Prioritising Project Scope Definition Elements in
Public Building Projects
Mohammed K. Fageha, Ajibade A. Aibinu (University of Melbourne, Australia)
Abstract
A complete definition of the scope of a project upfront during early stages ensures smooth
and successful implementation during the project execution. This research identifies and
prioritises project scope definition elements for public buildings in Saudi Arabia. Elements
that could significantly contribute to complete project scope definition package at pre-project
planning stage are identified and their interrelationship determined and prioritised. Using the
Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) as a basis, the study uses analytical network process
(ANP) technique based on data obtained from project managers who have been involved in
public sector projects in Saudi Arabia. Data collection and analysis was conducted in three
steps. The first step involved identification of scope definition elements while the second
involved an investigation into interrelationships among the elements. In the third step, ANP
was used to determine the weight of the elements’ importance in terms of contribution to
project scope definition completeness. Finally, Pareto analysis was used to prioritise and
assess the distribution pattern of the elements. The outcome from this research is the
prioritisation of project scope definition elements for public building projects in Saudi Arabia.
The prioritised list developed indicates the importance of project scope definition elements. It
should help project management teams identify elements to consider when evaluating
project scope definition for completeness at the pre-project planning stage.
Keywords: Project scope definition, pre-project planning, prioritising, public building projects, Saudi
Arabia, Analytical Network Process (ANP)
Introduction
Project scope definition is the process whereby the work that is needed to produce a building
is identified and described in sufficient detail to facilitate project execution. It gives the project
team an understanding of what needs to be done while at the same time helping the team in
setting up management control systems that can be applied during project execution; and
could impact on project outcomes. In the construction industry, having a better project
outcome is significant because construction is one of the most important sectors in many
economies and a significant contributor to the gross domestic product (GDP) of most
countries. This is especially valid in developing countries such as Saudi Arabia, where the
construction industry is one of its largest. While the construction industry in Saudi Arabia
contributes approximately 4.8% to the GDP and 9.4% of non-oil sectors, almost 30% of the
non-oil sectors’ activities occur in the public sector (Central Department of Information and
Statistics 2013). Due to the importance of the construction sector, it is necessary to ensure
that construction projects are completed successfully. However, the Saudi construction
sector has been experiencing problems in productivity, innovation, schedule slippage,
rework, mistakes and disputes, which have all increased construction costs (Abdul-Hadi, AlSudairi & Alquahtani 2005). Project abandonments are very common and are often
symptoms of failed processes in the early stages of a project. Purportedly, in 2011 there
were around 2262 abandoned public building projects in the Makkah region, which is only
one of the thirteen regions. Inadequate pre-project planning and poor definition of project
elements have been identified as the major reasons for the problem (Al-Humaidan 2011). In
fact, up to 70% of poor time performance in Saudi Arabian projects caused by changes in the
project scope (Assaf & Al-Hejji 2006; AlKharashi & Skitmore 2009). Alsehaimi, Koskela and
Tzortzopoulos (2013) investigated a number of studies on delay in construction projects in
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
developing countries including Saudi Arabia. Their study cited poor project management as
one of the main causes of delay. They reported that poor planning and control is, specifically,
the factor that had been identified in most studies. The study concluded that action research
is needed to generate practical managerial approaches to address delay issues and enhance
project management practice in Saudi Arabia. This study contributes in the area of project
scoping and project definition in the pre-project planning stage, which could remedy the
problem if properly approached.
Most public sector projects in Saudi Arabia frequently rely on the traditional procurement
method (also known as the design-bid-build method), where the client develops the business
case, provides a brief, budget and tender document. Thereafter, the client appoints a design
consultant in the design stage and a contractor through competitive bidding, in which the
lowest bidder is awarded the contract (Hatush & Skitmore 1998). One of the critical problems
faced by government authorities is the frequent and lengthy delays in their projects (Al-Khalil
& Al-Ghafly 1999). Lengthy delays are often caused by a number of issues such as
unqualified contractors, changes in the scope of work, rework and inappropriate parties
involvement due to the procurement method (Assaf & Al-Hejji 2006). Traditional procurement
has been criticised due to the sequential approach to delivering a project (Love 2002). Love
referred to the time gap between design and construction as ‘procurement gap’. Changes
and reworks may occur due to the time gap. In fact, Arain, Pheng & Assaf (2006) identify that
the inconsistencies between design and construction, which occur due to the procurement
gap, have a significant impact on construction project performance in Saudi Arabia. In order
to reduce these changes and reworks, the project scope should be well-defined at the preplanning stage of the project.
Inadequate pre-project planning and poor scope definition continue to emerge as major
causes of expensive changes, delays, rework, cost overruns and schedule overruns, and
they often lead to project failure (Mirza, Pourzolfgaghar & Shahnazari 2013; Lordsleem Jr &
Melhado 2014). Changes during project execution often reflect the uncertainties that occur
during the early stages of the project (Assaf & Al-Hejji 2006). Changes are requested during
the construction stage as a result of the differences in the perspectives that each stakeholder
has on the project. The fundamental reason for such change in orders is either poor project
definition, or poor idea of how the work has to be handled. Thus, defining the scope of a
project at the early stage using input from all stakeholders is vital. The purpose of project
scope definition is to generate adequate information that is needed to identify and describe
the work to be performed, in order to avoid major changes that may negatively affect project
outcome (Gibson et al. 2006). This information is needed before making the decision
whether or not to proceed with the project execution (Kähkönen 1999). They also form the
basis for project design and therefore project execution.
