Total Quality Management, 2013

Vol. 24, No. 6, 664 677, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.791097

Knowledge creation through quality management

Muhammad Asifa , Henk J. de Vriesb and Niaz Ahmadc
a

College of Business Administration, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi

Arabia; bRotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, PO Box 1738, Room T10-42,
NL 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; cNational Textile University, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Organisations use quality management (QM) to improve process performance.
However, further improvements and business excellence require acquisition and
integration of new knowledge organisation-wide. It is a challenge for managers to
design and execute QM practices so that they create new knowledge as well. This
article shows how six QM practices (continuous improvement, statistical quality
control, customer satisfaction management, process-improvement techniques,
individual learning, and new product development methods) can contribute to the four
types of knowledge-creating processes (socialisation, externalisation, combination,
and internalisation). Such knowledge can be created through multiple channels and at
various organisational levels. This article is new in describing the dynamics of how
knowledge can be created through QM. This is relevant for both researchers and
practitioners.
Keywords: quality management; knowledge creation; heterogeneous knowledge;
continuous improvement; exploration; exploitation

1.

Introduction

Interest in quality management (QM) has increased in many sectors because it is known to
improve organisational performance. It is widely believed that the underlying practices in
QM are essential for effective management and help to generate a sustainable competitive
advantage. While QM can improve the performance of existing organisational processes,
dynamic market conditions also require an organisation to explore and innovate (Owlia,
2010; Yang & Wei, 2010). Organisations need to simultaneously exploit existing
resources and explore new skills, capabilities, and resources to meet emerging challenges.
Demings (1994) System of Profound Knowledge also strongly emphasised knowledge creation: Best efforts and hard work, not guided by new knowledge, only dig deeper
the pit we are already in (p. 1). While QM has been in practice for a long time, the question arises of which underlying processes lead to performance improvement, and how
knowledge can be created through QM practices. The existing literature shows a
tension between QM and knowledge creation. For example, Benner and Tushman
(2003) noted that QM practices facilitate the exploitation of existing resources but
dampen exploration, a knowledge-oriented function. This is because the development of
systematic structures by QM could cause rigidity and bureaucracy, and so hamper innovation. Furthermore, the link between QM and knowledge creation has not been developed
in concrete terms (Choo, Linderman, & Schroeder, 2007; Linderman, Schroeder, Zaheer,
Liedtke, & Choo, 2004), and there is a need to understand how knowledge creation can
take place through QM practices.

Corresponding author. Email: muhammad.assif@gmail.com

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Total Quality Management 665

Using the well-known theory of knowledge creation (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), this article examines how various QM practices could create new knowledge
and give rise to a dynamic QM system capable of addressing the emerging challenges.
This article challenges the notion that QM practices are beneficial for organisations in
stable contexts, but not for knowledge and innovation-oriented contexts (Benner &
Tushman, 2003). We argue that QM practices can be designed to create knowledge.
The main contribution of this article is twofold. First, it provides an elaborate account
of knowledge creation through QM practices and second, it shows how QM practices
can be designed and executed for knowledge creation. The next section of this article
describes the theory of knowledge creation. Section 3 examines the role of QM practices
in knowledge creation. The article ends with conclusions and discussion.

2. Theory of knowledge creation

Nonaka (1994) and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) showed that knowledge is created
through interactions between tacit and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is contextspecific and difficult to transfer (Nonaka, 1994). It involves both cognitive and technical
aspects. The cognitive element involves mental models that help to understand situations,
whereas the technical aspect relates to skills that apply to the context. For instance, in customer service understanding customers problems through listening to them is the cognitive element, whereas the skills required for handling complaints and fixing problems are
the technical aspects of tacit knowledge (Linderman et al., 2004). Explicit knowledge, on
the other hand, can be codified and transferred through formal languages and formal
modes of communication. Examples include procedures, specifications, formulas, and
documented best practices.
Theory of knowledge creation contends that knowledge is created through a continuous process in which tacit and explicit knowledge interact and give rise to new knowledge.
The four types of knowledge-creating processes are socialisation, externalisation, combination, and internalisation (Table 1).
Socialisation is the process of sharing experiences and thereby conveying tacit knowledge from one person to another. Thus, a more experienced person shares mental models
and technical skills with others. This interaction occurs without dialogue or use of
language and involves observation, imitation, and practice. It requires face-to-face interaction and allows people to understand and incorporate feelings in the knowledge-sharing
process. Socialisation creates new knowledge through shared experiences (tacit knowledge) and is important for a firm for three reasons. First, it enables employees to share
experiences and know-how. Second, it improves communication, decision-making and
productivity within the firm, and third, it is a powerful source of sustainable competitive
advantage because tacit knowledge is difficult to imitate.
Table 1.

