Stakeholder-led Project

Management
Stakeholder-led Project
Management
Changing the Way We Manage
Projects

Second Edition

Louise M. Worsley
Stakeholder-led Project Management, Second Edition: Changing the Way
We Manage Projects

Copyright © Business Expert Press, LLC, 2020.

Cover image licensed by Ingram Image, StockPhotoSecrets.com

Cover and interior design by Exeter Premedia Services Private Ltd.,

Chennai, India

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other
except for brief quotations, not to exceed 400 words, without the prior
permission of the publisher.

First published in 2020 by

Business Expert Press, LLC
222 East 46th Street, New York, NY 10017
www.businessexpertpress.com

ISBN-13: 978-1-95253-876-6 (paperback)

ISBN-13: 978-1-95253-877-3 (e-book)

Business Expert Press Portfolio and Project Management Collection

Collection ISSN: 2156-8189 (print)

Collection ISSN: 2156-8200 (electronic)

First edition: 2020

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Printed in the United States of America.

 Abstract

If stakeholders matter, then their impact should affect the way we plan,
execute, and implement projects. Most projects—and all valuable proj-
ects—have stakeholders and require some form of stakeholder engage-
ment. 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 change to transformational business change and 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.
In this second edition, we also look at the impact of Agile practices
on the stakeholder management process. What changes in approach can
we anticipate, and what practices must continue regardless of the product
development life cycle adopted.
Key models introduced include:

• Role-based and agenda-based stakeholders

• The stakeholder-neutral to stakeholder-led project continuum
• The extended stakeholder management process
• Purposeful communication—the six whys model for commu-
nication
• Power and influence mapping
• The seven principles of stakeholder engagement

Keywords
project management; program management; stakeholder engagement;
Agile; communications; stakeholder management; project governance;
project communication; sociodynamic model; salience model
 Contents
Foreword�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ix
Acknowledgments�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������xi

Chapter 1 Getting a Stakeholder Mindset�����������������������������������������1

Chapter 2 Stakeholder-Neutral to Stakeholder-Led Projects������������15
Chapter 3 Stakeholder Identification�����������������������������������������������37
Chapter 4 Understanding My Stakeholders�������������������������������������55
Chapter 5 Purposeful Communication��������������������������������������������77
Chapter 6 Meaningful Engagement�����������������������������������������������103
Chapter 7 Stakeholder Engagement in an Agile World������������������129

References�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������145
About the Author��������������������������������������������������������������������������������147
Index�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������149
 Foreword
Lessons learned have long inspired my own development of skills and
understanding of how to improve project management practices. At con-
ferences, 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 that informs the cultural heritage and
wealth of knowledge, which underpins project management.
So, as you can imagine, it was with great delight that I received a dis-
sertation proposal from one of my students on the topic of whether and
how lessons learned were being applied in the business environment. Her
results were clear. That while many lessons were documented, they were
rarely shared and acted upon.
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 200 stories and some five
years later, and it is evident 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 that have proved useful in supporting stakeholder
engagement across a variety of projects. Why pick stakeholder engage-
ment as the focus? Because time after time, as I sat listening to the stories,
the causes of success and failure were plain to see. Whether it is engag-
ing with political groups, external agencies, senior management, internal
groups, or peers and colleagues, the root causes always came back to the
same thing—how well stakeholders were engaged.
I hope you will find the stories and their interpretation of their lessons
helpful, and that you can reflect and compare with your own experiences
in project management.
 Acknowledgments
This book was made possible by the input and support of many colleagues
and fellow project managers.
Most importantly, my thanks go to Christopher Worsley, 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 man-
agers 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 Transit System (IRT), Reggie Spring-
leer, Manager: Industry Transition, City of Cape Town
The office move: Take 2!, Prof. Dr Eddie Fisher, Head of Program
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

Getting a Stakeholder
Mindset
What Do We Mean by Stakeholder?

In the early 1980s, 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 being the father of stake-
holder theory, the focus of which is the role of stakeholders with respect
to the firm. With the advent of stakeholder theories, the process of genu-
ine stakeholder engagement entered the boardrooms of government and
large corporates alike.
Cleland and King (1988) were among the first authors to describe the
importance of stakeholders in the context of projects. It was not until 2013
that the topic was included in the Project Management Institute’s (PMI)
main exam, the PMP. Astonishingly, it is only in the last few years that
professional bodies such as the PMI and the International Project Manage-
ment Association (IPMA) officially recognized stakeholder management
as an essential competence required for professional project managers.
The PMI definitions of a stakeholder, traceable through the body of
knowledge publications, show the influences of classical stakeholder the-
ories and a desire to become more inclusive. In 2001, the PMI described
stakeholders as “individuals and organizations that are directly involved
with the project and who have a vested interest in the resulting deliverables
of the project.” In 2013, the definition became: “an individual, group, or
organization who may affect, be affected by, or perceive (emphasis added)
itself to be affected by a decision, activity, or outcome of the project.”
2 Stakeholder-led Project Management

This current definition certainly makes you think more broadly about
who should be involved and engaged with as stakeholders. Still, it may
also leave you wondering how to deal with those who recognize them-
selves as stakeholders when you do not!
Figure 1.1, adapted from Shenhar et al. (1997), provides a helpful
way of representing this much broader view of stakeholders. Here, the
timeline across the project is mapped against the perspectives of the key
stakeholder groups. Project success is measured by factors that change
over time and inevitably involve different and emerging groups of stake-
holders. The project must consider not only the near-term success factors
but also the long-term goals. As time passes, project stakeholders evaluate
the project against quite different desired outcomes:

Figure 1.1  Change in project success dimensions over time

• 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 stakehold-
ers are easy to find. They are the people who commission
and fund the project and are involved in some way with the
project.
 Getting a Stakeholder Mindset 3

• 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. For example, the rollout of
new point-of-sale systems in a retail outlet 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? Benefits like these may not
be measurable until sometime after the operationalization of
the project. The stakeholders now include any groups who
have expectations from the investment made in the project.
• Corporate or societal value: Major infrastructure projects
leave a significant and visible reminder of investments made.
Such project impact introduces much broader, more unpre-
dictable, and potent stakeholder groups. Will the citizens
of countries such as South Africa (FIFA 2010) and Brazil
(Olympics 2016) ever consider the investment in infrastruc-
ture justified?

To be successful, managers must not only consider the stakehold-

ers close to the project, but also those individuals and groups who are
impacted in the medium- and long-term.

​Stakeholders are more than just the people you work with on the project.

Is Everybody a Stakeholder?
Given the PMI definitions and the concerns about capturing future
potential stakeholders, you could be forgiven for being slightly concerned
that pretty much everybody should be considered a stakeholder. Does
this mean that your team members are stakeholders? Are you, the project
manager, a stakeholder? Perhaps, the more helpful question is: Would it
be beneficial (managerially) to define the project manager and the team
members as stakeholders?
4 Stakeholder-led Project Management

To include a person or a group as a stakeholder means that you will

consider managing them through the stakeholder process shown in­
Figure 1.2. Most of us would probably feel this is an unnecessary exercise
to carry out on the project manager, especially if it is ourselves!

Figure 1.2 The stakeholder management process

To tackle the problem of over inclusiveness, we suggest the addition

of the following caveat to the PMI definition:

S​ takeholder: An individual, group, or organization that may affect, be af-

fected by, or perceive itself to be affected by a decision, activity, or outcome
of the project and is not already subject to another management process.

This extended definition immediately solves two issues. First, it

removes from the frame the project team. Secondly such nebulous,
difficult to engage with groups as customers, whose expectations are
well-managed by marketing, are also eliminated.
Team members of the project do have an interest and are clearly
affected by a decision, activity, or outcome and can affect a project. Still,
 Getting a Stakeholder Mindset 5

they are only stakeholders in a trivial sense. There is already a powerful

management process that manages them; it is called team management.
This approach to stakeholder engagement is based on the idea of man-
agement utility—how useful is it to consider somebody to be a stake-
holder? Essential specialist resources that you are specifically dependent
on may be handled better by engaging them as stakeholders rather than as
team members. Some individuals in the governance group will genuinely
be stakeholders, and it would be a mistake to deal with them merely as a
member of the steering group.