Lack of a clear project scope definition, as well as improper control of these, have been
recognised by recent researchers as major barriers to project success (Mirza,
Pourzolfgaghar & Shahnazari 2013). Therefore, having a well-defined project during the preproject planning stage is crucial for success during project execution and for achieving a
satisfactory project outcome. One of the first steps in the pre-project planning process is to
understand what needs to be defined in order to ensure that project scope is clear upfront,
thereby facilitating project success. Accordingly, the objectives of the study reported here
are:
To identify the elements that should be considered in defining public building projects
in Saudi Arabia;
To investigate the interrelationships among elements; and
To determine the level of significance of each element in terms of their contribution to
the overall project definition completeness.
Fageha, M.K & Aibinu, A.A. 2014, ‘Prioritising Project Scope Definition Elements in Public Building Projects’,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 14(3), 18-33.
19
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
Literature Review
Significance of Project Scope Definition
The purpose of project definition is to provide adequate information that is needed to identify
the work to be performed without major changes, and it may affect performance of a project
(Chritamara, Ogunlana & Bach 2001; Gibson et al. 2006). Success during detailed design
and execution stage of a project is highly dependent on the level of effort expended during
the scope definition stage. When a project proceeds to the implementation stages with
inadequate definition of one or more project elements, it may be subjected to differing
expectations and interpretation by different stakeholders (Atkinson et al. 2006). Thus, a poor
definition of project scope can lead to dissatisfaction by project stakeholders, simply because
their expectations have not been fulfilled (Cano & Lidón 2011). It can also lead to design
errors, owner changes and rework, which are often sources of schedule slippage and cost
overruns (Love, Irani & Edwards 2004; Hwang et al. 2009).
Project Scope Definition and Pre-project Planning
Construction projects procedures are conducted in the same manner, though each has its
own characteristics. Different researchers classified the pre-project planning early phase into
stages (Table 1). Despite the differences in classification, there is general agreement in the
literature that project scope definition documentation should be developed prior to making
the final decision on whether to proceed with the project or not. In order to make this
decision, an evaluation of the completeness of the project scope definition document should
be conducted. Therefore, knowing the significance of each element of the project scope
definition document is important for the evaluation task, which is the purpose of this
research.
Table 1: Stages within the pre-project planning phase
Source
Stages within the pre-project planning phase
Gibson et al.
(1995)
Organise for preproject planning
Kähkönen (1999)
Plan project
definition
Woodhead (2000)
Initial idea
Haponava and AlJibouri (2009)
Initiative
Select project
alternative(s)
Generate and
analyse
alternatives
Capital proposal
Develop a project
definition package
Decide whether to
proceed with project
Select
alternative(s)
Prepare
documents
Decide on project
Outline case
Full case
Decision approval
Feasibility
Project definition
The Construction Industry Institute (CII) defined pre-project planning as “the process of
developing sufficient strategic information with which owners can address risk and decide to
commit resources to maximize the chance for a successful project” (CII 1994). Additionally, it
is the process that combines all tasks between project initiation phase to the beginning of
detailed design phase (Gibson et al. 2006). It begins with a project concept that reflects a
business need and ends with a decision whether to proceed and start the execution of the
project by developing the detailed design (Gibson, Kaczmarowski & Lore 1995). Many
experts and industry practitioners believe that pre-project planning efforts in the project life
cycle have significantly greater impact on the whole project life cycle, thus improving project
final outcomes. Specifically, Cho and Gibson (2001) studied project performances of 53
capital facility projects. They investigated the total cost, scheduling and operational
characteristics, and then compared them to the effort spent on the pre-project planning. The
study concluded that up to 20% of cost savings and 39% of schedule savings could occur
when a high level of pre-project planning effort is implemented. Therefore, better pre-project
planning stage has a greater influence on the project life cycle when its expenditure is low
Fageha, M.K & Aibinu, A.A. 2014, ‘Prioritising Project Scope Definition Elements in Public Building Projects’,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 14(3), 18-33.
20
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
compared to the other stages. Prior to deciding on a project’s implementation, scope
definition is the last activity undertaken in the pre-project planning stage. Because of its
importance, many studies have been conducted to find better approaches that can be
adopted for defining and scoping a project.
Approaches for Measuring the Project Scope Definition Completeness
In order to improve project scope definition completeness, the CII developed the Project
Definition Rating Index (PDRI) (Wang 2002). PDRI is a scoring tool for measuring the
adequacy of project scope definition and assessing pre-project planning effort. It is one of the
most comprehensive and established tools for measuring project scope definition for
completeness. When used, it allows the project team to take actions to improve the scope
definition of those elements that have high scores, which indicate the areas of risk to the
project (Gibson et al. 2006).
The PDRI started with a version that was designed specifically for industrial projects. After
the success of PDRI for industrial projects, a similar tool was developed for buildings. The
validation of PDRI on more than 190 projects with total estimated cost of more than $6.5
billion dollars (Cho & Gibson 2001; Wang & Gibson 2010), shows that there is a positive
relationship between PDRI score for a project with cost and time performances. PDRI for
building consists of three sections, eleven categories and sixty-four elements. During the
planning phase, the project team would pay special attention to these elements to reduce the
uncertainties in the subsequent phases. In order to calculate the overall score of scope
definition elements for the project, the project management team would evaluate the
completeness level of each element’s definition on the list. The maximum score is 1000
points, and the lower score represents a more complete and well-defined project (Cho &
Gibson 2001).
Construction organisations in Saudi Arabia lack a systematic approach for defining the
project scope elements in the pre-project planning stage. Using a well-established list of
project scope definition elements such as PDRI is a good approach. However, the PDRI was
developed in the US and mainly for the same context. Even though the development process
for construction projects may share the same procedure globally, it still requires a different
set of information that respects the nature and the environment of the project. This study is
focused on public building projects in Saudi Arabia. The differences between the two
contexts could be from the tendering approach, project organisational structure or the
allocation of responsibilities among a project’s parties. Therefore, it is prudent to identify
project scope definition elements and weights that are compatible with public building
projects in the Saudi Arabian context. The current research uses the PDRI for building
elements as a point of departure to develop a model for the Saudi Arabian public
construction projects.
