International Water

Management Course
IWMC
A Sharing Solutions initiative Swiss Federal Institute
by Swiss Re for Environmental Science
and Technology

International Water Management Course

Sept. 28 – Oct. 1 2004, Rüschlikon-Zürich, Switzerland

Lecture
A framework for stakeholder analysis
and stakeholder involvement

Hans-Joachim Mosler

1
Until still quite recently, governmental authorities and organizations simply implemented
projects without any consideration of the people affected. In the meantime, however, explicit
importance is being attached to the recognition that this way of proceeding results frequently
in rejection of the project or even resistance on the part of affected people and groups. For this
reason, increasing value is being placed on involving stakeholders. In particular, in their aid
and development work, aid organizations are making local stakeholder involvement a decisive
condition for project funding. The requirement is now that, whenever possible, projects must
place more weight on participation (a form of involvement) and that this should be connected
with stakeholders having influence and sharing control over decisions that are made. It is
actually quite accurate to say that participation has become the new paradigm, as shown by
the change in strategy of the World Bank (1996, p. xi), for example. Why is participation
being promoted so strongly? For one, it is certainly because of the many failures experienced
by development aid in the past. For another, ethical considerations have led to the change in
views. The UK government Department for International Development (DFID) writes that
participation is a question of both principle and practice (DFID, 1995a). The principle is that
people should be fully involved in issues concerning themselves, and practically,
effectiveness and sustainability of projects depend, in part, on stakeholder participation.
Participation contributes to chances of aid being effective and sustainable for these reasons:

• It is more effective because, in drawing on a wide range of interested parties, the prospects
for appropriate project design and commitment to achieving objectives is likely to be
maximized.

• It is more sustainable because people are more likely to be committed to carrying on the
activity after aid stops, and more able to do so given that participation itself helps develop
skills and confidence (DFID, 1995a).
Participation has something to do with empowering people. Capacities are developed that
make people more independent and help them to make decisions on what they must do in
order to improve their own life situations. Empowerment is connected with democratization,
good governance, social justice, and human rights (Soma, 2003, p. 48).
Stakeholder Involvement (SI) also has disadvantages, of course. Additional resources (money,
personnel, time) and thus costs must be allocated, while at the same time, the project
organization must be willing to hand over control or to share control. Also, conflicts can arise
if (too) many stakeholders having conflicting interests are involved. This can greatly delay a
project or even doom it to failure. It is also not easy to manage to create a good design for SI.
It requires social (and cultural) competency as well as technical planning work.
SI at all costs cannot be the ideal solution, for it costs resources, time, and know-how. Broad
participation of the population, for example, costs large expenditures. As the available
resources are always limited, every project team has to ask itself what resources it is willing to

2
subtract from actual project realization and invest in SI. This question can only be approached
starting out from the goals of the project. If the project has wide objectives and the goals can
be achieved only with the cooperation of people and organizations that are not involved in the
project, then SI is essential. If the project goal is very restricted and achievable without the
participation or permission of other persons, probably little or no investment in SI is needed.
However, those are only very rough criteria; what is needed are guidelines for selecting the
appropriate form and degree of SI for project realization. In the following, the present paper
will develop initial recommendations for such guidelines.
First, the steps required for successful implementation of SI are given in a brief overview (see
Figure 1):
1. The purposes for which SI processes will be used must be clarified.
2. Key stakeholders must be identified.
3. Characteristics of stakeholders’ stance and attitudes towards the project must be
defined.
4. The social network and relationships among the stakeholders must be identified.
5. Steps 2 to 4 above make up stakeholder analysis (SA). The results of SA must be
verified and, if necessary, modified, on the basis of an evaluation by the stakeholders
(SH) themselves.
6. On the basis of the results of SA, a participatory technique (or method or approach) is
selected, which must be adapted to the given framework conditions.
7. The SI process is initiated and implemented through repeated participatory meetings
and events.
8. The SI process must be repeatedly evaluated throughout the project cycle and
implementation modified, based on the evaluation results.
9. Successful realization of the project must be evaluated according to sustainability
criteria.

3
 Clarifying the
Purposes

Identifying
Stakeholders

Understanding
Stakeholders’ Identifying Patterns
Characteristics of Interaction

Summarizing &
Verification

Selecting the
Continuous &
Stakeholder
Formative
Involvement
Evaluation
Technique

Initiating &
Implementing the Evaluating
Involvement According to
Process Sustainability
Criteria

Figure 1: Steps of the whole stakeholder involvement process.