Who should and should not be treated as a stakeholder is not a definitional

problem, but a judgment.

Introducing Role-Based and Agenda-Based

Stakeholders
The early identification of stakeholders is crucial, as it provides the foun-
dation for establishing the boundaries of the project—who is and who is
not involved in the project; who must be consulted, whose views must
be taken into account. Who is a stakeholder and who is not will always
impact the scope of the project.

Role-Based Stakeholders

Ask any IT project manager, “Who are the stakeholders for their project?”
and they are likely to give you a list that includes people such as the spon-
sor, business owner, users, technical architect, and suppliers.
Similarly, a civil engineer may respond with something like this: the
client, planning authority, environmental agency, architects, quantity sur-
veyor, resources, subcontractors, and so on.
What both these responses have in common is that they are a list of
roles. An experienced project manager will know what roles are relevant
by the domain and context within which the project is situated. Some of
these roles are similar across different domain areas but may be referred to
differently. A sponsor in an IT or business project has the same purpose as
the client in a construction project. They both own the purse strings and
6 Stakeholder-led Project Management

are accountable for the exploitation of the outcomes or assets delivered

by the project.
Other roles may be particular to the domain or even the project.
Business owners and users, critical to business and IT projects, are rarely
consulted on commercial construction projects. Although, interestingly,
government construction projects may well consult with users (the public)
who will have access to the new facilities.
Other roles may sound confusingly similar, and yet be significantly
different. In construction, an architect is engaged by the project to define
the overall architecture for the delivery. An IT architect may have respon-
sibility for the totality of some part of the IT architecture within which
the project must fit. The remits of these two roles are quite different.
When answering the question “Who are my stakeholders?” the proj-
ect manager must consider the domain and then the specific context
within which their project operates. What happens if the domain is new
or unfamiliar to the project manager? If you suddenly found yourself in
an aquaculture project, would you have thought of these stakeholders
(Table 1.1) or even know what they are?

Table 1.1  Aquaculture project stakeholders

• Aquaculturists (local, nonlocal, private entrepreneur, corpo-

rate, etc.)
• Processors, wholesalers, and retailers
• Fry (fingerling or seed or broodstock) producers and suppliers
• Feed manufacturers and suppliers
• Drug, chemical, and equipment manufacturers and suppliers
• Fishers or farmers and other residents adjacent to aquaculture sites
• Government planners in aquaculture
• Government aquaculturists
• Extensions agents (government and private)
• Aquaculture researchers (government, university)
• Aquaculture development project workers
• Contributors to financial or technical resources (government,
donors, banks, other sponsors)

(Aquaculture refers to the breeding, rearing, and harvesting of plants and

animals in all types of water environments.)
 Getting a Stakeholder Mindset 7

The more unfamiliar the environment is to the project manager, the

more critical it is that they work collaboratively with domain experts to
ensure these role-based stakeholders and their responsibilities on the proj-
ect are understood. Even where the domain may be familiar, differences
in terminology and interpretations can trip up the new-to-the-business
project manager.
When identifying role-based stakeholders, the focus is on identifying
accurately what role the individual or group has on the project. In some
cases, this will map well to the general expectations of the task. In others,
it will be more complicated. In Case 1.1: The Project Owner—What Was
Their Role, the title business owner was widely used in the organization,
but the remit of this role varied considerably from project to project.
Sometimes, the role title may even mislead as to what to expect from the
individual.

