Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Logical Framework Approach and Worker Commitment

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Managing Complexity

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Management and Industrial Engineering ((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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Aune JB (2000) Logical framework approach and PRA—mutually exclusive or complementary tools for project planning? Dev Pract 10(5):687–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Björklund C (2001) Work motivation—studies of its determinants and outcomes. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics, EFI, the Economic Research Institute

    Google Scholar 

  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, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dahlgaard-Park SM (2011) The quality movement: where are you going? Total Qual Manage 22(5):493–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dale R (2003) The logical framework: an easy escape, a straitjacket, or a useful planning tool? Dev Pract 13(1):57–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Delbridge R, Lowe J, Oliver N (2000) Shopfloor responsibilities under lean teamworking. Hum Relat 53(11):1459–1479

    Google Scholar 

  7. Douglas A (2002) Improving manufacturing performance, Quality Congress. ASQ’s Annual Quality Congress Proceedings, (56): 725–32.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fairbrother K, Warn J (2003) Workplace dimensions, stress and job satisfaction. J Manage Psychol 18(1):8–21

    Google Scholar 

  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. Gapp R, Fisher R, Kobayashi K (2008) Implementing 5S within a Japanese context: an integrated management system. Manage Decis 46(4):565–579

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hirano H (1989) JIT factory revolution. Productivity Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ho SKM (1998) 5-S practice: a new tool for industrial management. Industr Manage Data Syst 98(2):55–62

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hodgson GM (2007) Institutions and individuals: interaction and evolution. Organ Stud 28(1):95–116

    Google Scholar 

  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):449–465

    Google Scholar 

  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):245–262

    Google Scholar 

  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):1345–1363

    Google Scholar 

  17. Liker JK (2004) The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  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. NORAD (1999) The Logical Framework Approach (LFA): handbook for objectives-oriented planning: NORAD: Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation

    Google Scholar 

  20. Piderit SK (2000) Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Acad Manage Rev 25(4):783–794

    Google Scholar 

  21. Prado-Prado JC (2009) Continuous improvement in the supply chain. Total Qual Manage Bus Excell 20(3):301–309

    Google Scholar 

  22. Suárez-Barraza MF, Ramis-Pujol J, Heras MA (2010) Reflecting upon management systems: content analysis and synthesis. 1(2):64–86

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sullivan SE, Bhagat RS (1992) Organizational stress, job-satisfaction and job-performance—where do we go from here? J Manage 18(2):353–374

    Google Scholar 

  24. Vischer JC (2007) The effects of the physical environment on job performance: towards a theoretical model of workspace stress. Stress Health 23(3):175–184

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Management, School of Industrial Engineers, TECNUN, Universidad de Navarra, Paseo Manuel Lardizábal 13, 20018, San Sebastian, Spain

    Carmen Jaca, Elisabeth Viles & Javier Santos

  2. Universidad de La Sabana, Campus del Puente del Común, Km.7, Autopista Norte de Bogotá, Chía, Cundinamarca, Colombia

    Luis Paipa-Galeano

  3. School of Economics and Business Administration, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

    Ricardo Mateo

Authors
  1. Carmen Jaca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luis Paipa-Galeano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elisabeth Viles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ricardo Mateo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Javier Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmen Jaca .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. INSISOC, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain

    Cesáreo Hernández

  2. INSISOC, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain

    Adolfo López-Paredes

  3. INSISOC, University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain

    José M. Pérez-Ríos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Jaca, C., Paipa-Galeano, L., Viles, E., Mateo, R., Santos, J. (2014). The Logical Framework Approach and Worker Commitment. In: Hernández, C., López-Paredes, A., Pérez-Ríos, J. (eds) Managing Complexity. Lecture Notes in Management and Industrial Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04705-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04705-8_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04704-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04705-8

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation