The Star Global Malaysians Forum
Posted: 03 September 2005 at 10:30pm

Q

What is the relationship between TQM and KM?

A

If you look carefully in the threads that I've posted here, I think you will find some interesting views. Personally, I think KM is the evolution of TQM. A new buzzword with some ICT elements being intergrated. It's kinda cool if you study it carefully.
-------------------------------
Posted: 13 September 2005 at 3:49pm

Here's something to support my last post on hypotheses that KM is an evolution of TQM.

The article entitled 'Knowledge Management - another management fad?'

HAPPY READING!
------------------------------
The Star Global Malaysian Forum
Response from : Almerica a.k.a Eric Yam
Posted: 18 September 2005 at 9:21pm

Yes I believe so too. TQM preceded KM & thus can be considered an evolution from it. Personally I think that KM should come first before TQM. How can TQM standards be achieved where knowledge is insufficient. I feel that KM came to be, through a discovery process in areas where some implementation of TQM processes did not achieve the objectives set.

It's like "Hey we need to go to KL from say Penang and there is a highway available, so let's drive safely, check our car conditions, stay alert and drive there." We should actually look further than that such as " OK we want to go to KL within 3 hours with a $XX budget, now what options do we have? We have the plane, the train, the car, the bus, etc. Which costs more or which is fastest?" Then we choose the appropriate mode of option which suits our need. Going by car isn't wrong but maybe it might not be the most efficient and practical in a scenario"

So if TQM is going to be implemented effectively we have to have knowledge on the options available as well as being able to use the knowledge to ensure the most cost efficient, effective and time saving option available. That leads to a better TQM process implementation. That's the easiest example I could come up with for easy understanding.

TQM processes do not involve just the human resource factor but tools of implementation are equally as critical. In my opinion TQM should be the ultimate management process as TQM in itself has the word "Total" ( Quality Management) in it.

Knowledge Management should actually only be a subset of TQM. Therefore sometimes in an effort to achieve an ultimate objective we fail to see that there are many issues at the bud that need to be sorted out and perfected before the ultimate vision is achieved. Knowledge, training, implementation, planning, control, R&D, improvisation, marketing, administrative measures, financial systems, IT support systems, tools of trade maintenance, productivity...the list goes on. When these are all well placed as solid foundations then only should the term TQM be confidently implemented. To me first TQM, then now KM is actually an indicator that TQM was premature. KM should come first before that so that we do not seem to take a slight step back. Let's not jump the gun.

But of course with TQM being a so called International term and fad, everyone wants to be seen to be adopting it. In a nutshell and in simplified mathematical equation :

KM (Knowledge Management) + AM (Administrative Management) + ITM (IT Management) + IM (Implementation Management) + HRM (human Resource Management) + PM (Productivity Management) + EM (Equipment Management) + FM (Financial Management) + MM (Marketing Management) + QCM (Quality Control Management) = TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

After all " If We Don't Know What We Know, How Can We Know What Can Be Done To Get The Results We Know We Want?" - again pardon the pun as it just cropped up in my mind as I was penning this post.
------------------------------
Nik Zafri's Response to Almerica
Posted: 27 September 2005 at 2:27pm

Here comes 'The Paradox'...something for the readers to rethink and restrategize to move into the 'right path'.

Almerica wrote:

Yes I believe so too. TQM preceded KM & thus can be considered an evolution from it. Personally I think that KM should come first before TQM. How can TQM standards be achieved where knowledge is insufficient. I feel that KM came to be, through a discovery process in areas where some implementation of TQM processes did not achieve the objectives set.

Interesting opinion. Funny that that I heard a lot of people saying that knowledge started since the dawn of time...ever heard of that before? (Let's just take someone quite 'new' after 'that dawn of time' - Aristotle as an example - most definitely he was one of the co-founders of Knowledge Management, Sun-Tzu - is another example...need I say more?)