Case 1.1
The Project Owner—What Was Their Role?
In a finance business, the term project owner referred to the person
nominated to own the project. This role was also sometimes, but not
always, referred to as the project sponsor.
New governance structures were introduced, and as part of this, it
was directed that every project should have a motivation document.
Despite general agreement that the project owner was responsible for
ensuring the return on investment for the project, there was consider-
able resistance to the idea that they should be responsible for generat-
ing the motivation document.
When this was investigated, it was found the level of responsibil-
ity and perceived role of the project owner varied considerably from
project to project. In some cases, particularly small fix-it projects, the
nominated owner was an IT operational coordinator with a limited
perspective on the outcomes of the project.
In more significant organizational development projects, the proj-
ect owner had considerable strategic responsibility for transitioning
the business.
The role of the owner and what their agendas were concerning each
project thus varied in noteworthy ways.
8 Stakeholder-led Project Management

Agenda-Based Stakeholders

While role-based stakeholders are those who have a direct influence on

the way a project is constructed and conducted, agenda-based stakehold-
ers have no easy-to-define relationship to the project beyond their inter-
ests and their ability to impact the outcomes of the project.
To identify agenda-based stakeholders, project managers must think
outside of their project teams and local-to-the-project political positions.
They must also anticipate the agendas of those who have interests that lie
beyond the end of the project. There are no checklists and project stan-
dards that will tell you who the agenda-based stakeholders are. At most,
project standards can tell us how best to go about identifying them.
In Case 1.2, the attitudes of people involved in the businesses affected
by the Integrated Rapid Transit (IRT) system implementation would ulti-
mately have a significant influence on how this program was conducted.
The need for collaborative identification of stakeholders is particu-
larly important in public services delivery projects such as Case 1.2: Cape
Town Integrated Rapid Transit (IRT) System. In these types of projects, it
is unlikely that the project manager will be well-positioned to understand
all of the possible players.
But, there were plenty of groups and individuals in the community
who knew and could have helped anticipate the issues that would arise
and become so difficult and costly to deal with as the project progressed
into implementation. Their community know-how was not sought out
till far too late into the project.

Agenda-based stakeholders are so often overlooked and yet:

it is sometimes the stakeholders we do not think of, the ones we miss or
emerge later, that have the greatest impact on project delivery.

Case 1.2
Cape Town Integrated Rapid Transit (IRT) System
The City of Cape Town decided to introduce an IRT system. The
IRT would directly compete with existing taxi and bus services, and
resistance to the service was likely to be significant, disruptive, and
potentially violent. A project focusing specifically on the positive en-
 Getting a Stakeholder Mindset 9

gagement of these stakeholders was set up to run in parallel to the

construction and operationalization program.
Many government and construction groups would be involved in
the overall program. However, for this critical business transition proj-
ect, it was the different agendas of the people on the street—the taxi
drivers and the taxi owners—who would influence the project’s success
and, through this, the viability of the whole program.

The Myths in Project Stakeholder Management

While project stakeholder management has borrowed many of its con-
cepts from other disciplines such as corporate governance, its application
in projects is still developing. There are several myths and misapplications
of stakeholder theories we should address straight away.

We Manage Our Stakeholders

It is common to see this term used in project management literature.

Both the PMI and The Association for Project Management (APM) refer
to managing stakeholders in their bodies of knowledge (BoKs).
Management implies the control and organization of resources. This
emphasis encourages a focus on role-based stakeholders—those groups
that are within direct or indirect control of the project manager. While
the management of stakeholders may be applied, in some circumstances,
for role-based stakeholders, it is rarely an appropriate, or even possible
strategy, for agenda-based stakeholders.

Everybody is a Stakeholder

It is not uncommon in my stakeholder classes that when I ask, “Who

are your stakeholders?” some project managers will reply, “Everybody!”
Indeed, if you read the definition of stakeholder provided by the PMI,
then you would be forgiven in thinking that it includes everyone.
The more useful question that project managers could answer is,
“Who am I going to engage with as stakeholders of my project and
how?” We have discussed in this chapter the split between role-based and
­agenda-based stakeholders—very different types of stakeholders with very
different needs in the engagement process.
10 Stakeholder-led Project Management

Although we may initially identify a large group of potential stake-

holders, it is only through the execution of the complete stakeholder
management process, from identify through to engage and review (Figure
1.2), that we define and continuously re-focus our engagement activities.

