Extracted from http://www.brint.com (Knowledge Management Portal)

Internet Marketing Conquering The Airwaves?

With society becoming more and more "connected" to the internet and the increasing bombardment of internet advertising, does anyone think that one day internet marketing/advertising will make commercial TV advertising obsolete? Is it already happening?

Benjiq - Australia

Nik Zafri replies :

A good question indeed! Well, you can say 'YES' and you can say 'NO'.

Let's start with 'NO' first.

a) Is internet advertising/marketing effective enough today even though the internet has been introduced for many-many years? What I've seen today are negative responses mostly - e.g. irritating pop-ups ads, net A & P not adhering to laws, people are not getting the quality they have bargained for etc. etc.

b) Look at the post-offices/postal services/couriers, they are still working are they not? despite there are e-mails and faxes?

c) Look at the newspapers, tabloids etc., they are still in the market - are they not? despite there are online-newspaper and tabloids.

d) People still say 'good morning' and still 'shake hands' with another colleague despite there's intranet with mail and SMS (on both computer and mobile phone)

e) Foreign Direct Investment are still coming (by proper visit) despite the K-Economy and globalization age of ICT, smart partnerships are still happening, the stock market still require people to help them out etc. etc.

Based ONLY on this 5 factors, the answer will definitely be 'NO'! It would be a 'Miracle' if people can get out of this era and go ONLINE on everything!

We still need 'hard copies' and TV advertising. Although, what you said has actually been happening and related to what I termed as a kind of 'digital-divide', but the effect is still not that bad.

Let's now go to 'YES'

a) If people started to re-realize the core 'humanity-based' objective of why ICT was introduced - be it internet marketing or for whatsoever thing - where the objective states - 'to protect the environment, trees esp. so that less trees are being cut to make papers', probably, this will one day replace 'hard copies'. Even that is so, TV is also; in a manner of speaking; helping out the preserving natural environment as well (in this context)

b) If everyone learn how to follow rules and know how to be patient in helping another online business and follow the flow of e.g. MLM. Then one day, what you say will happen.

But what I see today are attitudes that goes something like these :

"Mr. X saw an online advertising about products and services of 'Y' Company. He thought that, if 'Y' can do it, why not me? So he gets online, build another website similar to 'Y'."

"Mr. X saw a 'value click banner' on 'Y' company's website. The URL clicked will also state 'Y's ID so that if Mr. X intended to buy something through this 'value click banner', then Y shall be entitled to a certain 'commission'.

But Mr. X again said, why must I click on 'Y's 'banner' when I can create another on my website? Why must I give money to 'Y', when I can get money on my own? So Mr. X approached the company directly using 'Y's URL and applied for another value click banner for his website...."

What I'm trying to say here is : "When there are only 'Sellers' or everybody wanted to become a "businessman", who's going to become the 'Purchasers' or whose going to become your 'customers'?

Today, newbies in business tend to create very unhealthy competition (even in reality) - spoiling other businesses with low price + low quality.

c) If the top people in the government knows how to enforce regulations properly on the online ads , perhaps again, what you say will work. But in today's environment, it is hard to control these online ads despite how many regulations (e.g. intellectual property, BSA and FBI regulations even) etc. etc.

But you can still see people actually 'smart-shopping' on TV, CableTV etc. etc. The people is still confident with the formal advertising as these advertisements are still subject to rules before they can be displayed on TV...making people feel secure.

I heard the internet users are no longer considering internet advertising due to doubtful over some of the contents - unscrupulous people posting 'false bid' on the net and some 'get-rich-quick' scheme through so 'called' projects, money-'investment' (actually laundering), 'black money' , undelivered goods etc. etc.

Again, maybe, we should stick back to the original culture, once you have advertised on the net, you should be able NOT to force people to BUY from the internet although you may have all the measures like digital cert, firewall etc. etc.

But why not ask people to enquire first - give them some space to think ...and try to make appointments with them (not the digital appointment like video-conferencing). See them in reality, get into conversation, let them be 'used' to you first, give them hard copy surveys, only then, you can ask your customers to purchase ONLINE! Give them some 'free gifts'..perhaps they would like to go for your web (then you may consider your online software and web as 'user-friendly' but by 'forcing' people to buy or 'go', it's not 'user friendly' at all although the 'web-functionalities' are easy to cope up with)

I noticed that these methods are working on 'freeware' and 'shareware' concepts, MP3 and other multimedia format downloading (including use of Adobe PDF) etc. etc.