Knowledge creation from interactions between tacit and explicit knowledge.

To

From

Tacit knowledge
Explicit knowledge

Tacit knowledge

Explicit knowledge

Socialisation
Internalisation

Externalisation
Combination

Sources: Nonaka (1994) and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995).

666 M. Asif et al.

Externalisation involves converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. The
purpose of externalisation is to make tacit knowledge understandable to others. Since
tacit knowledge is difficult to store, organisations usually transform it into explicit knowledge. This is carried out by conceptualising the subjective knowledge of employees into
forms such as metaphors, analogies, hypotheses, procedures, manuals, and models.
Through externalisation, organisations can disseminate tacit knowledge throughout the
organisation. Storytelling is seen as one form of externalisation whereby less formal
tacit knowledge is made more explicit (Huff, Floyd, Sherman, & Terjesen, 2009).
Combination is the process of combining different types of explicit knowledge into a
new whole. Existing explicit knowledge is re-catalogued and expanded into new explicit
knowledge, for example, when a controller puts together information from across a corporation and creates a financial report (Huff et al., 2009). Knowledge creation through combination also takes place during discussions and meetings where bodies of explicit
knowledge are combined for decision-making.
Internalisation is the process of converting explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge.
For explicit knowledge to become tacit, it helps if the knowledge is verbalised or diagrammed into documents, manuals, or oral stories (Linderman et al., 2004). Internalisation
could be defined as learning by doing. For example, when explicit knowledge is shared,
employees internalise the information, extend their own knowledge and, in many cases,
reframe their own tacit knowledge (Huff et al., 2009).
Knowledge creation, thus, takes place through interactions between explicit and tacit
knowledge, also called the knowledge spiral. In this way, it disseminates from individual
knowledge into organisational knowledge. The different forms of knowledge, resulting
from interplay, transformation, amplification, and (horizontal and vertical) dissemination,
are referred to as heterogeneous knowledge. Depending on the mode of creation, heterogeneous knowledge can take the form of work instructions, procedures, manuals, mental
models, concepts, analogies, metaphors, and personal stories. It can exist at the strategic
level where it is needed for devising and formulating strategy, at the tactical level
where it is required for devising business plans, and at the operational level where it is
embedded in day-to-day operations and routines. The creation of heterogeneous knowledge is important for two reasons. First, whenever knowledge undergoes conversion
from any of these four knowledge-creating processes, it is amplified and moves to a
higher ontological level. Employees gain greater insights and a higher level of understanding and this knowledge is then disseminated at group, organisational, and inter-organisational levels (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Second, while knowledge is
an important organisational resource and determinant of sustainable competitive advantage (Grant, 1996), heterogeneity of resources is another determinant of sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). Heterogeneous knowledge could, thus, provide a
competitive advantage that hinges on QM.

3. The role of QM practices in knowledge creation

In this chapter, we examine the literature on the contribution of QM to knowledge creation
and distinguish between the two streams of literature. One focuses on the possible role of
QM in knowledge creation, the other addresses the dual role of QM in knowledge creation
and effective utilisation of resources. We then explore the possible contribution of six QM
practices to the four types of knowledge-creating processes: socialisation, externalisation,
combination, and internalisation.

