In this new series I would like to reflect on the Stakeholder Management (SM), a subject of incredible importance for the project management profession. I aim to provide some basic definitions, but also reflect on best practices, current and near-future challenges.
In this second article of the series I would like to have a look at the approach to SM and at methodologies used for an effective stakeholders mapping, with some examples of the tools. I hope you will find the article interesting.
The Stakeholder Management Plan
A Stakeholder Management is a sub-project in the project. It needs a plan, it has deliverables, it requires internal and external resources, it has risks, it needs a schedule, it will require change management. Having a comprehensive and robust plan is the best way to approach it.
There are many expert consultancies out there for those requiring help and support. There are also dedicated IT software that could help for an effective SM. I found the website of Darzin very informative (https://www.darzin.com/). I quote here their definition of a Stakeholder Management Plan, as “a document that outlines appropriate management strategies to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the lifecycle of the project, based on the analysis of their needs, interests and potential impact on project success“.
They propose a 5-step approach, with useful, probing questions that can be used in the progression of the activities, as illustrated below:
Stakeholder Management is not necessarily a new area of focus or concern for project managers. The subject has been taught for many years by all project management training organisations. The challenges will be in adapting process and methodology to an ever-changing stakeholders environment and getting a plan in place that enables the management throughout the project lifecycle while adapting to changes in circumstances.
Much will depend on your organisation field or sector of operation and your project scope, but I find the plan above a very useful reference guide.
Stakeholders Mapping
I am not going into the details of the process for the identification, but focusing here on the mapping, which is rather important.
The mapping of the stakeholders is something that I have mentioned also in previous articles on the blog. I would like to cover the methodology in more details, describing a couple of approaches.
Power/Interest Grid
This can be also called the “3-I grid”, as in Interest, Impact, Influence. Sometimes it takes the form of a 3-axis map, but it is more commonly shown as 2-axis, as with four quadrants:
It is about placing the identified stakeholders on the matrix in relation to their interest for the project and their influence/power over the project course, objectives and activities. The matrix can be easily be in the format of a table, if preferred.
Textbooks on project management advise on the appropriate course of action in terms of communication, engagement and management for each of the four groups.
Salience Model
I am not very familiar with this approach, but I found it quoted on many reputable PM sites. This model dates back to 1997, as proposed by RK Mitchell et all. In this model each stakeholder is categorised according to three descriptive attributes as Power, Legitimacy and Urgency.
Power is the influence or authority that the stakeholder might have on the project. Legitimacy is how genuinely involved a stakeholder is with the project. Urgency is the degree to which stakeholder requirements call for immediate attention or action.
The stakeholders are placed onto a Venn diagram, based on the three attributes. The intersection of circles identifies those stakeholders with multiple attributes. Based on these attributes, stakeholders can be classified into eight groups:
- Dormant;
- Discretionary;
- Dominant;
- Dangerous;
- Core;
- Dependent;
- Demanding;
- Non-stakeholder.
Then the appropriate management/engagement strategy is developed. You can find an interesting example in this post.
Cognitive Mapping
This can be considered an evolution of the traditional stakeholder mapping approaches. It is probably a step further in the stakeholder management, but I think it is interesting to mention here.
The purpose of cognitive mapping is trying to look at the existence of a plurality of points of view and to imagine different possible approaches to a problem, with different interventions and decisional procedures. This is particularly critical in public policy making and advocacy projects. Stakeholders in such projects are not easy to categorise and may have multiple views and attributes of the various aspects of the project.
With cognitive mapping, a casual-based map is drawn, where concepts representing elements of a complex problem are organized and structured using arrow diagrams. Elements or concepts are represented as nodes, while arrows represent the connections and relationships among them. The map is a good way to draw the different perspectives, ideas, perceptions and domains of the various stakeholders. You can check this link if you have a specific interest.
What does a good SM look like?
Based on what I read in preparing this article, I group here the attributes of a good SM under:
- Setting and managing expectations;
- Engagement, more than management.
Setting and managing expectations
According to the PMI, it is all about ‘setting and managing the expectations’. Tools for doing this are diverse and the PMI provides some guidance here. I have reviewed and edited those. They may be considered as ‘good practices’ for an effective SM:
- Ensure that the project charter states the project objectives clearly;
- Ensure that it is clear what success looks like and it is described;
- Define what is in and out of scope in the project scope statement;
- Define and get agreement on the project deliverables and document in a Work Breakdown chart;
- Create and share the project schedule;
- Document who on the project team does what in a Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM) or a RACI chart;
- Make communication a workstream in the project;
- Create and use a communication planning table to show how stakeholders will be kept in the loop;
- Conduct a project kick-off meeting to publicly state project objectives, share the vision and set stakeholder expectations;
- Create and post project dashboards for the interested parties;
- Be responsive to change in view, interests and priorities;
- Ensure SM offers learning opportunities to the organisation.
Engagement, more than management
There is now a move to aspire to a stakeholder ‘engagement‘, rather than the ‘management’, as a process by which all stakeholders in a project are deeply involved.
Engagement of stakeholders can lead to the development of more successful, innovative solutions that have broader and stronger ownership and support, as well as lead to a better appreciation of why the change is needed. The solutions are more likely to be adopted and be more sustainable. Each industry, sector or field will now have reference frameworks, all related to Corporate Social Responsibility.
There are three key differences between the ‘engagement’ and ‘management’ approach:
Co-work on ideas, not just communicate
Engagement involves working with stakeholders since the inception of the project. It is about working collaboratively on the project design, being flexible on the agenda. It is also about working collaboratively in addressing the issues and in the discussion about change during the project execution.
Collective rather than individual working
Engagement involves bringing individuals and groups together, creating a richer conversation and potentially highlighting issues that may otherwise not be addressed or benefits that may not have been identified. This engagement should be sustained, from inception to project conclusion and beyond.
A tailored rather than a fixed arrangement
A proper engagement will allow the development of an interaction that is better tailored to the particular stakeholders and the project. Interest and priorities are likely to change and a tailored approach will help in adapting and be receptive to the changes.
In this article I had a look at the approach to SM, at methodologies used for an effective stakeholders mapping, with some examples of the tools and a reflection on what a good SM looks like. With the next article I will try to have a look at the current and future challenges with SM. Please do not hesitate to contact me for any comments and constructive feedback.
Marco Bottacini, Senior Portfolio Manager, GALVmed
The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinion of GALVmed.
Project Management Discussion Group 