Each step is then described in detail. The descriptions and explanation are based in part on
The World Bank Participation Sourcebook (1996) and the DFID technical and guidance notes
on stakeholder participation (1995a-c).

1. Clarifying the purposes of SI

Once agreement has been reached on the goals of the project, from there the purposes for
which SI processes will be used can be defined. The following are conceivable purposes:

4
 • Getting approval/pushing the project through: Various means (pressure, money) are
employed to persuade stakeholders to agree to a project. If a plan has already been
developed, or if experts believe that they know the correct solution to a problem, the
only thing left to do is to convince the stakeholders.

• Information: Stakeholders are provided with information about the project in various
ways. If a project has already been planned and scheduled, for example, information is
frequently intended to get stakeholders to agree with the project or to do something
specific.

• Consultation: Stakeholders are asked to give their views and responses, their feedback,
before a project is planned and scheduled, so that their ideas can be (but not
necessarily) taken into consideration during project planning.

• Consensus-building: Whenever the various stakeholders affected have different

interests, consensus must be reached on the project.

• Group decision-making: Decision-making is shared; stakeholders are directly involved

in decision-making. This is an attempt at true sharing and control of decision-making.

• Joint implementation: With joint implementation, stakeholders are directly involved in

realizing the project and make a significant contribution to realization.

2. Identifying stakeholders
Definition of stakeholders: Stakeholders are all people whose interests are affected by a
system (project, etc.) as well as those whose activities significantly affect the system.
To reduce the risks of failing to identify important stakeholders, it is helpful to use a
combination of approaches:
• Information by staff of key agencies
• Information from written records and population data
• Stakeholder self-selection by announcements at meetings, in newspapers, or other
media
• Verification by other stakeholders
• Random method: Ask every single person that you encounter (friend, taxi driver,
barber, waiter, etc.) who they think would be affected by a certain issue or project.
Key questions:
• Who are the potential beneficiaries?
• Who will be adversely affected?
• Who has existing rights?
• Who is likely to be voiceless?

5
 • Who is likely to mobilize resistance?
• Who is responsible for the intended plans?
• Who has the money, skills, or key information?
• Whose behavior has to change for success to be reached?

The guidelines of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) (2003,
p. 4) for Stakeholder Power Analysis demand “quality multi-stakeholder dialogue.” The idea
here is that stakeholders should be involved in the SA using appropriate methods (such as
brainstorming, semi-structured interviews) in order to gain a realistic picture of their views,
concerns, and interests. To acquire the desired information, however, it is necessary to
establish open, lively, and fruitful dialogue between the parties. Key actions to endure good
quality dialogue include:
• allow stakeholders to assist in the identification of other stakeholders
• ensure that stakeholders trust the convenor
• enable dialogue, not a one-way information feed
• ensure parties are sufficiently prepared and briefed to have well-informed opinions and
decisions
• involve stakeholders in defining the terms of engagement
• allow stakeholders to voice their views without restrictions and fear of penalty
• include a public disclosure and feedback process
In addition, the following can be added:
• Create incentives for participation
• Create feeling of belonging through shared vision / objectives
• Help to give a voice to marginalized and minority persons and groups

3. Understanding stakeholders’ characteristics

Understanding the interests, characteristics, and circumstances of the stakeholders is a key to
ensuring their cooperation. Methods here are: brainstorming with the stakeholder group; semi-
structured interviews; mining existing data from reports, newspapers, and so on. After
conducting initial, qualitative interviews, it is recommendable to conduct a quantitative,
standardized survey for estimation of frequency and distribution of SH characteristics among
all stakeholders. The representative survey produces a realistic picture of the opinion of the
stakeholder group. It is important to ensure correct methodological procedures in order to
fulfill validity criteria of the survey (validity, reliability, objectivity), and this is can require a
lot of expenditure of resources. The willingness of the stakeholders to participate in the
stakeholder process must be clarified. It will depend on at least four factors: a calculation of
the costs and benefits that a person will derive from stakeholder involvement; a person's

6
capabilities and abilities to participate; a person's opinion of stakeholder involvement; and
social pressure to participate in stakeholder involvement.

