Critique of Article: Project Planning Styles in Dynamic Environments

This report provides a critical analysis of the article "Aim, Fire, Aim—Project Planning Styles in Dynamic Environments" by Collyer et al. (2010). The student examines the authors' assertion that traditional project management approaches are suboptimal in rapidly changing environments and their proposal of a "make-static" approach. The critique highlights the article's background, summarizing its focus on how project practitioners react to dynamic environments and the research methods employed. The student then critically evaluates the article's core arguments, pointing out potential limitations and flaws in the "make-static" approach, referencing other authors and research to support their critique. The report concludes by acknowledging the merits of the "make-static" approach while also suggesting the need for additional strategies to address its limitations in dynamic project environments. The student's critique offers a balanced perspective on the article's contributions and areas for further consideration within the field of project management.

Running head: CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE
Critique of Article
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE
Background of the Article
This particular article and the authors Collyer et al. (2010), states the modern and
contemporary world in the industry where project management is no longer dependant on a
particular fixed environment. It depicts that nowadays, the business environment is more or less
based on the dynamic and rapidly changing environment, on the basis of which the approach
towards project management needs to be changed. This approach changes the traditional lookout
towards a project and is normally oriented around the approaches of a project and its process
control. The article focuses on how the traditional project practitioners have reacted to this
change in project environment and it is found out by both quantitative and qualitative approach.
The collected data have been sourced from various areas to triangulate the results in the
developing of information.
Various questionnaires have been raised to evaluate the reaction of the practitioners and
based on that the authors have reached a conclusion for proposing a theory building study that
aims at identifying the approaches of the project management. Based on the research done with
the project practitioners, the authors have developed a result that would generate a model that
would help in managing projects in a better way given the changing background and dynamic
environment of a project.
The collected data through the interviews have been tallied with the document searching
and field notes with which the results have been formulated (Taylan et al. 2014). On the basis of
that research, the authors have stated that the make-static approach should be followed in order
to make the projects work in a dynamic environment taking care of the minimization of risk with
adaptation of the imperative or change adaptation.

2CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE
Critique of the Article
The critical review of the article puts forward many ideas and information that the
authors of the journal under review has missed out on. The authors suggested that the make-static
approach towards a project is the best approach for progressing with a project given the
contemporary dynamic environment behind a project (Collyer and Warren 2009). The authors
suggest that this is the best possible way that would be able to make the projects work in a
dynamic environment taking care of the minimization of risk with adaptation of the imperative or
change adaptation.
However, referring to other authors as well, it was found that there were several flaws in
the make-static approach that needs to be addressed in order to make a project work seamlessly
in a dynamic environment. It found that the make-static approach had several challenges in loss
of opportunity and delayed time in implementation for the new approach to set in and reduced
business competitiveness also arises (Collyer 2015). The make-static approach also exerts low
life spans of the materials. In conclusion it can be said that make-static approach has their own
merits but there are other limitations as well therefore, just applying this approach would not be
sufficient in the particular case. It would require additional approaches as well to deal with the
limitations that the make-static approach holds on to.

3CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE
References
Collyer, S. and Warren, C.M., 2009. Project management approaches for dynamic
environments. International Journal of Project Management, 27(4), pp.355-364.
Collyer, S., 2015, May. Managing Amidst Rapid Change. Project Management Institute.
Collyer, S., Warren, C., Hemsley, B. and Stevens, C., 2010. Aim, fire, aim—Project planning
styles in dynamic environments. Project Management Journal, 41(4), pp.108-121.
Taylan, O., Bafail, A.O., Abdulaal, R.M. and Kabli, M.R., 2014. Construction projects selection
and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied Soft
Computing, 17, pp.105-116.