Total Quality Management 667

The first stream of literature examines possible links between QM and knowledge
management, and whether QM practices lead to knowledge creation in an organisation.
Alazmi and Zairi (2003), for instance, summarised the critical success factors of knowledge management. Many of these factors are also elements of QM, which shows that
QM and knowledge management share some common elements and can be integrated
to improve organisational performance. Adamson (2005) argued that TQM and knowledge
management are interlinked and that knowledge management could be the next generation
of TQM. Research by Choo et al. (2007), Linderman et al. (2004), and Linderman, Schroeder, and Sanders (2010) focuses on the possible link of QM and Six Sigma with knowledge
creation. Their findings suggest that QM practices can be integrated with knowledge-creating processes. Similarly, a number of publications have explored the relationship of QM
and knowledge management from a business performance perspective. For instance, Tsai,
Li, Lee, and Tung (2011) found that knowledge management moderates the effect of enterprise resource planning on business performance. Molina, Montes, and Fuentes (2004)
found that the implementation of TQM and ISO 9000 can enhance the transferability of
knowledge among different functions. Other publications addressing the relationship
between QM and knowledge creation include Hsu and Shen (2005), and Stewart and
Waddell (2008). The overall message of these studies is that QM practices can positively
contribute to an organisations knowledge management initiatives.
The second stream of literature goes beyond the exploration of the possible relation
between QM and knowledge management and investigates the effect of QM on knowledge
creation and effective utilisation of resources. Noteworthy examples in this stream include
Benner and Tushman (2003), Kim, Kumar, and Kumar (2012), and Zhang, Linderman, and
Schroeder (2012). Benner and Tushman (2003) argued that QM practices facilitate the
exploitation, i.e. effective utilisation of organisational resources but dampen the
exploration, i.e. creation of knowledge leading to innovation. Zhang et al. (2012)
argued that QM practices have two types of orientations: quality exploitation and
quality exploration. The former produces the best results in a stable environment,
whereas the latter is more successful in a dynamic environment. Kim et al. (2012)
provide empirical evidence of a positive relationship between QM practices and several
forms of innovation.
These two streams of literature provide a better understanding of the relation between
QM and knowledge creation. However, research has yet to establish the dynamics of
knowledge creation through QM practices. This article explores the role of QM in knowledge creation. More specifically, we show how six QM practices can contribute to knowledge creation. These practices, the reason for their inclusion, and some core sources are
summarised in Table 2.
3.1 Knowledge creation through continuous improvement (CI)
CI is the core element of a QMS (Dean & Bowen, 1994). An organisations growth
depends on how it achieves improvements along various dimensions of strategy and operations. The true challenge for organisations is to foster CI from multiple channels and at
various organisational levels. During CI, knowledge creation from socialisation (tacit to
tacit) results when management forms teams and promotes teamwork to achieve improvements. Examples include quality circles and kaizen (Imai, 1986), on-the-job-training,
group problem-solving, and small-group activities. These QM practices hinge on extensive teamwork to bring about CI. Augier, Shariq, and Vendel (2001) and Choo et al.
(2007) have stressed the need to develop an environment that stimulates teamwork. For

668 M. Asif et al.

Table 2.

Illustrative QM practices and their literature base.

QM practice
CI

SQC

Customer
satisfaction
management

Processimprovement
practices

Individual learning

Product/service
design methods

Reason for inclusion

Supporting literature

CI is one of the main pillars of QM

and requires organisations to
seek, create, utilise, and
assimilate knowledge on a
continuous basis. CI and
knowledge management,
therefore, go hand in hand
Fact-based decision-making is one
of the underlying principles of
QM. SQC helps to achieve this by
collecting, analysing, and using
data for such decision-making
Listening to customers during
design and development, and
improving after sales service and
overall customer experience
require knowledge creation and
assimilation on a continuous basis
Process management is aimed at
improving process performance
for economic, environmental, and
social benefits. Since process
improvement requires state-ofthe-art knowledge, it is a
knowledge-oriented function
Individual learning is pivotal for CI,
knowledge creation, and for the
overall QM system of an
organisation. Demings system of
profound knowledge strongly
emphasises individual learning
Excellence and innovation in
product/service design requires
this function to be knowledgeintensive. Therefore, knowledge
creation must be integrated in the
QM system of an organisation

Alavi and Leidner (2001), Anderson,

Rungtusanatham, and Schroeder
(1994), Choo et al. (2007), Deming
(1994), Linderman et al. (2004),
Rungtusanatham, Forza, Filippini,
and Anderson (1998)
Ahire, Golhar, and Waller (1996),
Choo et al. (2007), Flynn, Schroeder,
and Sakakibara (1995), Linderman
et al. (2004)
Ahire et al. (1996), Dean and Bowen
(1994), Rungtusanatham et al.
(1998), Samson and Terziovski
(1999)
Choi and Eboch (1998), Flynn et al.
(1995), Rungtusanatham et al.
(1998), Saraph, Benson, and
Schroeder (1989), Sharma (2006)

Anderson et al. (1994), Deming (1994),

Rungtusanatham et al. (1998)