Almerica wrote:

It's like "Hey we need to go to KL from say Penang and there is a highway available, so let's drive safely, check our car conditions, stay alert and drive there." We should actually look further than that such as " OK we want to go to KL within 3 hours with a $XX budget, now what options do we have? We have the plane, the train, the car, the bus, etc. Which costs more or which is fastest?" Then we choose the appropriate mode of option which suits our need. Going by car isn't wrong but maybe it might not be the most efficient and practical in a scenario"

Listen to Eric....especially if you feel like spending/managing your budget effectively in our current economic condition.

Almerica wrote:

So if TQM is going to be implemented effectively we have to have knowledge on the options available as well as being able to use the knowledge to ensure the most cost efficient, effective and time saving option available. That leads to a better TQM process implementation. That's the easiest example I could come up with for easy understanding.

Yes, knowledge does help a lot!

- Know your own business (especially what you're really good at)
- Know your product (the best one - (not you wanted to do everything and in the end you end up with nothing)
- Know your target market (find those that needs you - don't waste time on those who doesn't)
- Know your skills (ensure that you don't say too many 'YES'es' to the customer - otherwise you'll end-up in trouble) - but you can still outsource provided you have a really good business network/contacts,
- Know your capabilities (every single one including resources/finance) - have professionals to help you if you have to, - or read this column
- Know your client, Know their specs, Read Contracts/Tender Carefully,
- Do more research - Have more data - don't depend on 'rumours' - check your sources.
- Do more improvement - don't be complacent with what you have now,
Update your learning curve - nobody can claim that they are well-equipped with the latest knowledge, system and methodology - remember the word - evolution!
- Be susceptible to the surroundings (including planning the future of the business (including technology) based on global and nation everchanging needs - there is a need to sustain not only getting rich quick)
aaa..there are many more!

Almerica wrote:

TQM processes do not involve just the human resource factor but tools of implementation are equally as critical. In my opinion TQM should be the ultimate management process as TQM in itself has the word "Total" ( Quality Management) in it. Knowledge Management should actually only be a subset of TQM. Therefore sometimes in an effort to achieve an ultimate objective we fail to see that there are many issues at the bud that need to be sorted out and perfected before the ultimate vision is achieved. Knowledge, training, implementation, planning, control, R&D, improvisation, marketing, administrative measures, financial systems, IT support systems, tools of trade maintenance, productivity...the list goes on. When these are all well placed as solid foundations then only should the term TQM be confidently implemented. To me first TQM, then now KM is actually an indicator that TQM was premature. KM should come first before that so that we do not seem to take a slight step back. Let's not jump the gun.

WELL SAID BROTHER!! I'm merely highlighting important points for the readers to understand, if I'm to give my opinion, then most definitely it would be a lengthy one...suffice it to say that you're very-very right - especially the 'red' ones!!

Almerica wrote:

But of course with TQM being a so called International term and fad, everyone wants to be seen to be adopting it. In a nutshell and in simplified mathematical equation : KM (Knowledge Management) + AM (Administrative Management) + ITM (IT Management) + IM (Implementation Management) + HRM (human Resource Management) + PM (Productivity Management) + EM (Equipment Management) + FM (Financial Management) + MM (Marketing Management) + QCM (Quality Control Management) = TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT After all " If We Don't Know What We Know, How Can We Know What Can Be Done To Get The Results We Know We Want?" - again pardon the pun as it just cropped up in my mind as I was penning this post.

I am a believer...Neo!

The Star Global Malaysians Forum - Posted: 06 August 2006 at 7:37pm

I read a report by OECD/Economic Intelligence Unit/Cisco Systems sent to me by a friend. The paper themed 'Foresight 2020' - Economic, Industry & Corporate trends' The principal findings from the research are (among others):

Globalisation - Asia - There will be a redistribution of economic power esp. China & India. Non-OECD markets will account for a higher share of revenue growth between now and 2020 than OECD economies.

Demographics - Population shifts will have a significant impact on economies, companies and customers. The favourable demographic profile of the US will help to spur growth; ageing populations in Europe will inhibit it. Industries will target more products and services at ageing populations, from investment advice to low-cost, functional cars.