Big companies like Yahoo, suffered first before they reach this level you have seen now...

'E-commerce is NO 'brick and mortar' plus 'overnight business'

Remember this phrase?

Extracted from http://www.brint.com (Knowledge Management Portal)

Tacit or explicit, which one is the most valuable?

Some people say that explicit knowledge is the future of KM and others say the same about Tacit, which affirmation should I follow? Or maybe both have to be managed to reach a sustainble competitive advantage.
_________________
Best regards,
Nicolas Degrenne
MSc BA IT
Junior Analyst at BIT Group
FRANCE

Nik Zafri's Response :

Both are required!!

Although it is understandable why organization tends to tap only explicit knowledge as it is quite measurable, based on true facts and high in confidence - quite tangible - in a manner of speaking.

I feel that despite tacit knowledge is more reactive and spontaneous, but this is where bright ideas comes from. The effectiveness in processing tacit knowledge ('raw material') can usually be seen at the end of the 'pipeline' when explicit knowledge ('end product') comes out.

Some of the typical barriers I always see in any organization is the human factor or rather weakness in tapping and managing tacit knowledge (at the preliminary stage) :

a. Inability to visualize the long term benefits out of a spontaneous idea.
b. Inability to become a good leader in group discussions (SGA/QCC)
c. Do not want to be 'accountable' for what have been said or implemented
d. LAZY - to further analyze, encode and articulate tacit into explicit.
e. Giving 'lousy' ideas for the sake of 'opening the mouth to speak' and this attitude is driven by 'scared of the boss might say or think or do something to you if you don't speak or you don't participate'. (again this is related to good leadership)

Thus, if in the premature stage of triggering usable tacit knowledge is not properly being managed, then the whole system will go wrong!

Extracted from http://www.brint.com (Knowledge Management Portal)

Just as air, one cannot hijack KM As Knowledge, and 'management' of it, is not the turf of any one discipline, I view the reported hijacking of KM by Management Consultants rather as un unbalance due to other disciplines not contributing enough to KM. Some say ICT hijacked KM. Others say HRM should hijack KM. In truth I believe each discipline has contributions to offer and collaboration between these disciplines would make true KM possible.

Paul L. Jansen Ph.D., MBA
Read & Sign www.eqnomy.tk

Nik Zafri's Response

Yes Paul, I couldn't agree with you better...there appear to be many claims from Management Consultants cum Auditors such as 'the then' AA and their consulting counterpart and many more about championing the issue of KM - and perhaps using KM as a platform to intergrate all the previous MBO, TQM, ISO, Financial Tools, ICT, Corporate Governance, HRM etc. etc. into one roof (which is quite impossible to do) till everything went lost into limbo?

To me as I said ICT is just making the defined business core process (HR, R &D, Marketing, Sales, Operation, Procurement, Inspection, QA/Safety/EMS, Delivery, Storage etc.) a lot faster. Remember the word KNOWLEDGE-BASED...thus knowledge here I think refers to experience, skills/competencies, education/academic and the ability to customize all those to the organizational needs - bottom line - profit - it will always go back to the original purpose...what's in it for the organization?

e.g. what's ERP/MRP without basing itself to a properly defined core process? Or better, what is 'e-enabling' for if not e-enabling a process or chain of processes. What's Data-Mining, SAP Solutions - what kind of datum, what kind of solutions - again, we talked about win-win situation - the solution should spell customization to the organizational needs - not ICT customizing organization to their needs. The datum and solution should spell analysis and the analysis should spell money/budget/forecast/finance and of course...what is the next action? or better..what's our branding?

Looking back into the macro - what's knowledge-based economy without a knowledge-based management? One is the father, the latter is the son but the son badly needs to be well-groomed first...not to be a jack of all trades which the son couldn't achieve...what if the son failed to comply with 'the too high expectations' from the father?

Extracted from http://www.brint.com (Knowledge Management Portal)

Query on Central Repository System (Banking)

Here in Malaysia, (at the point of my year 2004 understanding) the CRS has always been a branding for banking and financial institution. The rest are government/civil service, bourse and bluechips.

Here's a typical example being used in banks.

- Dbase/VBA to capture and convert datum like signature, thumbprints (biometrics), photos etc of the customers - verification system can be used not only at the branch level but also inter-banks as well.

>Encrypted and Compressed.

- Centralizing local/outstation cheques - fully or semi-auto

>hence, reduce time and cost of delivery for redistribution of cheques to branches or inter-bank

>fast clearance, reduce cheque mobilisation and retrieval time, no more microfilming, paperless, (business process reengineering by the irony 'downsizing'),

> reducing workload of the HQ, withdrawal can be made at branch/inter-bank level etc. etc.

