Stakeholder-led Project

Management

Stakeholder-led Project
Management
Changing the Way We Manage
Projects
Louise M. Worsley

Stakeholder-led Project Management: Changing the Way

We Manage Projects
Copyright Business Expert Press, LLC, 2017.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
meanselectronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other
except for brief quotations, not to exceed 250 words, without the prior
permission of the publisher.
First published in 2017 by
Business Expert Press, LLC
222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
www.businessexpertpress.com
ISBN-13: 978-1-63157-467-2 (paperback)
ISBN-13: 978-1-63157-468-9 (e-book)
Business Expert Press Portfolio and Project Management Collection
Collection ISSN: 2156-8189 (print)
Collection ISSN: 2156-8200 (electronic)
Cover and interior design by S4Carlisle Publishing Services
Private Ltd., Chennai, India
First edition: 2017
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America.
This book has been double-blind peer reviewed

Abstract
If stakeholders matter, then their impact should affect the way we plan,
execute and implement projects. Most projectsand all valuable projectshave stakeholders, and require some form of stakeholder engagement. It is the engagement that needs managing, not the stakeholders,
because the right type of engagement varies depending on the types of
stakeholders involved and the context of the project.
This book provides a stakeholder-centered analysis of projects, and explains which identification, analysis, communication and engagement models
are relevant to different types of projects: from an office move, to IT enterprise
changes, to transformational change of business, to complex social change.
Using case studies from around the world, it illustrates what goes
wrong when stakeholders are not engaged successfully, and what lessons
we can learn from these examples. Three main cases are used to demonstrate the application of stakeholder analysis and modelling tools, leaving
the reader with a very practical understanding of which techniques may
be beneficially applied on their own projects.
Key models introduced include:

The stakeholder-neutral to stakeholder-led project continuum

Role-based and agenda-based stakeholders
The extended stakeholder management process
Purposeful communicationthe six-whys model for
communication
Power and influence mapping
The six principles of engagement
This book is intended for project professionals who find themselves
involved in managing projects with stakeholders.

Keywords
Project management, Program management, Stakeholder engagement,
Stakeholder management, Project governance, Project communication,
Sociodynamic model, Salience model

Contents
Foreword................................................................................................ix
Acknowledgments....................................................................................xi
Chapter 1 Stakeholder-neutral to Stakeholder-led Projects..................1
Chapter 2 Stakeholder Identification................................................19
Chapter 3 Understanding My Stakeholders.......................................47
Chapter 4 Changing the Way We Manage Projects...........................81
Chapter 5 Communicating in Projects............................................103
Chapter 6 Developing the Engagement Plan..................................133
Chapter 7 The Principles of Engagement........................................169
Index..................................................................................................175

Foreword
There is a deep misconception in formally taught project management
around project stakeholders. This error is underpinned in the very language used by professional bodies and practitioners alike. For far too
long, we have emphasized the management of project stakeholders and
with this term comes the fallacy that project stakeholders are just another
type of resource that can be coordinated, monitored, and placed appropriately on the project field of play.
Many technical projects are run this waytreating stakeholders as resources to be managed. When looking at the purpose and effectiveness of
the approach, it might perhaps be better to refer to this approach as communication coordination because it certainly doesnt manage stakeholders.
It is also quickly obvious, when the approach is attempted in program
management, change management, and the management of social development projects, that it is insufficient and inappropriate for complex
projects.
In an age where projects and programs are the preferred management
vehicle for delivering change, this is simply unacceptable. Listening to the
stories of successes and failures from practitioners, I am convinced that
stakeholders must always impact upon the way we manage our projects.
I hope I can convince you.

Acknowledgments
This book was made possible by the input and support of many colleagues and fellow project managers. Ian Jay (Senior Lecturer in the Department of Construction Economics and Management in the Faculty
of Engineering and the Built Environment at the University of Cape
Town), co-authored and provided research input to Chapters 3 and 6.
Christopher Worsley (CEO, CITI), my source of project management
inspiration, my companion in life, and without who this book could
never have been started or completed.

