PEER-REVIEWED PAPER

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Rekto on 10/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

SCOPE MANAGEMENT USING PROJECT DEFINmON RATING IND~ By Peter R. Dumont,1 Member, ASCE, G. Edward Gibson Jr.,2 Member, ASCE, and John R. FIsh3

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

INTRODUCTION The downsizing and decentralization of many owner engineering organizations has forever altered the way that industrial construction projects will be pursued in the future. With these organizational changes has come internal business fragmentation, loss of experience and institutional memory, and the need to use and rely on outside consultants to perform many project functions within businesses. The market-driven need to incorporate more complex technology into projects, while reducing cost and schedule, combined with the organizational changes mentioned makes effective project scope planning, definition, and control imperative. Yet, it is often challenging to ensure that effective scope management will take place under these circumstances. The project definition rating index (PDRI) is a revolutionary tool created under the guidance of the Construction Industry Institute (CII) to help with these prob'Presented at the 1996 Project Management Institute Annual Seminars and Symposium held in Boston. MA (October). 'Proj. Engr.. S&B Engrs. & Constructors Ltd., 7825 Park Place Blvd.• Houston. TX 77087. 2Assoc. Prof.• Dept. of Civ. Engrg.• ECJ 5.2. Univ. of Texas at Austin. Austin. TX 78712-1076. 'Dir. Proj. Quality Controls. Procurement. and Service. Process Services Inc .. P.O. Box 86810. Baton Rouge. LA 70879. Note. Discussion open until March 1. 1998. To extend the closing date one month. a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on May 12, 1997. This paper is part of the Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 13, No.5. September/October, 1997 ©ASCE. ISSN 0742-597X197/0005-00540060/$4.00 + $.50 per page. Paper No. 14967.

lems. It is a simple and easy-to-use checklist that identifies and precisely describes each critical element in a project scope definition package. The PDRI allows a project team to quickly analyze the scope definition package and predict factors that may impact project risk. It is intended to evaluate the completeness of scope definition, specifically on industrial construction projects, at any point prior to the time a project is considered for authorization to perform detailed design and construction. For the purposes of this tool, industrial construction projects may include, but are not limited to the following types of facilities: • • • • • • • • • •

OiVgas production facilities Refineries Chemical plants Pharmaceutical plants Paper mills SteeValuminum mills Power plants Manufacturing facilities Food-processing plants Textile mills

This paper will highlight the importance of scope definition and its direct impact on project success, specifically focusing on how recent industry trends are changing the traditional project environment. Too often communication breakdowns between primary stakeholders along with poorly defined objectives result in projects that fall short of their cost, schedule, and operational

54/ JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997

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

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Rekto on 10/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

goals. It is apparent that the industry could benefit from a resource that improves performance in these areas by creating an "environment to win" for all project participants. The PORI will be introduced as a resource to help with this problem. It will be shown to be an effective tool for preventing a poorly defined scope of work. The structure and format of the PORI will be explained along with a sample listing of the many benefits it can provide the project team. A brief synopsis of how the PORI was tested on 40 capital projects in order to validate its accuracy and usefulness will be discussed. This will be followed by an explanation of how today's rapidly changing business environment, which has placed increasingly rigorous pressures on project teams, further reinforces the need in the U.S. construction industry for a tool like the PORI. Finally, this paper will conclude by describing how the PORI provides a structured approach to the project scope management process, thus facilitating better scope definition.

dium level, and 18 with a low level. A comparison between high and low preproject planning efforts for these projects revealed total potential cost and schedule performance differentials as follows (Hamilton and Gibson 1996; Pre-Project 1994): • A 20 percent cost saving with a high level of preproject planning effort • A 39 percent schedule saving with a high level of preproject planning effort Obviously, improvement in project predictability and savings of this magnitude can have a significant impact on a venture's outcome. Oue to its importance, preparing a scope definition package should receive a level of management attention commensurate with its potential for impacting project performance. The PORI provides project team members with a structured approach for developing a quality scope definition package. DESCRIPTION OF PORI