Atomisation - Network technologies and globalisation will enable firms to better use the world as their supply base for talent and materials. Processes, firms, customers and supply chains will fragment as companies expand overseas. As a result, effective collaboration will become more important. The boundaries between different functions, organisations and even industries will blur.

The BEST part of all is a survey (1650 participants - analysts, policy makers, senior executives) determine the areas of activity that will likely to offer the greatest potential for productivity gains in 2020.

In accordance to priority...

Priority No. 1 - KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
" " 2. Customer Service & Support
" " 3. Operation & Production Process
" " 4. Strategy & Business Development
" " 5. Marketing & Sales
" " 6. HRM & Training
" " 7. Corporate Performance Management
" " 8. Product Development
" " 9. Financial Management & Reporting
" "10. Supply Chain Management
" "11. Risk Management & Compliance
" "12. Procurement

So guys...study hard and please contribute to this topic...KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT is gonna be your future.
------------------------------
Response by Almerica - Posted: 06 August 2006 at 10:01pm

Great reference points my friend. Truly spot on. Allow me to add something extra based on my own analysis of the market changes around us. The key towards progress or growth today no longer depends on just knowledge management on a particular subject / trade or skill.

Specialization in a specific skill or area of expertise will only be applicable for those professionals like medical surgeons, etc... Today, I personally feel that should one be able to move forward, knowledge management in only one or two areas will not ensure that the person or the company will do well. Gone were the days where people used to mock the phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none", today the more you know the more rounded you become, the wider your scope the higher your chances are of survival.

What I feel is going to be the decisive factor for success in the days ahead will be the ability of one to be a human sponge and absorb as much info as possible from all trades. The winners will be those that could tweak the age old phrase into a new one "Jack of all trades and master of all".

Robert Kiyosaki based his teachings on Paradigm Shifts but I believe that it is not completely correct. I have coined myself the tagline "Expanding Paradigms" (and also used it as my corporate tagline, hehe) because shifting means leaving something that you have been doing to do something else. I feel that we should expand our paradigm and not merely shift to another because from what we are currently doing or have done in the past, there will always be good things to learn from it and of course bad stuffs too for us to learn from and not to repeat them.

I feel that what we have to do is extend our reach for knowledge into many other areas and include them into our existing paradigm. Worried about mental overload? Well what we should do is to filter away whatever negatives we encountered from our current or old paradigm and maintain the good positive ones. Now imagine if we add on or fill the space of our mental capacity with more positive knowledge from other so called paradigms into our own existing one? What we have done is expanded our own paradigm by including positives from other paradigms to make us more formidable market players. Hmmm hope Koyasaki won't take offence of this but this is basically what I have been constantly instilling into our team.

Specialization into just one thing is very very risky today as a valuable know how may be reduced to shreads if it is suddenly easily replaced (technology does that with the blink of an eye sometimes). Knowledge Management in Multiple Areas actually does these :

- helps one to be quick to react to certain situations as many trades are interdependent with one another (even though on the surface it does not look so). Solid knowledge on another industry besides your own will act like the beacon or alarm button for you to decide on the direction that you would want to take if some indicators beep in that other industry. It will be a real pity if you know so much about your own thing only and then try to react when a "wave" hits your shores. Yes it would also be good to know something about the wind and not just the tides because they are interdependent
- helps you become flexible. With the market conditions being so violatile, ups and downs of a certain commodity or service are getting harder to predict. What may constitute to be a huge booming potential may just fade away with the market demands swaying its attention to other areas of focus. You need flexibility to survive in such scenarios and to be flexible you need to be well rounded. In short, a great swimmer needs to learn how to crawl, or fly pretty well too as you will never know when you need to do it. We just got to crawl when we are put in the desert, swim when placed in water and fly when dropped from the sky.
- allows you to adopt applications or solutions from other industries and apply them to yours. You'd be surprise how well that works sometimes because what is commonly carried out in one industry has frequently never been done in others before. Why reinvent the shape of the wheel when we can put it to good use in other aspects and yet be seen as a great idea that works in your own industry?
- gives you the competitive edge. You could also gain more as you are able to provide packaged services that covers various scopes of requirement from the client if you are a "Master of All". Clients prefer to deal with one who can solve or handle various scopes effectively for them as they would be able to have a better service support when needed. They need not have to encounter the hassle of having multiple vendor sources to track the root of any problems.
- opens your door to your future product / service lines. You could easily introduce new products or services to your existing client when you are ready as the barrier of having to undergo the "get to know" session no longer applies as you already have an existing business relationship with your client from a previous product or service that you have provided.