4. Identifying patterns of interactions between stakeholders

Identification of interactions: The patterns and contexts of interaction between stakeholders
have to be recognized: conflict and cooperation, authority relationships, ethnic, religious, or
cultural divisions, historical contexts, and legal institutions. Assessment of “The Four Rs”:
Rights, Responsibilities, Rewards, and Relationships with other groups (IIED, 2003, p. 9).
Assessment of power (influence) and potential to affect or be affected by (importance): It is
useful to group the stakeholders by power and influence over the process, power meaning the
extent to which stakeholder are capable of persuading or forcing others to take particular
decisions or act in certain ways. Power can arise through position in an organization or
develop out of personal connections.
Stakeholders’ potential influence over the final outcome importance, or potential to affect or
be affected by, the project refers to stakeholders whose problems, interests, and needs are
likely to be a priority (important) for the project. The potential to affect or be affected by
resides in from characteristics specific to context and location, such as knowledge and rights.
Key questions for assessing which stakeholders have influence and importance might include
(IIED, 2003, p.11):
• Who is dependent on whom?
• What stakeholders are organized?
• Who has control over resources?
• What problems affect what stakeholders?

5. Summarizing and verification of stakeholder analysis

Stakeholder tables may be used to summarize the results of the SA (see Tables 1 and 2).
Table 1: Stakeholder characterization
Main interest Influence Importance Net impact Options / ways
forward
Stakeholder A

Stakeholder B

Stakeholder C

Stakeholder D

Stakeholder E

Stakeholder F

7
The information about stakeholder influence and importance is combined in a table that
characterizes stakeholders in terms of strategies for engagement (see table 2) (IIED, 2003,
p.11):

Table 2: Strategies for engagement in dependency from stakeholders influence and importance

Stakeholder High importance Low importance

High influence Collaborate with Mitigate impacts, defend against

Low influence Involve, build capacity, and secure interests Monitor or ignore

The DFIF (1995b) recommends a strategy for each field in the table above – the appropriate
type of participation by different stakeholders – so that the project can be conducted
successfully. In this sense, the SA provides a basis for decisions on who should participate, in
what ways, during the stages of the project cycle. Importance is distinct from influence. As
the DFID (1995b) points out, there will often be stakeholders, especially unorganized primary
stakeholders, upon which the project places great importance, even though they are weak in
terms of their influence. Positioning stakeholders in relative terms according to the two broad
criteria indicates relative risks posed by specific stakeholders, and the potential coalition of
support for the project. These findings will inform project negotiations and design (DFID,
1995b).
A diagram can be used for a clear representation of the relationships and influences among the
stakeholder (see Figure 2).

8
 Stakeholder C
Stakeholder D

Stakeholder E
Stakeholder A

Stakeholder B Stakeholder F

Finance Cooperate Control

Figure 2: Diagram of different influences between the stakeholders.

Verification of the SA is carried out using the method of “mirroring.” Stakeholders are
presented the results of the SA and asked to give their opinions on it. Verification is not
considered completed and successful until consensus has been reached on the characterization
of the stakeholders and their relations among each other. This is then a valid representation of
the stakeholders, their perceptions of themselves, and their relationships with other
stakeholders.

6. Selecting the stakeholder involvement technique

What is Stakeholder Involvement (SI) actually? As there are no standards rules as to what
precisely constitutes involvement, some sort of definition is required. A very general
definition might be: “Stakeholder involvement means to affect stakeholders, in any way, by a
project or plan.” Involvement means handling and dealing with various stakeholder groups.
This handling of stakeholders is consciously intended, because for each stakeholder group we
need to decide on the specific form involvement will take. However, the role of individual
stakeholders can change during the lifetime of the project. Involvement is inclusion or non-
inclusion of stakeholders, inclusion can vary in degree, and decisions on how stakeholders are
to be included in the project can be made by the project team exclusively or in negotiation
with the stakeholders. Forms of stakeholder involvement include: information, control,
consultation, forming of partnerships and alliances, turning over responsibility and decision-
making power, monitoring, ignoring, and so on.
9
Based on the SA and the project objectives, the appropriate SI technique is selected, whereby
the various SI techniques are not equally well suited for all project objectives, as shown in
Table 3 below.

