Management Approaches in Change Adaptation with Reference to Change Causes - Article Example

Running head: Article critique Name xxxxxxxxx Course xxxxxxxxx Lecturer xxxxxxxxx Date xxxxxxxxx Article Critique: Collyer, S., Warren, C., Hemsley, B., & Stevens, C. (2010). Aim, Fire, Aim—Project Planning Styles in Dynamic Environments . Project management , 108-121. Introduction Project management requires a detailed focus on various environments and factor that will influence success. The environments are dynamic and are highly changing. This is due to factors such as information technology, and globalization as well as new trends in the interaction between environments and project factors. This dynamism presents to project managers with a challenge in success. This paper seeks to annotate the above article with regard to dynamic environments. It will critique the approach, content, structure and the theory developed by the authors. In this critique, the paper will make comparisons with other related or similar studies. Study overview The article’s main focus is delineating project management styles and issues facing managers in dynamic environments. It intends to assist project managers’ deal with challenges associated with dynamism associated with new trends and change in the profession. The article uses the term dynamism with reference to new developments and trends in project management that are rapid. This rapidness of change is what concerns managers presenting them with a challenge of formulating an appropriate response strategy. The authors base the research paper on literature that identifies various causes of changes in project management and respective change management approaches. These approaches include: manipulation of the environment, feedback-based emergent planning, controlled competing experiment over options, alternate controls and staged or controlled releases. Based on literature that focuses on these approaches, the article applies a qualitative research design which is built on grounded theory methodology. This is to focus on the aims of the article whose intention is to identify the perceived causes of dynamism and the application of any of the approaches in various contexts. Intending to contribute to practice and theory, the study also aims at identifying novel dynamism management strategies. In this regard, the study seeks to explore the role of factors such as culture, leadership styles and communication in any of the change management approaches. Data is collected from a sample of recruited 31 project managers who are purposively sampled on the basis of experience in the industry. In-depth interviews are done either by face-to-face, telephone or e-mail. Analysis and interpretation of interview transcripts and field notes collected demonstrate a general support and clarification. Respondents also point-out that resist-change is preferred as the most appropriate approach. They also single-out competition, market characteristics and technological advancement as being the forces behind the change. The article’s results imply the need for risk assessment before manager’s select a management approach. They also imply the need for comparative evaluation between rapid adaptation to change or a relatively slow one. However, the approach and speed of adaptation is specific to industry and the kind of project one is tackling. The impact of adapting or resisting any change is also specific to type of industry. This is developed in a theoretical model based on principles such as the balance between project type effects of various dimensions, and benefits accrued to any of the approaches. Article critique This section provides a critique of the article. The section will focus on the approach, research methodology and presentation, the content, results and discussion. Firstly, the paper appreciates the presentation of the article and the way the concepts are built. The authors begin with a detailed analysis of approaches managers may take in responding to dynamism. This is a focus on resistance to change, emergent planning, scope reduction, alternate controls and competing experiments. This sets base for research methodology as well as the theoretical model it eventually suggests. This is followed by the research methodology in which the design and sampling techniques are delineated. However, much as there are research objectives, the article lacks a clear research question and hypotheses to which objectives should focus. The results are presented under subheadings which are informed by the literature review. From the results, the article derives the theoretical model and implications for managers. With reference to the appropriateness of the article’s title ‘Aim, Fire Aim- Project Planning Styles in Dynamic Environments’, the paper is of the view that it is relatively appropriate. This is pointed to by the content of the article which focuses majorly on planning approaches in dynamic environments. However, the paper faults the article for relatively lower focus on ‘dynamic environments’ which needed to be flawlessly related. Secondly, the article is built on literature by Collyer and Warren (2009) who delineate on causes of change in project management profession and approaches managers can takes in responding to the change. The article makes an in-depth analysis of the work of Collyer and Warren thus defining the scope of research. Given the current focus by research on change management and the forces fuelling change, the focus of the article is relatively constricted. Whilst