>Thus the operational costs will be reduced.

>Transactions can also be made at ATM/Cash & Cheque Deposit, Kiosks and the popular internet banking.

>User friendly - can run on any platforms even 486.

>Anti-Fraud, Hacking, Unauthorized access etc. etc.

The Star Global Malaysians Forum : Posted: 12 July 2005 at 10:02pm

What is learning organization?

In Brief :

LO is for organization having interest to sustain their competitive edge/corporate image due to susceptibility to volatile changes around them. Own past experience in building the organization is particularly useful. Focus Area - Human Resources Planning and Management. Objective - to compete 'healthily' in the market, to become a responsible corporate citizen, reaping profit through good HRM.

'Organization having own system, mechanisme and processes to continually improve all levels of the organization to achieve the objective continually'

Tips:

1) Do you feel that your current system is working? If not, improve that first.

2) LO is NOT restricted to training and development only. If you feel that this statement is wrong - then don't embark on LO.

Models

a) Learn the facts, knowledge, processes and procedures,

b) Improve 'competency' at all levels possible,

- be aware of changes around you - be it economy, social, politics, laws, technology, everchanging market or market trends etc.

- be aware of what's going on in your OWN organization - e.g. you want to introduce a new product/services, check your resources and plan properly.

- be aware of the labour market - demographic trends, extension of service, women's participation

Learn how to absorb, classify, prioritize and finally incorporate. Do the right thing the right way.

Consider 'learning curve' trend (e.g. innovations & quality), processes (e.g. interaction + infra, development & management style), tools/techniques/methodology (e.g. QCC tools), competency/motivation (e.g. change management & willingness to learn)

Support

Orientation Programmes, Knowledge Sharing, Commitment to learn & develop, 'Open' management system & learning from experience (empirical)

Keywords

Strategies, competitive analysis, managing information/knowledge, capability profiling (e.g. TNA - Training Needs Analysis and SFM - Skill Flexibility Matrix), cross-functional teams, performance measurement, benchmarking, merit/awards.

How to Start

Top Management Responsibility - resources, tools, machineries, finance etc., Identification of Grey Areas, Committee Set-Up, Initial Evaluation, Unleashing/Maximizing Potentials, New R & D for New Product/Services Development.

Organisational Survey,brainstorming/delphi etc,motivation (inculcate ownership feeling),make good decisions,result oriented,upgrade knowledge,good listener/advisor,leadership (by example),ready to face future challenges.

Take good examples from the past and incorporate into the future or current.

Pitfalls

Blaming culture, punishment better than reward, immobility,don't want to spend money on resources, bureaucracy,too centralized etc

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!

SUMBER ASAL

PENGURUSAN PENGETAHUAN (KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT) - NIK ZAFRI

ABSTRAK

Pengetahuan biasanya berhubungkait dengan daya kognitif dan berbentuk peribadi manakala pengurusan melibatkan proses organisasi. Banyak tenaga kerja mahir/berpengetahuan tidak gemar diuruskan secara lama. Kini, pengetahuan telah dikenalpasti sebagai salah satu sumber yang wajib bagi sesebuah organisasi yang ingin berkembang maju.

Suasana Semasa

Di Malaysia, semenjak setahun kebelakangan ini, banyak pihak telah mula menunjukkan minat dalam topik pengurusan pengetahuan sebagai persediaan terhadap K-Ekonomi, pengurusan alaf baru dan teknologi.

Kenapa?

Sebenarnya, minat terhadap pengurusan pengetahuan telah pun bermula sejak pertengahan 90-an lagi. Banyak organisasi yang inovatif telah mula melihat pengetahuan/kemahiran/pengalaman menjadi nilai utama (dan akademik menjadi nilai alternatif) dalam perkhidmatan dan produk keluaran masing-masing terutamanya dalam alaf baru ini. Ini terbukti menerusi :

• Kesedaran terhadap kepentingan agama/rohani dan kesamaan nilai-nilai budaya ketimuran untuk semua kaum dalam membena negara.

• Kesedaran terhadap pentingnya kualiti, keselamatan dan kesihatan pekerjaan, pengurusan alam sekitar, revolusi teknologi dan pengurusan alaf baru dll. menerusi sistem seperti 6 sigma, ISO-Kaizen-Blitz, ISO-9000:1994, ISO-14000, OHSAS 18000, Konsep Pemetaan Minda, TQM, 7+7 peralatan QCC, pengambilalihan dan gabungan 2 atau lebih organisasi dsb.
  

