THE UNIVERSITY OF BURDWAN

DIRECTORATE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

M.B.A. 4st SEMESTER SESSION:

JAN 2019 TO JAN 2021
PAPER CODE: MBD 402
PAPER NAME: KM & BE

Assignment Topics
in
06 Nos Questions on KM & BE

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 05-12-2021

NAME: KUNAL DAS

ROLL NO: 3019010031

Pg. 1
 MBA-Distance (4th Semester)
(Batch: Jan 2019-Dec 2020)
Assignments Full Marks: 20
Knowledge Management & Business Excellence (MBD-402)
Answer any four questions (in your own language)

1. Elaborate your understanding on the following:

(a) Is knowledge manageable?
(b) Knowledge workers: the ideal workers?
(c) Is knowledge intensiveness a useful concept for defining knowledge work,
or does the term contain too much ambiguity to be useful?
2. Compare the two perspectives on knowledge. Which one more closely models
the nature of knowledge in the organisations that you have worked in? If these
organisations implemented knowledge management initiatives, which
epistemological perspective were they based on? Did this affect the success of
these initiatives?
3. Based on your own experience, what have been the attitudes of work
colleagues to sharing their knowledge? Have you found them to be willing to
share, or has hoarding been more typical? What are the most important
factors which explain this behaviour?
4. Prepare a short write-up on the theme ‘power, conflict and knowledge
processes’.
5. ‘Business excellence is TQM’ – Illustrate.
6. Briefly explain the concept of ‘lean’ as a business excellence tool.

Pg. 2
 Elaborate your understanding on the following:

a) Is knowledge manageable?
b) Knowledge Workers: The ideal workers?
c) Is knowledge intensiveness a useful concept for defining knowledge work, or does
the term contain too much ambiguity to be useful?

Answer:

1a) One of the big conundrums in the area of knowledge management (KM) is if what we
refer to as knowledge is indeed manageable. In the business sector, KM started being
introduced in the nineties with variable levels of success. One can easily look back and
identify massive projects that have failed and this has led to a level of scepticism on
whether KM is indeed a field in its own right or yet another management fad, created by
management consultants to sell the latest miracle cure to companies who were (and still
are) struggling with managing the ever increasing amount of data and information that are
generated internally and externally and effects the success or failure of the organisation.
The term knowledge per se is used interchangeably with the term information. Indeed, for
the normal layperson these terms may not mean different things. Theorists in the field
have tried defining the differences between data, information, knowledge and wisdom
and have come up with the DIKW pyramid which has since been updated with other
variations. There are, of course, many contributions in the literature on this topic but I will
focus on defining knowledge from the business perspective in this article and why it is
important that business organisations start paying attention to the importance of
managing knowledge.
Essentially, knowledge can be split into explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Explicit
knowledge is considered the less complex part of KM. It can be defined as all the
knowledge available within an organisation in tangible form. This can be in the form of
reports, guidelines, client files, document management systems, information systems and
where available, library collections. Together, these make up the explicit knowledge of the
organisation and although I have seen various instances where this important resource is
mismanaged, this is considered the relatively easy part of organisational knowledge to
manage. If an organisation realises the importance of having information professional
dealing with this type of knowledge, that would be a first major step in managing its
explicit information. From my experience, both the public and the private sectors in Malta
do not give enough importance to information management. In many instances this can
lead to low quality of service and increased costs.
The tacit knowledge aspect is considered the more complex type of knowledge and the

Pg. 3
one which causes headaches to knowledge managers across the world. Various academics
and authors on this topic have identified the complexities of trying to capture tacit
knowledge as the main reason why one simply cannot manage knowledge.
What is tacit knowledge? The Cambridge Dictionary describes it rather simplistically as
"knowledge that you do not get from being taught, or from books, etc. but get from
personal experience, for example when working in a particular organization". A more
elaborate definition of tacit knowledge is provided on the business directory1 which states
at the beginning of the definition that tacit knowledge is "Unwritten, unspoken, and
hidden vast storehouse of knowledge held by practically every normal human being,
based on his or her emotions, experiences, insights, intuition, observations and
internalized information."
There are studies which suggest that up to 80 per cent of an organization’s knowledge may
in fact be tacit knowledge. In the 21st century, in what we refer to as knowledge-intensive
organizations, this figure could actually be considered as realistic. With millennials being
more open to moving around and changing jobs more frequently than previous
generations, the issue of tacit knowledge and important know-how being lost when an
employee leaves an organisation is even more acute. What do organisations have to do to
try and minimize the hemorrhage of know-how every time an employee leaves or retires?
While admitting that there is no straightforward answer to this question, case studies have
shown that having a proper knowledge-sharing environment and providing incentives for
knowledge-sharing are critical success factors.
The provision of knowledge services within business organisations is an action aimed
directly as providing the right environment to facilitate the management of both explicit
and tacit knowledge. The foundations on which these services need to work are a
knowledge- sharing culture and a learning organisation. In over 30 years of experience in
both the public and private sectors locally, I must admit that I have seem very few
instances where these concepts were an integral part and parcel of an organisation's
ethos. I have witnessed more instances where individuals subscribe to the notion of
knowledge is power rather than to scenarios where one can see people naturally oriented
to sharing their knowledge with colleagues and the management providing a learning
environment which promotes continuous professional development. There are of course
some positive initiatives which can be highlighted but we are still lagging behind in this
area.
Business organisations which thrive to provide learning opportunities and insist that
employees actively engage in knowledge-sharing activities are ideally poised to be
successful in managing their organisational knowledge. The provision of knowledge
services within business organisations brings together information management,
knowledge management and organisational learning. The fusing together of these 3
components and the concerted effort to make them work hand-in-hand rather than in
Pg. 4
isolation is considered to be the best possible attempt to managing knowledge in an
organisation. As one can imagine, a team effort is needed as this scenario cannot be
possibly managed by one person.
In an ideal world, IT, HR, technicians and professionals, marketing and information
professionals should work together to try and ensure that the entire organisation is geared
towards managing explicit and tacit knowledge effectively and making it accessible to the
people who need it when they need it. As indicated earlier in this article, there must also
be the commitment and backing of all this by the top management. Embarking on such a
project without having a champion at decision-making level makes the success of such a
project much more difficult.
In conclusion, one may raise the obvious question as to why do we need to change the
way we work and start doing things differently? One cannot underestimate the fact that
working environments today are different than what they were 30 years ago. Most
businesses today are knowledge intensive organisations and operate in what we refer to
as the knowledge economy. Changes in the way we work are happening more frequently
as organisations try to maximise efficiency and minimize waste. Knowledge has become
one of the primary assets of business organisations and as we come to terms with
innovation that is brought about by technological developments (but not only), it is easy to
get distracted by quick-fix solutions and disregard what is still the most important asset of
any business organisation - people and the knowledge and experience they have. KM is
essentially about people and how they interact with each other, sharing the knowledge
they have within (tacit) and accessible through their organisations (explicit).