Ahire et al. (1996), Curkovic, Melynk,

Calantone, and Handfield (2000),
Flynn et al. (1995), Saraph et al.
(1989)

example, Japanese organisations promote knowledge transfer through socialisation by

designing open space offices (Yoshihara, 1977) that stimulate frequent interaction
among employees. These QM practices provide an important means of knowledge creation through socialisation.
Knowledge creation from externalisation occurs when tacit knowledge is converted
into explicit knowledge. Organisations retain explicit knowledge in the form of rules,
directives, manuals, procedures, work instructions, and checklists. Externalisation offers
a useful way to integrate experience-based, tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge.
This allows employees to develop conceptualisation of knowledge and to make it accessible to more people, paving the way for organisation-wide CI. Management reviews and
upgrades of management manuals, procedures, and task-specific work instructions are
examples of externalisation and bring about CI at strategic, tactical, and operational

Total Quality Management 669

levels. Other examples of knowledge creation through externalisation include standardisation, best-practices manuals based on employees experiences, and visual management
whereby employees make process improvements explicit and more visible based on
their tacit knowledge.
Knowledge creation from combination (explicit to explicit) takes place in management
reviews where managers combine data from various sources to make informed decisions.
Combination provides a means to improve products and services by channelling data and
information among customer service, R&D, production, and other organisational functions. The synthesis of knowledge based on information from multiple channels facilitates
a pragmatic approach towards problem-solving and CI. Other examples of knowledge creation through combination include exchange of information among departments, individuals, teams, and with suppliers. Regular upgrades of procedures and work instructions
based on information from different functions and data sources are also examples of CI
based on combination.
Knowledge creation through internalisation (explicit to tacit) takes place when
employees use procedures and work instructions to execute their tasks. Internalisation
leads to knowledge creation in multiple ways. First, task execution leads to learning by
doing and to enhanced comprehension of processes. The cognitive element of tacit knowledge (i.e. mindful task execution) allows individuals to reframe their knowledge, leading
to conceptual clarity and knowledge creation at a higher level. Second, execution of processes and QM practices over a period of time leads to the development of routines. Routines are embedded in the dynamic interaction of multiple knowledge sources and are more
firm specific and less transferable, thus leading to a sustained competitive advantage
(Peng, Schroeder, & Shah, 2008).
3.2

Knowledge creation through statistical quality control (SQC)

SQC is a pivotal element of QM as it deals with data collection and analysis in order to
improve process performance. The dominant mode of knowledge creation in SQC is combination where data are collected, analysed, and compared with past data and emerging
trends. However, knowledge creation in an SQC system can also take place from other
interactions.
Knowledge creation from socialisation takes place during group discussions on
process performance and SQC results. Such discussions usually involve people from operations, design, engineering, and QM and are aimed at finding ways to improve processes
based on collected data. The use of SQC tools and techniques involves both cognitive and
tacit elements. The cognitive element is about thinking, reasoning, remembering, comparing, and interpreting results, whereas the tacit element is about executing tasks. While the
cognitive element leads to enhanced understanding of SQC, the tacit element leads to more
efficient task execution. The cognitive element comes from sharing SQC knowledge
among individuals, from discussions, and from conceptualising in the form of mental
models. The tacit element, on the other hand, derives from experiences, observations, imitation, and practice.
Knowledge creation from externalisation occurs when SQC tools and techniques are
used for process mapping. These include control charts, histograms, scatter diagrams, Ishikawa diagrams, and process flowcharts. Process mapping lies at the core of process
improvement (Benner & Tushman, 2003) and improves our understanding of processes,
and leads to a higher level of knowledge generation. Knowledge creation from combination occurs when SQC data from various processes are analysed, compared, and