Story collecting
The success stories shared initiative in South Africa was inspired by a
desire to promote learning and sharing of experiences across the project
management community. My fellow story capturer, Linky van der Merwe
(Virtual Project Consulting) has been a constant motivator and believer;
my thanks to her for keeping this initiative alive and well.
The stories found in this book have been sourced from project managers in three continents. Some of them are created through combined
input from several sources, but most are the result of direct and in-depth
contributions from individual practitioners in the field. My thanks go to
all those who have generously shared their experiences, in particular:
Cape Town Integrated Rapid Transport System (IRT), Reggie
Springleer, Manager: Industry Transition, City of Cape Town
Presidential working group: The successful steering group, Kerrie
Taylor, Principal Consultant at Catalytiq (Pty) Ltd, South Africa
The office move: Take 2!, Prof. Dr. Eddie Fisher, Head of Programme Management and Quality Assurance-Selex ES, Saudi Arabia
Eurostar: Taking our people with us, Richard Brown, Chairman,
Eurostar, UK
The maverick stakeholders, Dr. Bakr Zade, Head of Innovation and
Knowledge Management Practice, CITI, UK

CHAPTER 1

Stakeholder-neutral to
Stakeholder-led Projects
Lessons learned have long inspired my own development of skills and
understanding of how to improve project management practices. At conferences, it is the case studies delivered by practitioners that I hunt out.
When interviewing or coaching project managers, I listen avidly to their
descriptions of triumphs and challenges. Why did it go wrong or right is
never a simple story, but it is a story which informs the cultural heritage
and wealth of knowledge which underpins project management.
So as you can imagine, it was with great delight that I read the dissertation plan from one of my students entitled Whether and how lessons
learned were being applied in the business environment. Partly it was my
pleasure at having managed to pass on my own passion for the subject,
but mainly it just seemed such an important and necessary question to
ask. We know we should follow a lessons learned processit says so in
all the books. But do we do it, and do we benefit from this process in
practice?
Working in the retail sector, her initial findings were promising. In
the presence of a strong central project office, almost 98 percent of projects over a 3-year period had a documented lessons learned report; filed,
and in most cases approved, by the relevant governance group. But then
the research faltered. No evidence, and I mean no evidence, could be
found that these reports had been accessed by subsequent projects. Even
the presence of informal communication of learning was at best circumstantial and more dependent upon personalities than processes.
Identifying lessons learned is a creditable and important part of
the project processnot only does this information have the capacity
to lighten the workload of the project manager, but it also places the

STAKEHOLDER-LED PROJECT MANAGEMENT

company running the project in a position of increased competitiveness.

This, of course, is only true if the knowledge is actually applied. Unfortunately, as found in this study, the reality confronting many project
managers is that once boxes have been ticked and projects completed, it is
very rare that this information is accessed and utilized in future projects.

Stories from Project Management

Inspired by this finding and energized by fellow practitioners, I have
worked with others to seek out, listen to, capture, and find new ways
to share our learning in projects. It is now some two hundred stories
and some five years later, and it is clear to me that there is so much to
be learned from members of our project communities. In this book, I
have attempted to share at least some of these insights and contextualize
them into the theories and models which have proved useful in supporting stakeholder engagement across a variety of projects. Why pick stakeholder engagement as the focus? Because time after time, as I sat listening
to the stories, the causes of success and failure were clear. Whether it
is engaging with political groups, external agencies, senior management,
internal groups, or peers and colleagues, the root causes always came back
to the same thinghow well stakeholders were engaged.
I hope you will find the stories and their interpretation of their lessons helpful, and that you are able to reflect and compare with your own
experiences in project management.

What Do We Mean by Stakeholder?

In the early 80s, with concerns about corporate governance and the demand for increased public and shareholder influence, organizations needed
to find ways to engage with the community in socially responsible ways.
Freeman (1984) is generally credited as the father of stakeholder theory,
the focus of which is the role of stakeholders with respect to the firm.
With stakeholder theory, the process of genuine stakeholder engagement
entered the boardrooms of government and large corporates alike.
Cleland (1988), in the seminal Project Management Handbook was
one of the first authors to describe the importance of stakeholders in

Stakeholder-neutral to Stakeholder-led Projects

the context of projects. However, it was only in 2013 that the topic was
included in the Project Management Institutes (PMI) main exam, the
PMP, and it is only in the last few years that professional bodies such as
the PMI and the IPMA (International Project Management Association)
officially recognized stakeholder management as an important competence required for professional project managers.
The project management professional bodies draw on classic stakeholder theory, and much can be learned from this. It is also true that the
context of projects causes important differences to the ways the theories
should be applied. A good case in point is: What is a stakeholder?
Freeman (1984) defined a stakeholder as any group or individual
who can affect or is affected by the firms objectives, which, if nothing
else, is so inclusive it is unlikely to miss anyone out! Since then, competing definitions have abounded. Littau, Jujagiri, and Adlbrecht (2010) in
their review of 25 years of stakeholder theory in project management
literature, list a full page of different definitions (some 25 definitions) that
have been used in project management literature to attempt to define the
elusive stakeholder.
The Project Management Institute (PMI) definitions of a stakeholder,
traceable through its publications, show both their origin in classical
theory, and also a desire to become more generalized and more inclusive:
...individuals and/or organizations that are involved in or may be
affected by the project activities. (PMI 1996)
...individuals and organizations that are directly involved with the
project and who have a vested interest in the resulting deliverables
of the project. (PMI 2001)
...individuals and organizations that are actively involved in the
project or whose interest may be affected as a result of project execution or project completion. (PMI 2004)
...an individual, group, or organization who may affect, be affected
by, or perceive itself to be affected by a decision, activity, or outcome of the project. (PMI 2013)
The last and current PMI definition of a stakeholder certainly makes
you think more broadly about who should be involved and engaged with

STAKEHOLDER-LED PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Importance

Corporate or
societal value
Project
financial value
Project utility
Project
efficiency
Project
organization
Project
start

Users &
recipients of
changed
functionality

Project
delivery

Corporate stakeholders
& public

Sponsor, clients,
beneficiaries,
recipients of
changed capability

Embedding as business-as-usual

Time

Figure 1.1 Change in project success dimensions over time

Source: Adapted from Shenhar, Levy, and Dvir (1997)

as stakeholders, not only during the project, but also taking into account
the future impact, the outcome of the project. In doing so, it mirrors the
idea that project success is measured by different factors and therefore
must involve different groups of stakeholders over time (Figure 1.1).
Shenhar, Levy and Dvir (1997) reference four different ways of measuring
success:
Project efficiency: During the delivery of the project, the
project is measured by cost, time and quality criteria. Have
we delivered what was required within the constraints set by
the project organization and project owners? The stakeholders
here are usually clearthose people and groups who have
commissioned and funded the project, and are involved in or
impacted by the delivery of the project.
Project utility: As the project transitions to the operational
environment, the focus now is on how usable and useful
the new functionality is to the target recipients. The
stakeholder groups may now be quite large. A roll-out of new

Stakeholder-neutral to Stakeholder-led Projects

functionality at a retail outlets point-of-sale could impact tens

of thousands of users across the business.
Project financial value: But in the end, does it result in a
beneficial return-on-investment? This may not be measureable
until sometime after the operationalization of the project. The
stakeholders should include the sponsor or the project client,
but also all those groups who have expectations from the
investment made in the project.
Corporate or societal value: Major infrastructure
projects leave a very large and very visible reminder of
investments made. This introduces much broader, more
unpredictable, and very powerful stakeholder groups. Will
the citizens of countries such as South African (FIFA 2010),
Brazil (Olympics 2016) ever consider the investment in
infrastructure justified?
Shenhar, Levy, and Dvir (1997) in describing success dimensions over
time, suggest that projects must be planned with the end result in mind.
Projects must take into account the near-term success factors as well as
the long-term goals. Given that success is ultimately judged by all the
projects stakeholders, it necessitates consideration not just of stakeholders close to the project but also of those individuals and groups who will
be impacted in the near and longer terms.
Stakeholders are more than just the people you work with on the
project.

Getting a Stakeholder Mind-set

Every project manager I have talked to tells me they do stakeholder management. What is clear, though, is that what they mean by this, and how
much it features in where they spend their time and what they think is
important varies considerably. This is not surprising. Different projects
demand attention to different project processes, and the stage of the project life cycle also affects this dynamic. The project managers role with

STAKEHOLDER-LED PROJECT MANAGEMENT

respect to stakeholders may be limited by their position in the organization. They may only have limited access to stakeholders via a gatekeeper
or via more senior managers within their own or their clients organizational structure.
Even so, some projects managers do seem to attend more to stakeholder concerns than others. It is tempting to put this down to experience, or lack of it. I remember teaching extremely bright social science
students on a companys internal graduate program. We were discussing
the problem of gaining business support for their projects, and there was
genuine incredulity from the group that this should be necessary. If the
organization funds the project they are bound to support it. I can still
remember the phrase that came to my mind, Theyre new. Theyll learn!
When gathering stories, we have seen project managers who perceive
the project as the delivery of the stakeholders desired outcomes, and others, experienced and novice, who single-mindedly pursue delivery of defined products. For them, the technical requirements are their only focus.
Even with prompting, they find it difficult, or simply unnecessary, to look
at the project from the perspective of the stakeholders.
The stakeholder mind-set demands stakeholder understanding applied in the context of the overall projects goals. Following a conference
presentation on stakeholder engagement, a construction project manager
ruefully remarked, My managers expect me to concentrate on the hard
delivery, not this soft stuff. Undoubtedly, these attitudes underpin some
of the resistance we see to getting involved with stakeholders. Ultimately
to be successful, it is about sensitively combining the hard concerns with
the soft concerns. As one seasoned public infrastructure development
manager commented, I could focus entirely on community engagement
issues, but unless the outcomes of this can be integrated with an overall
program of works, we would just be wasting government money. My job
is to make sure these streams can deliver together.
A common question that comes up in project stakeholder discussion
is, How can we possibly manage stakeholder groups when they are always changing? To me, this seems a slightly odd question coming from
the project management community and perhaps reflects the lack of a
stakeholder mind-set. In projects, we are expected to identify what will
be delivered, and it would be inconceivable that a project manager would

Stakeholder-neutral to Stakeholder-led Projects

not have a process in place to track, monitor, and react appropriately to

changes in scope. Why is the management of stakeholders so different?
A theme that we will return to many times in this book is that the
nature of the project must affect the way we approach and structure it.
While a few projects may be scoped and defined by their deliverables, for
others, it is the very nature of the stakeholder groups that will dictate how
we scope and structure the project. The majority of projects, however, sit
in between these extremes, and developing a stakeholder mind-set is an
unavoidable and critical part of successful project management.
Stakeholder management is not a series of steps to be gone through,
but a perspective that when fathomed and its implications understood,
always makes a difference to the conduct of the project. Or put more
bluntly:
If you think you are doing stakeholder management and its not
making a difference to the way you run your project, then you arent!

The Stakeholder-neutral to Stakeholder-led

Project Continuum
In this book, we make the argument that all projects will benefit from a
structured approach to stakeholder engagement, but that the form of that
engagement will vary with the nature of the project. The idea that factors
such as size and complexity may affect the way you manage a project is
nothing new. In this book we use a stakeholder-centric view of project
classification.
Have a look at the list of projects in Figure 1.2. What type of engagement do you think you might need to consider for each of these projects?
If we were to classify these projects by their level of technical difficulty
and human difficulty, think about where you would position them on the
grid in which technical difficulty relates to factors such as:

Technological innovation
Technical dependencies
The number of resources involved
The clarity of the outcomes

STAKEHOLDER-LED PROJECT MANAGEMENT

PJ1 Updating branding on

internal materials

High

PJ2 Company-wide upgrade of

printer control software.

PJ4 Implementation of a rapid

transport system in a city
PJ5 Re-development of informal
housing site (townships in
South Africa)
PJ6 Downsizing of government
disability agency to support
integration of disabled staff
into the workplace.

Type 1

Type 3

Type 0

Type 2

Technical
difficulty

PJ3 Changes to car benefits and

expenses policy

Low
Low

Human difficulty

High

Figure 1.2 Project classification

The financial investment

The risks if it should go wrong
And human difficulty relates to:
The number of supporters and opponents of the projects
The level of influence and control the project can exert
The power base of the stakeholders
You are probably pretty happy with the idea that PJ1, the branding project
looks like a Type 0 project, but what about PJ2 upgrade to printer control
software? It looks technically simple, but could affect large numbers of
stakeholders across the whole business if it goes wrong. This project was
delayed by two years when conflicts arose between different stakeholder
groups as to which features should be implemented.
What about PJ3changes to car benefits policies? Technically simple,
the policies had been implemented in many companies before. This project
brought a major UK insurer to a halt because a small number of the senior
managers reacted negatively to new policies on high-value car ownership.
PJ4 to PJ6 are all public sector projects and their high public exposure
will usually place the project in types 2 and 3. This is not just because of
the number of stakeholder groups (which is often high), but because of the

Stakeholder-neutral to Stakeholder-led Projects

PJ1 Updating branding on internal
materials

High

Stakeholdersensitive

Technical
difficulty

PJ2

PJ2 Company-wide upgrade of printer

control software.

PJ4

PJ5

PJ6

Stakeholderneutral
Low

PJ3

Stakeholderled

PJ1
Low

Human
difficulty

High

PJ3 Changes to car benefits and

expenses policy
PJ4 Implementation of a rapid
transport system in a city
PJ5 Re-development of informal
housing site (townships in South
Africa)
PJ6 Downsizing of government
disability agency to support
integration of disabled staff into
the workplace.

Figure 1.3 Stakeholder-neutral to stakeholder-led project management

predominance of external stakeholder groups, with politically motivated

agendas, which demand more complex stakeholder engagement processes.
Our suggestions for the categorization of these projects are shown
in Figure 1.3. Projects sitting in the type 0 rising to type 1 category are
termed here as stakeholder-neutral. The stakeholders in these projects
must be identified and communicated with, but their power and influence with respect to the project is relatively low. Many technical projects
sit in this categorythe work needs to be done, there is little need for
stakeholders to be anything other than peripherally interested in the work
being donejust as long as it does get done!
The trouble is that it does not take much for a project to move up the
continuum into the stakeholder-sensitive arena. Here the project has clear
outcomes, but involves changes which impact upon practices people value.
The agendas of groups and individuals will need to be considered in identifying the best approach to delivering the outcomes. Projects that are sensitive to stakeholder interests demand different approaches, and ignoring or
mismanaging the stakeholders leads to problems, crises, and even failure.
The task-oriented, technically inspired project manager may fail to recognize that the fundamental success factors lie with the stakeholders, and lack
of engagement will result in issues that will upset even the best-laid plans.
Stakeholder-led projects are typified by the presence of stakeholder
groups and individuals who have considerable power and influence over

