Page 373 -

356 Chapter 10

A blank house of quality template is also available(http://www.gsm.mq.edu.au/
cmit/hoq/Example%20HOQ%20Matrix.doc). Advice on interpreting, analyzing, and
reiterating the house of quality design is provided in the form of a checklist by Mazur
(1993 ; http://www.mazur.net/works/9checks.pdf).
Tiwana (2000) recommends using indicators and other useful parameters from the
Skandia Intellectual Capital annual report instrument as house of quality outcomes
in order to analyze KM effectiveness. These indicators include:
• Competence development expenses ($ per employee)
• Employee satisfaction
• Time spent on systematic packaging of know-how for future reuse when a project
has been completed
• Training expenses per employee
• Information gathering expenses per existing customer
• Total number of patents held
• Employee attrition rate
• Dollar fi gure value of loss per employee who leaves (and who leaves for a competing
fi rm)
• Expense of reinventing solutions per year
• Number of ideas implemented compared to those suggested (e.g., suggestion box)

The Results-Based Assessment Framework
The results-based management accountability framework (RMAF) has become a widely
used framework for general performance assessment, particularly within the Canadian
federal government. The Canadian Treasury Board (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/eval/
pubs/RMAF-CGRR/guide/guide_e.asp) has published guidelines on its development
and application that has led to a fairly high degree of adoption and standardized use
of this instrument. A number of other organizations such as UN agencies, USAID,
and Fujitsu Consulting also implement this metrics framework. The terms “ results
map ” or “ results chain ” are often used as shorter synonyms or more generic terms.
It is fairly easy to adapt this metric to knowledge management. The advantage in
doing so lies with the emphasis RMAF places on realistic results, monitoring of
expected results, reporting, and describing measurable changes. In addition, explicit
linkages are used to show how each activity contributes to each expected outcome.
Figure 10.4 outlines the major components of the RMAF metric (adapted from Plan
net 2004).