670 M. Asif et al.

merged to improve process performance and to generate a higher level understanding of
processes. Since knowledge creation from combination is based on data collected from
various organisational processes, it is critical for rational decision-making and systems
thinking. Knowledge creation from internalisation takes place during SQC routines and
process improvements based on SQC results. Conversion of explicit SQC knowledge, in
the form of instructions and procedures, to tacit knowledge leads to reframing an individuals SQC mental models, and to an improved understanding of processes.
SQC is conventionally employed as an isolated and stand-alone process-improvement
tool. However, the above discussion shows that the use of SQC could be extended by integrating it with mainstream processes and social systems of the organisation. This also
highlights the need to design an SQC system that goes beyond mere data combination.
Six Sigma is an example of SQC imbedded in a systematic approach which may lead to
knowledge creation (Linderman et al., 2010).
3.3 Knowledge creation through customer satisfaction management
Customer satisfaction management allows organisations to identify the needs and wishes
of their customers by analysing complaints and/or data from surveys (Linderman et al.,
2004). It involves people from production, engineering, operations, finance, R&D, and
sales and marketing. Knowledge creation during socialisation takes place during interaction with customers at various contact points, through customer feedback activities,
and during customer management activities involving teams and discussions.
Knowledge creation during externalisation occurs when employees compile records
and develop procedures and best-practices manuals related to customer satisfaction management. Such codification is required to provide future guidance and to make codified
knowledge accessible organisation-wide. Experiences can be codified in the form of
flow charts, models, and storytelling. Knowledge creation through combination takes
place when managers combine data from customer complaints, design and engineering,
operations, and marketing to understand customer-related processes and the causes of customer-related or operations-related problems. Knowledge creation through combination
also takes place during analysis of data from customer surveys. Knowledge creation
during internalisation occurs when employees consult customer management procedures
and use this knowledge to address customer problems. Learning from training is also an
example of internalisation.
A customer satisfaction management system, therefore, can create knowledge through
multiple channels. By relying on only one mode of knowledge creation, such as combination, the organisation would be insensitive to changing customer preferences, and managers would continue to focus on existing data and analysis based on combination.
Organisations employing QM practices that lead to knowledge creation are more likely
to understand the broad spectrum of their customers varying needs, whereas those
lacking such an infrastructure are more likely to capture only the superficial and apparent,
while missing the core and soft elements of customer needs. This point is also highlighted
by Linderman et al. (2010) who noted that managers need to create knowledge along all
dimensions of customer management.
3.4

Knowledge creation through process-improvement practices

Process-improvement techniques such as failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), Six
Sigma, Poka yoke, Kaizen, lean, and business process reengineering can be designed

Total Quality Management 671

and executed to create new knowledge. For instance, in FMEA, a problem analysis
requires determining the frequency of a problem, its severity and detectability. While
data regarding frequency and severity can be obtained from customer complaints, the
detectability of a problem and subsequent actions to fix it requires extensive collaboration
from design, production, marketing, and other functions. If the scope of the FMEA is too
narrow, relying solely on customer data to identify problems which are then fixed by
engineers, the analysis could overlook various possible sources of heterogeneous knowledge such as from socialisation and combination.
Six Sigma is another example which makes use of SQC, and employs a special infrastructure of people within the organisation (Champions, Black Belts, and Green Belts, etc.)
who are experts in SQC methods. The aim of this process-improvement practice is to
reduce the number of defects in a process and to improve the overall performance of a
process. The implementation of Six Sigma is led by Black Belts who are supported by
Champions. The teamwork-oriented structure of Six Sigma provides a powerful means
for knowledge creation through socialisation. Knowledge creation from externalisation
takes place when developing a project charter, during group discussions, and when documenting project knowledge (Choo et al., 2007). Knowledge creation from combination
occurs when documenting customer knowledge (Nonaka, 1994) and analysing processes
and customer-related data, and during document review. Knowledge creation from internalisation takes place when employees execute a Six Sigma project, reflect on their tasks
and performance and then improve the latter. Six Sigma provides an excellent example
of heterogeneous knowledge creation. It also implies that QM practices can be designed
to create knowledge that is useful along various dimensions of an organisation.
3.5

Knowledge creation through individual learning

A number of QM practices entail enhanced individual learning. Such QM practices range

from very basic team-oriented activities at the operational level to management reviews at
the tactical level. This gives rise to knowledge creation at various organisational levels.
Kaizen, teamwork, and small-group activities promote individual learning and knowledge
creation at the operational and tactical levels through socialisation. Since socialisation
gives people the opportunity to reframe their individual knowledge, it leads to knowledge
augmentation and enhanced individual learning. Development of conceptual models, analogies, and metaphors during the preparation of procedures and instructions leads to individual learning through externalisation. Taking notes for improved understanding is
another example of externalisation. Discussions during meetings, management reviews,
and information sharing entail individual learning and new knowledge creation through
combination. Learning during task execution, during day-to-day operations, from lectures,
and training materials represents knowledge creation through internalisation. As noted
earlier, when knowledge undergoes conversion from one form to another, it is amplified
(Linderman et al., 2004). Thus, individual learning and knowledge creation from QM
can be woven together for augmented knowledge generation.
3.6