Analytical Approach
This research aims to develop an analytical decision-support model in the form of prioritised
project scope definition elements, to assist public construction organisations in Saudi Arabia
when assessing project scope defined for completeness. The study uses Analytical Network
Process (ANP) approach. ANP is a developed version of what is known as AHP (Analytical
Hierarchical Process). Saaty developed AHP as a decision-making technique used in the
military for allocating resources and planning needs in the 1970s (Cheng & Li 2001). He
stated that AHP is a general theory of measurement (Saaty 1994). It is a technique that helps
break down a complex, unstructured situation into its component parts in hierarchical
structures. After launching the ANP in 1996, and due to its flexibility to solve complex forms
of decision-making problems, AHP became a special case of ANP because it contains
neither feedback nor loops within the same cluster representing inner dependence. Saaty
(1996) defined ANP as a general theory of relative measurement used to derive composite
Fageha, M.K & Aibinu, A.A. 2014, ‘Prioritising Project Scope Definition Elements in Public Building Projects’,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 14(3), 18-33.
21
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
priority ratio scales from individual ratio scales that represent relative measurements of the
influence of elements that interact with respect to control criteria. By replacing the hierarchies
with networks, ANP has been widely used as a multi criteria decision-making tool, instead of
AHP. AHP is a technique that constructs a problem into several levels in a form of hierarchy
and each element is independent (Saaty 1994). However, ANP can be used as an effective
tool in cases where there are interactions between elements of a system network structure
(Saaty 1996).
Despite the fact that prioritising and weighting can be generated by other methods, ANP is
found to be more appropriate for the current research because the relationships between
elements appear better in a network structure. ANP is a multi-criteria decision-making tool
that allows representation of any decision-making problem in a network of criteria, where
interdependent relationships exist within and between all criteria. Experts’ experiences are
used to estimate relative magnitudes of tangible and intangible factors through paired
comparisons, in order to make rational and consistent decision (Saaty 1996). ANP provides
weights and priorities to these elements, taking into account the interdependent relationships
among elements. However, instead of using ANP as a selection tool between alternatives,
this study uses ANP as a decision tool to set priorities for project scope definition elements,
based on feedback from experts.
Data Collection
Approach
The data collection was conducted through semi-structured interviews. Yin (2009) stated that
semi-structured interviews can maximize the flexibility of the interview and provide the
capability to shape the interview to suit individuals. The questionnaires were designed to
extract information from the participants. Prior to data collection, ethics approval was sought
from the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning Human Ethics Advisory Group at The
University of Melbourne, Australia. All participants were given a plain language statement
(PLS) at the start of the interview. The PLS included an invitation, research summary, what
participants would be asked to do and for how long. It also addressed confidentiality issues.
The participants were also asked to sign a consent form if they chose to participate.
Sampling and Profile of Respondents
A total number of 16 respondents participated in the interview. They were selected nonrandomly through the use of purposeful sampling. Participants were identified through the
first author’s personal contacts and by snowball sampling method; they had expertise in
managing public building projects in Saudi Arabia. The majority of the respondents were
either project managers or construction general managers and had over 20 years of
experience in the construction industry as well as over 20 years of experience in public
building projects. Also most respondents had a mixed background, which was considered to
be good for this research, because it required both technical experience as well as
management experience.
The interrelationships among the elements examined are complex. Thus the study uses the
ANP technique. ANP is not a traditional quantitative method; instead, it is a technique in
which statistical sampling is not the issue in all circumstances. In fact, seeking a large
number of participants is not a necessity in ANP (Lam & Zhao 1998). ANP is a technique in
which an analytical manner of sampling is targeted, rather than a statistical one (Herath
2004; Sambasivan & Fei 2008). The sample size (16) is sufficient for understanding the
interrelationships among the elements. The participants are experts with sufficient and
relevant background knowledge and experience; and their responses can be confidently
relied upon; essential criteria when using the ANP technique.
Fageha, M.K & Aibinu, A.A. 2014, ‘Prioritising Project Scope Definition Elements in Public Building Projects’,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 14(3), 18-33.
22
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
Data Analysis and Results
Step One: Selection of Early Stage Scope Definition Elements
To achieve the first objective of the study, a semi-structured interview was conducted. The
PDRI for building was used as a point of departure for the data collection. Participants were
presented with the list of project definition elements recommended in the PDRI for building,
which includes 11 categories and 64 elements. Participants were allowed to add and delete
categories and elements from the list in order to identify those that are applicable to the
Saudi Arabian construction context.
The outcome gained from this step is a list of all categories and their elements that should be
considered when defining a public building project in Saudi Arabia, at the pre-project
planning stage. The list includes 9 categories and 42 elements, presented in Table 3. In the
data analysis, an element is included if it has been selected by two or more respondents. An
element is excluded either because it is relevant to a later stage, not pre-project planning
stage, or it is not applicable in the Saudi Arabian construction context.
Out of eight elements under the ‘Business Strategy’ category, the majority of respondents
excluded one element ‘Economic Analysis’. This is because public projects in Saudi Arabia
are not-for-profit social infrastructure projects owned and maintained by the government and
these projects serve the community needs. Public construction organisations finance their
projects from the fund provided in the annual national budget specified for each project. In
the process of defining the economic analysis element, specific information should be
determined such as the viability of the project, evaluation of other alternatives, length of
ownership and the economic impact of early or late delivery. This kind of information is not
necessary in public sector projects therefore the element was excluded from the list.