BACKGROUND

Project scope definition is the process by which projects are defined and prepared for execution. The information identified during this process is usually presented in the form of a project scope definition package. A scope definition package is a detailed formulation of a continuous and systematic strategy to be used during the execution phase of a project to accomplish the project objectives and fulfill the driving business need. This package should include sufficient supplemental information to permit effective and efficient detailed engineering to proceed (Gibson et aI. 1995b). Success during the detailed design, construction, and start-up phases of a project is highly dependent upon the completeness of the scope definition. Some construction industry officials consider lack of scope definition to be the most serious problem on construction projects (Smith and Tucker 1983). A poorly defined project can experience considerable changes that may result in cost overruns and a greater potential for disputes. Inadequate scope definition can lead to changes that may delay the project schedule, cause rework, disrupt project rhythm, and lower the productivity and morale of the workforce. Previous research has shown that increased levels of scope definition during the early planning, or preproject planning, phase of a project can greatly improve the accuracy of cost and schedule estimates as well as the probability of meeting or exceeding project objectives (Pre-Project 1995; Griffith and Gibson 1995; Hackney 1992; Hamilton and Gibson 1996; Merrow 1988; Merrow et al. 1981). Specifically, research by CII investigated the importance of preproject planning on capital projects and its influence on project success. This research concluded that higher levels of preproject planning effort can result in significant cost and schedule savings. In particular this research effort studied 53 capital facility projects, 17 of which had been executed with a high level of preproject planning effort, 18 with a me-

Most experienced industry participants recognize the importance of scope definition during preproject planning and its potential impact on project success. Until now, however, the industry has been lacking a practical, nonproprietary method for determining the degree of scope development on a project. The PORI is the first publicly available tool of its kind. It allows a project planning team to quantify, rate, and assess the level of scope definition on industrial construction projects prior to authorization for detailed design or construction. A significant feature of the PDRI is that it can be utilized to fit the needs of almost any individual project, small or large. Elements that are not applicable to a specific project can be zeroed out, thus eliminating them from the final scoring calculation. The PDRI consists of 70 elements in a weighted checklist format. The 70 elements are divided into three main sections and 15 categories. A complete list of the sections, categories, and elements are given in Fig. I. In addition, all elements are described in a detailed glossary, including required level of effort and checklists (Gibson and Dumont I996b). This is significant because it provides industry with a common and definitive understanding of what constitutes complete definition of each element. The PDRI has been proven beneficial as a • Checklist that a project team can use for determining the necessary steps to follow in defining the project's scope • Listing of standardized scope definition terminology for use throughout the construction industry • Industry standard for rating the completeness of the project scope definition to facilitate risk assessment, prediction of escalation, evaluation of potential for disputes, etc. • Means to monitor progress at various stages during the preproject planning effort

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997/55

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

I. BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Rekto on 10/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A. Manufacturing Objectives A 1. Reliability Philosophy A2. Maintenance Philosophy A3. Operating Philosophy B. Business Objectives B1. Products B2. Market Strategy B3. Project Strategy B4. Affordability I Feasibility B5. Capacities 86. Future Expansion Considerations B7. Expected Project Life Cycle 88. Social Issues C. Basic Data Research & Development C1. Technology C2. Processes D. Project Scope D1. Project Objectives Statement D2. Project Design Criteria D3. Site Characteristics Available vs. Req'd D4. Dismantling & Demolition Requirements D5. Lead I Discipline Scope of Work D6. Project Schedule E. Value Engineering E1. Process Simplification E2. Design & Material Alternatives Considered I Rejected E3. Design for Constructability Analysis II. FRONT END DEFINITION F.

Site Information F1. Site Location F2. Surveys & Soil Tests F3. Environmental Assessment F4. Permit Requirements F5. Utility Sources With Supply Conditions F6. Fire Protection & Safety Considerations G. Process I Mechanical G1. Process Flow Sheets G2. Heat & Material Balances G3. Piping & Instrumentation Diags. (P&ID's) G4. Process Safety Management (PSM) G5. Utility Flow Diagrams G6. Specifications G7. Piping System Requirements G8. Plot Plan