Knowledge creation through product/service design methods

Product/service design relies on the codified repositories of knowledge and the tacit
knowledge of R&D teams and others involved in this process. Since product/service
design requires state-of-the-art knowledge, it is important to embed this function in a
knowledge-intensive environment. Knowledge creation from socialisation takes place

672 M. Asif et al.

during new product development (NPD) team meetings, brainstorming sessions, concept
generation, and interaction with customers at customer contact points. Knowledge creation
from externalisation occurs during collaborative sketching of product/service design,
model development, storytelling, formulating product development plans, and NPD procedures and manual development. Knowledge creation from combination takes place
when data and information from design and engineering, operations, customer relations,
and marketing is integrated to improve product/service design. Knowledge creation
from internalisation occurs during prototype development, product design, development,
and improvements to existing designs.
Quality function deployment (QFD) is a technique that is used to incorporate customer
requirements into product/service design. It is based on extensive teamwork and makes use
of data from different functions of an organisation. It can lead to knowledge creation
through socialisation, externalisation, combination, and internalisation. The main steps
in the QFD process are (i) discussing required features, specifications, and possible
alternatives through extensive teamwork (socialisation); (ii) making quantitative judgements, such as assigning a rating to different alternatives, and using it to develop QFD
matrices (externalisation); (iii) combining data in QFD matrices to determine the best
design (combination); and (iv) using QFD as a structured and consensus-based
decision-making mechanism (internalisation).

3.7 Overview
The above discussion shows that QM practices have the potential to create new knowledge. During the execution of QM practices, knowledge is created, augmented, and
moves to higher levels, i.e. individual, group, departmental, organisational, and interorganisational. The creation of knowledge from various QM practices is summarised in
Table 3.
The above overview shows that these six different QM practices have quite some commonalities in their impact on knowledge creation from socialisation, externalisation, combination, and internalisation. The QM practices result in discussion and cooperation within
the company and between the company and its customers: socialisation. Good practices
are laid down in manuals, flow charts, procedures, and instructions: externalisation.
Data from different sources are combined to get aggregated information which can be
used for solving problems or underpinning decisions: combination. Moreover, QM practices result in learning and development, and in upgrading routines: internalisation. To
conclude, QM practices can lead to knowledge creation.
This may apply to different organisational functions, whether it is new product design
and development, customer management, operations, or staff training and development.
Furthermore, knowledge creation through QM practices can take place at different organisational levels. For instance, SQC and process management practices can lead to knowledge creation mainly at the operational level. QFD, FMEA, and management reviews can
result in knowledge creation mainly at the tactical level, and development of CI structures
and infrastructure can lead to knowledge creation not only at the strategic level but also
organisation-wide. The six QM practices each differ in their mode of knowledge creation
(i.e. through the various combinations of socialisation, externalisation, combination, and
internalisation) and level of knowledge creation (i.e. operational, tactical, and strategic),
but they all create knowledge through multiple channels. Together, each of these QM practices provides a means for organisation-wide knowledge creation.

Table 3.

Illustrative QM practices leading to heterogeneous knowledge creation.

Knowledge creation from

QM practices
(1) CI

Socialisation
Teamwork

Management reviews

On-the-job-training

Standardisation

Open space offices

(2) SQC

(4) Processimprovement
techniques

Combination

Internalisation

Combining and exchanging data

Task execution based on
among departments, teams, and
procedures
with suppliers
Upgrading procedures based on
Learning by doing
information from different
functions/data sources
Decision-making based on
Developing routines
information from multiple sources

Developing procedures and

work instruction
Quality circles
Revising existing procedures
Group problem-solving
Visual management
Small-group activities
Creating best-practices
manuals
Group discussions on process
Developing SQC conceptual Combining data from various
performance and SQC results
models
processes or SQC methods to reach
Developing process flowcharts
a higher level of understanding of
processes
Interaction with customers at various Developing or revising
Combining data from customers,
contact points
procedures for customer
distributors, production, etc. to
satisfaction management
solve a problem
Obtaining customer feedback
Storytelling about customer
Customer management meetings;
experiences
strategy formulation meetings
Customer management activities
Developing training manuals Combining data from customers and
involving teams and discussions
surveys to develop marketing/NPD
strategy
Knowledge sharing among individuals Process-improvement
Combining data/information from
during process improvement or
flowcharts
customers, engineering,
problem-solving such as during
production, and marketing to better
FMEA, Poka Yoke, and reliability
understand problems and find
studies
solutions
Process-improvement
Developing procedures based on the
drawings
information provided in machine