A closing phrase which I believe everyone would agree. Inspite of all efforts to gain knowledge and manage it well, knowledge only works best when it is applied.
--------------------------------
Nik Zafri's Response - Posted: 07 August 2006 at 1:38pm

Yes of course…exactly what we're doing now…’unleashing all the potentials’ in this forum – all the competencies – all the knowledge – all the experience – all the data and learn & learn & learn new things - networking. You see..I can’t be running around doing the usual things that I’m doing…I got to ‘diversify’ (my version of your expanding paradigms – by the way…Mr. Kiyosaki is a good author but he tends to make us ‘guessing’ what he means in every line of his book…thus, I read Kiyosaki for fun…)

Eric, you're right about not sticking to one thing only. When you close your mind to something new, it means you are heading for BIG pitfalls. I know that most of them wanna keep/maintain their ‘branding’ (perhaps influenced by some ‘success stories’ of some billionaires) but being a fanatic in the ‘branding’ won’t bring you anywhere. I am still sticking to my 'branding' but I still do other things. Those billionaires out there, they also adopted similar approaches…they really love what they are good at, but for the sake of sustainability, they will resort to other things first and having succeeded, they will make a comeback to the things that they really like. (look at Donald Trump - even Bill Gates)

Knowledge Application - Yeap, do what you say, say what you do
-------------------------------
Response from Almerica - Posted: 09 August 2006 at 1:07am

Yeah, my friend, in one of the episodes of The Apprentice, Trump hit the nail on the head. Quote "Most people have great ideas and knowledge which could make millions but if they fail to apply them or use them, they are still labelled as failures!" - how true.

Of course many people talk about needing huge capital to kick start something (not surprisingly I was one of them) but sometimes if we expand from our ideas and we are hungry enough, you'd be surprise how another idea may pop up to help you get what you need to start the engines running. So we just gotta crack our brains and make it work overtime to find the perfect solution rather than wallow in desperation reminiscing over how close we were with the brilliant idea that couldn't take off. Ah and the funny thing is that I am sure many of us shared the idea with others but since we couldnt take it off, others did with great results and impact. (Boy, did I have loads of those.)

Some of the "what could have been" stories of mine were ideas that were thought of with great self satisfaction and pride then, complimenting myself for coming up with such brilliant ideas (only to be brought down to earth when I didnt pursue it hard enough and let it just slowly slip away AND to find out that they have been thought out much later and carried out with extremely great successes by companies like Citibank, Std Chartered, and public listed development companies - mind you, they were 3 totally different ideas that were adopted by 3 giants!)hahaha but those were great lessons in life.

So for those with "know hows" and great ideas PUT IT TO GOOD USE! Find a way, there is always some funny "unthought of" solution hiding in the back of your mind.
---------------------------------
Nik Zafri's Response :Posted: 09 August 2006 at 3:49pm

Thanks Eric (that's why I like this guy - they didn't make him the CEO for nothing..heheheh)

Here's some related excerpts from my 'old' collection of comments here in GMN and elsewhere. You will notice my 'consistency' in encouraging people on how to run business by 'going back to basics', the 'branding', 'diversification' and 'networking'. My only hope that our readers here can benefit from our experience...