In the ‘Project Requirement’ category, ‘Value-Analysis’ element was excluded, because it is
relevant to the design stage of a project life cycle and not at the pre-project planning stage.
The value-analysis should be in place to consider the cost effectiveness of design and
material alternatives. However, at the pre-project planning stage in Saudi Arabian
construction projects, the project design is not available. Additionally the architectural and
engineering consultant usually provides this kind of information at the design stage of the
project. Thus, element ‘Value-Analysis’ was excluded from list for this stage, but it still needs
to be defined later by the architectural and engineering consultant at the design stage.
The ‘Building Programming’ category consists of thirteen elements, but only four elements
‘Program Statement’, ‘Building Summary Space List’, ‘Growth and Phased Development’ and
‘Transportation Requirements’ were included because of their relevance to the pre-project
planning stage. The elements are significant at the pre-project planning stage because they
form the baseline for the architectural and engineering consultant design role in subsequent
stages. The remaining elements in this category were excluded because they consist of
technical information too early to be defined at this stage of the project. These are more
relevant to the design stage, specifically in the concept development phase.
All elements under ‘Building/ Project Design Parameters’ and ‘Equipment’ categories were
excluded from the list, as they are considered technical information and relevant to later
stages. Specifically ‘Building/ Project Design Parameters’ category is required at detailed
design stage and often provided by the architectural and engineering consultants. Usually in
Saudi Arabian construction projects, the ‘Equipment’ category is developed by the contractor
and approved by the owner and the project management team.
The rest of the categories ‘Owner Philosophies’, ‘Site Information’, ‘Procurement Strategy’,
‘Deliverables’, ‘Project Control’ and ‘Project Execution Plan’ were included with all their
elements because respondents recognised their importance at the pre-project planning
stage. All the elements included in the list need to be defined properly at the pre-planning
Fageha, M.K & Aibinu, A.A. 2014, ‘Prioritising Project Scope Definition Elements in Public Building Projects’,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 14(3), 18-33.
23
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
stage in order to increase the possibility of having a complete project scope definition
package.
Step Two: Interrelationships and Interactions among Elements
Following the identification of elements that should be included in project scope definition at
the pre-project planning stage, the next stage of the data analysis addresses the second
objective of the study. This is necessary because the ANP approach requires these
connections in order to formulate the structure of the network among elements. To
investigate the interrelationships and interactions, a contextual relationship of ‘leads to’ type
was chosen. This means that one element leads to another elements (Singh et al. 2003).
Based on this, a contextual relationship is developed. This step is called structural selfinteraction matrix (SSIM), which is usually used in interpretive structural modelling (ISM)
technique. The SSIM step can be used to indicate pair-wise relationships among variable of
the system under consideration (Ahuja et al. 2009). The direction of the relation between any
two elements (i and j) is assessed. Four symbols are used to indicate the type of the relation
that exists between two elements as follows:
V: element i will help achieve element j but not in both directions;
A: element j will help achieve element i but not in both directions;
X: elements i and j will help achieve each other; and
O: elements i and j are unrelated.
The interrelationships and interactions among elements matrix was completed in a focus
group discussion with three expert project managers. In order to complete this step, 6
sessions with 3 hours in each were required to determine 882 contextual relationships.
Based on the responses, the SSIM has been developed and presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Interrelationships and interactions among elements matrix, SSIM
Where V: element i will help achieve element j but not in both directions; A: element j will help achieve element i but not in both
directions; X: elements i and j will help achieve each other; and O: elements i and j are unrelated.
Fageha, M.K & Aibinu, A.A. 2014, ‘Prioritising Project Scope Definition Elements in Public Building Projects’,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 14(3), 18-33.
24
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
The outcome from this step is the formulation of the network structure among the elements,
which is used as an input for the ANP model in the next step. Figure 1 presents the network
for the ANP step.
Figure 1: Interrelationships and interactions among elements, ANP model
Step Three: Contribution
Completeness
of
Elements
to
Overall
Project
Scope
Definition
The ANP was used to address the third objective of the study. Pair-wise comparisons were
adopted in semi-structured interviews with the aid of structured questionnaires using the ANP
model. The questionnaire was based on using the ANP model presented in Figure 1. The
questionnaire included a total number of 340 pair-wise comparisons. Five project managers
completed the third questionnaire based on interview sessions. They were required to
answer the question that stated, ‘How much importance does an element have compared to
another element with respect to a preference?’ In other words, participants were asked to
compare between two elements and assign a score to each element in term of its importance
to each other elements on the list, using Saaty’s scale of judgements. The ANP uses a
fundamental scale of absolute value to carry out the comparison judgements. The relative
importance values were determined using a scale of 1 to 9, where a score of 1 indicates
equal importance between the two elements and 9 represents the extreme importance of the
ith element compared to the jth element. Participants responded to a series of pair-wise
comparisons and assigned a score for all the elements to be evaluated in term of their
contribution to project scope definition completeness. For example, ‘with respect to element
“Business Justification”, the comparison was conducted in this way: please compare the
relative significance between “Building Use” element and “Business Plan” element using the
scale provided’. These pair-wise comparisons were conducted several times, each time with
respect to an element and so on for all the relationships identified based on SSIM in the
previous step. Thus, each evaluation can be represented by an eigen-vector, and the relative
importance values are determined. Pair-wise comparison in ANP is performed in the
Fageha, M.K & Aibinu, A.A. 2014, ‘Prioritising Project Scope Definition Elements in Public Building Projects’,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 14(3), 18-33.