this paper acknowledges the value of the article to theory development in the area, the paper is of the opinion that such a scope limits the article’s ability to adequately contribute to what it terms as a ‘key unresolved issue’ (Collyer et al, 2010 pp. 108). Its scope and implications would have been more enhanced if there was a reference to more details affecting success in project management. In this spirit, Isik et al (2009) indicate that there is abundant presence of literature discussing factors that are condusive for sucessiful project management. The dynamism factor focused on in the article is a multifaceted issue given that it has an ability to affect every other factors, determinant of success. These factors include size of project, resources, planning, information technology, corporate capabilites, user contribution, and various macro and micro-environmental (Liu, et al, 2010; Isik et al, 2009). This list is not exhaustive. Liu et al (2010), furthers on that the implication is that there should be a concentrated focus on the ‘antecedent variables’ (pp. 220). Collyer et al (2010) point to such variables as they discuss the implications of their results with reference to deciding approach. The article should have a solid basis for such variables as competition, future compatibility, finance risk, and impact (Collyer et al, 2010) it mentions later. This relates to what other literature indicates with an assertion that the agile manager has understanding of the effects of mutual interactions of projects’ compartments (Augustine et al, 2005; Elliott, 2008). After this understanding, the agile manager will direct these parts through continuous learning and adapatation. This learning and adaptation is the article’s focus. The article adapts a qualitative research design that is based on a grounded theory methodology. This annotation agrees with the rationale given by the authors. They indicate the need for the research to contribute to theory or be used to suggest a theoretical model and that the area has had relatively little research. The methodology is also set to assist the researchers get an in-depth understanding of the phenomena using information from various sources. It is vital in triangulating findings and enhance theory development. Purposive sampling was used to select 31 managers from 10 different industries. The methodology details that it selected respondents perceived to be challenged by dynamism dimension and tabulates the formulae used. Though the sample and the methodology meets the objectives, the results may not be generalized in various industries for various reasons. Firstly, a sample of 31 managers is not adequately representative of all project managers. As such the perceptions of the respondents might not be shared across the board. There is no correlation amongst various factors pertinent in environmental dynamism. A comparative presentation would also have enhanced this. Qureshi et al, (2008) suggest the use of modus operandi in a similar research article. This allows a bigger sample and more economic data collection (Qureshi et al, 2008). Collyer et al (2010) point out to the advantage of having a multiplicity of sources of data in their methodology choice to ‘triangulate findings and inform theory development’ (pp. 110). They present data from several sources- interviews and case examples outside the participant group. Having interviewed managers from various industries, the article also samples case studies giving reviews of organizations such as IBM, NASA and film industry. This provides a correlational platform linking theory development to practice. This is the study approach used by Collyer (2009). In this approach, the author makes reviews of organizations such as NASA and Motorolla (Collyer, 2009) giving more details than the article. Case studies are vital since they enable a research contexualize data (Neale, Thapa, & Boyce, 2006). The results of the article are presented as per the approaches delineated in the literature review. Much as the authors fault the generalaization of the article, the results answer to the research objectives. Change is indicated as revolving project parts such as materials, resources, tools, and techniques (Collyer et al, 2010; Judgev et al, 2007). There is also dynamism with respect to interaction of related projects, services and as well as changing goals. Relating to planning and change management approaches, the are respondents who are in favor of change resistance in static environments. However, dynamism is acknowledged as a trend fit for viability of organizations giving the need for more change-embracing approaches. This is demonstrated by the preference of all the approaches except make-static approach in which managers shield projects from environmental changes. This corroborates what Augustine et al (2005) point to when they indicate that the traditional project management entails viewing all project component through the eye of control. All the other approaches entail application of methodologies, practices and tools which manage projects in environments that are out of control. This calls for an adaptive leadership with equally flexible structures that are neither too rigid nor too flexible (Augustine et al, 2005; Turner, 2007). Such an approach is manages change more effectively (Tan & Theodorou, 2009). With reference to specific approaches, there is literature which faults the preference of staged releases approach. The artcle indicates that one can mitigate dynamism challenges by reducing