Stakeholders from a dynamic and network perspective
NobodyKnows (Talk | contribs) (→Abstract) |
NobodyKnows (Talk | contribs) (→Abstract) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | =Abstract= | |
Conducting a traditional stakeholder analysis gives the investigator a current state of the analysed scenario. This type of analysis works as a macro analysis, not only framed to contain a specific area of investigation, but takes into account all the different kind of actors (person, group or organisation) that currently has an interest and that can affect, or be affected by, the give action/project. | Conducting a traditional stakeholder analysis gives the investigator a current state of the analysed scenario. This type of analysis works as a macro analysis, not only framed to contain a specific area of investigation, but takes into account all the different kind of actors (person, group or organisation) that currently has an interest and that can affect, or be affected by, the give action/project. | ||
Revision as of 20:06, 24 November 2014
Abstract
Conducting a traditional stakeholder analysis gives the investigator a current state of the analysed scenario. This type of analysis works as a macro analysis, not only framed to contain a specific area of investigation, but takes into account all the different kind of actors (person, group or organisation) that currently has an interest and that can affect, or be affected by, the give action/project.
This article takes the perspective that conducting a stakeholder analysis has to be an iterative process, due to the fact as when a project progress the power and interest of the mapped stakeholders can change drastically. This needs to be taken into account, when “managing” these stakeholders. Therefore taken a more dynamically approach towards stakeholder analyses will help the investigator(s) conducting them.
Typically, when conducting stakeholder analyses mainly two types of dimensions are considered, when mapping them; these could be power vs. interest or Interest vs. Influence. Inspired by analytic tools such as bubble diagrams for project prioritisation and network theory for social networks, which both assign values to the actual nodes (stakeholders) used in the diagram. This could be relevant for the investigator to able to look into these, by adding values himself or through questionnaires. Suggested “node values” could be “knowledge of the project”, “seniority”, “involvement of the project” and their own opinion regarding their “attitude towards the project”.
Applying network theory for mapping stakeholders by e.g. how they communicate, a “shadow network” can emerge. This can represent the informal structure of the organisation, where the project is being implemented. Looking into shadow networks, multiple applications can emerge. One application could be for when influencing different, but the right, stakeholders. It can be more effective by persuading an already enforcer of the project and then use that stakeholder for affecting other key stakeholders, which potential support is needed. Selecting the right enforcer could be analysed from the way stakeholders are interlinked and through the “amount” of communication between them. This can be done in practise by assigning a specific value to the communication between the stakeholders, which then can be illustrated through the edges between them.
Taking into account for creating a more dynamic tool, regarding stakeholder analyses, shadow networks can also be used for predicting, how future scenarios could look like. If crucial stakeholders primarily are surrounded by stakeholders that are negative towards the project – actions needs to be taken – although that specific stakeholder’s attitude towards the project currently is positive.
As all models are not universal, this approach would also have restrictions, where one crucial disadvantage is that stakeholders from the environment could potentially be less represented in the analysis, compared to more internal stakeholders.
