Global Benchmark to Obsolete Standard

Origins and Purpose of POMI

In June 1979 the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) introduced the Principles of Measurement (International) (POMI) as a framework for compiling Bills of Quantities (BoQs) on construction projects. It was born out of a need for consistency in measurement practices across different countries. At the time, many markets lacked any common method for measuring and describing construction work, leading to widely varying practices and frequent disputes over quantities. RICS believed that the success of any BoQ “depends mainly on its ability to be understood clearly by the parties” involved. POMI was therefore designed as a universal set of measurement principles – not a detailed rulebook, but a concise guide to ensure all parties were working from the same assumptions when pricing construction work. It was published in multiple languages (including English, Arabic, French and German) to facilitate international uptake, a clear indication of the global context it was meant to serve.

From the outset, POMI’s purpose was practical. It provided a “uniform basis of measurement” suitable for use where existing rules were inappropriate or where no rules existed. In other words, it filled the void in international projects where no single national standard could be applied. By focusing on broad principles, the document allowed measurement for a wide range of works under a common approach. This flexibility was intentional: POMI could be used for building works as well as civil engineering sections, making it a one-stop standard for varied project types. RICS’s Building Cost Information Service (BCIS), which prepared POMI, essentially distilled the UK’s Standard Method of Measurement into a slim international format, with the detailed labour content removed. What remained was a lean set of guidelines that any qualified quantity surveyor could quickly grasp and apply on projects worldwide.

Widespread Adoption in International Projects

POMI gained significant traction in the decades following its release, especially on large international and Middle Eastern projects. Despite the development of various local standards, it was still being used in many countries and widely applied on international contracts. This was particularly true in the Gulf region. The oil-fuelled construction boom of the late 20th century brought a mix of contractors and consultants from around the world into the Middle East. Each brought their own national measurement conventions, raising the risk of confusion and mismatched expectations. In the absence of a regional standard, POMI served as a neutral baseline.

By the 2000s, POMI had effectively become the default method of measurement on many Gulf projects. Surveys found the Middle East to be POMI’s stronghold: usage was highest in the UAE, followed by Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia. Notably, POMI was most often employed in conjunction with the FIDIC forms of contract. Its strength was in being concise and general: it gave high-level definitions of how to measure items without the exhaustive detail of country-specific standards. This simplicity meant that a competent quantity surveyor could adapt POMI to almost any building or infrastructure project. Its applicability to various project types under one umbrella was often cited as a key advantage. Clients and contractors appreciated this straightforward approach as it made BoQs quicker to produce and easier to read.

The Decline into Obsolescence

The very qualities that made POMI successful – its brevity and broad principles – eventually led to its downfall. Because POMI set out only high-level principles, it allowed considerable latitude in interpretation. Different quantity surveyors might measure the same work item in different ways while still claiming to follow POMI. Reviews in some countries found that POMI’s limited guidance resulted in inconsistent BoQs.

Another factor in POMI’s decline was its stagnation. Apart from a minor reprint in 2004, the 1979 text was never substantively updated. Over four decades, construction technology and methods changed dramatically, but POMI remained frozen in time. By the 2010s, practitioners openly acknowledged that the document was outdated and failed to cover modern construction techniques. Newer aspects of projects – such as complex MEP works, advanced materials, or digital construction methods – were not accounted for in POMI’s framework. This left practitioners to create their own measurement rules for those items, undermining the consistency it aimed to provide.

While POMI stayed still, the industry moved on. Many countries developed their own detailed standards, addressing local practices and legal requirements. Global bodies also created new frameworks such as the International Construction Measurement Standards (ICMS), reflecting a more modern, collaborative approach. Within RICS, newer guidance like the New Rules of Measurement (NRM) took shape, further reducing the relevance of POMI for international projects.

By the early 2020s, POMI had become an anachronism. In March 2023, RICS formally archived the POMI standard, marking it as retired. This confirmed what many industry experts had been saying for years: POMI served its purpose in a previous era, but it no longer meets today’s needs.

Conclusion

POMI’s history shows that construction standards must adapt or risk becoming obsolete. Introduced in 1979, it addressed a real gap by bringing uniform measurement principles to global projects – a valuable contribution to markets like the Middle East where no common standard existed. It reduced disputes and helped establish a shared measuring language among diverse project teams.

Over time, however, the demand for greater detail, precision and adaptability left POMI behind. Its brevity, once a strength, became a weakness. Without updates, it could not reflect the complexity of modern construction. For professionals in the Middle East, the move away from POMI is significant, given its long-standing role in the region. Yet its legacy remains: it was a product of its time, and for many years it was the standard that brought order to international measurement. Its retirement is not a failure, but the natural conclusion to a chapter in the history of construction measurement.