10

STAKEHOLDER-LED PROJECT MANAGEMENT

the project. These types of projects have a fundamental requirement

to engage and bring on board large numbers of powerful stakeholders.
Stakeholder-led projects are a game changer. In these projectsand this is
true for many, many programsthe solution is determined not so much
by the problem or opportunity being addressed, but by what approach
and solutions the stakeholders will actually commit to or allow.
Lets not forget our position that all projects require some form of
stakeholder engagement, even Type 0. It is just that the nature of the
stakeholder engagement changes. In Chapters 3 and 4 we will look further at the three types of stakeholder projects referred to in Figure 1.3,
and uncover how the nature of the stakeholder groups impacts the engagement strategies that we adopt.
All projects will benefit from a structured approach to stakeholder
engagement, but the form of that engagement will vary with the
nature of the project.

The Myths in Project Stakeholder Management

Project stakeholder management has borrowed many of its concepts from
other disciplines such as corporate governance and classical stakeholder
theory. This cross-usage of wisdom is helpful, but its application in projects is still to be proven and bedded-in to the way we do things. After all,
its only in the last few years that stakeholder management has been recognized in project management bodies of knowledge. In the meantime,
trial and error application has resulted in a number of myths about its
application to projects.
We Manage Our Stakeholders
It is common to see this term used in project management literature.
Both the Project Management Institute and The Association for Project
Management refer to managing stakeholders in their bodies of knowledge (BoKs). The related areas of business analysis (e.g., IIBA BA Body of
Knowledge) and change management (e.g., ACMP) are more circumspect
about the use of this word management in the context of stakeholders.

Stakeholder-neutral to Stakeholder-led Projects

11

The ACMPs Standard for Change Management completely avoids the

term and differentiates between develop the communication strategy,
develop the sponsorship strategy, and the stakeholder engagement
strategy as separate, if related, processes.
Management implies the control and organization of resources and
this emphasis encourages a focus on internal stakeholdersthose groups
which are within direct or indirect control of the project manager. This
is one of the sources of the often raised, but the rarely valuable debate:
Are my team stakeholders? In Chapter 2, we introduce the concept of
role-based and agenda-based stakeholders as an approach to refining the
way we identify, describe and development strategies for these individuals. Role-based stakeholders are those who have an identified responsibility with respect to the project. Agenda-based stakeholders are those who
have an opinion on the project and its conduct. While the management of
stakeholders may be applied, in some circumstances for role-base stakeholders, it is rarely an appropriate strategy for agenda-based stakeholders.
Everybody Is a Stakeholder
An individual, group, or organization who may affect, be affected
by, or perceive itself to be affected by a decision, activity or outcome
of the project
Re-reading the PMI definition of a project stakeholder, you could be
forgiven for thinking that this seems to pretty much include everybody.
The generality of the definition reduces its usefulness as a management conceptnot everybody can be engaged with as a stakeholder!
The classic model for stakeholder management is a circular process
from identification to react and review, with the review resulting in the
possible identification of new stakeholder groups (Figure 1.4). The PMI
Body of Knowledge description serves well to prompt the identification
process, but more is needed around establishing the significance of the
groups: Who matters from the project perspective, and where should limited attention be focused? In the analyze and develop strategies stages,
gaining knowledge and understanding of the stakeholder groups is critical. In Chapter 2 on the identification of stakeholders, we will look further at how this definition can be usefully refined and re-interpreted.

STAKEHOLDER-LED PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Identify &
document
An
aly

En

De
str velo
at e p
gie
s

ze

Wa
rea tch, l
ct & iste
rev n,
iew

12

ga
ge

Plan approach

Figure 1.4 Stakeholder management model

We Know Our Stakeholders

On a project of any size and complexity, it is unlikely that the project
manager will know, letalone understand, all the project stakeholders. Too
often in capturing data about stakeholders, assumptions are made and
inadequate exploration is performed to really get a view of their varied
perspectives and agendas. Some of this stems from an over-reliance on
the generic definitions we have of role-based stakeholders, but assuming
every sponsor is the same and will react in the same way is unlikely to be
a successful strategy.
In Chapter 3, we explore approaches to identifying and clarifying our
understanding of role-based and agenda-based stakeholder positions with
respect to the project.
Stakeholder Management Will Solve All Conflict
and Relationship Problems
Firstly, stakeholder management is no cure for poor social engagement
skills or for low emotional intelligence. These are often confused by line
managers in their desperation to find a solution to difficult staff who are
consistently involved in conflict with peers and clients in the workplace.
Lets put them on a stakeholder management course wont work. Secondly, some conflicts are healthy and necessary, and some simply wont
go away but have to be factored into the way the project is structured
and conducted. In chapter 4, we discuss parallel projectsprojects that