• Pengetahuan terhadap pergerakan pasaran domestik dan antarabangsa. Persediaan menghadapi impak globalisasi.
  

• Mengambil contoh dari organisasi pesaing samada dalam atau luar negara dan mempelajari rahsia kejayaan mereka.
  

• Inovasi tertentu seperti teknologi maklumat yang melibatkan e-dagang, internet, multimedia, teknologi digital dan komunikasi dsb. Ini jelas dilihat hasil daripada pembangunan Koridor Raya Multimedia

• Aspirasi kerajaan Malaysia menerusi Wawasan 2020, K-Ekonomi, Daya Usaha Strategik Satu, Formula Malaysia dan keseluruhan dasar/sub-sub dasar/misi, objektif, sasaran dsb.

• Keadaan ekonomi dan politik yang masih teguh walaupun berlaku kegawatan.

• dan banyak lagi

Perkara-perkara diatas telah juga menyebabkan peningkatan dalam perkhidmatan pelanggan, penyelesaian masalah yang lebih pantas, penyesuaian terhadap perubahan pasaran dan sebagainya telah menjadi pemangkin kepada pengetahuan korporat.

Apakah dia Pengurusan Maklumat?

Ianya merupakan pengurusan yang lengkap dan teratur ke atas pengetahuan dan proses yang berkaitan. Pengurusan Pengetahuan yang betul caranya akan memudahkan pembangunan, pengumpulan, perancangan, penyebaran, penggunaan dan pemanfaatan. Antara implikasinya adalah sebagaimana berikut :

1. Perkongsian Pengetahuan dengan penuh 'ketelusan' dan 'ketulusan' demi kemajuan organisasi.

2. Inovatif - menjadikan sebarang idea bernas kepada keuntungan positif dan berorientasikan keputusan (result oriented)

3. Bekerja dengan lebih pintar dan bukannya terlalu bergantung kepada pemimpin atau sistem atau prosedur yang terlalu ketat.

Program pengurusan pengetahuan biasanya melibatkan salah satu atau lebih aktiviti-aktiviti berikut :

• Perlantikan ketua - bagi mempromosikan agenda dan membangunkan rangka kerja.

• Membangunkan pasukan pengetahuan yang terdiri daripada manusia dari pelbagai pengetahuan/kemahiran/latarbelakang.

• Membuat asas pengetahuan - amalan terbaik, senarai kepakaran, kepintaran pasaran dsb.

• Pengurusan proses yang lebih aktif - ke atas pembangunan pengetahuan, pengumpulan, penyimpanan dsb.

• Pusat pengetahuan - titik utama untuk kemahiran pengetahuan dan mempermudahkan aliran pengetahuan.

• Teknologi Kerjasama - LAN/WAN/VPN/Intranet dan lain-lain bagi mempermudahkan akses terhadap pengetahuan.

• Pasukan modal intelek - bagi mengenalpasti dan mengaudit aset yang 'tidak nyata' (intangible) umpamanya pengetahuan.

• Jaringan pengetahuan - jaringan pakar secara kerjasama dan fungsi silang - dalaman dan luaran.

• Perkongsian Pengetahuan - dalam semua bentuk komunikasi.

Panduan Kejayaan

Antaranya :

• Pemimpin yang berpengetahuan dan tahu bagaimana untuk memandu agenda ke hadapan, menggalakkan keceriaan, komitmen dan akauntabiliti.
  

• Sambutan pengurusan atasan/tertinggi - seperti CEO dsb.
  

• Jaringan pengetahuan yang betul termasuklah dari segi perniagaan/keuntungan, kebajikan tenaga kerja (aset dalaman) menerusi latihan dan pembangunan serta penilaian prestasi yang adil, tepat dan telus.
  

• Visi, Misi, Objektif, Sasaran yang dapat diukur dan mampu dilaksanakan oleh semua pihak mengikut upaya masing-masing serta menjadi rangkakerja yang akan memandu agenda kemajuan.

• Mewujudkan budaya yang menyokong inovasi, belajar/mengajar dan perkongsian maklumat. Ini biasanya berkaitan dengan penghargaan/insentif dari majikan kepada pekerja.
  

• Satu infrastruktur teknikal yang menyokong kerja berasaskan pengetahuan - daripada peralatan sokongan yang mudah ke peringkat teknologi tinggi dan kemungkinan peluang untuk menduduki pengurusan tertinggi.
  