1b) The term “knowledge worker” was first coined by Peter Drucker in his book, The
Landmarks of Tomorrow (1959). Drucker defined knowledge workers as high-level workers
who apply theoretical and analytical knowledge, acquired through formal training, to
develop products and services. He noted that knowledge workers would be the most
valuable assets of a 21st-century organization because of their high level of productivity
and creativity. They include professionals in information technology fields, such as
programmers, web designers, system analysts, technical writers, and researchers.
Knowledge workers are also comprised of pharmacists, public accountants, engineers,
architects, lawyers, physicians, scientists, financial analysts, and design thinkers.
Knowledge workers are said to think for a living, unlike manual laborers who are paid for
performing physical tasks. Knowledge workers are differentiated from other workers by
their ability to solve complex problems or to develop new products or services in their
fields of expertise. Since the term was coined, the number of knowledge workers
continues to grow as organizations move toward a collaborative workplace that gives
more autonomy to their employees. Knowledge workers receive high salaries that reflect
the complex nature of their work and their relative independence in relation to the work
Pg. 5
process. They focus more on quality than quantity, and their supervisors should assign
them tasks based on their interests and goals, as this will influence the quality of the
completed project.
Characteristics of Knowledge Workers
• Knowledge workers possess the following characteristics:
i. Factual and Theoretical Knowledge
Knowledge workers undergo several years of formal training to master the information
needed to perform certain specialized roles. At a minimum, most knowledge-based
positions require a college degree and their learning process is continuous even after
being hired. For example, a pharmacist requires factual and theoretical knowledge of
various medications before they can dispense medications and advise patients on the use
of prescriptions and over- the-counter drugs. Likewise, a sales manager must possess
knowledge of his/her customer’s preferences and factual information about the products
sold by the company.
ii. Accessing and Applying Information
Knowledge workers must know how to identify important information from a large
database of information that they need to be familiar with. They should be in a position to
weed out less important information and focus on essential information that will help
them solve problems, answer questions, and generate ideas. Knowledge workers use
analytical reasoning and relevant judgment to address customer service issues and new
situations.
iii. Communication Skills
Knowledge work involves frequent communication between the knowledge worker and
customers, co-workers, subordinates, and other stakeholders. They must be able to
speak, read, and write, and hold discussions with workmates and deliver a presentation
when needed. Modern organizations emphasize quality customer service and continuous
product improvements that bring knowledge workers closer to the customers. Good
communication skills enable knowledge workers to work closely with other workers in
decision-making, goal setting, and brain-storming sessions.
iv. Motivation
Knowledge work requires continuous growth, due to the need to keep up with
technological developments. Workers must be interested in finding new information and
applying it in their work. With new technologies being released every day, they must
improve their skills to handle complex tasks and integrate the latest technologies into
their work.
v. Challenges and Opportunities
The demand for employees who are qualified to perform specialized roles presents both
challenges and opportunities. One of the challenges relates to the hiring and retention of
knowledge workers. With a looming shortage of knowledge workers, employers are forced
Pg. 6
to look for more effective ways of hiring the best talents and retaining them for a long
period of time. Unlike baby boomers who stick to one organization for a long period,
millennial workers, who are the majority of knowledge workers today, often serve in one
organization for just a short period of time before moving to a more rewarding role in
another organization. Employers are forced to offer higher salaries and an appealing work
environment, and to treat these employees more as co-workers rather than as
subordinates.
The shift from blue-collar jobs to knowledge-based positions presents new opportunities
for people aiming to grow their talents and expand their creativity. Knowledge workers
enjoy greater job mobility, and they can work in different time zones, at home, in airport
lounges and coffee shops. Employers recognize them as assets of the company who
possess unique talents and skills, rather than as ordinary employees who perform
repetitious tasks. The nature of the knowledge work allows the workers to gain leadership
skills since they often work as their own bosses and enjoy greater freedom to perform
new tasks every day.
• Managing Knowledge Workers
It can be difficult to measure and analyze the work performed by knowledge workers.
Knowledge workers are expected to produce creative ideas. You can’t measure the productivity or
efficiency of knowledge and ideas the same way you can with more repetitive tasks.
Although it poses a unique challenge, managing knowledge workers can be done. Their
performances and output must simply be measured in a different way. Here are five ideas
for how you can effectively manage knowledge workers:
i. Encourage them to think outside of the box
Create a workplace environment where employees are encouraged to think outside of the
box. Invite them to share new ideas in group settings but also give employees the space
they need to generate those new ideas. Many employees could benefit from having more
private spaces available to think and accomplish their work.
ii. Come up with creative ways to measure performance
It is impossible to measure ideas and creative input the way you can manage physical
steps in a process. And because the finished product is what is important, the steps along
the way are largely irrelevant. For this reason, you will need to come up with creative
metrics for measuring performance. Look at establishing longer periods for measuring
performance as opposed to every quarter.
iii. Offer support as needed
Most knowledge workers will require a certain level of autonomy. Offer knowledge
workers the freedom they need to accomplish their work and provide support and
encouragement as needed.
iv. Treat everyone as an individual
Knowledge workers will come up with new ideas and use information in different ways.
Pg. 7
Allow them to personalize their work environment, the technologies they use, and even
their schedules to a certain extent.
v. Focus on big picture thinking
Knowledge workers are often motivated by the bigger picture. Explain your motivation,
goals, and the ultimate “why” behind every new project. This will allow them to have a greater
sense of connection to the project and will increase their motivation to add to its success.

1c) Here we focus our attention on firms where the majority or even the entire workforce
consists of knowledge workers – hence the term ‘knowledge-intensive firm’ – and consider
the distinctive management challenges posed by this particular type of ‘expert’ workforce.
Even today in what many refer to as the ‘knowledge based economies’ of the developed
world, knowledge workers are still a relatively scarce resource within the labour market as
their particular knowledge, skills and expertise are not generally widely available (Horwitz
et al., 2003). Knowledge workers therefore tend to have considerable choice and latitude
regarding their place of work – particularly within knowledge-intensive firms – and
management are required to find ways of attracting and perhaps more importantly,
retaining an expert workforce as the costs of replacement in terms of time and money are
significant. Knowledge- intensive firms tend to be service-based organizations often
competing in their respective sectors based on their ability to solve complex problems and
provide solutions for clients. Law firms, accountancy practices, management
consultancies, investment banks, architectural practices, advertising and public relations
agencies are all good examples of knowledge- intensive firms. Many of these types of firms
tend to organize in distinctive ways in order to
(a) attract and retain knowledge workers and
(b) promote innovation and in some instances creativity.
Sustaining an expert workforce who are willing to create and share knowledge is crucial if
knowledge-intensive firms are to achieve competitive advantage in the long term. Yet it is
the workforce in these firms that to a large extent owns the means of production, not
management. Developing and more importantly, sustaining an expert workforce is
therefore possibly the most important strategic issue that confronts management within
these firms over time.
Here we are going to consider the structural and cultural conditions which, in
combination, support the management of knowledge work and promote the recruitment
and retention of knowledge workers in knowledge-intensive settings. In so doing we focus
on the process and practice of knowledge work. We illustrate the importance of the
interaction and integration of these organizational elements through the case of Science
Co. The distinctive organizational arrangements that developed in this firm, characterized
by an atypical culture, serve as a useful example of the importance of creating an enabling
context for the conduct of knowledge work – particularly the design of core work
Pg. 8
processes which involve creativity and innovation.

TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE-INTENSIVE FIRM

Strategic focus Resources Examples
Client-based Client relations Individually Law accountan
controlled an cy
d
practice
s
Problem- Creative problem- Team-based Advertising
solving
solving – innovation agencies,
software
development, web
design firms
Output- Adaptati o read Controlled by th Some large
based on f y organizati e management
solutions on consultancy firms

• Distinctive Characteristics of Knowledge Work & Knowledge

Workers Autonomy
Generally knowledge workers expect to have considerable autonomy in their work. The
nature of the work, which is often characterized by creativity and problem- solving,
demands autonomy. It is the knowledge workers themselves who tend to be the most
appropriate people to decide how to initiate, plan, organize and coordinate their major
work tasks. Unlike other kinds of workers, knowledge workers possess or ‘own’ the
organization’s primary means of production – that is, knowledge. They therefore expect and
demand autonomy and management is not really in a position to deny them. This is not to
say that knowledge workers work alone, typically they work in teams of varying sizes with
varying degrees of inter- dependency. In addition, it is not always the case that
management in knowledge-intensive firms shares the same levels of skills and expertise as
the expert workforce they are trying to manage. Therefore, knowledge workers’ demand
for autonomy, in combination with an insufficient understanding of the work being
conducted in some instances, means that management is typically not in a position to
directly control or even manage knowledge work processes. Therefore, it is perhaps more
appropriate within a knowledge-work setting to suggest that management’s role is to
provide the necessary enabling context that will facilitate knowledge work.

Knowledge base and working methods

Different types of knowledge worker rely, create, share and apply different types of
knowledge in their work. Thus in different knowledge work settings distinctive ‘epistemic
cultures’ can be found, epistemic cultures being ‘those amalgams of arrangements and
mechanisms . . . – which, in a given field, make up how we know what we know’ (Knorr-
Cetina, 1999). Such cultures are characterized by different social, discursive and material

Pg. 9
practices, including different levels of interaction with natural objects, sign systems and so
on. When we consider the different epistemic cultures associated with different forms of
knowledge work we start to appreciate the ‘the complex texture of knowledge as
practiced’ and how this might differ across different knowledge work contexts. Robertson
et al. (2003) found significant differences in knowledge creating practices across a
scientific consultancy and a legal consultancy which was explained in terms of
institutionally embedded means of legitimating knowledge across scientific and legal
contexts. These included different emphases on experimentation versus interpretation,
different forms of personal networking, and significant differences in the relative
importance of codifying knowledge. In scientific professions for example, claims to
knowledge are legitimized by the application of the scientific method (principally
experimental) to natural and biological phenomena. Once established and replicated
through the scientific method and validated by the scientific community, such knowledge
claims transcend particular contexts (Collins, 1985). In contrast, ‘lawyers point to the law
finding of judges and the law making of legislatures’ (Halliday, 1985). Thus the knowledge
claims of the legal profession extend only to particular jurisdictions and particular points in
time. It is also important to recognize that, as well as the broad epistemological differences
that exist between professions, such differences are also found amongst different
specialisms within a broad professional grouping (Drazin, 1990). This has implications for
management inasmuch as attempts to introduce standard work practices and procedures
(e.g. Knowledge Management systems and tools), may be perceived as contrary to the
ongoing epistemic practices and an unnecessary distraction from core work processes.

Pg. 10
Topic 2:

Compare the two perspectives on knowledge. Which one more closely models the
nature of knowledge in the organizations that you have worked in? If these
organizations implemented knowledge management initiatives, which epistemological
perspective were they based on? Did this affect the success of these initiatives?

Answer:

2) Understanding the different forms that knowledge can exist in, and thereby being
able to distinguish between various types of knowledge, is an essential step for
knowledge management (KM). For example, it should be fairly evident that the
knowledge captured in a document would need to be managed (i.e. stored, retrieved,
shared, changed, etc.) in a totally different way than that gathered over the years by an
expert craftsman.
Within business and KM, two types of knowledge are usually defined, namely explicit and
tacit knowledge. The former refers to codified knowledge, such as that found in
documents, while the latter refers to non-codified and often personal/experience-based
knowledge.
• Explicit Knowledge
This type of knowledge is formalized and codified, and is sometimes referred to as know-
what (Brown & Duguid 1998). It is therefore fairly easy to identify, store, and retrieve
(Wellman 2009). This is the type of knowledge most easily handled by KMS, which are very
effective at facilitating the storage, retrieval, and modification of documents and texts.
From a managerial perspective, the greatest challenge with explicit knowledge is similar to
information. It involves ensuring that people have access to what they need; that
important knowledge is stored; and that the knowledge is reviewed, updated, or
discarded.
Explicit knowledge is found in: databases, memos, notes, documents, etc. (Botha
et al.
2008)
• Tacit Knowledge
This type of knowledge was originally defined by Polanyi in 1966. It is sometimes referred
to as know-how (Brown & Duguid 1998) and refers to intuitive, hard to define knowledge
that is largely experience based. Because of this, tacit knowledge is often context
dependent and personal in nature. It is hard to communicate and deeply rooted in action,
commitment, and involvement (Nonaka 1994).
Tacit knowledge is also regarded as being the most valuable source of knowledge, and the
Pg. 11
most likely to lead to breakthroughs in the organization (Wellman 2009). Gamble &
Blackwell (2001) link the lack of focus on tacit knowledge directly to the reduced capability
for innovation and sustained competitiveness.
KMS have a very hard time handling this type of knowledge. An IT system relies on
codification, which is something that is difficult/impossible for the tacit knowledge holder.
Tacit knowledge is found in: the minds of human stakeholders. It includes cultural beliefs,
values, attitudes, mental models, etc. as well as skills, capabilities and expertise.
Knowledge management is multi-faceted and our understanding of current practise has
already been set by our choice of epistemology. This illustrates that the more an
organisation focuses on knowledge, he more important it becomes to understand the
epistemological implications. No epistemology can be forced upon individuals or the
organisation. By becoming familiar with the way in which colleagues, co-operators and
others understand ‘reality’, more possibilities will result and improved co-operation is
likely to evolve. An active choice can be made if you understand the alternative
perspectives.

