Advertisement

The Logical Framework Approach and Worker Commitment

  • Carmen JacaEmail author
  • Luis Paipa-Galeano
  • Elisabeth Viles
  • Ricardo Mateo
  • Javier Santos
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Management and Industrial Engineering book series (LNMIE)

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to present the logical framework approach (LFA) as a tool that prepares companies and workers to implement continuous improvement programs. This methodology encourages worker participation in different steps in order to reach consensus in the organization. In addition, the application of LFA improves the capabilities of workers in areas such as participatory analysis, problem analysis and objectives analysis. These capabilities are necessary in any continuous improvement program. The paper also presents the results of applying LFA in two different companies.

Keywords

Participation LFA Improvement Organizational behaviour 

References

  1. 1.
    Aune JB (2000) Logical framework approach and PRA—mutually exclusive or complementary tools for project planning? Dev Pract 10(5):687–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Björklund C (2001) Work motivation—studies of its determinants and outcomes. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics, EFI, the Economic Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burke RJ (1988) Sources of managerial and professional stress in large organisations. In: Cooper CL, Payne R (eds) Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dahlgaard-Park SM (2011) The quality movement: where are you going? Total Qual Manage 22(5):493–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dale R (2003) The logical framework: an easy escape, a straitjacket, or a useful planning tool? Dev Pract 13(1):57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delbridge R, Lowe J, Oliver N (2000) Shopfloor responsibilities under lean teamworking. Hum Relat 53(11):1459–1479Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Douglas A (2002) Improving manufacturing performance, Quality Congress. ASQ’s Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, (56): 725–32.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fairbrother K, Warn J (2003) Workplace dimensions, stress and job satisfaction. J Manage Psychol 18(1):8–21Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gallup (2011) Majority of American workers not engaged in their jobs. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150383/majority-american-workers-not-engaged-jobs.aspx%60. Accessed 12 Dec. 2012
  10. 10.
    Gapp R, Fisher R, Kobayashi K (2008) Implementing 5S within a Japanese context: an integrated management system. Manage Decis 46(4):565–579Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hirano H (1989) JIT factory revolution. Productivity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ho SKM (1998) 5-S practice: a new tool for industrial management. Industr Manage Data Syst 98(2):55–62Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hodgson GM (2007) Institutions and individuals: interaction and evolution. Organ Stud 28(1):95–116Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jaca C, Santos J, Errasti A, Viles E (2012) Lean thinking with improvement teams in retail distribution. Total Qual Manage Bus Excell 23(4):449–465Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kobayashi K, Fisher R, Gapp R (2008) Business improvement strategy or useful tool? Analysis of the application of the 5S concept in Japan, the UK and the US. Total Qual Manage Bus Excell 19(3):245–262Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leong CS, Furnham A (1996) The moderating effect of organizational commitment on the occupational stress outcome relationship. Hum Relat 49(10):1345–1363. (1996), 49(10):1345–1363Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liker JK (2004) The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Magaña-Campos J, Aspinwall E (2003) Comparative study of Western and Japanese improvement systems. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 14(4), 423–436.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    NORAD (1999) The Logical Framework Approach (LFA): handbook for objectives-oriented planning: NORAD: Norwegian Agency for Development CooperationGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Piderit SK (2000) Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Acad Manage Rev 25(4):783–794Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prado-Prado JC (2009) Continuous improvement in the supply chain. Total Qual Manage Bus Excell 20(3):301–309Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Suárez-Barraza MF, Ramis-Pujol J, Heras MA (2010) Reflecting upon management systems: content analysis and synthesis. 1(2):64–86Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sullivan SE, Bhagat RS (1992) Organizational stress, job-satisfaction and job-performance—where do we go from here? J Manage 18(2):353–374Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vischer JC (2007) The effects of the physical environment on job performance: towards a theoretical model of workspace stress. Stress Health 23(3):175–184Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carmen Jaca
    • 1
    Email author
  • Luis Paipa-Galeano
    • 2
  • Elisabeth Viles
    • 1
  • Ricardo Mateo
    • 3
  • Javier Santos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial Management, School of Industrial EngineersTECNUN, Universidad de NavarraSan SebastianSpain
  2. 2.Universidad de La SabanaChíaColombia
  3. 3.School of Economics and Business AdministrationUniversity of NavarraPamplonaSpain

Personalised recommendations