Talk:Stakeholder Analysis

Revision as of 10:28, 29 November 2014

Murcs

General

• I can see that you are well on your way and that the content is interesting, but that there is still some work to do.
• Nemo respons: Thanks. I agree that the article was not fully completed. I have especially improved the section regarding mapping.

Formal:

• I can see that you have been using the referencing correctly, but you are still missing some references to other peoples wiki articles for example SWOT
• There are some spelling mistakes and some grammar mistakes, maybe by adding your text to word you can find some of them
• I think the structure looks pretty good but maybe you should have the introduction above the content list and background inbetween introduction and process and move the benefits down?
• You have only used around 1500 words so you still have plenty to finish your article

Content:

• You can maybe make clear what shareholder, key stakeholder or CSR is either by referencing to it somewhere else or maybe writing about it.
• I think that you have made some good visualizations that are coherent in color and are well described, do you maybe have a suggestion on a way of vizualizing a 2D mapping? Or a reference?
• I like that yo have used some examples like the metro station, maybe you have some more
• Should possibly specify if stakeholder analysis can be used for project, program and portfolio.
• You could possibly add some more headlines under the process, for example by using the 7 steps and then describing them, since you already describe the first step in very clear detail.

• I think you are on your way to creating an informative wiki article, if there is time and you would like then I can maybe have a look at it again when you are done. I will come back and check the discussion to see what you think, hope some of the feedback was useful.

fra johnjohn

General comments

Content:

• Interesting content, as a practitioner it is interesting to get an overview of the concept.
• The relation to project management could be underlined. Maybe discuss its relevance relative to project, program and portfolio management?

- References seem substantiated by relevant literature? I does not seem like copy paste

Formal:

• Spelling is overall ok
• References are ok and relevant, and the formatting of them complies with the wiki standards.
• I like the precise language and short sentences, but language could be more engaging.
• Figures are ok and especially in the Mapping section should the support the explanation of the methods.

Comments for content in each section

Content:

• I like that you try to keep it short and precise, but I do miss that the parts are writing in a more fluent language. I could also miss the red thread in the article, and what it actually aims for. I summary in the beginning stating aim and type of article could help this..

Introduction:

• You say that it is important to distinguish stakeholder and shareholder. Make you could explain the difference?
• Nice with the stakeholder definition from the standard. Maybe you could give examples of a stakeholder, and link it to your figure? Maybe simply say, that a stakeholder can be ”customer”, ”employee”. I know you do this under the process section, so maybe you can just refer to that section.

Benefits:

• Who is Zhang? And why are his opinion especially important?
• What you state here is why you should make a stakeholder analysis
• I think it is a good idea to give a teaser to why a stakeholder analysis are relevant to you. I however find it a bit distracting from the flow in the article that it is in the begining.. maybe you could sum it up later in the article..
• Maybe the headline should be ”Why do a stakeholder analysis?”

Background

• I am wondering who Dodd is, and why he is important?
• Maybe you could mention the theorists background, that you refer to?
• I really like the coca-cola reference.
• This section is a bit abrupt and short, I miss the language her to be more fluent.. even though I like that you keep it shout and keep to the facts.

Process

• I like the point wise go-through and the process
• The concept of ”key stakeholder” could be elaborated on.
• Maybe the SWOT-analysis should have its own sub-headline? Just a suggestion for intriguing the reader

Mapping stakeholders:

• I like the why section
• You give a good overview of power/interest diagram
• The other topics of the mapping diagrams seems interesting and relevant. Will you compare them and make recommendations on when to use what diagram?

Challenges and uncertainty

• I like the points you state in this section, they are highly relevant.
• Maybe you could also conclude consideration on how to scope your stakeholder analysis. How to frame it? Maybe demarcation of what stakeholders to include? And non the less you to exclude/leave out?

reviewed by $Young-Money$

• I like the way that you are straight forward with your points thus using your 3500 words efficiently

• Good English formulation, but i suggest you write "in literature" and NOT "in the literature"

• Like how you started by defining what a stakeholder is and differentiating its meaning from shareholder, so you have the reader clear on what it is that you exactly mean.

• There is a good flow in the article, but i suggest that you move the benefit aspect to the bottom for discussion. you could maybe add a table showing an overview over the advantages and disadvantages. This could be used to emphasize that even though there are disadvantages, the advantages outweigh them.

• The typical type of stakeholder list is too long, see if it is possible to break it into half i.e. writing them besides each other to use less space

• Remember to include an Abstract.

All in all, i think you have written a really good article that is straight forward and specific, good English, and interesting to read since there is a flow in your structure thus making it pleasant to read. None the less consider moving the benefit aspect to the bottom for discussion and remember an abstract.

Good job :)