• Knowledge in the Artefact-Oriented Epistemology

The early interest in knowledge from a management perspective was driven by an interest
in supplementing or maybe even replacing human intelligence with computer systems. By
means of computer facilitation and artificial intelligence, Decision Support Systems should
be able to amplify the knowledge embedded in the systems or create new knowledge, so
that more people would be capable of reaching an identical high-quality decision on a
given background. These authors may therefore be seen as exponents of a cognitive
epistemology. This implies that companies are open systems which create knowledge by
formulating increasingly precise representations of the surrounding. People and
organisations are capable of representing ‘the world’ in different ways – to a higher or
lesser extent in accordance with ‘reality’. In the artefact oriented perspective, more data
do not result in the creation of a new world view, but more data brings us closer to the
existing one. This is illustrated by the importance attached to making knowledge tangible.
These artefacts play an important role in identifying, collecting, managing, storing and
reusing various concepts. Knowledge is perceived as a ‘visible’ product which can be
explained, codified and stored in computer systems whereby it can be transferred just as
every other commodity. Thereby, they emphasise that knowledge can be explained and
made available via artefacts. Thus, knowledge is either an object or it forms part of a
network which helps employees find more efficient solutions because earlier developed
knowledge is made available in the form of documents, reports etc.
• Knowledge in a Process-oriented Epistemology
In our exposition, the process-oriented perspective is not as broad as the artefact-
oriented. We see it is as highly influenced by the thoughts and methods introduced by the
Pg. 12
Japanese Ikujiro Nonaka and his colleagues in the early 1990s but authors such as Prahalad
and Hamel (1990), Earl (1997) and Sullivan (1998) express similar views. In accordance
with the ideas behind process-oriented epistemology, they express that knowledge
sharing processes should be seen as a combination of humans and technology – i.e. via
both social interaction and technological transfers. This relationship and interaction are
important in the process-oriented epistemology. Furthermore, the interaction of
contrasting terms becomes core elements of the models regarding the knowledge creation
process.
The process-oriented epistemology should rather be perceived as a supplement to the
artefact-oriented epistemology than an alternative. The organising of and the organization
itself are perceived as a process and not as an information processing or problem solution
system.
One of the essential features resulting from the process-oriented epistemology is the
attempt to get a general impression of how knowledge has been created via complex
processes. At this point, we should take various aspects into account, e.g. assumptions,
values, experiences, dialogues and decisions. This results in and constitutes the context and
background of the artefacts. In the process-oriented epistemology, knowledge is perceived
as both tacit and explicit, and knowledge management is about creating interaction
between the two knowledge types so that both quality and quantity of the knowledge
portfolio are increased.

Following the implications of the process-oriented epistemology, knowledge is seen as a

dynamic factor created by social interaction between individuals and organisations.
Knowledge is active because it is action-oriented, and subjective because knowledge is
information in a certain context. Accordingly, knowledge is perceived as a “dynamic human
process of justifying personal beliefs as a part of an aspiration for the ‘truth’” (Nonaka,
1994) which is a very essential point. Therefore, an important task for management is to
ensure an ongoing dynamic adaptation of what is perceived as ‘the truth’. This search for
the truth should be regarded as a continuous process in relation to knowledge
management. It is affected by both artefacts and more unconscious actions. This means
that both tacit and explicit knowledge play an important part. The assumptions of the
artefact-oriented epistemology may, compared with the process oriented perspective,
seem fairly unsophisticated. Knowledge is seen as a static object with an objective content
that is easily distributed. This, however, does not make the perspective unimportant.
In well-defined situations, the knowledge management tools of the artefact-oriented
epistemology such as information processing systems and Decision Support Systems may
make up very valuable support to users as they enable inexperienced users to solve
complex problems. At the same time, certain standardization of solutions is ensured. This
means that everyone has the opportunity to possess the same knowledge because it exists
Pg. 13
independently of the single individual.
Thus, the artefact-oriented epistemology very clearly suggests the codification strategy as
primary strategy; a choice which is also supported by the top-down structure as
coordinating mechanism in the organisation. Companies based on the artefact-oriented
epistemology therefore often offer its customers solutions based on knowledge which has
been tested and used in other situations. This is the exact purpose of Decision Support
Systems. This re-use of knowledge saves time and costs so that more people can be served
through the system.
Knowledge in the process-oriented epistemology is characterized as a dynamic process
developed by interaction between people and technology. New data and information are
constantly interpreted and thereby the ‘truth’ is continuously adapted concurrently with
the development of the individual frameworks of understanding. The process-oriented
epistemology focuses on both tacit and explicit knowledge. Besides, knowledge is
perceived as action-oriented and subjective as knowledge is an interpretation of data in a
certain context.

Pg. 14
Topic 3:

Based on your own experience, what have been the attitudes of work colleagues to
sharing their knowledge? Have you found them to be willing to share, or has hoarding
been more typical? What are the most important factors which explain this behavior?

Answer:

3) Knowledge sharing is recognised as one of the biggest success factors for digital
organisations. A quick glance at the big 5; Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and
Microsoft, is enough to convince us that knowledge sharing is here, and it’s happening
now.
We’re entering a new era of knowledge, with collaborative platforms promoting social and
circular business knowledge, where all employees are able to participate and comment on
the practices and ideas of their colleagues. These platforms not only contain scientific,
technical and operational knowledge, but also include ideas, opinions and feedback
directly from employees and even customers. This means that tacit knowledge is strongly
reduced in favour of explicit, written knowledge, which can be accessed at any time, and
by anyone.
• Explict vs. Tacit Knowledge Sharing
It is commonly agreed that disseminating and communicating explicit knowledge is easier
than sharing of tacit knowledge (Ipe, 2003). It is rare to see studies that look at explicit
knowledge sharing alone. This is probably because sharing of explicit knowledge can be
done by means of books, manuals, video clips, databases and expert system, as well as
through formal training. Therefore, the sharing of explicit knowledge can be done easily
and requires not much encouragement for it to happen. Yet, by no means can it be
neglected. Sharing of explicit knowledge is beneficial to the organization because it can
improve employees’ ability to complete their work more efficiently in terms of time
(Hansen & Haas, 2001).
Sharing of tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is more challenging. This is because tacit
knowledge represents “knowledge based on the experience of individuals. It expresses itself in
human actions in the form of evaluations, attitudes, points of view, motivation, and
etcetera. Usually it is difficult to express tacit knowledge directly in words and often the
only way of presenting it is through metaphors, drawings and different methods of
expression not requiring a formal use of language”. As such, the tacitness of knowledge is
a natural impediment to the successful sharing of knowledge between individuals in
organization. Therefore, it is a more interesting area of research.
Tacit knowledge sharing is argued to be a product of socialization and dialectic debate
Pg. 15
among employees and it requires face-to-face interactions. Furthermore, the diffusion of
tacit knowledge requires organizations to encourage the development of individual’s meta-
abilities,
i.e. personal, acquired abilities that underpin and determine how and when knowledge
will be practiced within the organization. Thus, sharing of tacit knowledge requires a lot
effort and determination.
Nonetheless, tacit knowledge sharing is important to the organization because it
improves quality of the employees work outcomes and it signals competence to clients.
Furthermore, the presence of explicit knowledge is meaningless without tacit knowledge to
augment it. This is because only with tacit knowledge that we can put the explicit
knowledge into practice.