scope and delivery. This approach may be more effective in static environments than in dynamic and uncertain environments. Additionally, this approach may be counter-productive especially in the contemporary business world where change is constant. Such an approach means continued altering of deliverables (Frame, 2002). It is thus questionable in dynamic and uncertain environments (MacCormack et al, 2001). This is due to inflexibility of some components of projects which need to be clear view of the manager at any time (Frame, 2002). However, the article is keen not to incline to any approach. it points out to industry-specificity in project management. This specificity informs the decision making matrix proposed by the article. The matrix gives a continuum between negative and positive impacts of embracing change as well as between negative and positive impacts of resisting change. This amounts to strategic decisions which are factors in corporate strengths and weakness (Isik et al, 2009). These factors further influence project success. For instance, high technology industries can successfully adapt to changes using emergent approaches. It is a fast changing industry with persistent dynamism (MacCormack et al, 2001). The industry represents contemporary agile world which demands that traditional approaches be changed to fit the contemporary changing needs and demands of users (Liu et al, 2010) as well as changing macro- and micro-environments. As such, change resistant approaches may be advantageous only if risk minimization is imperative and when adapting the change has minimal advantages (Collyer et al, 2010). Dynamism influences short and long-term risk management (Morris et al, 2011; Othman et al, 2010). Conclusions The article in review focuses on management approaches in change adaptation with reference to change causes such as resources, materials, interdependence, tools and techniques. It aims to contribute to theory development. The paper is of the view that the article successfully meets its objectives delineating that the least prefered by managers is change-resist and that change adoption is vital. Effectiveness in project management requires that one adopts a life-cycle approach (Frame, 2002). Such an approach works with adaptation of change. The paper article has concentrated on the approaches from which it has drawn management implications. However, the paper has taken fault with the methodology citing generalization issues. this is with reference to the sample population as well as the scope it takes. in addition, data collection procedures were not uniformly applied given not all respondents were interviewed twice. As such, the perceptions over change causes and the response approaches of the interviewed may not be representative of all project managers. This not withstanding, the article is able to contribute to theory development proposing a decision matrix informing managers on whether to embrace or resist change, and a framework describing stage release and emergent planning. Bibliography Augustine, S., Payne, B., Sencindiver, F., & Woodcock, S. (2005). Agile project management: steering fro the edges . Communication of the ACM, 48 (12) , 85-89. Collyer, S. (2009). Project Management Approaches for Dynamic Environments. International Journal of Project Management, 27(4) , 355-364. Collyer, S., Warren, C., Hemsley, B., & Stevens, C. (2010). Aim, Fire, Aim—Project Planning Styles in Dynamic Environments . Project management , 108-121. Elliott, S. (2008). Agile Project Management. Seminar on Current Trends in Software Industry (pp. 1-15). Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Frame, J. (2002). The new project management : tools for an age of rapid change, complexity, and other business realities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Isik, Z., Arditi, D., Dikmen, I., & Birgonul, M. (2009). Impact of corporate strengths/weaknesses on project management competencies . International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) , 929-637. Judgev, K., Mathur, G., & Fung, T. (2007). Project management assets and their relationship with the project management capability of the firm. International Journal of Project Management, 25 , 560–568. Liu, J., Chen, H., Jiang, J., & Klein, G. (2010). Task completion competency and project management performance: The influence of control and user contribution. International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) , 220-227. MacCormack, A., Verganti, R., & Iansiti, M. (2001). Developing Products on “Internet Time”: The Anatomy of a Flexible Development Process. Management Science, 47 (1) , 133–150. Morris, P., Pinto, J., & Soderlund, J. (2011). The Oxford handbook of project management. Oxford: Oxford University press. Neale, P., Thapa, S., & Boyce, C. (2006). Preparing a case study: a guide for designing and conducting a case study for evaluation input. Pathfinder international setries , 1-14. Othman, M., Zain, A., & Hamdan, A. (2010). A review on project management and issues surrounding dynamic development of ICT project: formation of research area. Int. J. Digital Content Technol, 14(1) . Qureshi, T., Warraich, A., & Hijazi, S. (2008). Significance of project management performance assessment (PMPA) model. International Journal of Project Management , 1-11. Tan, A., & Theodorou, P. (2009). Strategic information technology and portfolio management . Hershey: Informational science reference . Turner, J. (2007). Gower handbook of project management. Aldershot: Gower. Read More