We Know Our Stakeholders

On a project of any size and complexity, it is unlikely that the project

manager will know, let alone understand all the project stakeholders. Too
often, in capturing data about stakeholders, assumptions are made, and
any exploration carried out is inadequate to get a good 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. Indeed, I know a
few project offices that actively promote this by supplying templated lists
of stakeholders! I think it stems from a desire to complete the planning
and get on with the doing-stage of the project.
Stakeholder identification and analysis is not something you can do
in 30 minutes, on your own, in an office. It will always need exploration,
consultation, and re-evaluation as the stakeholder positions evolve and
grow with their understanding of the project implications.

Stakeholder Management Will Solve All Conflict and

Relationship Problems

Stakeholder management is no cure for poor social engagement skills or

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. “Let’s put
them on a stakeholder management course” will not work. Anyway, some
conflicts are healthy and necessary, and some simply will not go away but
must be factored into the way the project is structured and conducted.

It is All About Communications

In a review of 20 projects in an IT department, it was encouraging to

find that every one of them had some form of communications plan.
 Getting a Stakeholder Mindset 11

But, it was also slightly disturbing that in all but one of the projects,
this was the only stakeholder-related documentation produced. There was
no evidence of any formal approaches to identifying, analyzing, tracking,
monitoring, and engaging with stakeholders. For many project manag-
ers, the development of the communications plan is what they meant by
stakeholder management and nothing more.

And More Communication is Better

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,
a project office was praised for the quality of the project and portfolio
reports it was creating. After exploring the features of the system further,
it was found that the reports could easily be generated and automati-
cally sent by e-mail at a specific time every week. When this facility was
turned on, Friday afternoon e-mail boxes were clogged by reports with
no chance for managers to identify the important-to-action from the
for-information-only. The positive reaction to the initial good work was
all but lost.

Poor or untargeted communication can cause more problems than no

­communication at all.

Some Projects Do Not Need Stakeholder Management

The level of stakeholder engagement necessary will vary from project to

project. Still, the stories we have gathered suggest that it can be a big
mistake to assume from the start that a 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 several of the IT cases we recorded. What
they often translate into is, “Don’t disturb the stakeholders; they needn’t
know about the project.” The trouble is that stakeholder positions change
as the project progresses. Disinterest can rapidly turn to violent opposi-
tion, if not anticipated.
12 Stakeholder-led Project Management

Getting a Stakeholder Mindset

Every project manager I have talked to tells me they do stakeholder man-
agement. However, what they mean by this and how much it affects
where they spend their time and what they think is important varies
considerably. Having this level of uncertainty 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 and their relationship with the stakeholders may be constrained by
their position in the organization. They may only have limited access to
stakeholders via a gatekeeper or more senior managers within their own
or their clients’ organizational structure.
Even so, some projects managers do seem to attend more to stake-
holder concerns than others. It is tempting to put this down to experi-
ence, or lack of it. I remember teaching extremely bright social science
students on a company’s internal graduate program. We were discussing
the problem of gaining business support for their projects, and there was
genuine disbelief 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, “They’re new. They’ll learn!”
When gathering stories, we have seen project managers who perceive
the project as the delivery of the stakeholders’ desired outcomes, and oth-
ers, experienced and novice, who single-mindedly pursue the delivery of
defined products. For them, the technical requirements are their only
focus. Even with prompting, they find it difficult, or unnecessary, to look
at the project from the perspective of the stakeholders.
The stakeholder mindset demands stakeholder understanding applied
in the context of the overall project’s goals. Following a conference pre-
sentation 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
 Getting a Stakeholder Mindset 13

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 discus-
sion 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 reflects this lack of a stakeholder
mindset. In projects, we are expected to identify what will be delivered,
and it would be inconceivable that a project manager would 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 mindset is an
unavoidable and critical part of successful project management.
Stakeholder management is not a series of steps you go through. It is a
perspective whose implications make a difference to the project’s conduct.
Or, put more bluntly:

I​f you think you are doing stakeholder management and it is not mak-
ing a difference to the way you run your project, then you are not doing
­stakeholder management!