• Proses pengetahuan bersistem - disokong oleh pakar pengurusan maklumat dan pengguna serta pembekal maklumat berkenaan.

Biasanya, agenda pengetahuan berkembang menerusi proses penilaian projek-projek peringkat permulaan yang mampu mengenalpasti keupayaan dan membangunkan sikap ingin belajar/mengajar.

Isu dan Cabaran

Antara isu yang perlu diberikan perhatian dalam kita mengamalkan 'pengetahuan itu kuasa' atau 'perkongsian pengetahuan itu kuasa' ialah :

• Fobia/Sikap inferiority complex - sikap takut untuk mempelajari perkara baru apa lagi untuk keluar dari bawah tempurung.

• Terlalu menumpukan perhatian kepada proses yang terperingci daripada proses pembangunan pengetahuan.
  

• Ingin cepat mendapatkan keputusan, malas bekerja dan selalunya mengharapkan orang lain yang lebih pandai melakukannya.
  

• Sikap 'menutup-pintu' antara unit-unit dalam sesebuah organisasi.
  

• Organisasi tidak memberikan penghargaan/insentif yang sepatutnya kepada mereka yang menyumbangkan pengetahuan.

The Star Global Malaysians Forum - Posted: 28 February 2006 at 7:12pm

Queries by e-mail

(note : I have done some editing in order to protect certain information)

anonymous wrote:

1.How do you define knowledge management (KM)? How is knowledge management different from information management?

I can answer you from the organizational point of view. I will skip the 'philosophies'.

Knowledge Management is simply defined as - capturing, organizing, and storing KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE of individual workers and groups within an organization and making this information available to others in the organization.

The difference of KM and IM is that IM is the mechanism to KM. IM (again in the organizational viewpoint) is defined as the entire process of defining, evaluating, protecting, and distributing DATA within an organization. (IM nowadays is very much related to ICT)

Note : Data - tacit (raw) and explicit (having undergoing finalisation process throughout the 'pipeline')

KM cannot function without IM as IM cannot function without ICT.

KM as I also see it (personally) is another evolution of TQM due to their similarities but with ICT and IM around, it is now known as KM.

anonymous wrote:

2. Do you agree that besides managerial and generic skills, KM managers need to have the technical or functional skills (specific KM-related skills to support knowledge processing or activities such as knowledge sharing, codification, mapping, auditing, etc...) to perform their KM roles? Why?

AGREED 100%. Technical is a MUST in the quest to becoming K-Workers. In the organizational point of view, competency or competent worker is actually related to 'having necessary qualifications, experience and technical skills' where these elements should be 'customized to the needs of the organization/industry' (generic)and NOT vice versa.

I will have to stress the fact that all Managers are KM Managers for their own/respective unit, department or section otherwise customization will not take place effectively. Of course, in some organizations, they have KM coordinators - usually parked under HR and/or IT Department.

The coordinator's basic functions is to perform IM processing and if he/she is from IT department, they need to find some solutions to 'e-enable' these processes. There are big to small scale meetings (SGA oriented) will take place usually to brainstorm on certain information and identify critical data to be garnered out.

The members of the meeting comes from various departments usually to choose the process owner' of such information going to be discussed. This information will eventually be turned into 'explicit' from 'tacit' having achieving unanimous agreement. Finally, a process flow will be drawn up and if there is a need to 'e-enable' the flow, then IT will come into the picture. The 'committee' headed by the 'process owner(s) will feed the information to IT and IT will do the rest - making things 'go a lil bit' faster - for example - data mining/capturing, classifying, coding, interface, real-time data for fast decision making.

anonymous wrote:

3. While performing your KM roles, have you ever experienced lacking some KM related skills? that are the factors viewed as contributors to such situations?

So far so good. The only setbacks that would likely to appear if :

a) I do not do a proper research to understand what sort of industry that I'm in (which I always do)
b) Cooperation from the 'target' is not given, (resisting to change)
c) office politics - bureaucracy
d) no transparency

That would be all for now..hope the above helps.

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.

The Star - Global Malaysian Forum - Posted by Yinjie83 - 01 January 2007 at 12:39pm

Q : hi there.i got a friend just graduated from monash uni australia in Msc. in KM...what kind of job normally these ppl do?how to apply job for KM ppl like them?is there any good market for KM in malaysia?