G9. Mechanical Equipment List G10.Line List G11 .Tie-in List G12.Piping Specialty Items List G13.1 nstrument Index H. Equipment Scope H1. Equipment Status H2. Equipment Location Drawings H3. Equipment Utility Requirements I. Civil, Structural, & Architectural 11. Civil I Structural Requirements 12. Architectural Requirements J. Infrastructure J1. Water Treatment Requirements J2. Loading I Unloading I Storage Facilities Requirements J3. Transportation Requirements K. Instrument & Electrical K1. Control Philosophy K2. Logic Diagrams K3. Electrical Area Classifications K4. Substation Requirements I Power Sources Identified K5. Electrical Single line Diagrams K6. Instrument & Electrical Specs. III. EXECUTION APPROACH L.

Procurement Strategy L1. Identify Long Lead I Critical Equipment & Materials L2. Procurement Procedures and Plans L3. Procurement Responsibility Matrix M. Deliverables M1.CADDI Model Requirements M2.Deliverables Defined M3.Distribution Matrix N. Project Control N1. Project Control Requirements N2. Project Accounting Requirements N3. Risk Analysis P. Project Execution Plan P1. Owner Approval Requirements P2. Engr. I Constr. Plan & Approach P3. Shut Down I Turn-Around Req'mts. P4. Pre-Commissioning Turnover Sequence Requirements P5. Startup Requirements P6. Training Requirements

FIG. 1. Project Definition Rating Index (PORI) Sections, Categories, and Elements

•

Tool that aids in communication between owners and design contractors by highlighting poorly defined areas in a scope definition package • Means for project team participants to reconcile differences using a common basis for project evaluation • Training tool for companies and individuals throughout the industry • Benchmarking tool for companies to use in evaluating the completeness 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

HOW PORI WAS DEVELOPED

The elI research team that developed the PDRI was formed in 1994 to produce effective, simple, and easyto-use scope definition tools so that owners and contrac-

561 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING 1 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997

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

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Rekto on 10/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tors could better achieve business, operational, and project objectives (Pre-Project Planning Tools: PDRI and Alignment, in press, 1997). The team's objective was to quantify preproject planning efforts, specifically scope definition, and correlate them to the predictability of achieving project objectives. Its goal was to develop a tool for measuring project scope development that would be based on industry best practices. This tool would consist of a weighted index of critical scope definition elements and be titled the project definition rating index (PORI). In order to achieve its objective, the research team began by examining past research in project scope development. J. W. Hackney (1992) pioneered one of the first attempts to quantify and define the specific elements required for proper scope definition. Although his work is excellent it has not been widely accepted, perhaps due to its complexity. Apart from Hackney's work, however, the research team found the industry lacking in a nonproprietary method for benchmarking the level of preproject planning effort or the degree of scope development on a project. From these findings the research team realized that its primary challenge was to develop a simple and easy-to-use tool for project scope development. This tool must identify and precisely define each critical element in a scope definition package and allow a project team to quickly predict factors impacting project risk. To develop a detailed list of the required elements within a good scope definition package the research team utilized four primary sources: the expertise of the research team, an extensive literature review, documentation from a variety of owner and contractor companies, and a separate workshop of project managers and estimators. Initial topic categories were obtained from Hackney, previous ell work, and through using the team's internal expertise. This preliminary list was expanded using scope development documentation and best practices from 14 owner and contractor companies. Through affinity diagramming and nominal group techniques, the list was further refined and agreement reached regarding exact terms and nomenclature of element descriptions. Once this was completed a focus group of six individuals representing one owner and three engineering/construction companies who had not seen the approach previously was held to "fine tune" the list of elements and their descriptions. This list, which forms the basis fo the PORI, was presented earlier in Fig. 1. Oue to the need for brevity the detailed element descriptions are not included in this document. Element Weighting The research team hypothesized that all elements were not equally important with respect to their potential impact on overall project success. Therefore, each element needed to be weighted relative to the others. Higher weights were to be assigned to those elements whose lack of definition could have the most seriously negative effect on project performance. To develop credible weights the research team invited 54 experienced project managers and estimators from 31