In Summary
Stakeholders are more than just those people and groups we interact with
to deliver the project.
Projects must consider the individuals and groups they impact upon
in the mid- and longer-term.
Role-based and agenda-based stakeholders are different, and they
demand different engagement approaches.
It is not useful to define the whole world as your stakeholder. The real
challenge is to ensure your limited management attention is focused on
the right stakeholders in the right way.
14 Stakeholder-led Project Management

And finally, remember the myths in stakeholder management and do

not fall into the following traps.

• We manage our stakeholders.

• Everybody is a stakeholder.
• We know our stakeholders.
• It is all about communication, and more communication is
better.
• Some projects do not need stakeholder engagement.

Reflections
At the end of each chapter, we pose some questions to help you draw out
your personal learning. 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 stakehold-
ers? Could there and should there have been other groups?
2. Look at your current stakeholder lists. Do they include role-based
and agenda-based stakeholders?
3. At this stage, what do you feel is the big difference between commu-
nication and engagement? (We will revisit this question later.)
 Index
Agenda-based stakeholders, 8 City of Cape Town Integrated
agile environment, 140–141 Rapid Transit project, 99
modeling, 55, 56, 58 communication errors, 77, 78
Agile environment past practices and assumptions,
agenda-based stakeholders, 77–79
140–141 project size, 77
approvals, 130 Conflict escalation, 113
authorizations, 130–131 Consultation group structures, 74
collaborative practices, 134–136 Corporate or societal value, 3
governance, 129–131 Covert power, 112
project roles, 131–134 Credibility-building and
role-based stakeholders, 133–134 communication, 113
stakeholder continuum, 138–141 Critical success factors (CSFs), 29–30
stakeholder process, 134
technology-enhanced engagement, Definitive stakeholder, 67, 69
136–138 Dependent stakeholders, 69
Antagonism, 70 Dominant stakeholder, 69
Aquaculture project stakeholders, 6
Eskerod, P., 64, 72
Badging, 136 Expertise power, 109
Business owner, 7 Extended stakeholder management
process, 105
Cape Town Integrated Rapid Transit
(IRT) System, 8–9 Gamification, 135–136
Cialdini’s six principles of social Genuine consultation, 105–106
influence, 122 Grouping of stakeholders
Circular stakeholder management group dynamics, 75
process, 38 initial groupings, 74
City of Cape Town Integrated Rapid tightly-knit group, 75
Transit (IRT) project top-down approach, 74
comfort and safety drawbacks, 25
communication planning, 99 Hidden stakeholders, 39–40
implementation success, 24–25
MyCiTi buses, 26 Influence power, 110–112
private taxi, 26, 27 Information-giving communication
stakeholder management process, group size, 84
104–107 informed stakeholders, 81
stakeholder wheel, 46, 47 regular communication pitfalls, 82
Coalition-building strategy, 113 responsible and accountable
Communication planning. See also stakeholders, 81
Purposeful communication stakeholder’s role, 80–81
planning steering group meeting, 83
150 Index