----------------------------

Nik Zafri's Response - 01 January 2007 at 6:23pm

Dear Yin Jie. first of all welcome to the Forum and the KM thread. If you read carefully, most of the thread I've posted here, you will find the prospects of KM in many facets. The common 'trends' in Malaysia (remember, I use the word 'trend') as todate that I'm aware of, KM are usually related to two core subjects :

a) Industrially-customized ICT solutions (not system, application or software as these elements are tools/mechanism) - meaning a tailored-made solution to the type of industry.

b) Human Resources (Management)- or dubbed as 'K-Workers' which is also related generically to the latest Malaysian 'buzzword' - 'Pembangunan Modal Insan' .

Q :

Dear Mr. Nik :

Few years back, I was invited by a cousin to open up a trading business – now a Sdn. Bhd. I have been appointed as the Director to this company and holding some shares in the company as well. My cousin’s friend was the other Director. My willingness to provide my name as a Director was done on a ‘family basis’ and ‘trust’.

On the other hand, my job title is Manager for this trading company and was paid a monthly salary. During my tenure and service in the company, I have signed many documents. I have never questioned or doubted my cousin’s intention and never really bothered to check whatever documents that were being given to me for signing. The trading business has greatly expanded.

Later due to some personal brawls and my observations on some ‘doubtful transactions’, I decided to give up my job and my holdings. I sent a resignation letter to the company secretary but was rejected due to :

I can only resign as a Director when there is another Director to replace me.

The Company Secretary mentioned to me that I cannot simply release the share until the audit/account/annual return has been submitted to the SSM (at the point of my resignation)

The Company Secretary also told me that my name is still listed in the e-perolehan/MOF and it would pose some trouble if there is no declaration given on the changes of Directors.

After my cousin (who is actually not the Director/Shareholder of the company) replaced my name with his wife, I resent the letter to the Company Secretary. My letter stated clearly that as a result of such resignation, all jobs, assignments, shares, liabilities etc. are deemed relinquished but was again rejected and the Company Secretary has altered the letter by stating that I have resigned only as a Director and I’ve signed it.

Together with the letter, there is also a form of 32A – Transfer of Share to the new Director which in this case – is my cousin’s wife. (This form has also been signed by me in the Company Secretary’s presence)

Later, I thought of forming up a Sdn. Bhd. to do another business but before doing so, I consulted another legal practitioner and expressed my problems to him on my previous business. At that time, I just couldn’t shake the feeling that something is wrong and there could be a conspiracy between the Company Secretary and my cousing.

I was told that I should get the printout from SSM to check my status in my previous cousin’s company which I did. To my greatest surprise, I found out that my name as a shareholder has not been dropped except my position a Director.

Encik Nik, what would be your advice on my next action?

Dear Mr. Chang

Before I go on providing you with my opinion, you must be first be foretold that I am NOT a qualified (chambered) legal practitioner. Despite I do have certain legal backgrounds on paper (cert(s) level(s)) but alas my knowledge of law (including Company Law) has been attributed to my vast experience in many industries, (it also runs in the family as most of my close relatives are renowned legal practitioners as well) besides than having connected to a vast network of consultants including legal practitioners. Thus, you can’t take 100% of my ‘so-called legal opinion’ presented herein as ‘gospel’. You should be referring my answer to your friend lawyer or contact SSM to get more official details.

First of all, I have great sympathy towards your woes. I have many friends that have jumped into this kind of ‘family pits’ and formed up a company based on trust, giving in their names voluntarily as Directors/Shareholders, signing documents without proper checking, not having knowledge on the Company Law, never knowing what are the rights and privileges thereto or the risks and consequences that are incorporated together etc.

But MOST of these cases will likely always end up in big and critical conflicts. And that’s not all, having resigning, innocent people like you may end up in courts for cases that you may not be aware off as well. I’m sad that even close relatives would play tricks on their own family line – brothers and sisters that have caused many great difficulties even have lead to divorces, fights etc. It is pointless to have a PhD or MBA or 20 years corporate experience if you use them (abuse) to cheat/swindle your own kind and to serve only your own ends while other people suffer because of your ‘smart wrongdoings’ (it's like I used to tell off crazy indiscriminate drivers of big cars "You have a big car but you have a SMALL mind - I have a small car but I have a BIG mind")

I will have to go slowly in giving my views :

Although you didn’t mentioned in your mail, I would presume that you have also resigned as the Manager of the company as well. Your resignation in the capacity of Manager is not a problem as this is being referred to the Employment Act 1955, Industrial Relations, your terms and conditions of employment etc.