25
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
framework of a matrix, and a local priority vector can be derived as an estimate of the relative
importance associated with the elements being compared by solving the following equation:
A w max w
Where A is the matrix of pair-wise comparison, w is the eigenvector, and max is the largest
eigen-value of A. Saaty (1980) proposed several algorithms to approximate w. The process
of averaging over normalised columns can be done by dividing each element in a column by
the sum of the column elements, and then summing the elements in each row of the
resultant matrix and dividing by n elements in the row. This can be deducted by:
I
aij
J
i1
aij
j 1
wi
J
Where w i is the weighted priority for component i; aij is a matrix value assigned to
interdependence relationship of component i to component j.
In this research, Super Decisions® software was used to compute the eigen-vectors from
pair-wise comparison matrices. Super Decisions®, is commercially available software that
has been developed for AHP and ANP. It is appropriate for solving decision problems with a
hierarchy and network model (Saaty 2003). The ANP model was entered into the software
and the pair-wise comparisons were calculated. The software also determined the
consistency ratio (CR), which is the degree to which the pair-wise comparisons are
consistent. According to Saaty (1994), people are often not consistent in their judgements.
However, the recommended level of CR should be less than 5% for pair-wise comparisons
between three elements, 8% for pair-wise comparisons between four elements, while for
more than four elements it should be less than 10%. A discussion about the CR was carried
out with participants to inform them that their judgments in each pair-wise comparison should
be consistent. Otherwise, in order to resolve the inconsistencies, some or all of their
judgments for the comparisons must be repeated. The CR of each comparison in the ANP
model for this research was in the acceptable range with respect to the matrix size.
Once the pair-wise comparisons were completed, the global supermatrix for project scope
definition elements was generated. The overall normalised priorities were then obtained by
the Super Decisions® software calculations for the supermatrix. The outcome from this ANP
step, is the list of elements that are required in defining the project scope as well as their
weights of importance to the scope definition completeness for a project. These weights
account for the interrelationships and interactions among elements. Categories’ weights were
excluded from the model and the category name was the only identification for its elements,
as the elements were more essential in this study. Thus, each category weight is the sum of
its elements. Table 3 presents the significant weights for project scope definition elements for
public building projects in Saudi Arabia.
Distribution Pattern of Project Scope Definition Elements’ Weights
In the ANP analysis, the 42 elements that affect the completeness of the project scope
definition package were prioritised. In this section, Pareto principle was used to investigate
the distribution pattern and classify the elements into the significant few that principally
contribute to project scope definition completeness, if any. Pareto analysis is a quality control
tool that ranks data, in descending order from the highest frequency of occurrences to the
lowest frequency of occurrences. Vilfred Pareto, an Italian economist, presented Pareto
Fageha, M.K & Aibinu, A.A. 2014, ‘Prioritising Project Scope Definition Elements in Public Building Projects’,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 14(3), 18-33.
26
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
analysis in 1897. He suggested that 80% of the nation’s wealth was held by 20% of its
population. Juran (1962) used Pareto analysis to classify the problems of quality into vital few
and trivial many. In the field of construction management, Aibinu and Odeyinka (2006) used
this concept and revealed that 88% of the factors were responsible for 90% of the overall
construction delays.
Table 3: Significance weights for project scope definition elements
Category
A.
Business
Strategy
B.
Owner
Philosophies
C.
Project
Requirements
D.
Site
Information
E.
Building
Programming
H.
J.
K.
L.
Procurement
Strategy
Deliverables
Project
Control
Project
Execution
Plan
Total
Element
A1.
A2.
A3.
A5.
A6.
A7.
A8.
B1.
B2.
B3.
B4.
C2.
C3.
C4.
C5.
C6.
D1.
D2.
D3.
D4.
D5.
D6.
D7.
D8.
E1.
E2.
E5.
E9.
H1.
H2.
J1.
J2.
K1.
K2.
K3.
K4.
K5.
L1.
L2.
L3.
L4.
L5.
Building Use
Business Justification
Business Plan
Facility Requirements
Future Expansion/Alternate Consideration
Site Selection Consideration
Project Objective Statement
Reliability Philosophy
Maintenance Philosophy
Operating Philosophy
Design Philosophy
Project Design Criteria
Evaluation of Existing Facilities
Scope of Work Overview
Project Schedule
Project Cost Estimate
Site Layout
Site Surveys
Civil/Geotechnical Information
Governing Regulatory Requirements
Environmental Assessment
Utility Sources with Supply Conditions
Site Life Safety Consideration
Special Water and Waste Treatment
Program Statement
Building Summary Space List
Growth and Phased Development
Transportation Requirements
Identify Long-Lead/Critical Equip. and
Procurement Procedures and Plans
CADD/Model Requirements
Documentation/Deliverables
Project Quality Assurance and Control
Project Cost Control
Project Schedule Control
Risk Management
Safety Procedures
Project Organisation
Owner Approval Requirements
Project Delivery Method
Design/Construction Plan & Approach
Substantial Completion Requirements
Element
Weight
2.1173
0.3482
1.0139
0.7817
3.6373
3.3444
1.5962
2.1463
3.3303
1.3729
7.4721
3.9751
3.3611
1.6615
4.3799
7.7240
3.0512
1.0761
0.0421
0.3420
0.9509
1.1394
0.2392
1.0695
1.5111
1.1051
3.4000
0.0419
3.9120
2.5827
3.4492
7.6478
3.6561
0.4982
2.1833
2.7012
0.1472
2.9268
1.5570
0.1117
3.6221
2.7740
100
Total
Category
Weight
12.8390
14.3216
21.1016
7.9104
6.0581
6.4947
11.0970
9.1860
10.9916
100
Fageha, M.K & Aibinu, A.A. 2014, ‘Prioritising Project Scope Definition Elements in Public Building Projects’,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 14(3), 18-33.