owner and contractor companies to two workshops. At each workshop the participants were asked to weight each element in importance based upon their own experience. A total of 38 weighted score sheets resulted from the workshops. The weighting process is fairly complex and beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say that each of the 38 weighted score sheets were based on a standard project that the respondent, or respondent team, had recently completed. The respondent scored each element based on the impact that it would have on the total installed cost of the facility in question in terms of level of definition. Each score sheet then was normalized to 1,000 points and averaged. Statistical tests were performed looking at standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis of the individual elements, and adjustments were made. This input was used to determine the individual element weights. These weights comprise the PORI score sheet that can be found in a separate document entitled PDRI:Project Definition Rating Index, Industrial Projects (Gibson and Oumont 1996b). Additional information on this research methodology can be found in Gibson and Oumont (l996a). The weighted PORI score sheet is used to evaluate the level of completeness of the project scope definition. Each of the 70 elements is subjectively evaluated by key project stakeholders based on its level of definition versus its corresponding description. Summing the individual element evaluations and their corresponding weights leads to a single PORI score for the project, which can range from zero to 1,000. The lower the total score, the more well defined the project. Higher weights signify that certain elements within the score sheet lack adequate definition and should be reexamined prior to project authorization. Validating PDRI Although the PORI weights were based upon the expertise of 54 experienced project managers and estimators, the document is opinion based and, therefore, was tested on actual projects to verify its viability as a tool. Forty validation projects ranging in authorized sizes from $1,000,000 to $635,000,000 were scored with the PORI. Together these projects represent greater than $3.3 billion in authorized cost. The types of projects included chemical, petrochemical, refining, gas production, power plants, and manufacturing facilities. Each was constructed between 1988 and 1995. A PORI score was computed for each project based upon the level of definition at project authorization prior to detailed design and construction. (Note that all of these projects were scored "after the fact.") A success rating based upon cost performance, schedule performance, percentage design capacity attained at six months, and plant utilization attained at six months also was computed for each project. This success rating had been used in previous research regarding preproject planning (Hamilton and Gibson 1996). A statistical analysis revealed that the PORI score and project success variables were linearly rated with a co-

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997/57

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

TABLE 1. Summary of Cost, Schedule, and Change Order Mean Performance versus Authorization Estimate for Project Definition Rating Index (PORI) Validation Projects PORI Score

200

(%)

(%) (3)

Performance (1 )

(2) -5

Cost Schedule Change orders

-I

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Rekto on 10/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(n

+2 = 20)

Difference (%)

+14 +12 +8 (n = 20)

(4) 19 13 6

-

efficient of determination (R 2 ) of 0.39 between the two (Pre-Project Planning Tools: PDRI and Alignment, in press, 1997). A low PDRI score represents a project definition package that is well defined and, in general, corresponds to an increased probability for project success. Based on the analysis of the validation projects, the research team found that a trend existed between low PDRI scores and high project success levels. Table 1 shows the difference in subgroup means between projects that scored less than 200 (out of 1,000 total points) and those that scored greater than 200. (For example, a cost performance of "-5%" indicates that the mean of final project cost for the 20 projects scoring 200 and below was 5% less than the cost estimate at authorization.) The 200 point cutoff was used because it was a logical break in the data set and also corresponded to projects that met most of their authorization objectives. Note the significant 19% difference in cost performance and the 13% difference in schedule. The sample set of validation projects is relatively small, however the magnitude of these numbers confirms the conclusion that better scope definition can correlate to savings in terms of both time and money. Although not shown the standard deviations for the "less than 200" group were much smaller as well, indicating less variation. The PDRI alone will not ensure successful projects but, if combined with sound business planning, team alignment, and good project execution, it can greatly improve the probability of meeting or exceeding project objectives. PORI AND RECENT INDUSTRY TRENDS

Reduced Cycle Times In today's rapidly changing business environment it is becoming increasingly important for companies to reduce project cycle times in order to get products to the market sooner. Although it is not the ideal situation, owners often feel that market demand or other pressures warrant authorization of projects with underdeveloped definition. Pushing a project into the field prematurely can adversely affect the accuracy of cost and schedule estimates. However, if owners decide to proceed with projects that have poorly defined scopes, the ability to quickly and accurately predict factors that may impact project risk becomes more critical. The PDRI can help the project team identify and focus on the few major elements (those with higher relative weights) that will have the greatest ability to influence project success.

Downsizing Another trend emerging in the industry is the downsizing of owner companies and the elimination of inhouse detailed design capabilities. With this downsizing has come the loss of many experienced personnel as well as the institutional memory and expertise required for sufficient project planning. Younger, less experienced engineers now are being asked to prepare scope packages without adequate mentoring or a structured approach to give them guidance. Much of the responsibility for detailed design is now being assumed by engineering and construction contractors. Contractor-led project definition is prevalent on roughly one-third of all projects today, whereas 20 years ago, it rarely occurred (Merrow and Yarossi 1994). However, contractors often are not capable of taking on the responsibility of effectively leading the definition phase of a project. This often results in projects with poor cost, schedule, or operational performance. It is apparent that contractors could benefit from a tool such as the PDRI that would provide a detailed checklist for determining the necessary steps to follow in defining a project scope as well as a means to evaluate their performance periodically throughout the process. Multiple Small Projects The age of the megaproject has probably passed. Many of the companies surveyed by the CII research team while developing the PDRI indicated that they are allocating more of their capital funds towards the construction of multiple small projects. As one project manager commented, "I have 50 small projects for every large project. The PDRI is a great tool for large projects, but small project management is where I really need help." The answer is, the PDRI is well suited for small projects also. In just a short amount of time (approximately two hours or less) a PDRI evaluation of a project can highlight the most important elements that must be addressed before project execution is authorized (Gibson et al. 1995a). Identifying the critical few elements that can directly impact performance is paramount on small projects. Currently several owners and contractor companies are successfully pursuing unique methods of scaling down the PDRI for use on small or discipline-specific projects. INTEGRATING PORI WITHIN PROJECT SCOPE MANAGEMENT

The PDRI can significantly improve execution of the project scope management phase of the project life cycle. This phase is shown pictorially in Fig. 2 as developed by the Project Management Institute (PMI). The PDRI can be integrated easily into this phase as a tool for planning, developing, and verifying project scope. It provides an industry approved "road map" that can assist a project team towards reaching or exceeding its objectives. Specifically, the PDRI can help improve completion of the five major subprocesses of scope management: initiation, scope planning, scope definition.

58/ JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997

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

Project Scope Management

I

I

Initiation

Scope Planning

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Rekto on 10/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 2.

Scope Definition

I

I

Scope Verification

Scope Change Control

Project Scope Management OvervIew (Project Management Institute 1996)

scope verification and scope change control. The following discussion includes ideas for using the PORI to facilitate successful completion of each of these subprocesses: 1. Initiation. The PORI can help define the overall project requirements for developing and assembling the project team. It can help all stakeholders involved in the project understand its scope definition requirements. The PORI also can be used in developing a baseline for understanding the current level of project definition. This, in tum, can assist in creating the project charter. 2. Scope planning. The PORI can help the project team determine which elements are the most critical in the project scope package. The hierarchy of PORI sections, categories, and elements can form the basis of a work breakdown structure (WBS) for proper scope planning. The PORI also can assist in developing project milestones, standardizing terminology (either between owners and contractors or between multiple owners involved in joint-venture operations) and in communication with consultants. The ultimate results of scope planning will be a scope management plan and a scope statement. 3. Scope definition. The PORI provides a structured approach to project scope definition. Detailed element descriptions in a checklist format help ensure that each appropriate element is adequately addressed. The PORI can be used to score the completeness of the project scope package during the planning process in order to measure progress, assess risk, and redirect future effort. It also can assist in assigning work responsibilities to the scope definition WBS. 4. Scope verification. PORI scores reflect the quality and completeness of the project scope package. Analysis of these scores can facilitate risk assessment by highlighting the project's weak areas. It can provide a benchmark for comparison against the performance of past projects in order to predict the probability of future success. Project evaluations can be conducted by both owners and contractors either separately or together to ensure a fair assessment and a "meeting of the minds" among all stakeholders. The detailed element descriptions in the tool provide an objective basis for discussion

regarding the need for additional information in the scope package. This is important because often owner companies are not aware of the level of definition necessary for contractors to successfully complete the project. Finally, it can be used as one indicator in making the decision of whether to authorize the project for detailed design and construction. 5. Scope change control. When used effectively, the PORI forces good scope definition. Therefore, when scope changes occur the affected areas can be identified more easily. The PORI allows the project, team to refocus effort during project execution on any elements that were not well defined early on, perhaps due to time or financial constraints, and take action to improve their definition. It also provides a basis for "lessons learned" during future endeavors. CONCLUSIONS

