Article critique



Thearticle by Sepanni Senaratne and Saranga Gunawardane prepared thearticle with the title Application of the team role theory toconstruction design teams. The author’s main concern is the issueof the importance of teams in the construction and design industry. The article seeks to show how team composition is the key factor ininfluencing team performance.


SepanniSenaratne and Saranga Gunawardane in their article argue that team isthe basic unit of working in the construction industry. They claimthat design team has impacts on project success proper applicabilityof the team role concept in construction is beneficial to itsclients, project managers, team members and the whole industry. Theyemphasize on the team concept where they say that that individualswill not only bring the characteristics of their functional roles totheir activities as members of teams but also they will take up oneor more team roles, naturally (Senaratne and Gunawardane, 2015). Theauthors also uses the findings ofa research to show the occurrenceof design team, generally adopted team roles and influence of designteam role on team performance in construction. The research findingsshow that not all members of the teams studied are aware of team roleconcept. They findings too show that members believed having a properknowledge about team role is beneficial and formation of design teamsis dependent on several factors as availability of human resourcesetc.

Reviewand evaluation

Asmuch as the article could be beneficial to anyone engaging inconstruction industry, it has its own critiques. Dr Sepani is alecturer in Sri-Lanka, after joining Construction and management inthe school of engineering. Her counterpart, Dr Saranga Gunawardanehas skills in civil engineering and she is a lecture. Since theirfield is in engineering, this article concerning teamwork could bewell authored by people in sociology field. The reason being thatteamwork is a social issue. More they did not use the correct methodto gather evidence as the sample size could not be generalized to thewhole population. They could have used around 10 cases on differentbackgrounds, this would have been sensible to generalize, furthermoremembers selected were not reliable since they were not aware of theconcept of team role, and this means that author’s evidence was notaccurate. The authors use and interpretation of the evidence leads todifferent conclusion as anticipated. The main issue of the article isteam roles but the composition of the design teams were based on thefunctional roles and not based on team roles (Senaratne andGunawardane, 2015). This shows that conclusion was based onfunctional roles and not on team roles and evidence of irrationalityin the authors built of argument. More so, there was unequalrepresentation of the different people making it unreliable for theauthors to make it successful in delivering their main points.


Iagree with the authors’ discussion and findings. Despite thecritiques in their study, the issue of teamwork is beneficial to anyconstruction and design work. This is because construction is astep-wise process, without teamwork the project cannot be completedin time. The article is good especially the literature part of it. Ithas shown the significance of teamwork in a place and the authorssupported this with adequate research from other scholars. Despitethe few critiques the article bears, it is worth recommending it to afriend.

Article:two:BizEd (2014). Research “What sparks team creativity”

BizEdprepared the article, on research bearing the title “what sparksteam creativity”. In this article, the author seeks to investigatethe influence of human creativity by different environment. It showshow creativity is affected by subjecting people to differentcircumstances.

In“what speaks team creativity”, the authors conducted research onthe influence of creativity by different situations and differentbody posture (sitting or standing). This would offer insights intohow companies can boost the creativity and overall performance oftheir teams (BizEd, 2014). The first study was conducted on 131business students where they were divided into 45 teams, each with2-3 study participants and 2 researchers pretending to beparticipants. However, before the study, participants were requiredto fill out questionnaires whose purpose was to rate their leadershipskills on specific tasks. The task was to monitor how power shiftedfrom one team member to another when it came to assigning tasks orsetting deadlines. The findings showed that most creative works camefrom those teams that shifted power most often and were most likelyto view those shifts as legitimate (BizEd, pg 2014).

Thenext study aimed at investigating how standing up during meetingsaffects creativity. The research was conducted with some team workingin a room equipped with chairs around the table others with room withno chair. The findings showed that teams that stood exhibited greaterphysiological arousal were less territorial and more likely to shareideas as compared to those that were seated (BizEd, 2014).

Reviewand evaluation

Theauthor of the article has not been indicated however, BixEd authorsthe article, which is the property of AACSB. This gives as room forreaders to have doubt in the credibility of the authors. Consideringthe two research cases, the author did not use appropriate methods togather the evidence. The first study, the sample size was 131 fromthe same school. This shows that the research was biased as theywould have selected several schools from which they would selecttheir samples, this would have provided more evidence that isdiverse. Thus, this method could not be reliable, as it did notrepresent the whole population. The second study used only 30minutes of time, the evidence from this less time is questionable, asmore time was needed. If the method used is at stake, then theevidence too was affected.

Thefact that participants knew their teammates expertise and they knewthe powers of each member proved biased results. This is because theyacted towards nothing else but the status of the person. In thesecond study, one would expect those standing to be less creative.This is because standing would make them fatigue and get tired easilywhich would definitely make their brains worked up. The author’sarguments appear invalid due to the expectations of the readers.Thus, the author did not successfully drive the point home.


Ido not agree with the author. For the first case, shifting the powerdoes not have anything to do with creativity while for the secondcase, I believe when one is seated he/she has the best time ofthinking and reasoning as there is nothing bothering him/her. Thus, Iwould expect those seated be more creative than those standing were.The work is poorly researched since it has very little literature. Iwould not recommend this article for someone else.


Senaratne,SandGunawardane, S (2015). Application of team role theory toconstruction design teams. Vol. 11, No. 1, 1–20,

BizEd(2014). Research “What sparks team creativity”