No. 1 - Robert T. Kiyosaki - Rich Dad Poor Dad

I can say a little bit on Robert T. Kiyosaki Rich Dad/Poor Dad Series. If you read carefully Robert's view on 'let the money work for you', you will discover that he is also talking about another phrase that goes something like 'a business is something that do not require my presence and if I have to work there, it's not a business anymore, it becomes my job'. Many have been said about these two popular phrases - some relate them to Multi-Level-Marketing, Insurance, Stock/Shares, Properties etc. Some even lead to the famous Donald Trump of Trump International.

While these assumptions maybe true, but I think Robert is also talking about how you can spend and budget your money effectively. (At least I felt this is how it applies to me but to others it may apply differently)

In the Malaysian environment point of view, I may have not reached 100% on 'a business that do not require my presence' but I think I have achieved 'let the money work for you' by both working hard and smart.

e.g. I have 3 consultancy assignments to complete in a manyear. I've 'sub-contracted' the first 2 jobs to another 2 guys as I am not a superman to take all 3. Although I will eventually be paid for all 3 jobs, I still have to 'sacrifice' one job payment to cover my overheads (house, car, others) which leaves me with another 2 jobs. The 2nd job, I have to again 'sacrifice' for my 'capital' to run future jobs including to cover my office overheads and perhaps for marketing/training etc. The last job is the one that solely belong to me after taxation. In a way, I do not have to worry about my overheads, it has been 'paid'. I have to assume my 3rd job is my take home pay (nett). If I found out that one of the jobs is coming towards an end (contract completion), a month ahead, I will either reconvince the same client for reorder or start to find new prospects.

The simple scenarios above are something quite common to most of us but require only one thing in mind - Discipline! In my case, I think Robert is talking about Discipline and Proper Planning.

I also welcome those who feels that R.T.Kiyosaki has a different effect on them cos' as I said earlier, it's the way you see it and how you apply/customize it according to your nature of competency or industry.

I like the way Wikipedia talks about Digital Divide :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide

Excerpt

The digital divide is the gap between those with regular, effective access to digital technologies and those without. The digital divide is related to social inclusion and equality of opportunity. It is seen as a social/political problem and has become increasingly relevant as the industrialized nations have become more dependent on digital technologies in their democratic and economic processes. Larry Irving, a former United States Assistant Secretary of Commerce and technology adviser to the Clinton Administration, made the term digital divide popular in a series of reports in the mid 1990's. The digital divide results from the socio-economic differences between communities that in turn affects their access to digital information mainly but not exclusively through the Internet. Broadly speaking, the difference is not necessarily determined by the size or depth of the user group. Any digital media that different segments of society can use, can become the subject of a digital divide. With regard to the Internet, ease of access is a fundamental aspect, but it is not the sole factor. Effective access also depends on ability to use ICT (Information and Communications Technologies) effectively, and on the quality of digital content that is available and can be provided. The quality of connection, auxiliary services and other factors that affect effective use are also important (Davison and Cotten, 2003). Access can be through a range of devices (MSN TV, Webphone, PDA, mobile phone)and each provides a different level of support. Once an appropriate level of access is achieved, the individual then requires an education that includes literacy and technological skills to make effective use of it. From this point on, participation becomes possible because of the wealth of usable information that becomes available coupled with the equally important capacity to provide information to others. The digital divide is often discussed in an international context because of the widely varying social and economic conditions in different countries. The concept of a digital divide has resonance with views that the revolutionary power of the Internet and the emerging utopian information society is also subject to a downside but this has to be balanced by the evidence of rapidly increased take up of the Internet in the developing world.

It's still a problem to Malaysia as well...we still have a long way to go
----------------------------
The Star Global Malaysian Forum - Almerica's Response - Posted: 24 August 2006 at 12:54am and Nik Zafri's Response -

The "digital divide" is turning into a huge gulf. Advancements in technology has surged at a speed of which the huge chunk of the community has even yet to begin embarking on the acclamatization process and realization towards the benefits that can be derived from the adopton of ICT applications.

Nik Zafri : You're being too intellectual, I think it's about 'fear of change'.