27
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
Table 4: Pareto analysis of project scope definition elements
Rank
Elements
1
2
3
4
5
6
C6
J2
B4
C5
C2
H1
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
K1
A6
L4
J1
E5
C3
A7
B2
D1
L1
L5
K4
H2
K3
B1
A1
C4
A8
L2
E1
B3
D6
E2
D2
D8
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
A3
D5
A5
K2
A2
D4
D7
K5
L3
D3
E9
Project Cost Estimate
Documentation/Deliverables
Design Philosophy
Project Schedule
Project Design Criteria
Identify Long-Lead/Critical Equip. &
Materials
Project Quality Assurance and Control
Future Expansion/Alternate
Design/Construction Plan & Approach
CADD/Model Requirements
Growth and Phased Development
Evaluation of Existing Facilities
Site Selection Consideration
Maintenance Philosophy
Site Layout
Project Organisation
Substantial Completion Requirements
Risk Management
Procurement Procedures and Plans
Project Schedule Control
Reliability Philosophy
Building Use
Scope of Work Overview
Project Objective Statement
Owner Approval Requirements
Program Statement
Operating Philosophy
Utility Sources with Supply Conditions
Building Summary Space List
Site Surveys
Special Water & Waste Treatment
Requirements
Business Plan
Environmental Assessment
Facility Requirements
Project Cost Control
Business Justification
Governing Regulatory Requirements
Site Life Safety Consideration
Safety Procedures
Project Delivery Method
Civil/Geotechnical Information
Transportation Requirements
Cumulative
number of
elements %
ANP
Weight %
2.38
4.76
7.14
9.52
11.90
14.29
7.72
7.65
7.47
4.38
3.98
3.91
Cumulative
ANP weight
%
7.72
15.37
22.84
27.22
31.20
35.11
16.67
19.05
21.43
23.81
26.19
28.57
30.95
33.33
35.71
38.10
40.47
42.85
45.24
47.62
50.00
52.38
54.76
57.14
59.52
61.90
64.28
66.66
69.04
71.42
73.81
3.66
3.64
3.62
3.45
3.40
3.36
3.34
3.33
3.05
2.93
2.77
2.70
2.58
2.18
2.15
2.12
1.66
1.60
1.56
1.51
1.37
1.14
1.11
1.08
1.07
38.77
42.40
46.03
49.48
52.88
56.24
59.58
62.91
65.96
68.89
71.66
74.36
76.95
79.13
81.28
83.39
85.06
86.65
88.21
89.72
91.09
92.23
93.34
94.41
95.48
76.19
78.57
80.95
83.33
85.71
88.10
90.48
92.86
95.24
97.62
100.00
1.01
0.95
0.78
0.50
0.35
0.34
0.24
0.15
0.11
0.04
0.04
96.50
97.45
98.23
98.73
99.08
99.42
99.66
99.80
99.92
99.96
100.00
Drawing on the Pareto principle, this research conducted an analysis of the distribution
pattern of the 42 projects scope definition elements, in order to possibly identify the trivial
and important elements. The relative average weights were computed based on the ANP
Fageha, M.K & Aibinu, A.A. 2014, ‘Prioritising Project Scope Definition Elements in Public Building Projects’,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 14(3), 18-33.
28
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
results in Table 3 and equated to 1. Table 4 shows the result of Pareto analysis and Figure 2
illustrates it.
Figure 2: Pareto analysis of project scope definition elements
The result of Pareto analysis on the project scope definition elements revealed that 80.95%
of the elements, that is 34 highest priority elements, contribute 98.23% of all elements’
weights. More than 80% of the identified project scope definition elements are responsible for
about 98% of the completeness of the project scope definition document. However, about
7% of the elements, that is the 3 highest priority elements, are the single largest contributors
to the total weights. The three elements contributed 22.84% of all project scope definition
elements’ weights for the completeness.
Discussion of Results
Looking at the contribution of each element to the overall project scope definition
completeness (indicated by the weight), as presented in Table 4, the most influential element
for project scope definition completeness is the ‘Project Cost Estimate’, weighing 7.72%. This
is not surprising because the reason for cost overrun challenges during a project’s execution
is often inaccurate estimates. Inadequate or unclear cost estimation for every single direct
and indirect item in a project affects the cost performance during the implementation stage
and can lead to delays, cost overruns, schedule overruns, and project failure due to lack of
finance. Additionally, in order for Saudi Arabian public construction organisations to be able
to finance their projects, they need to present a clear and detailed cost estimation document
for the project in the annual national budget. This is because each year the government of
Saudi Arabia announces the annual national budget together with the share for each ministry
including construction related organisations. In defining the project cost estimate element, all
costs necessary for completion of the project should be addressed. It may include
Fageha, M.K & Aibinu, A.A. 2014, ‘Prioritising Project Scope Definition Elements in Public Building Projects’,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 14(3), 18-33.
29
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
information such as: construction contract estimate, architectural and engineering
consultants fees, administrative costs, insurance requirements, utility costs during
construction and all technical information related to the site and the project.
The second most influential element is the ‘Documentation and Deliverables’ weighing
7.65%. Documentation and deliverables are required during the project execution and must
be identified in pre-project planning in order to avoid uncertainty and rework during
execution. They are also important during project execution and after completion for best
practice benchmarking. Deliverables may include all drawings and specifications, project
correspondence, permits, quality assurance documents, warranties, working drawings,
maintenance and operation information.
Project ‘Design Philosophy’, weighing 12.84%, is the third most influential element. In
accordance with the project functionality and environments, a listing of the design philosophy
issues should be developed. This listing may include design life, aesthetic requirements,
quality of life, sustainability, levels of certification, and requirements of any adopted antiterrorism design standards. This information is necessary at the pre-project planning stage
before commencing the design stage in order to avoid major changes and rework. Even
though all project scope definition elements are very significant for planning the project,
some of the elements have low contribution weights in relation to the completeness of the
project scope definition package. This is because these elements may be defined briefly at
the planning stage, and then in more detail at later stages of the projects’ development cycle.
