Securing funding is one of the first steps in any project, but to acquire funding it is usually necessary to have some level of facility definition. The RNA tool helps align the stakeholders to do that rapidly with a measurable level of accountability.

“The RNA tool is used to create a shared vision for a project in its earliest stages, long before there’s any real project definition. Having this shared vision at the outset really streamlines the decision-making process and increases capital effectiveness,” says Michael Morehead, senior manager of Genentech’s corporate engineering project management group.

Genentech uses a core-team process for the planning and delivery of large capital projects. A project’s core team consists of representatives from each stakeholder area, including user-groups, administrative finance, supply chain, corporate engineering, and quality control. The company’s capital delivery process consists of five distinct stages. Stage one identifies project need; stage two considers and selects alternatives that are supported by the business drivers; stage three is design development; stage four is construction; and stage five is the close out. The RNA tool was originally developed by Genentech to facilitate the first two stages of this process—identifying project need and selecting alternatives—while building a childcare facility with a diverse core team.

“Our challenge was that, because of this diverse group, there was a lack of a common language available for talking about the design attributes of a project. We had no consistent method of connecting decisions with their resulting cost impact and there was no historical data for tracking how these decisions impact the project,” says Morehead.

The team resorted to using visual aids to illustrate the cost impacts of different design elements. Various options were rated on scorecards for their complexity and associated cost using a simple three-point scale. In the RNA rating system, which is based on a pre-existing security rating system, Level 3 represents the most basic level of operability; Level 2 provides enhanced performance features; and Level 1 is the most complex, usually including the kind of mechanical redundancy and/or flexibility found in biocontainment labs and vivaria.

“Keeping to a simple three-point system has really worked well for us. There is always a trend to create further definition, because people try to optimize tools over time and start saying: ‘Well, can we have 2.5 as a rating?’ So it limits that trend to do things on a scale of 1 to 10 or 1 to 20, where you get so complex that the data starts becoming a little less meaningful,” says Morehead.

Each feature from exterior to interior to mechanical support systems is rated on this three-point scale for quality, functionality, aesthetics, complexity, and cost. Scorecards are then created that clearly show what levels are being selected for each element.

The initial  success of this tool prompted Genentech to create a multi-disciplinary team to further develop the RNA’s cross-functionality. The team identified the project design attributes that matter most to Genentech and divided them into two primary template groups (architecture and engineering) and a collection of secondary template groups which include more project-specific elements such as office space and lab buildings. The team then further defined specific parameters for the three levels for each attribute.

“We had a lot of skilled people on staff who helped define these levels. We also worked with the outside community to be sure that we were on-track, and we checked with other companies to see how our benchmarks compared,” says Morehead.

Decision Making Tools

The RNA tool is made up of three components. The first consists of the architecture and engineering templates used to define basic project attributes, the second are scorecards which rate the complexity and cost of each proposed element, and the third is a database used to generate reports and benchmark decision-making data for future projects.

Templates include sample pictures of possible elements so professionals who are not normally involved in capital projects can visualize things like punched windows or curved curtain walls. A cyclical process is used where the core team populates the RNA tool with proposed features. Project elements start at Level 3 and any elevation must be justified to upper management by the team.

“Each company has its own culture about what level of performance is acceptable. Level 3 is not necessarily the most basic thing out there, it’s the most basic thing that Genentech is willing to accept,” says Morehead.

Senior management signs off on any improvements above Level 3, and a capital governance committee approves any changes that carry significant cost impact. Decision-making information is put into a database for use in benchmarking future projects and measuring the success of the current project. Detailed explanations of the ratings for each element can be accessed for more information.

“It’s a decision-making tool for setting the quality of the building or project in the very early stages, and it also serves as a basis for the future design and cost estimating of the project,” says Morehead.

Replicating Success

As the RNA system evolves with each use, Genentech has learned more about the principles that drive its success. According to Morehead, one of the most significant of these principles is keeping it simple.

“The RNA tool is simple, but elegant in its application. We can boil things down to a single number that can be presented to senior management or to people who are not normally involved in capital project planning. For someone in my organization, it takes very little time to go through and fill out this tool, but it also provides a great level of definition for people who don’t do this on a day-to-day basis,” says Morehead.

In accordance with the philosophy of keeping things simple, Genentech limits the number of facility attributes to around 30 or 40 per project.

“We wanted to make it so people could, without a whole lot of training, just go in and intuitively understand how to select these different levels,” says Morehead.

Additionally, Morehead emphasizes the importance of keeping presentation materials graphic-based and easy to understand for all stakeholders.

“When you’re part of a 20-minute presentation to senior management about this project, you can’t have complex slides. You need to be able to present the necessary information in a simple manner,” he says.

The database has proven to be one of the tool’s most useful features. Reports can be generated showing differences between different projects and what specific features drove their costs. The team also found that it is important to capture pre-approval decision-making data so that final project costs can be validated and traced back to where they were approved in the early planning stages.

“Later in a project, if things start deviating from the original intent, the project manager can reel the design team back in by asking, ‘Does this meet the original intent of the RNA analysis that was presented to senior management?’ That’s a powerful tool,” says Morehead.

By Johnathon Allen

We welcome your Questions and Comments

Copyright 2008 Tradeline Inc.
All Rights Reserved
ISSN: 1096-4894