What we have here today are two camps - "the far ahead" and "the left behind". This is very worrying as the gap has caused "the left behinds" sweating and fearing on what may happen in the future as they are quickly becoming obsolete...and this chunk of the community actually is still a major contributor to the national economy and trade.

Based on my research, it's because the policy related to dissemination of information on the first place is not well coordinated. The message got lost in the middle of the road.

The "far aheads" must actually take a look behind their shoulders and find a way to use the very basic methods that are in the comfort zone of the "left behinds" and help them get started on the journey of ICT (but then again, we all know most of the "left behinds" are in this current scenario because of their initial "we'll do it my way" or "no worries, we can still pick it up later" or "let's wait and see how others are faring with the usage of ICT", mindset...only to find that the entire landscape has changed overnight).

The reality is that many the 'far aheads' are not sitting comfortably in their offices, making some money and don't wish to really bother about the "left behind" as to the "far aheads" (not all of them - like you and me and many of us here) - they would likely ask the most infamous question "What's in it for me?"

One of our my company's division is web development and we have another small division that runs some export trades using strictly only the power of the internet. As a registered member of MATRADE, we have found that the trade leads that we receive weekly are truly great contacts to help us expand our markets. And yet in many instances when we are developing some websites for many traders or exporters, we realised that they had never even taken the initiative to be a member of MATRADE (by the way, it's free) and thus they miss out on so many opportunities that could have been made available to them (eg Brand grants, trade show subsidies, etc). And they complain that the Govt doesnt help them and so have the crazy mindset that anything that is associated to the Govt's effort to help traders to boost their business or to encourage them on the usage of IT are all just some hoo hah political gimmick which does not work. But some of them didnt register with MATRADE because they do not know that such an arm by the Govt exists! Frankly I see that the Govt has taken great pains to educate and preach and publicise their efforts to help but somehow many ground level people are still very negative..or maybe they were when such exercises were announced but realises too late that they should have taken up the advice to adopt the digital age methods of doing business...only that now, the negativeness has turned into a huge fear and worry on how they are going to ever catch up.

Eric, I hate to dissapoint you again, if you go down to the streets today, you ask those 'kedai-kopi' guys about MATRADE...see how they respond..again...the policy on information dissemination requires serious changes to ensure that the 'grassroots' are well-informed. You know sometimes, some people (the 'grassroot' and the 'veterans') fear the internet especially those already in business and still making money through the conventional methods. I find it very difficult to inculcate certain new methodologies in these people but I'm still trying.

--------------------------------------
Almerica's Response - Posted: 25 August 2006 at 2:18am

One humorous real life scenario was like this. I was talking to a brick supplier and told him that the internet can help his business a lot. He said no way the internet could help local businesses as it is meant for foreign business only. So I gave him a demo on how it could (i had my laptop with me). I role played with him to imagine that I was a developer who wanted to buy some bricks and so I typed "brick manufacturer in Malaysia" in Yahoo to look for some leads. A couple of names popped up (of course not Mr A's company cos he doesn't have a website). Mr A quickly said "Hey I know that guy. He is a competitor!". So I told him I'd probably contact his competitor to find out more about the bricks they are carrying and so his competitor would stand a good chance of me doing business with him because he was listed.

I carried it further and asked him how his sales employees approach their prospects to introduce his company's various types of bricks to them. Mr A said that well, they all usually carry all the bricks to the purchasers office to display and show them what they have. I questioned him " Mr A, won't it have been easier if you could just ask your potential prospects to look into your website (if you have one) then select the few types that they are keen on, and then only get your sales employee to show them what they have selected? It helps your sales team identify the type of products that the client may be interested in (and thus help narrow down the selection process) and secondly, your poor sales employees would not have to carry every single type of brick to show the prospect (and without having any inkling on what type they would prefer).

He seemed a bit perplexed but in the end he said, "Hmmm never mindlah let them carry all the bricks cos that's their job" (by the way I wasnt pitching for a sales job and no web development costs were even mentioned so it was not about the pricing at all that he said no.

I guess we can only help those who are willing to try some changes or else any other logical explanation will still be shunned by those who fear change.