Executing SQC methods

Developing SQC routines
Executing customer
management processes
Learning from training

Developing process
improvement routines

Developing cognitive
schemes and mental
(Continued)

Total Quality Management 673

(3) Customer
satisfaction
management

Externalisation

Table 3. Continued.

QM practices

Socialisation

Externalisation

Combination
manuals, and regulatory and
process requirements

(5) Individual
learning

Observation

Assembly of experts

(6) NPD

Teamwork
Small-group activities
Kaizen
Brainstorming
Teamwork involving production,
engineering, and marketing
Concept generation

Internalisation
models of process
improvement by
individuals

Developing processimprovement procedures

Developing conceptual
Discussions during decision-making Learning during task
models, analogies,
meetings
execution
metaphors for understanding
a process or phenomenon
Taking notes
Management reviews
Learning from routines,
lectures, and training
materials
Information sharing
Collaborative sketching
Formulating product
development plans
Formulating product design
drawings

Interaction with customers at customer Applying QFD

contact points
NPD team meetings during the use of Developing NPD procedures
QFD
and manuals
Developing product prototype
models
Storytelling by those who
interact directly with
customers or those who fix
problems

Compiling and comparing data/

Product design and
information from market,
development
production, engineering, etc.
Combining data from various sources Prototype development
during prototype development
Changing product design to
meet local requirements or
to incorporate changing
specifications

674 M. Asif et al.

Knowledge creation from

Total Quality Management 675

Figure 1. Heterogeneous knowledge creation through QM practices.

4. Conclusions and discussion

QM practices such as CI, SQC, customer satisfaction management, process management
practices, individual learning, and product/service design methods can create heterogeneous knowledge. Knowledge generation takes place through interactions between
tacit and explicit knowledge. These interactions result in four knowledge-creating processes: socialisation, externalisation, combination, and internalisation (Figure 1).
This knowledge creation can take place at all levels of the organisation. Knowledge
creation forms the basis for exploration. QM practices can go far beyond the pitfalls of
rigidity and bureaucracy, and may stimulate rather than hinder innovation. This article
joins the research of Linderman et al. (2004), Chong, Ooi, Lin, and Teh (2010), Choo
et al. (2007), Adamson (2005), Hsu and Shen (2005), Molina et al. (2004), Stewart and
Waddell (2008), and Zhang et al. (2012) in showing that knowledge management and
QM are inextricably linked. However, this research goes one step further in describing
the dynamics of knowledge creation through QM. In doing so, it provides a greater understanding of the mechanism of knowledge creation from QM practices. Our findings are
consistent with resource-based theory which states that the basis of competitive advantage
lies in the heterogeneity of resources of an organisation (Barney, 1991), and with the
knowledge-based view of firms (Grant, 1996) which emphasises the integration of knowledge into organisational processes for sustainable competitive advantage.
The major limitation of this article is that knowledge creation in a QM system
through various interactions of tacit and explicit knowledge is a potential role. Our arguments stem from the comparison of various concepts from QM and knowledge management, and we refer to the literature which provides empirical evidence of some
relationships between knowledge creation and QM practices. However, in subsequent
research, such evidence should be gathered in a more complete and systematic way.
Future research could focus on elaborating how QM practices actually lead to knowledge
creation in an organisational setting, and on exploring and/or testing the relationship
between knowledge creation and sustainability of QM practices. Kim et al. (2012)
provide empirical evidence of a positive relationship between QM practices and several
forms of innovation, but do not provide data on the causalities of this relationship. The
combination of their findings and ours suggests that knowledge creation acts as a mediator.
This is another topic for future research. Future research should start with case studies to
better understand the process of knowledge creation from QM practices.
References
Adamson, I. (2005). Knowledge management the next generation of TQM? Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, 16(89), 987 1000.
Ahire, S., Golhar, D., & Waller, M. (1996). Development and validation of TQM implementation
constructs. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 23 56.