Stakeholder-neutral to Stakeholder-led Projects

13

dont directly address the overall goals of a program but are necessary to
ensure that stakeholders commit to, or at least dont sabotage, the project
outcomes.
Its All About Communications...
In a review of twenty projects in an IT department, it was encouraging
to find that every one of them had some form of communications plan.
There was evidence that the plans were being used, and that on at least
some of them, a variety of innovative techniques from social media to
telephone messaging were being exploited. This story is shared in Chapter 5 on Communications. What was also obvious was that in 18 of
the 20 projects reviewed, the communication plan had been developed
specifically for the execution and hand-over stages of the projects. The
communications plan was a detailed breakdown of how users and other
impacted and interested stakeholders would be communicated to and
trained during the transition to the operational environment. For many
project managers, the development of this plan, in these latter stages, is
what they mean by stakeholder management. As we see in Chapters 3
and 5, stakeholder engagement planning may have to start right from the
beginning and put the stakeholders at the center of the way the project is
structured and delivered.
...And More Communication Is Better
Poor or untargeted communication can cause more problems than no
communication. In Chapter 3 on mapping stakeholders, we look at sociodynamic mapping of stakeholders and how the level of energy for and
against the project impacts upon the desire to be associated with the project. The wrong communication, or indeed too much or ill-timed communication, can change mild interest into direct opposition.
The increase in technological support for communication has made
it easier to communicate, but judgment in how this is exploited remains
the real skill. After a successful enterprise project office implementation,
the project office was praised for the quality of the project and portfolio
reports it was creating. After exploring the features of the system further,

14

STAKEHOLDER-LED PROJECT MANAGEMENT

it was found that the reports could easily be generated and automatically sent by e-mail at a specific time every week. When this facility was
turned on, Friday afternoon e-mails were clogged by reports with no
chance for managers to identify the important-to-action from the forinformation-only. The positive reaction to the initial good work was all
but lost.
Some Projects Dont Need Stakeholder Management
The level of stakeholder engagement necessary will vary from project to
project, but the stories we have gathered suggest that it can be a big mistake to assume from the start that a particular project does not need to
address stakeholder engagement.
It was just a technical upgrade. It was a like-for-like replacement.
These phrases were common in some of the IT cases we listened to. What
they often translate into is, Dont disturb the stakeholders; they neednt
know about the project. The trouble is that stakeholder positions change
as the project progresses. Disinterest can rapidly turn to violent opposition if not anticipated. In Chapter 2, we look at the identification of
sleeping stakeholders and how to identify those groups who may not be
apparent right from the start of the project.

The Road Map to Meaningful Engagement

In 2009, Cranfield Institute in the UK, published a report entitled Stakeholder Engagement: A Road Map to Meaningful Engagement (Jeffery, 2009).
The report was targeted at the development of organizational relationships,
and in particular, the successful development of non-governmental organizations, voluntary groups, and community stakeholder relationships.
It opens with this challenge:
Organizations can no longer choose if they want to engage with
stakeholders or not, the only decision they need to take is when and
how successfully to engage.
Though situated in social engagement, this sentiment could equally
well be applied to projects and program management. We still have much

Stakeholder-neutral to Stakeholder-led Projects

15

to learn from the application of stakeholder theories in other disciplines.

In this book, we have peeked outside of the traditional process view of
stakeholder management into other disciplines such as corporate engagement, change management, social development, and organizational theories to seek out those models and understanding which just might work
in our own project environments. To test these approaches, we have attempted to apply them in the context of the stories collected from project
practitioners.
If our engagement with stakeholders on projects is to be meaningful, to
make a significant impact upon the conduct and successful implementation
of projects, then a mind-set change from process-based communication to
stakeholder-focused engagement is required. So we set the challenge:
Projects can no longer choose if they want to engage with stakeholders
or not, the only decision they need to take is when and how to
successfully engage.

Engaging with This Book

This book has been inspired by the stories shared from practicing project managers, and their influence is illustrated through the direct use of
stories, quotes, and reflections on learnings. A common theme is that the
nature of the project matters and its diagnosis is crucial if we are to be able
to select and apply the right techniques at the right time.
Stakeholder management is usually described as a stepped, iterative
process of identification to feedback and review. Chapters 2 to 4 generally
follow this approach with each section presenting practical models and
techniques illustrated through the use of the stakeholder stories.
In Chapter 5, we explore the purpose and critical factors that underpin communication in all types of projects. We touch on the use of new
technologies in the way we communicate with our stakeholders. What
opportunities do these give us, and what pitfalls must be avoided?
In Chapter 6 on engagement, we examine the differences between
communication and engagement and the engagement challenges created
when spanning the boundaries between projects and programs, and other
organizational, cultural, and agenda-based structures.