When comparing the result of project scope definition elements’ weights in this study with
PDRI elements’ weights, some differences are evident. The list provided in this study
includes 42 elements instead of the 64 elements included in the PDRI’s list. ‘Building Use’
element is the most influential element in the PDRI for building whereas in this study it occurs
after 50% of all elements, which is the 22nd element in the prioritised list. The reason is that
the PDRI is a generalised tool for all building types regardless of whether they are public or
private projects. Therefore, it is vital to know the use and type of the building because this
could affect other scope definition elements. This study focuses on public building projects,
which usually are facility services projects, thus this could account for the differences in the
importance of ‘Building Use’ in the PDRI list.
Unexpectedly, this study discovered that ‘Facility Requirements’ element is within the lowest
10 influential elements. In contrast, it is the second influential element in PDRI. The reason
behind this deviation is that respondents consider this element as a technical issue, which is
discussed briefly in pre-project planning stage and in more detail in the design stage. This
practice is one of the reasons for uncertainties and can lead to project delays and incomplete
projects.
Element ‘Project Cost Estimate’ is significant in both PDRI and this study. It is the primary
contributor element to the completeness of project scope definition in this study and ranked
the 4th contributor element in the PDRI for building.
Element ‘Architectural Design’ is within the highest 10 contributors to the project scope
definition completeness. Conversely, it was excluded from the list in this study. This study is
limited to the pre-project planning stage of the project life cycle. Similarly to all the other
elements of the ‘Building/ Project Design Parameters’ category, architectural design at this
stage has not yet been developed. Usually the building/project design parameters are
provided at the design stage by the architectural and engineering consultants.
The second most influential element in this study is ‘Documentation and Deliverables’ and
the 10th element is ‘CADD/Model Requirements’. However, in the PDRI, these occur as the
lowest three elements contributing to scope definition completeness.
Fageha, M.K & Aibinu, A.A. 2014, ‘Prioritising Project Scope Definition Elements in Public Building Projects’,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 14(3), 18-33.
30
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
Summary of Findings
Compared to industrialised countries, Saudi Arabia is less developed and the challenges are
certainly different. There is a noticeable lack of research on the knowledge required to define
project scope in Saudi’s construction context. Therefore, this research identifies 9 categories
including 42 elements that should be identified and evaluated at the pre-project planning
stage in public construction projects in Saudi Arabia. Also it identifies the elements’ relative
significant weights for the project scope definition document completeness with respect to
the interrelationship and interactions among them.
The result from Pareto analysis on the elements revealed that there is no discernable
difference between the 42 elements except the three highest elements. The analysis shows
that more than 80% of the elements are responsible for about 98% of the completeness,
which indicates that all the elements are important for ensuring the project scope definition
completeness, thus enhancing the likelihood of achieving better project outcomes. An
inspection of the elements indicates that the 34 highest priority project scope definition
elements is a combination from all the nine categories. This suggests that even though the
project scope definition elements can be prioritised, the contribution of all the nine categories
to the overall scope definition completeness is not negligible. The result implies that all the
categories are important for ensuring project scope definition completeness.
Even though construction projects may share the same procedures globally, the PDRI is a
good approach for evaluating the completeness of project scope definition. The PDRI was
developed in the US mainly for the US construction context. Therefore, it is necessary to
identify a different set of information that respects the nature and the environment of a
project’s context.
Conclusion
The developed priorities list is useful as it can guide decision-makers in evaluating project
scope definition completeness and deciding whether to proceed with a project or not. In other
words, the project management team can measure the level of each project scope definition
completeness element by using a Likert scale of satisfaction as follows: Incomplete or Poor
Definition (0%), Major Deficiencies (25%), Some Deficiencies (50%), Minor Deficiencies
(75%) and Complete Definition (100%). Then all scores are calculated according to each
element priority weight, presented in Table 3. The final score of the level of project scope
definition completeness would be the total of all the elements scores. The higher the total
score the more well defined the project is. This procedure allows project management teams
to take actions that can help improve the scope definition of those elements that have low
scores, which indicate the area of risk to the project, and maximize the chance for a
successful project.
The ANP is an innovative tool for multi-criteria decision-making. Both researchers and
industry practitioners should find it useful in different ways. Most of the data obtained for the
ANP were obtained from an expert panel, and potentially can be analytically generalised.
Even though the technique does not require a large sample size, increasing the sample size
could improve the result. In addition, although the study focuses on public building projects
only in Saudi Arabia, the results are applicable to other developing countries with similar
environments of delivery methods and industry practices. The study can be replicated in the
context of private sector projects.
Fageha, M.K & Aibinu, A.A. 2014, ‘Prioritising Project Scope Definition Elements in Public Building Projects’,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 14(3), 18-33.
31
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
References
Abdul-Hadi, N, Al-Sudairi, A.S. & Alqahtani, S. 2005, 'Prioritizing barriers to successful business
process re-engineering (BPR) efforts in Saudi Arabian construction industry', Construction
Management and Economics, 23 (3), 305-315.
Ahuja, V, Yang, J. & Shankar, R. 2009, 'Benefits of collaborative ICT adoption for building project
management', Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, 9 (3), 323-340.
Aibinu, A.A. & Odeyinka, H.A. 2006, 'Construction delays and their causative factors in Nigeria',
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132 (7), 667-677.
Al-Humaidan, M. 2011, Al-Eqtisadiah, Online. Available:
http://www.aleqt.com/2011/12/09/article_605385.html. Accessed 09-12-2011.