676 M. Asif et al.

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D.E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems:
Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107136.
Alazmi, M., & Zairi, M. (2003). Knowledge management critical success factors. Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, 14(2), 199204.
Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M., & Schroeder, R.G. (1994). A theory of quality management
underlying the Deming management method. Academy of Management Review, 19(3),
472 509.
Augier, M., Shariq, S.Z., & Vendel, M.T. (2001). Understanding context: Its emergence, transformation and role in tacit knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), 125 136.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,
17(1), 99 120.
Benner, M.J., & Tushman, M.L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The
productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238256.
Choi, T.Y., & Eboch, K. (1998). The TQM paradox: Relations among TQM practices, plant performance, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Operations Management, 17(1), 59 75.
Chong, A.Y.L., Ooi, K.B., Lin, B., & Teh, P.L. (2010). TQM, knowledge management and collaborative commerce adoption: A literature review and research framework. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 21(5), 457473.
Choo, A.S., Linderman, K.W., & Schroeder, R.G. (2007). Method and context perspectives on learning and knowledge creation in quality management. Journal of Operations Management,
25(4), 918 931.
Curkovic, S., Melynk, S., Calantone, R., & Handfield, R. (2000). Validating the Malcolm Baldrige
national quality award framework through structural equation modeling. International
Journal of Production Research, 38(4), 765 791.
Dean, J.W., & Bowen, D.E. (1994). Management theory and total quality: Improving research and
practice through theory development. Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 392418.
Deming, W.E. (1994). The new economics for industry, government, education. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G., & Sakakibara, S. (1995). The impact of quality management practices
on performance and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences, 26(5), 659691.
Grant, R.M. (1996). Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
17(9), 109 122.
Hsu, S., & Shen, H. (2005). Knowledge management and its relationship with TQM. Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, 16(3), 351361.
Huff, A.S., Floyd, S.W., Sherman, H.D., & Terjesen, S. (2009). Strategic management: Logic and
action. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: The key to Japans competitive success. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Kim, D.-Y., Kumar, V., & Kumar, U. (2012). Relationship between quality management practices
and innovation. Journal of Operations Management, 30(12), 295315.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., & Sanders, J. (2010). A knowledge framework underlying process
management. Decision Sciences, 41(4), 689 719.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Zaheer, S., Liedtke, C., & Choo, A.S. (2004). Integrating quality
management practices with knowledge creation processes. Journal of Operations
Management, 22(6), 589 607.
Molina, L.M., Montes, F.J.L., & Fuentes, M.D.M.F. (2004). TQM and ISO 9000 effects on knowledge transferability and knowledge transfers. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 15(7), 10011015.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation. Organisation Science,
5(1), 14 37.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Owlia, M.S. (2010). A framework for quality dimensions of knowledge management systems. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(11), 12151228.
Peng, D.X., Schroeder, R.G., & Shah, R. (2008). Linking routines to operations capabilities: A new
perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 26(6), 730748.
Rungtusanatham, M., Forza, C., Filippini, R., & Anderson, J.C. (1998). A replication study of a
theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method: Insights from
an Italian context. Journal of Operations Management, 17(1), 7795.

Total Quality Management 677

Samson, D., & Terziovski, M. (1999). The relationship between total quality management practices
and operational performance. Journal of Operations Management, 17(4), 393409.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, G., & Schroeder, R.G. (1989). An instrument for measuring the critical factors
of quality management. Decision Sciences, 20(4), 810829.
Sharma, B. (2006). Quality management dimensions, contextual factors and performance: An
empirical investigation. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 17(9),
1231 1244.
Stewart, D., & Waddell, D. (2008). Knowledge management: The fundamental component for delivery of quality. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 19(9), 987996.
Tsai, M.T., Li, E.Y., Lee, K.W., & Tung, W.H. (2011). Beyond ERP implementation: The moderating effect of knowledge management on business performance. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 22(2), 131 144.
Yang, C.L., & Wei, S.T. (2010). Modelling the performance of CoP in knowledge management.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(10), 10331045.
Yoshihara, H. (1977). The Japanese multinational. Long Range Planning, 10(April), 4145.
Zhang, D., Linderman, K., & Schroeder, R.G. (2012). The moderating role of contextual factors on
quality management practices. Journal of Operations Management, 30(12), 1223.

Copyright of Total Quality Management & Business Excellence is the property of Routledge and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.