FOR ELEMENTS E.1 – E.3 (LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 5)

Range of Values

270
 Elements

Range of Values

Elements

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ELEMENTS F.1 – F.4

271
 BOXPLOTS FOR ELEMENTS F.1 – F.4 (LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 5)

Range of Values

Elements
Range of Values

Elements

272
 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ELEMENTS G.1 – B.5

BOXPLOTS FOR ELEMENTS G.1 – G.5 (LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 5)

Range of Values

Elements

273
Range of Values

Elements
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ELEMENTS H.1 – H.6

274
 BOXPLOTS FOR ELEMENTS H.1 – H.6 (LEVEL 1 AND LEVEL 5)

Range of Values

Elements
Range of Values

Elements

275
 APPENDIX D
WEIGHTING WORKSHOP PRESENTATION AND EVALUATION FORMS

276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Name:_________________________________________________________________
Date:__________________________________________________________________

Please answer the following questions regarding the PDRI.

Is the list of elements complete? If not, please list all others that should be added.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

Are any of the elements redundant?

If so, please list and provide any recommended changes.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

Are any of the definitions unclear or incomplete?

If so, please list and provide any recommended changes.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

Do you have any other suggestions for improving the PDRI or the instruction sheet?
287
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Please answer the following questions regarding the Background Information Sheet.

Are any of the questions unclear? If so, which ones and how should they be reworded?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

Are there any other questions not included in the information sheet that may provide the
research team with important information regarding the experience of the project
managers and estimators? If so, please list the ones that should be added.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

General Comments:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

288
 APPENDIX E
EXAMPLE OF COMPLETED WEIGHTING WORKSHOP ASSESSMENT

289
290
291
292
293
294
 APPENDIX F
PDRI TESTING QUESTIONNAIRES

295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
 APPENDIX G
IN-CLASS WORKSHOP ACTIVITY AND FINAL PROJECT RUBRIC

305
306
307
308
309
 APPENDIX H
INFRASTUCTURE PDRI SELECTION GUIDE

310
 To determine which PDRI to use for your infrastructure project, i.e., PDRI –
Infrastructure Projects or PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects, 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 answers, you should be able to discern which
tool will be best suited to assess your project. For example, if your project fits most of the
characteristics in the “Small Projects” column, then most likely the PDRI – Small
Infrastructure Projects will be appropriate for use. If your project aligns better with the
characteristics in the “Large Projects” column, then the PDRI – Infrastructure Projects
would be most appropriate.
The table below provides suggestions about how to determine the appropriate
PDRI tool for use on an infrastructure project, but should not be used as a strict guideline.
Note the complexity factors appear according to order of importance reported by survey
respondents; that is, total installed cost is the most important factor for differentiating
small projects from large, while the number of Right of Way (ROW) parcels required is
the least important differentiator. While the table below provides guidance as to factors to
consider, the values that serve as delineators between small and large projects will vary
from one organization to another. For instance, in some organizations, projects with total
installed costs of $20 million may be considered 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 of PDRI – Small Infrastructure should keep in mind that RT 314a
developed the tool only for assessing small projects. The tool is not intended as a short
cut to use in lieu of assessing a project with PDRI – Infrastructure Projects. Some
organizations may wish to base the selection criteria on the characteristics of their typical
projects; however, RT 314a’s research validated the PDRI – Small Infrastructure Projects
for projects meeting the criteria presented in the table below.

311
 Table H.1: PDRI Infrastructure Selection Guide

Complexity Factor Small Projects Large Projects

Total Installed Cost* <$20 Million >$20.1 Million
Engineering Effort* < 5000 Hours > 5000 Hours
Construction Duration** 6-12 Months >18 Months
Number of Core Team
<10 individuals >10 individuals
Members**
Combination of part-time and
Availability of Core Team
Part-time availability full-time to completely full-
Members**
time
Project Visibility External to
Moderate Significant
Organization (Public)
Extent of Permitting None to moderate permitting Significant permitting
Number Jurisdictions Involved 1-3 jurisdiction > 5 jurisdictions
Existing Utility Provider
Minimal to Moderate Significant
Interface & Coordination
Sources of Funding Singular Multiple
Types of Permits None to local/state permits Local/state to national permits
Number of Trade Contractors 3-4 separate trade contractors 7-8 separate trade contractors
Extent of Public Outreach Effort Minimal to Moderate Significant
Management of Public Outreach
Project Team Corporate Executives
Effort
Right Of Way (ROW)
Minimal to Moderate Significant
procurement effort
Right Of Way (ROW) parcels
1-2 parcels >5 parcels
required
* More than 50% of respondents reported this factor as a differentiator between small and large
projects
** More than 48% of respondents reported this factor as a differentiator between small and large
projects

312