Al-Khalil, M.I. & Al-Ghafly, M.A. 1999, 'Delay in public utility projects in Saudi Arabia', International
Journal of Project Management, 17 (2), 101-106.
Al‐Kharashi, A. & Skitmore, M. 2009. 'Causes of delays in Saudi Arabian public sector construction
projects', Construction Management and Economics, 27 (1), 3-23.
Alsehaimi, A, Koskela, L. & Tzortzopoulos, P. 2013, 'Need for Alternative Research Approaches in
Construction Management: Case of Delay Studies', Journal of Management in Engineering, 29 (4),
407-413.
Arain, F.M, Pheng, L.S. & Assaf, S.A. 2006, 'Contractors’ views of the potential causes of
inconsistencies between design and construction in Saudi Arabia', Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, 20 (1), 74-83.
Assaf, S.A. & Al-Hejji, S. 2006, 'Causes of delay in large construction projects', International Journal of
Project Management, 24 (4), 349-357.
Atkinson, R, Crawford, L. & Ward, S. 2006, 'Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of
project management', International Journal of Project Management, 24 (8), 687.
Cano, J.L. & LidóN, I. 2011, 'Guided reflection on project definition', International Journal of Project
Management.
Central Department of Information and Statistics, 2013, National Accounts Indicators 2013, Online.
Available: http://www.cdsi.gov.sa/dmdoc/nat-2013.pdf.
Cheng, E.W. & Li, H. 2001, 'Analytic hierarchy process: an approach to determine measures for
business performance', Measuring Business Excellence, 5 (3), 30-37.
Cho, C.S. & Gibson, E. 2001. 'Building project scope definition using project definition rating index',
Journal of Architectural Engineering, 7 (4), 115.
Chritamara, S, Ogunlana, S.O. & Bach, N.L. 2001, 'Investigating the effect of initial scope
establishment on the performance of a project through system dynamics modelling', Engineering
Construction and Architectural Management, 8 (5‐6), 381.
Cii 1994, Pre-project planning: Beginning a project the right way, Construction Industry Institute, The
University of Texas at Austin.
Gibson, G.E, Kaczmarowski, J. & Lore Jr, H. 1995, 'Preproject-planning process for capital facilities',
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121-312.
Gibson, G.E, Wang, Y.R, Cho, C.S. & Pappas, M.P. 2006, 'What Is Preproject Planning, Anyway?',
Journal of Management in Engineering, 22-35.
Haponava, T. & Al-Jibouri, S. 2009, 'Identifying key performance indicators for use in control of preproject stage process in construction', The International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 58 (2), 160.
Hatush, Z. & Skitmore, M. 1998, 'Contractor selection using multicriteria utility theory: an additive
model', Building and Environment, 33 (2), 105-115.
Herath, G. 2004, 'Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of
the analytic hierarchy process', Journal of Environmental Management, 70 (3), 263-273.
Fageha, M.K & Aibinu, A.A. 2014, ‘Prioritising Project Scope Definition Elements in Public Building Projects’,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 14(3), 18-33.
32
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building
Hwang, B.G, Thomas, S.R, Haas, C.T. & Caldas, C.H. 2009, 'Measuring the impact of rework on
construction cost performance', Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135-187.
Juran, J.M. 1962, 'Quality control handbook', New York, McGraw-Hill.
Kähkönen, K. 1999, 'Multi-character model of the construction project definition process', Automation
in Construction, 8 (6), 625.
Lam, K. & Zhao, X. 1998, 'An application of quality function deployment to improve the quality of
teaching', International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 15 (4), 389-413.
Lordsleem Jr, A.C. & Melhado, S.B. 2014, 'Scope of design for production of wall partitions', Journal of
Engineering, Design and Technology, 12 (2), 263-279.
Love, P.E.D. 2002, 'Influence of project type and procurement method on rework costs in building
construction projects', Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(1), 18-29.
Love, P.E.D, Irani, Z. & Edwards, D.J. 2004, 'A rework reduction model for construction projects',
Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 51 (4), 426-440.
Mirza, M.N, Pourzolfaghar, Z. & Shahnazari, M. 2013, 'Significance of Scope in Project Success',
Procedia Technology, 9 (2013), 722-729.
Saaty, R.W. 2003, 'Decision making in complex environments', Pittsburgh, Creative Decisions
Foundation.
Saaty, T.L. 1980, The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation
Saaty, T.L. 1994, 'How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process', Interfaces, 19-43
Saaty, T.L. 1996, Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process,
Pittsburgh, RWS Publications.
Sambasivan, M. & Fei, N.Y. 2008, 'Evaluation of critical success factors of implementation of ISO
14001 using analytic hierarchy process (AHP): a case study from Malaysia', Journal of Cleaner
Production, 16 (13), 1424-1433.
Singh, M, Shankar, R, Narain, R. & Agarwal, A. 2003, 'An interpretive structural modeling of
knowledge management in engineering industries', Journal of Advances in Management Research, 1
(1), 28-40.
Wang, Y.R. 2002, 'Applying The PDRI in Project Risk Management', Ph.D Thesis, University of Texas
at Austin, Texas.
Wang, Y.R. & Gibson, E. 2010, 'A study of preproject planning and project success using ANNs and
regression models', Automation in Construction, 19 (3), 341-346.
Woodhead, R.M. 2000, 'Investigation of the early stages of project formulation', Facilities, 18 (13/14),
524-534.
Yin, R.K. 2009, Case study research: Design and methods, 4th ed., Los Angeles, Sage publications,
INC.
Fageha, M.K & Aibinu, A.A. 2014, ‘Prioritising Project Scope Definition Elements in Public Building Projects’,
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 14(3), 18-33.
33