Information-seeking communication, Maverick Stakeholders, 114–120

84–86 positional power, 109
International Project Management sources, 108
Association (IPMA), 1 stakeholder network, 120–121
IT System Migration, 88, 89 Product breakdown structure (PBS)
agreed office design, 33
Like-for-Like project, 67–69 integrated, 34
Lurkers, 38 staff ready for the move, 33–34
stakeholder-led project, 31–32
Magpie effect, 72–73 stakeholder-neutral project, 31, 32
Maverick Stakeholders stakeholder-sensitive projects, 32
bank processes and policies, Project classification
114–115 project list, 15, 16
influence strategies, 120 project managers, 17–18
key drivers, 116 stakeholder-led projects, 17
power positions, 116, 117, 119 stakeholder-neutral project, 16
sources of power, 116, 117 stakeholder project continuum, 18
team sociodynamics position, Project delivery strategy, 74
117, 118 Project efficiency, 2
vested interest index, 115 Project financial value, 3
Meaningful engagement Project Management Institute
genuine consultation, 105–106 (PMI) Body of Knowledge
implementation, 107 (BoK), 132
influence strategies, 122–124 Project Management Office (PMO)
internal preparation and alignment, Global Awards, 131
104–105 Project planning
Jeffery’s report, 104 implementation plan, 19
and power (see Power and reiteration, 19
stakeholder engagement) stakeholder-neutral project, 19–20
project influence and persuasion stakeholder-sensitive project, 21–23
strategies, 121–122 Project stakeholder management
pseudo consultation, 105 communications plan, 10–11
responses, 107 conflicts and relationship problem
trust building, 105 solving, 10
Modularization program, UK University role-based stakeholders, 9
engagement strategies, 125–126 stakeholders, 9–10
influence strategies, 124–125 Project utility, 3
Pseudo consultation, 105
Organizational breakdown structure Purposeful communication planning
(OBS) analysis, 41 coordination, 86–89
information-giving
PESTLE model, 44–45 communication, 80–84
Positional power, 109 information-seeking
Power and stakeholder engagement communication, 84–86
covert power, 112 inspire action, 95–98
dimensions, 108 language, 79
expertise power, 109 marketing, 90–91
influence power, 110–112 persuasion attempts, 91–95
 Index 151

primary purpose, 79–80 stakeholder-sensitive projects,

project communicatio nature, 79 142–143
six-whys framework, 80, 81 Stakeholder identification
barriers and pitfalls, 49–52
Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, checklists, 45–47
Informed (RACI) approach, focus groups and structured
60–61 sessions, 44
Role-based stakeholders, 5–7 governance checklists, 40–41
management process model, 37–40
Six-whys framework, 80, 81 organizational breakdown structure
Sleepers, 38 analysis, 41
Snowball approach, 43 PESTLE analysis, 44–45
Sociodynamics stakeholder analysis stakeholder nomination, 43
model “Who Else Should I Talk To?”,
antagonism, 70 41–42
opponents, 72 Stakeholder interest intensity index,
passives, 71 65–66
synergy, 70 Stakeholder-led project, 35
waverers, 71 challenges and boundaries, 28–29
Zealots and golden triangles, 71 City of Cape Town Integrated
Spoilers, 38 Rapid Transit (IRT), 23–27
Stakeholder analysis constraints, 29
agenda-based stakeholder critical success factors (CSFs),
modeling, 55, 56, 58 29–30
attitude map, 56 skills and management styles, 28
data collection, 55, 56 stakeholder-specific critical success
geographical mapping of wards, 57 factor, 29
grouping, 73–75 Stakeholder management process
magpie effect, 72–73 model
project reporting, 58 Burundi Flood Plain, 39–40
relationship mapping, 58, 59 circular stakeholder management
role-based stakeholders, 58, process, 38
60–62 hidden groups, 37–39
sociodynamics stakeholder analysis identification and analysis, 37
model, 69–72 stakeholder identification proces, 39
stakeholder interest intensity index, Stakeholder mindset, 12–13
65–66 Stakeholder-neutral project, 18–20
stakeholder salience model, 66–69 Stakeholders
3 x 3 analysis matrix, 62–64 agenda-based, 8
Stakeholder continuum and Agile definition, 1–2
agenda-based stakeholder, 140–141 management process, 4
scrum-of-scrums, 139 project success dimensions, 2–3
stakeholder-sensitive and role-based, 5–7
stakeholder-led practices, 140 Stakeholder salience model
Stakeholder engagement engagement tactics, 68
agile environment (see Agile Like-for-Like project, 67–69
environment) stakeholder attributes, 66
stakeholder-centric projects, 142 stakeholder types, 66–67
152 Index

Stakeholder-sensitive project, 35 Technology-enhanced engagement,

characteristics, 22–23 136–138
consultation approah, 22 Top-down stakeholder
draft plans, 21 grouping, 74
timelines, 21
Student management system, 73 Value delivery side, project roles, 132,
Synergy, 70 133

Team management, 4–5 Waverers, 71