Regardless of the types of knowledge being shared, this study does not make any
distinction between the two types of knowledge sharing because both are important to
organizations and their employees.
• Benefits of Knowledge Sharing within an Organization
1. Make the organization’s best problem-solving experiences reusable: Once you develop
an effective solution to an issue and it turns out to be the best one so far, it allows
members of your organization to use it in all future situations. Avoiding redundant effort
by managing knowledge properly saves a lot of time and budget – not to mention that it
can significantly streamline work and keep employees’ morale up.
Knowledge sharing also improves communication among employees, both
intradepartmental and interdepartmental, according to “The Benefits of Knowledge
Management: Some Empirical Evidence” study. The members of an organization can
improve their relationship significantly by sharing and managing knowledge properly, no
matter if they work in the same or different departments.
2. Enable better and faster decision making: When customers are facing problems or you
have to solve an internal issue, analyze trends, understand competition or plan new
strategies, you tend to look for information and resources in order to support such
activities. Information overload can make this process difficult.
However, using knowledge again and again in repositories allows decisions to be based on
the actual experiences of the members in your organization. All these tasks can be
performed efficiently if it’s easy to find what you need and, most importantly, when you
need it.
3. Stimulate innovation and growth: Most businesses have the main purpose of
increasing revenue, but this can be a bit difficult when competition increases. By
managing knowledge properly, employees gain access to valuable information and
deliver better results. The organization stimulates innovation and, directly, achieves
growth a lot easier.
Pg. 16
 4. Improve delivery to customers: Customers appreciate a company that can
demonstrate its widespread expertise and the ability to use it in their benefit. Also, the
ability to deliver on time is essential and can help a company differentiate itself among
its competitors. Sharing knowledge and innovation can definitely reduce the time
required to deliver a product or a service, which results in increased win rates and, of
course, satisfied customers!
5. Reduce the loss of know-how: Know-how is another important asset in each company
and it should be exploited and managed properly. Through knowledge sharing,
organizations can capture explicit and tacit knowledge and eventually reduce their
losses.
It’s also a great way to make scarce expertise widely available to the entire organization. Classic
tools like forums, training events, presentations, white papers, etc did the job before,
but more dynamic and peer-to-peer centered knowledge sharing Q&A platforms are
making information more easily accessible now.

• Factors Discouraging Knowledge Sharing in Organisations

1. Individual Factors
Individual factors basically are personal characteristics that affect the knowledge sharing
behavior of individuals. Some of the factors that have been identified include individual
motivation, organizational commitment, perceptions of information
ownership,complementary knowledge or individual absorptive capacity, evaluation
apprehension, perceived benefits , trust in management and ethics and self-interest.
Except for evaluation apprehension and self-interest, all of the individual factors have
positive relationships to knowledge sharing behavior. In contrast, evaluation apprehension
and self-interest have negative relationships with knowledge sharing behavior.
2. Group Factors
Group factors refer to factors that relate to the relationship between the individual that is
sharing his or her knowledge and the individual who is receiving the knowledge. Some of
the group factors include social networks and group membership, group identification,
interpersonal trust, and expert status. Except for group membership, all other factors were
found to have a positive relationship to knowledge sharing behavior.
It should be noted that group membership is not team membership, which is considered
as important in knowledge sharing. Strong group affiliation is detrimental to knowledge
sharing because it creates a rigid structural configuration that is predetermined and
maintained over time. In addition, it encourages the achievement of the groups’ own tasks
and goals without grasping the idea of the company as a whole, since its members are
strongly attached to the groups, and hence they tend to resist new ideas coming from
outside. These are the reasons why group membership is negatively related to knowledge

Pg. 17
sharing.
3. Organizational Factors
Finally, organizational factors are essentially the characteristics of the organizations that
provide an environment for knowledge sharing. Some of organizational factors that have
been found to influence employees’ knowledge sharing behavior are organizational culture,
HRM practices, and capacity to learn from failure, leader support, management control,
communication climate, collaborative climate, institutional-based trust and information
technology. Of all these factors, only information technology shows either a non-
significant relationship or very weak relationship. Hendriks (1999) argued that information
technology is necessary during the process of knowledge sharing, but it is not sufficient to
improve the sharing of knowledge.

Topic 4:

Prepare a short write-up on the theme ‘power, conflict and knowledge process’. Answer:

4) Introduction:
While the power does not completely appeared in the literature of knowledge
management but not only the way people engaged in, is completely different of scientific
activities, but rather interpersonal conflicts between groups or knowledge processes are
not uncommon. It is proposed here that this is clearly linked with power. What have not
been addressed in the literature knowledge are the main causes of these conflicts. For this
purpose, the question of power should be examined, this will not only lead to inherent
potential conflict in the organization, that should be noted, but rather that's how the
power structure finds its roots in the employment relationship ,also is specified. In the
present analysis, it has been shown that power and knowledge to fully communicate with
each other, and this is another reason for this connection, which is why addressing the
issue of power is important for understanding organizational knowledge processes.
Nevertheless, not yet the general consensus about the precise definition of power and
way of its relation to knowledge aren`t existed. By examining two very effective
approaches and according to the results of the processes of knowledge, power discussion
can be raised. This analysis is divided into three main sub-sectors. The first sub-section
examines issues related to employment and conflict, and the requisite of knowledge and
thorough understanding of their dynamics it describes the strength of the relationship.
The next two sub-section separately deal with views of power. The first survey is
considered as source of strength for comments, while the second study will be related to
the work of Michel Foucault. What are common in both vision, are affinity and closed
relationship between power and knowledge.