The PORI is an easy-to-use tool that can greatly improve scope management efforts on industrial construction projects. Poor scope definition has been shown to be one of the leading causes of project failure in our industry. The PORI, when implemented effectively, can greatly improve the probability of project success by reducing the potential for failure due to poorly defined scopes. Although it was developed for use on industrial construction projects the writers feel that similar tools can be created for other project management applications. For information on how to develop one for other business needs, see the methodology outlined in Gibson and Dumont (l996a). The writers also recommend that companies should consider incorporating the PORI as a standard tool to assist in their scope development and management processes. The PORI can benefit both owner and contractor companies. Owner companies can use it as an assessment tool for establishing a comfort level at which they are willing to authorize projects. Contractors can use it as a means of identifying poorly defined project scope definition elements. The PDRI provides a means for all project participants to communicate and reconcile differences using an objective tool as a common basis for project scope evaluation. Any company wishing to improve performance on their industrial construction projects will find the PDRI to be a simple, effective, and powerful tool.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997/59

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writers would like to thank the Construction Industry Institute for supporting this research investigation. They would also like to especially thank the members of the Front End Planning Research Team for their efforts. Peter Dumont was formerly a graduate student at The University of Texas at Austin.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Rekto on 10/14/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

APPENDIX.

REFERENCES

Gibson, G. E., Jr., and Dumont, P. R. (1996a). Project definition rating index (PDRI) for industrial projects. Cll Res. Rep. 113-11. Constr. Industry Inst., Austin, Tex. Gibson, G. E., Jr., and Dumont, P. R. (1996b). PDR1: project definition rating index, industrial projects. Const. Industry Inst. Implementation Resour. 113-2. Constr. Industry Inst., Austin, Tex. Gibson, G. E., Jr., Dumont, P. R., and Griffith, A. E (1995a). "Preproject planning tools." Proc., Constr. Industry Inst. Annu. Conf., Constr. Industry Inst., Austin, Tex. Gibson, G. E., Kaczmarowski, J. H., and Lore, H. E. (1995b). "Preproject-planning process for capital facilities." J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 121(3),312-318. Griffith, A. E, and Gibson, G. E., Jr. (1995). "Project communication

and alignment during pre-project planning." Proc., PMI '95 Conf., 76-83. Hackney, J. W. (1992). Control & management of capital projects, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hili Inc., New York, N.Y. Hamilton, M. R., and Gibson, G. E. (1996). "Benchmarking preproject planning effort." J. Mgmt. in Engrg., ASCE, 12(2),25-33. Merrow, E. W. (1988). Understanding the outcomes of megaprojects: a quantitative analysis of very large civilian projects. RANDIR3560-PSSP. The Rand Corp., Santa Monica, Calif. Merrow, E. W., Phillips, K. E., and Myers, C. W. (1981). Understanding cost growth and peTj'ormance shortfalls in pioneer process plants. RANDIR-2569-DOE. The Rand Corp., Santa Monica, Calif. Merrow, E. W., and Yarossi, M. E. (1994). "Managing capital projects: where have we been-where are we going?" Chern. Engrg., 101(10), 108-111. Pre-project planning: beginning a project the right way. (1994). Publ. 39·1, Const. Industry Inst., Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex. Pre-project planning handbook.. (1995). Special Publ. 39-2, Constr. Industry Inst., Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex. Project Management Institute. (1996). A guide to the project management body of knowledge. Project Management Institute. Upper Darby, PA. Smith, M. A., and Tucker, R. L. (1983). An assessment ofthe potential problems occurring in the engineering phase of an industrial project. Rep. to Texaco, Inc. Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex.

60 I JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING I SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1997

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