Unless there is a breach in this case, then you should be referring your case to IR office (I presume your salary scale is > RM1500.00) Alas, I won’t go too far on this one but it is OK for you to check against these Laws and your Terms and Conditions in case of any possible breach (you should also look into other angles e.g. during your tenure and service with the company, has there been statutory deductions like EPF or SOCSO being made)

Your resignation in the capacity of Director and Shareholder is governed by Company’s Act, 1965.

As you didn’t tell me clearly what were the nature of ‘personal brawls’ (it helps to know cos’ sometimes the brawls may be interrelated to company matters) that you have undergone and also what kind of ‘doubtful transactions’ that have raised suspicion to you, then I would provide a general answer to match your queries but again I should remind you that you must refer to the right parties.

Yes, it is true that there must be another Director (at least 2 of them) when you talk about Sdn. Bhd. So is the next and explanation on relinquishing the shares on the condition that annual return must be submitted first AND the MOF/e-perolehan issue.

What I don’t understand are :

a. Why did your Company Secretary accepted and altered your resignation letter contents (as a Director) which he ‘devised’ to take out the relinquishment of shares as well when the 32A Form (Actually – it’s called Transfer of Securities) has also been signed in his presence?

b. And that when you got the SSM printout, you found out that your position as a shareholder has never been dropped? This can only mean one thing, the Company Secretary NEVER submitted the 32A.

c. I also need to know – in usual case – when you got the printout, there should also be some statements on status of annual return/audit submission. Can you tell me exactly, the date/year, what are the contents – anything would help.

In my personal opinion, the Company Secretary is the person at fault.

a. It is a must that the Company Secretary provides adequate training on issues of Directorship for new Directors – things like, what are their rights, what are their risks etc. It is clear; based on your letter; that the Company Secretary did not find enough time to train you on these matters and that you only knew when you have resigned. He’s a Company Secretary alright but he’s not ethical and not transparent (not to mention your cousin)

b. Find ALL the Company Resolutions that you may have signed (without checking) and clearly write to me ALL the contents of the resolutions (remember, ALL Resolutions no matter how insignificant they maybe)

c. I’m so sure that you have been given (certified) copies of all documentations related to you being one of the Director/Shareholder of the Company. If NOT, bring the printout to the Company Secretary and INSIST him to provide you with the print out. If he start giving you the old lame 'technical' excuses or trying to 'extort'/'frighten' you with some 'latin terminologies', you should consider taking up legal actions against both the Company Secretary and your cousin. It would also help if you could do a declaration of what really transpired and use this in case you have to go to the court to settle the issue. (May the force be with you!)

d. What I’m really concerned is ONE unknown possibility that might befall you in the future as ‘still as a shareholder’ of your cousin’s company - You must be able to access transactions especially those related to BANK LOANS, see the bank statements etc. I’m sorry to say that my hunch says that your cousin & the company secretary ARE really ‘up to no good’

e. Try to get some background information of your cousin (as it is funny that he didn’t use his name as a Director)

f. There is also a possibility that you should postpone your plan to incorporate a new Sdn. Bhd. company as the above issues may affect your application/approval of your future company…trust me…go one by one first.

I reckon that you have NEVER been really told about all these things during the tenure and service as a Director/Shareholder. It is a potential severe case and you MUST seek legal help as soon as possible – taking into account getting SSM’s assistance as well.

You should also write to MOF telling them your situation.

I know these actions are very hard to do due to the fact that it may jeopardize family relationships that you have with your cousin, your aunts/uncles etc. But you MUST act fast as your and your family’s future may depend on it.

Your case also reminded me of something :

I have been egoistically told by a Company Secretary once that Corporate Governance training only involved Public Listed/Berhad companies and not meant for Sdn. Bhd. (Pte. Ltd.) – as if that I don’t know. I gave him a long lecture as my response among others:

“So, you are promoting a ‘small mind’ for Sdn. Bhd. directors that they should stay put as Sdn. Bhd. and prohibited to a vision to be ‘Public Listed’ one day (to expand maybe)

“And that you are implying that Sdn. Bhd. Directors’ should NOT know corporate governance or a guy like me should not touch on the issue as it is NOT related to me?

“And that my inquisitiveness to gain knowledge should be limited and blocked because Corporate Goverance has nothing to do with me – What a typical mindset – no wonder your business NEVER expands!!”