Pg. 18
Knowledge processes: the relationship between power and conflict:
The purpose of this section is addressing the issue of why power and conflict are
important and it is required to be paid attention during survey of knowledge processes.
For this purpose, must consider employment relationship and potential conflicts in
organizations. This analysis shows how the problems of the social fabric – economic
emanated and requires that the politics and power issues to be investigated together, and
basically understanding of employment relationships or organizational conflict is not
possible without examining these issues.
Power and employment relations:
The essential characteristics of organizations, are the question of power and employment
relations which so far have not been thoroughly studied. However, some organizations
have been investigated in studies of other issues, but in this case there is still little
consensus. Because of some limitations, examination possibility of various perspective
aren`t existed. Instead, the approach has been used, covered the outline simply. And all
subsequent analysis is based on the assumptions of this view. Organizational model that
used to be here, have been summarized precisely by McKinley and Stark, argues that in
addition to efficiency, equality of the official organizations of all types, rises from their
careful attention to the issue of power / knowledge. Which can be (partly) explained by
examining the details of the nature of the employment relationship? Tensions between
employees (employees) and the organization, they work in, there are on the ownership
and control of knowledge of employees. At the same time, it is possible that their interests
and tastes with each other (workers and employers) to be compatible, and have mutual
potential benefits for both sides, which can be raised by employees support and
facilitating knowledge activities of them. On the other hand, the need for organizations to
take advantage of the economic knowledge values of their employees may cause conflict
with employees' individual goals.

Conflict, Power and Politics:

Potential for conflict in organizations comes from nothing more than the nature of the
employment relationship. The potential of interest arises between individuals and groups
in organizations. Marshall and Brady (2001), for example points to multiple organizational
realities of conflicting interests, political efforts and relations of power. This interests and
different tastes may be due to competing interests of different groups/individuals on
limited resources organization and by collisions between personal goals and strategies that
staff may be used to retain and follow development of their businesses to arise, strategies
such as consideration for the efforts of the Special/knowledge, receive financial rewards
or promotion job.
However, the possibility of conflicts arising from the nature of human behavior in
organizations, diversity of interests among groups / individuals and the goals and rational
Pg. 19
competition that form the foundation of their activity. Empirical evidence shows that the
initiative, and knowledge management plans or participation in knowledge processes is
battlefield where there are conflicts and while case studies show the tension between the
group and interpersonal conflict in organizations is commonplace. To better understand
way of formation of conflict and explaining the behavior and attitudes of people
extensively in conflict situations, we need to understand the power and conflict and the
relationship between the two. These efforts by individuals and small groups within the
political battle scenes drew been prevented, and each group of special political tactics
used and explain the different power sources.

Power in Organizations:
The strength of the potential and ability of the individual, group or organization comes so
others to be required to do certain things. The emphasis on the ability (potential) is very
important. Powerful people may not have to apply their power to do things. Just this fact
that they have the power to do things is often enough to influence their actions on others.
The most important prerequisite for power is that the person or group believes power and
this power depends on another person or group. Power is not a one-way street, while
managers have power over their subordinates, which they in turn have power
compensation or neutralizing their managers. Manager requires employees to work and
high performance power compensation or neutralizing the employees. And the road ahead
subordinates are several ways through which they can exercise their power compensation.
At the same time, he noted that the wise use of power management is crucial for success,
because of the magnitude of the effectiveness of management is important. The answer is
that organizations fundamentally have political identities that different people or different
units control the rare resources, Including money, time and personnel and information. To
meet the goals, the administrator must know that is dependent upon which their
cooperation is necessary to get things done. He has to work on current power distribution
and gather strength he needs to work so that on those rare valuable resources that are
necessary which control his job performance have power and influence. As the director of
the first line in a single gene research organization, For example, Susan Desmond Hlman
must persuade his superiors to valuable resources, namely money, scientists and
laboratory dedicated to cancer research project.

Power and knowledge processes: relations theorists:

Up to this point we only use the word of power, but did not define it precisely. The
following subsections offers two separate and different definition from power. It generally
takes up to two quite distinct views as to what is power and what is the meaning of your
actions. In addition to the definition of power, in these two views of relationship between
power and knowledge and obtained results from them, will be discussed. A common thing
seen in both views is that knowledge and power are so closely linked, and the idea of
Pg. 20
organizational knowledge processes will strengthen that we examined and said we should
pay special attention to the question of power. Thus not only having power and use of
processes of knowledge is effective, (as in the example of Story and Barnett explained),
also knowledge process itself, the characteristics, distribution, and use of power in
organizations is also impressive.

Conclusion
While the two different views about the strength was evaluated, both of these views
reached to conclusion that for effective recognition and analysis of the dynamics of
organizational knowledge processes, the question of power must be examined carefully.
The first is that power is placed within the employment relationship between employees
and organizations and the possibility of conflict between employees and employers over
the use of the knowledge without addressing the issue of power would not be justified.
Second, understanding the dynamics of internal conflict about the how knowledge should
be used, for example, groups and individuals who are interested in sharing their
knowledge with others, will be explained only by addressing the question of power. And
finally, power and knowledge are interrelated and are non-detachable. In short, the
centrality of power in knowledge processes is one of the results of this analysis this means
that any analyst irrespective of the question of power, is relatively void. For example,
power will help address the social aspects / knowledge to understand and explains human
processes, processes such as willingness or unwillingness to participate in the processes of
organizational knowledge. The key in knowledge management decisions about which
critical knowledge / non-linked and which is located on the edge of knowledge / and
power key role in this process have been adapted.

Pg. 21
Topic 5:

‘Business excellence is TQM’ Illustrate.

Answer:

5) TQM stands for total quality management. This structured approach offers a
comprehensive method for organizational management that focuses on improving the
quality of services and products produced. It does this by providing ongoing improvements
based on feedback.
Requirements of TQM may be separately defined for your specific organization. They may
also be based on established standards. One example of this would be the International
Organization for Standardization’s ISO 9000 series.
However, TQM can work for any type of business and has been applied across almost
every industry. Although its roots are in the manufacturing sector, the basic tenets of TQM
make sense anywhere, similar to how Six Sigma has been widely adapted.
The Four Sequential Categories of TQM: Total quality management can be divided into
four categories in a sequence.
• Plan
• Do
• Check
• Act
During the Planning phase of TQM, workers get specific about the problem that is being
addressed. They also collect relevant data and try to find the root cause of the issue at
hand.
Next, comes the Doing phase. This is when the team develops a solution and implements
it. They also need to come up with a way of gauging whether or not their attempt was
successful or to what degree it succeeded.
Then there’s the Checking phase. As the name suggests, the results of the attempt need to
be confirmed as either successful or not. This is generally done with before-and-after
comparisons of data.
Finally, we have the Acting phase. The main action being taken is simply recording what
happened. After documenting the results, they then inform the appropriate parties about
them and make recommendations about how to best use this information.
Total Quality Management as a Business Philosophy
Total Quality Management (TQM) is a comprehensive system for achieving continuous
improvement in customer satisfaction. It is a philosophy of total integration of the
business to achieve the required result. The goal is to achieve greater efficiency and
effectiveness, lower operating cost and increased market share.
Pg. 22
TQM practices focus on satisfying customer needs. This means making the needs of the
customer the priority, expanding the relationship beyond traditional services and
incorporating the customer’s needs in the company’s business plan and corporate
strategy.
TQM philosophy is so called because:
- It involves every single piece of work done in the organization
- It involves everybody in the organization
- It requires total commitment.
The aim of TQM is to achieve zero defects in everything done in the organization, i.e. to do
error-free work. To achieve this means everything we do must be right, first time, every
time. The common theme in TQM is "get it right first time, every time’’.
TQM means changing the way people do things so as minimize the potential for defects.
The TQM approach uses statistical methods to find problems that cause errors or defects.
The aim is to achieve 100% in everything done in the organization i.e. we aim at
perfection.
Quality systems integration requires that the business looks out for the customer while
the customer looks out for the survival of the business. For, if there is no business, there
will be no product. If there is no product, customers’ needs cannot be met..
We must aim at 100% quality because doing otherwise leads to wastage. To appreciate
the effects of mistakes, consider a process that is 99% perfect. That process will produce
10,000 defects per million parts. The total yield (number of non-defective units) from a
process is determined by a combination of the performance levels of all the steps making
up the process.
If a process consists of 20 steps and each step is 98 percent perfect, then the performance
of the overall process will be 66.7608%. Thus, the process will produce 332,392 defects
per million parts.
Excellent organizations allow for no more than 3.4 defects per million parts in
manufactured goods or 3.4 mistakes per million activities in a service operation. A process
will need to be 99.99966% perfect in order to produce only 3.4 defects per million. This is
called the six sigma approach to TQM.
Achievement of excellence requires totally committed leadership. It is the role of top
management to communicate the vision of the organization, its mission and philosophy,
and channel the energies of their people towards the achievement of set goals.
Achievement of excellence therefore is rooted in having a clear vision, mission and
philosophy.
Vision is a total concept of what an organization is trying to become. It seeks to focus the
organization on the future. Vision must give focus and a sense of direction. Peter Drucker
has said, "The definition of vision must be rooted in providing answers to probing

Pg. 23
questions such as ‘‘What is our business? What will it be? What should it be?’’
Mission seeks to answer the question "What are we here to do?’’ It is an umbrella
statement. Anything that falls within that umbrella is what the company does, anything
that does not fall within it the company does not do.
Peter Drucker has said "a business is not defined by the company’s name, statutes, or articles
of incorporation. It is defined by the want the customer satisfies when he buys a product or
service. To satisfy the customer is the mission and purpose of every business.’’ The question
"what is our business?" can therefore be answered only by looking at the business from
the outside, from the point of view of the customer and market. What the customer sees,
thinks, believes, and wants, at any given time must be accepted by management as an
objective fact. To the customer, no product or service, and certainly no company is of
much importance. The customer only wants to know what the product or service will do
for him tomorrow. All he is interested in are his own values, his own wants, and his own
reality. For this reason alone, any serious attempt to answer, "what our business is" must
start with the customer, his realities, his situation, his behaviour, his expectations, and his
values.’’
Corporate values are the underlying beliefs about what the organization considers
important in its everyday endeavor. The sum of these beliefs in an organization constitutes
the organizations shared values. This is sometimes called the corporate culture and is
expressed by the statement, "the way we do things around here". A management guru
once said "values are the heart and soul themes around which an organization rallies, they
define its main beliefs and aspirations, its guiding concept of "who we are, what we do,
where we are headed and what principles we will stand for in getting there." They drive
the corporate culture.
To build an excellent organization there must be a "goodness of fit" among the key
variables that make the whole organization. One enduring framework you can use is the
McKinsey 7S framework, once dubbed the happy atom, with shared values at the heart of
the atom.
So how does all this tie in with managing your various type of businesses? Every business
is a creative business. Every business is an art, not a science. We are engaged in the art of
making money on the basis of grossly insufficient information. We must therefore learn to
blend scientific efforts with creative skills.
Organizations pass through different growth phases. As the firm grows it should strive to
preserve its original guiding principles. It should develop deeply held convictions and a
simple and intelligent business philosophy. This philosophy should be guiding, but is
should not be inflexible.
An organization is strategy built around people, and their talents. Each person should
strive to concentrate on what he or she can do best, or at least do well. This reality calls
Pg. 24
for constant communication both within and outside of the organization, relative to the
goals of the organization.
A successful firm is willing to invest in technology to remain on the leading edge, and its
members reflect a willingness to learn and an urge to tinker.
For sustained success, a business must stay entrepreneurial. Often, the tendencies that
come with growth are to turn inward, away from customers, to set up a hierarchy and a
lot of committees, and frequently to encumber the skilled managers with too many other
duties. Really good people do not wish to be actively managed. Both Peter Drucker and
Joseph Schumpeter said that retaining the spirit of entrepreneurship is accomplished
primarily by defying tradition, challenging orthodoxy, breaking up the old, selecting niches,
and recognizing that bureaucracy and success are irreconcilable. Jack Welch said the "best
way to deal with bureaucracy is to kill it."
The results of the studies imply that as much as the degree of market competition goes
higher, the relationship between organizational performance, TQM practices of product
design, and TQM practices of customer focus becomes more positive. For the purpose of
customer satisfaction enhancement and business excellence, the role of TQM practices
such as product design and customer focus are undeniable and essential. Customer
satisfaction, which one of its foundations is a good customer related performance is one
of the high valued objectives of the TQM implementation. Specific organizational practices
and employees’ perceptions of quality management principles can be linked together and
they would finally lead to customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction, in turn can cause
the business excellence for the organizations. In order to improve the customer
satisfaction, some methods have been identified and among these methods, some of the
most common ones are: (1) developing relationship with customers, (2) offering a greater
service, (3) keeping close with the customers,
(4) respond to the changes in the customer expectations, (5) support networks
development,
(6) commitment to the customers, (7) implementation of an efficient complaint handling
process. In summary, Quality (with capital Q) is the key to business growth and success.
Aim unequivocally to be the best, focus single-mindedly on your customers, hire and
retain talented people and create an environment that will engender their creativity. Avoid
bureaucracy, have a clear vision, develop a coherent business philosophy and stay lean. In
effect strive for excellence.

Pg. 25
Topic 6:

Briefly explain the concept of ‘lean’ as a Business Excellence tool.

