KM : Has it Faded Away?

As we are drawing closer to the end of 2007, I thought it will be a good idea to dedicate this last entry for the year on an issue that was really hot at the beginning of the year but has over the months simmered down so much that it is no longer in the popular lexicon. I am referring to Knowledge Management.

Knowledge Management (KM) used to be such a buzz word. Numerous seminars, workshops and conferences were held to decipher and understand what it is to be a Knowledge organization and how it impacts the length and breath of the organization’s business processes, human capital and strategic outlook. Even during my training / consulting programs, there will inevitably be somebody who mentions KM during our discussions and case study reviews.

So, what has happened to KM since then? Well, the way I see it, organizations that showed a keen interest in KM can be divided into 3 distinct groups : Those that showed interest but lacked the wherewithal to translate this new understanding into tangible results (which in due course killed off even the initial interest in KM); those that viewed KM as a passing interest; and those that saw a competitive advantage and promptly instituted the necessary systems and processes to benefit from KM.

To me, KM was not a fad nor was it a new invention. At best, it was a ‘dis-covery’ of an age old knowledge that we should do what we are best at and that there must be a way to codify and transfer the knowledge that we have for continuity. The age of artisans lived the KM way as did the age of industrialization; each in its own unique way assisted or limited by the prevailing technology existing then. Yet, in the age of ICT people found there to be a need to rediscover KM and take a fresh look at it all over again.

Organizations have always been about ‘knowledge’ and I dare say they will continue to be so. Knowledge is the bedrock upon which Rockefeller built his empire and on which Tony Fernandez is building his. Knowledge is what makes Toyota the number one automotive company on the planet and knowledge is also what makes Ikea such a loved name. Each has leveraged on it’s knowledge to build what the consumers want, sell at a price the consumers desire and innovate as per the fickle taste of consumers. Technology and ICT were merely enablers. I think it is worth repeating : Tech and ICT are merely enablers.

In my own OD model, I have devoted an entire process for KM which I termed Knowledge Edge. Managing knowledge is one thing but using it for competitive edge is entirely another. I suspect many organizations are probably adept at the former not the latter.

Now, lets look at a quick case in point; McDonald's. There was a time when McDonald outlets opened and closed for the day just like shopping centres : 10am-10pm. There were a few outlets here and there that were open till ‘late’ – 11 pm! Today, McD is a 24 hour operation with big screen TV and live soccer matches. Wait a minute, isn’t that just like our mamak shops? Yes it is and that’s precisely the point. The youngsters who hop into a McD for burger and fries end up later at a mamak joint because the mamak joint is open 24 hours with soccer matches thrown in for good measure. The dramatic urbanization of many parts of the country has brought about a 24-hour culture whereby the city practically never sleeps. Malaysians being Malaysians, food is the greatest time-filler. Hence McD is riding on this. Knowledge Edge at its best.

Now, lets look at another case as a contrast. Through some personal contacts in a major housing developer in the Klang Valley, I got to know quite a bit about the challenges faced by this company. These challenges can be broadly categorized into 1. Customer dissatisfaction. 2. Surprisingly high defect rates and 3. Poor sales. I was told further that other than chastising the employees for poor sales and dwindling market share, the leaders of this organization never once got their sales people, marketing people and engineering people together for any meaningful discussion. The one rare occasion when all were present in the same room, it was a session of ‘do exactly as I tell you’. It seems that the developer is targeting high end buyers and hence has branched out into high end housing and condominiums which are exclusively branded and marketed. This of course will attract the top 5 percent of the Klang Valley population. At the same time, this high end clients are a stickler for quality and extremely fussy when what they have paid for does not meet their high expectations. The brunt of their complaints and demands are directed at the ‘customer service’ department which is nothing more than an ad-hoc collection of clerks, secretaries or whoever takes a call or bumps into an irate buyer!

Ironically, these motley crew of ‘customer service’ team has come to learn quite a bit about the likes and dislikes of their customers such as the preferred flooring style, pool design, furnishings and even how the squash court should have been designed. The tragedy here is that nobody in this organization, least of all its leaders, have bothered to capture and transmit these knowledge in a way that becomes it competitive edge.

It would help a great deal to make Malaysian companies more competitive in the coming years if business leaders begin to realize that every organization is made up of a living, breathing knowledge structure. The most critical job responsibility of a Malaysian CEO in the coming years will be to find a way how these diverse knowledge structures under her command can synergize for the benefit of the entire organization.

Well friends, I wish you all a blessed Christmas and a great New Year. I am going for a much needed holiday and will be back on the 2nd of January 2008.

Cheers!

Managing Diversity

In the last 3 weeks I have spent close to 12 days down south in the manufacturing hub of Senai, Johor. During my programs there, I got to know many managers and supervisors alike. Apart from the usual issues that were discussed, they also touched on the issues relating to managing workers from other countries. As I have also come across this issue in other parts of the country, I thought it will be a good idea to look into this in this entry.

Foreign labour is already part of the Malaysian economic tapestry. The pros and cons of this, we will leave it to the politicians and the policy makers. For us, it is enough to know that they are here and we need to manage them to achieve our organization's objectives. But how different or similar is managing foreign workers compared to managing our own?

Take the case, of a group of foreign manufacturing line-operators who had such a 'bad' body odour that their Malaysian supervisor had to buy body deodorants for them or the example of a Malaysian manager who had to deal with requests for dangdut songs at part of the company's piped-music in the cafeteria.

But I think, the differences run deeper than that. If we take for example an Indian national who is a IT programmer, his social and psychological self will be very much different from us Malaysians. And, he will be more acutely aware of his socio-psychological differences when he is away from his home just as we do when we are in a foreign land. Similarly a Nepalese guard or a Vietnamese line worker will also feel these differences. A Malaysian Chinese will be entirely understanding if told not to bring pork from home into the cafeteria but for a Vietnamese worker from a village 300 km away from Hanoi, she would have no clue as to why she is being forbidden from eating something that is staple to her diet all these years. And, when this instruction is delivered with a certain sense of disdain and venom,it makes future positive relationship with her that much more difficult.

In my experience, most managers learn to deal with these differences on a trial and error basis. The ones who are failing miserably or are still unable to handle this diversity are those who:

1. view all foreign workers as homogeneous and they have one homogeneous characteristic and that is 'they are not Malaysians'.

2. has a superiority complex over these foreign workers.

3. feel that they are already burdened enough with their work without having to accept and handle cultural differences of and between foreign workers.

4. refuse to accept that these foreigners are not here merely for the money and that they also expect respect, trust, self development, a balanced work-life equation and social well being.

5. too much stereotyping of the country of origin.

6. a general lack of understanding and appreciation of the globalized nature of today's economic structure.

7. a racist and a bigot ( I have come across a few of this).


I am troubled when I sometimes hear Malaysian managers speak of these foreign workers as a temporary passing phenomena or as a necessary evil. The future of every nation in the coming years will depend on local AND much more on foreign talents that it is able to attract. Increasingly, these talents are coming from less sexier countries. My advise : Get used to it.