I would like to take the opportunity to tell all Global Malaysians esp. those in Malaysia to be aware when it comes to this kind of dealings. Be careful. Always know your rights, buy legal books, read them – don’t be too naïve or too trusty even when it comes to family members. And; less but not least; remember - YOU are paying the Company Secretary for his/her services making YOU automatically reserve every rights as customers/clients TO KNOW EVERYTHING and the Company Secretary MUST oblige to your instructions and not vice-versa.

Q : Dear Nik, is there a possibility of integrating ISO 9000 and TQM

Thank your for such an interesting query. FYI, there have been endless debates by the 'so-called knowledgable people' but to tell the truth..I'm really BORED seeing the debates.

I can do a long dissertation on the answer but I won't be doing that as it will create further massive boredom among the readers.

I just go quickly by touching only on the 2 'typical' core principles of TQM (without touching too much on 6 Sigma or other quality-oriented programs) that matches the ISO 9000.

First of all, you must understand that the actual standard of ISO 9001:2000 (note the no. "1") touches too much on the compliance issues but never touched on HOW to comply according to YOUR company's requirements. (a customized and usable system)

Thus, it is an 'irony' that I have to adopt the good old TQM principles and approaches in order to make all my clients' ISO 9001:2000 system to work - otherwise I'll be lost. (Personally my tendency and support are towards TQM rather than the 'rigid' ISO 9001:2000 - which makes me 'personally' a TQM man rather than ISO man)

Principle 1 - Customer or Client or Interested Parties related to your organization (general public, end-user/consumer, shareholder, authorities etc) - This issue will be supported and communicated effectively by means of Contract/Tender (Client's requirements), Meetings with Clients, Customer Comments/Complaints Handling, Customer Satisfaction Survey, documentation/forms/checklists, data analysis so on and so forth.

Historically speaking, TQM has been focussing and talking about the significance of having a 'Customer' long before ISO 9000 was born. (Nowadays TQM has evolutionized in theory to Knowledge Management - see my other views in this thread KM - which goes deeper into business and marketing/branding)

The ISO 9001:2000 (again note the no. "1") also touched on this matter (Customer) as well but not much in terms of approach or how to do it - not only a matter of complying but also can be effectively implemented in your organization. Thus, without realizing that the companies already 'having' a system (which is based mostly on TQM before ISO came in) have 'recreated' or 'reinvented' the wheel just to comply to ISO 9001:2000 - it's such a waste!

I told many companies having TQM based system that; with proper application; they can use TQM as '2 steps ahead' to get ISO 9001:2000 but they must know how to interface or marry the 'two'.

Another core principle is Continuous Improvement - which simply means the journey must go on (this phrase is mentioned both ISO and TQM) - how? -Susceptible to the surroundings and where applicable - latest trends (the latter phrase is mentioned only and originally by TQM).

This 'Continuous' 'thing' or is again also part and parcel of TQM when "ISO 9000 was still in diapers". ISO 9001:2000 calls this phrase as Continual Improvement and very surprisingly, I was told that Continuous means in the context of quality (not English) e.g. - a series of process say..manufacturing, put to a halt and resume later while Continual is about the overall system need to be improved from time to time (what a joke!)

The irony about ISO 9001:2000 is that the mentioning of Continual Improvement is merely based on Client's Complaint on defects and poor/shoddy workmanship. It is NOT clear HOW an organization could improve internally (by its' own initiative) except when Customer started to complain.

Yes, you might say to me that "No! Nik I think you're wrong, cos I've seen companies with ISO 9000 improved their internal management or business strategy by having 'Branding'"

My answer to you is simple - "Does ISO 9001:2000 mention anything/anywhere in teh standard about 'Branding'...thus it is again related to TQM and NOT ISO - thus the approach of improving an organization is unconsciously related to TQM as TQM also touches on the significance of Advertising and Promotion. Even the interpretation of the whole elements and clauses of ISO 9001:2000 are derived from TQM without the 'interpreter' knowing that he/she is doing it!

There are more where this two 'elements' come from...suffice it to quote on 'Two' of them. You see, many have been so confused and in the end they have to make 'TWO separate quality systems'...

In Malaysia, although the TQM and ISO 9001:2000 have been given the possibility of merging, unfortunately the fact is 'it is easier said than done' - this is due to failure in the 'buzzwords' been coined a very looong time a go - "paradigm shift".

I hope that I've given you some enlightening on this matter. But this reply of mine is of personal nature...my answer is YES but the reality says NO (NO because ISO 9001:2000 is still considered 'independent' - look at the cert - thus, 'there is no rooms and allocation for TQM to be intergrated in ISO' which is not made by myself but by 'some parties' which I think is ridiculous!)