16

STAKEHOLDER-LED PROJECT MANAGEMENT

5. C

De
stra velop
teg
ies

6. E
nga

ns
atio
nic
u
m
om

g my s

din

rs

ge

lde

ga

ake
ho

En

The
principles of
stakeholder
engagement

an
rst
de
Un
ze
aly
An

gi n

Identify &
document

3.

gs
tak
eho
Wa
t
l de
c
re a h , l
rs
ct & iste
n
re v ,
iew

2.Identifying my stakeholders

Plan approach
4.Changing the way we manage

Figure 1.5 The stakeholder management process mapped to chapters

Chapter 7 summarizes the lessons learned from our story collecting.

What are the big principles that can be derived, and what must we really
focus on to create meaningful engagement in projects and programs?

In Summary
Stakeholders are more than just those people and groups we interact with
to deliver the project.
To be successful projects and programs must consider the individuals
and groups they impact upon and may be influenced by in the near and
longer-term.
Getting a stakeholder mind-set: If you think you are doing stakeholder management and its not making a difference to the way you run
your project, then you arent.
All projects will benefit from a structured approach to stakeholder
engagement, but the form of that engagement will vary with the nature
of the project.
The stakeholder-centric classification of projects presented in this book
identifies three types of projects on a continuum from stakeholder-neutral
through stakeholder-sensitive to stakeholder-led projects.

Stakeholder-neutral to Stakeholder-led Projects

17

Just some of the myths we will be addressing in this book:

We manage our stakeholders

Everybody is a stakeholder
We know our stakeholders
Its all about communication, and more communication is
better
Some projects dont need stakeholder engagement
The classic stakeholder process proceeds through identification, analysis, strategy development, planning, engagement, watch, listen, react and
review.
Projects can no longer choose if they want to engage with stakeholders
or not, the only decision they need to take is when and how successfully
to engage.

Reflections
At the end of each chapter, we pose some questions to help you draw out
your own personal learning from the chapter. Do take time to give these
some thought, or better still, discuss with project colleagues back in your
organization.
1. In your most recent project, who did you engage with as stakeholders? Could there, and should there have been, other groups?
2. What kind of projects do you mainly deal with? Try positioning your most recent project on the analysis matrix. Was this
a stakeholder-neutral, stakeholder-sensitive, or stakeholder-led
project?
3. At this stage, what do you feel is the big difference between communication and engagement? (We will revisit this question again later).

References
Cleland, D. I. 1988. Project stakeholder management. In Project management handbook, 2nd ed. edited by D. I. Cleland and W. R. King.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

18

STAKEHOLDER-LED PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach.

Boston: Pitman.
Littau, P., N.J. Jujagiri, and G. Adlbrecht. 2010. 25 years of stakeholder
theory in project management literature (19842009).Project Management Journal41(4): 1729.
Jeffery, N. 2009. Stakeholder engagement: A road map to meaningful engagement. Cranfield: Doughty Centre, Cranfield School of Management
Project Management Institute (PMI). 1996. A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide). Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute, Inc.
Project Management Institute (PMI). 2001. People in projects. Newtown
Square, PA: Project Management Institute, Inc.
Project Management Institute (PMI). 2004. A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide). 3rd ed. Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute, Inc.
Project Management Institute (PMI). 2013. A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide). 5th ed. Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute, Inc.
Shenhar, A.J., O. Levy, and D. Dvir. 1997. Mapping the dimensions of
project success.Project Management Journal28(2): 513.

Index
Agenda-based stakeholders, 11,
2629, 31
analysis of, 56
basic criteria, 2122
role based and, 2223
Aquaculture project stakeholders, 25
Authority, 158159
Charisma power, 144, 158
Chevron project, 119, 173174
City of Cape Town
factors for success, 8788
IRT project, 8991, 135, 138
Coalition building, 156
Coercive power, 144, 157158
Communication
case for planning, 103107
as coordination, 114118
to engagement, 108
example of plan, 123124
as information-giving, 109112
as information-seeking, 112114
to inspire action, 124128
as marketing, 119121
to meaningful engagement, 133141
as persuasion, 121124
pitfalls of regular, 109110
purposeful planning, 107109
six-whys framework, 108
sources of errors in, 105
Conflict escalation, 156
Connection power, 144, 158
Consultation
expectations for, 115
process, 138
Coordination, communication as,
114118
Corporate or societal value, 5
Covert power, 146
Credibility building, 156
Credit Control Changes, 173
Critical success factors (CSFs), 9496