Answer:

6) It is a mistake to think of lean as just one of the many tools in the

Operational
Excellence portfolio. Operational Excellence is really a catch all label for many
different "best practices". Lean on the other hand is a very specific set of
interlocking practices, tools and behaviours derived from a very clear reference
model. Lean grew out of years of practice and experimentation at Toyota and at
companies in other sectors that have followed their example. It did not come from
applying theoretical insights to business practice.
Correctly understood, lean is a much more fundamental and comprehensive
approach to solving business problems and creating value for customers. It is also a
great deal more than engaging employees in continuous improvement and
eliminating waste.
One of the key things that distinguishes lean is its scope – which encompasses the
whole value creation process – such as a global supply chain or an end-to- end
patient journey. Instead of developing new support systems - such as better
forecasting or decision support systems - lean focuses on the actual work that
creates the value customers pay for, which lean thinkers call value streams.
Lean brings many different tools to bear so each value creating step can be
performed right first time on time, then links the steps together in a physical flow or
through pull signals and then levels the workload to align capacity with demand. As
the primary value creating work begins to flow lean applies these tools to
synchronise all the supporting activities that enable the primary value stream to
flow and all the elements a customer needs to solve their problem
– such as the test results, medications and therapies for a hospital patient. This in
turn requires the right lean management to ensure the work can flow according to
plan, to escalate issues and unblock obstacles to flow and to support root cause
problem solving.
The net result is a value creation system designed back from the customers’ definition of
value and around the activities that create this value, more accurately and with far
less wasted effort and cost. While most organizations cut their teeth leaning their
existing activities the true potential of lean comes from the opportunity to redesign
the next generation products or services and the value streams that deliver them
Page 26
without the drag of existing assets. Manufacturers are for instance now looking to
local rather than distant “low wage” suppliers and polyclinics are now offering
services previously only available in big district hospitals.
The other thing that distinguishes lean is its depth. The more activities are linked
together and synchronized and the physical or time buffers between them are
removed the more the operation of the whole systems depends on the skills,
behaviours and direction of every employee.
On the one hand such an integrated system multiplies the probability of
interruptions that must be responded to quickly. On the other hand it provides
extremely valuable feedback on the causes of these interruptions and other
changes, which may otherwise be hidden or lost. It is precisely to leverage this
feedback that the core lean skills are not just the tools and techniques, but the use
of the scientific method to define and diagnose a problem, understand the facts, try
several countermeasures and check which of them solved the problem. Because
solving problems can only be done by combining a detailed knowledge of the work
with the context of the problem these skills need to be learnt by every employee,
not just the experts. Developing these skills and using this experimental approach to
constantly improve the performance of each value stream is learnt by doing rather
than in a classroom.
In order to enable value streams to flow across facilities, departments and
organisations someone has to take responsibility for creating the conditions for
collaboration between all the actors involved. Lean chief engineers, project
managers and value stream managers carry the responsibility for the performance
of their product, project or value stream while the authority over the resources
needed to accomplish this remains with vertical department of function heads. The
keys to making this work are agreeing the right metrics for tracking the operation
and performance of the system as a whole and creating the right visual
management context in which to gain agreement from all parties on the facts of the
current situation and to commit to a jointly agreed plan going forward. The team
then reviews deviations from the plan very frequently, unblocks any obstacles and
captures any learning for the future. Lean thinkers use visual management
everywhere precisely because it reinforces collaborative behaviours.
Highly transparent and interdependent systems throw up literally thousands of
possible things that could be improved across an organisation. The skill of a lean
leader is to be able to set the direction and to focus everyone’s efforts on the vital
few things that will make the biggest difference to the organization, its customers,
employees and shareholders. This means being able to translate organizational
goals into measurable gaps that need to be closed and using strategy deployment to

Page 27
create a dialogue down the organization to agree the actions that will contribute to
closing these gaps, so these can be adequately resourced while others are
deselected. It also means diagnosing and addressing the underlying causes of
instability - such as the amplification of orders passed upstream or discharge delays
causing queues for admission to a hospital. Finally leaders must act to use the freed
up capacity or cash to reduce costs and grow sales without requiring additional
capital.

Its philosophy focuses on “making obvious what adds value by reducing

everything else”. Elimination of waste, however, is not the only thing that Lean is
concerned about. The common goals of the Lean principle include:
• Quality improvement: This puts emphasis on the organization making
conscious efforts to gain an understanding of the needs and wants of the
customers, and developing design process that will enable them to meet those
requirements and preferences.
• Waste elimination: If there are activities or resources of the company that
are being wasted, or causing the company to have waste, and does not add value
to the product or service, then there is a need to eliminate them.
• Activity time reduction: If the organization can shorten or lessen the time
it takes to perform one process or activity, without compromising on quality and
incurring waste, then it should do what it can. The less time it would take, the
less costs will be incurred, and there will also be less waste.
• Cost reduction: Profit maximization is always on the sights of all
organizations, and one way to do that is to reduce overall or total costs.
Lean also based its principles from that which was originally introduced by TPS.
However, Lean took it a step further by introducing its own 7 wastes or ”muda”,
with the acronym TIMWOOD.
1. Transport – These are waste incurred during the act of moving products
or materials
that are not really needed for production.
2. Inventory – These refer to the items or components in inventory that are
not being processed but are merely being held in storage in the In-Process and
Finished Goods inventories.
3. Motion – Equipment, machinery and manpower may be moving more than
is necessary during the production process.
4. Waiting – Waste may also be incurred in between steps or stages of the
production process, when there is a waiting period.
5. Overproduction – If the organization produces more than the demand, or

Page 28
produces when there is no demand yet, waste is incurred.
6. Over Processing – There is waste if the product underwent too much
production or processing, such as re-tooling or rework, due to poorly performing
equipment and tools and a poorly-designed production process.
7. Defects – Inspection, detection and fixing of defects will also lead to waste
when there should have been no defects from the very beginning.

• 5 Principles for Operational Excellence in Manufacturing

1. Sort: Sort and separate necessary and unnecessary items in the area.
2. Set in Order: Set in Order is the process of putting everything in a place that is
easy to get to. All items should be clearly marked so anyone could easily find its
proper home.
3. Shine: Shine is most likely the most literal of the pillars for Excellence from the
Lean 5S Guide
- it literally means to remove all the dirt and grime and to keep the workplace
clean on daily basis.
4. Standardize: This is essentially the process of turning your good plans into good
habits! At this stage there are 3 major suggestions: 1) Make sure that each
employee knows his responsibilities, 2) Make it a part of their daily routine, and 3)
Periodic evaluation.
5. Sustain: Probably the most challenging stage, Sustain is the final pillar of the 5S
system, and its Chief objective is to give your staff the commitment and
motivation to follow each step, day in and day out.

Page 29