Engagement, 21, 134

from communication to, 108,
133141
community stakeholder
relationships, 1415
principles of, 171172
strategies, analysis of, 163165
Expertise power, 141143
Fairness, importance of, 137
4-hour house, 115116
Good communication, 107
Governance checklists, 33
Hangberg settlement project,
113114
Identification, stakeholder
agenda-based, 2629
barriers and pitfalls of, 4245
boundaries of, 3132
definition of, 19
management process, 20
role based, 2326
techniques, 33
Influence power, 143
sources of, 144
Information-giving, communication,
109112
Information-seeking, communication,
112114
Integrated Rapid Transport (IRT)
program, 27, 8991, 9394
Interest, evaluation of, 149
Likeability, 158159
Like-for-Like project, 6974,
137, 143
Magpie syndrome, 4748
Management, engagement, 133141

176 INDEX

Marketing, communication, 119121

Maverick team, 147154
Meaningful engagement, 133141
Modularization program, 121124,
160165
Negative power, 141143
Office move, the, 173
Organizational breakdown structure
analysis, 33
Overt power, 141
Parallel projects, 9196, 100
Persuasion, communication, 121124
PESTLE analysis, 3738
Planning process
changing, 9699
as engagement, 8791
stakeholder-neutral project, 8183
Positional power, 141143
Power
concept of, 133, 141
of influence. See Influence power
source of, 141147
three dimensions of, 142
Product breakdown structure
(PBS), 96
integrated, 99
for IRT project, 97
for office move, 97, 98
Project continuum, 710, 173
Project failure, primary causes of, 104
Project governance structures, 5760
Pulse of the Profession report, 103
RACI approach, 6465, 109
Reciprocity, 158159
Requirements analysis, 138141
Resource power, 141143
Reward power, 144, 157158
Role-based stakeholders,
11, 2326, 31
Salience analysis, 70, 156, 162163
Scarcity, 158159
Six-whys framework, of
communication, 108

Social approval, 158159

Social influence, principles of,
158159
Sociodynamic analysis, 7174
aim of, 7374
identification of roles, 7172
model of, 151
Stakeholder
analyzing roles of, 6264
attitude map for, 54
checklists of, 3839
definitions of, 34
groupings, 6162
hidden, 154
influence strategies, 155157
management process, 1516
mind-set of, 57
networks, power of, 154155
relationship mapping in, 5657
sources of power, 141147
testing assumptions, 4952
Stakeholder-led projects, 910
Stakeholder-led project, the, 8791,
100, 173
critical success factors, 9496
project boundaries setting, 9394
stakeholder-sensitive
project to, 92
Stakeholder management process,
169171
circular approach, 2930
extended, 136
Stakeholder mind-set, 57
Stakeholder-neutral project, 9,
99100, 173
Stakeholder nomination
focus groups and structured
sessions, 3537
stakeholder checklists, 3839
strategic analysis tools, 3738
Stakeholder salience, 6871
Stakeholder-sensitive project, 9,
8487, 98, 100, 173
Status power, 144, 158
Strategic analysis tools, 3738
3-by-3 analysis matrix, 66

OTHER TITLES IN OUR PORTFOLIO AND

PROJECT MANAGEMENT COLLECTION
Timothy Kloppenborg, Editor

Leveraging Business Analysis for Project Success by Vicki James

Project Portfolio Management: A Model for Improved Decision Making by Clive N. Enoch
Project Management Essentials by Kathryn Wells and Timothy J. Kloppenborg
Agile Project Management for Business Transformation Success by Milan Frankl and
Paul Paquette
The Agile Edge: Managing Projects Effectively Using Agile Scrum by Brian Vanderjack
Making Projects Sing: A Musical Perspective of Project Management by Raji Sivaraman,
Chris Wilson, Michael Brown, and Danny McCormack
Project Teams: A Structured Development Approach by Vittal S. Anantatmula
Attributes of Project-Friendly Enterprises by Vittal S. Anantatmula and Parviz F. Rad

Announcing the Business Expert Press Digital Library

Concise e-books business students need for classroom and research
This book can also be purchased in an e-book collection by your library as

a one-time purchase,
that is owned forever,
allows for simultaneous readers,
has no restrictions on printing, and
can be downloaded as PDFs from within the library community.

Our digital library collections are a great solution to beat the rising cost of textbooks. E-books
can be loaded into their course management systems or onto students e-book readers.
The Business Expert Press digital libraries are very affordable, with no obligation to buy in
future years. For more information, please visit www.businessexpertpress.com/librarians.
Toset up a trial in the United States, please email sales@businessexpertpress.com.