Table 3: What stakeholder involvement techniques for what purpose

Pressu Incenti Media Give Focus Repre Round Scena Future Multi- Advoc Conse Medi-
rize ves cam- infor- groups senta- table rio work- agen- acy nsus ation
paigns mation tive groups work- shop cy plan- confer
survey shop organi ning ence
s zation
Convin-
cing ++ ++ +

Giving
inform- ++ ++
ation
Consul-
ting + ++ + ++

Forming
con- + + ++ ++
sensus
Taking
group ++ + ++ +
deci-
sion
Imple-
menting + ++ +
together
“empty”= not suitable “+”= suitable “++”= very suitable

The various SI techniques can be grouped in the categories (A) influence/ gain approval for
project, (B) identify needs (C) develop visions of the future, (D) deal with conflicts. They are
described in brief as follows:

(A) Influence/Gain approval for project

• Pressurize: Pressure is put on stakeholders so that they are more or less forced to do
something. This can be political pressure or the pure exercise of power.

• Incentives: Stakeholders are offered incentives to agree to something or to do

something. Incentives can take the form of money, discounts, or the like.

• Media campaigns: Campaigns are conducted through various media (newspapers,

radio, television, Internet) in order to persuade stakeholders or to move them to
perform certain actions.

• Give information: Dissemination of information using various means: distributing

brochures and scientific reports, holding public talks and public scientific meetings,
and so on.

(B) Identify needs

10
 • Focus groups: Moderated discussion in small groups, whereby stakeholders express
their opinions and attitudes. Focus groups can contribute towards opinion-forming in
the group.

• Representative surveys: A representative sample of the population is queried on a

particular project or issue by means of a structured questionnaire.

• Round table groups: Round table groups are consultative groups with participation of
representatives of all stakeholders affected by a conflict or project. The goal is to
consider problems thoroughly and to seek consensus-building and formulate solutions.
All participants must have equal rights, independently of their political or economic
influence.

(C) Develop visions of the future

• Scenario workshop: Using scenarios prepared by experts, stakeholders work on the

scenarios in discussion workshops. Based on discussion results, they formulate a plan
of action.

• Future workshop: Meant to motivate stakeholders to participate in the planning

process. This technique has three successive phases: critique, brainstorming,
realization. Together, the participants design future scenarios and check the feasibility
of their designs.

• Multi-agency organization: This is the creation of an organizational structure, a

committee that includes representatives of all affected organizations. The committee is
asked by the government or political institution to give advice and make a decision on
a specific issue or topic. Based on the committee's visions of the future, it develops
action programs.

(D) Deal with conflicts

• Advocacy planning: Here the goal is to ensure that the interests of non-organized,
socially disadvantaged, and less able to articulate groups within the population are
considered in the planning process. The groups receive advice, and their interests are
represented in the appropriate committees and bodies.

• Consensus conference: The goal is to have representatives of the public, laypeople,

assess controversial issues. After hearing presentations by experts and studying
information, the group prepares a final document.

• Mediation: In conflict situations, mediation through neutral third parties is the attempt
to reach mutually agreed upon solutions. First, the key issues and areas of conflict are
stated and clarified (interests, aversions, blocks). Then there is an attempt to find
mutually satisfying ways to resolve the conflict (evaluate options, check for fairness).
When a solution is agreed upon, the first steps of implementation can begin.
11
The results of the SA can be used when selecting the appropriate SI technique for
stakeholders in the following ways:

• If there are influential stakeholders who are against the project, the technique
influence/ gain approval for the project can be used to attempt to win them over.

• If important stakeholders have no interest in the project, it is important to identify their

needs, for it may be possible to stimulate their interest in the project via their needs.

• If SA has revealed that SH have not thought at all about future development, the SI
technique develop visions of the future should be used.

• If SA reveals strong conflicts among SH interests, or if interests of the so-called

“voiceless” are not being represented, techniques for dealing with conflict should be
implemented.
What role the project directors can play in the framework of the conflict-laden stakeholder
process is dependent upon their control of the process and the decisions. Table 4 below
provides an overview of project directors’ roles under the different conditions:

Table 4: Role of the project director in dependency of his control over decisions and process

No control over process Control over process

No control over decisions Role: Initiator (stimulate the Role: Mediator
process)
Control over decisions Role: Arbitrator, referee Role: Inquisitor

Frameworks of the Social System

Further, it is important to clarify whether and to what extent the selected SI technique accords
with or stands in conflict with important frameworks in the social system. The following
frameworks are significant:

• Political framework: Does the type of stakeholder involvement fit into the existing
political system?

• Legal framework: Does the type of stakeholder involvement conform to the laws?

• Institutional framework: Does the type of stakeholder involvement follow the given
institutional framework?

• Social framework: Does the type of stakeholder involvement conform to social

customs?
If it is foreseeable that the selected SI technique will stand in grave contradiction to one of
these frameworks, a different SI technique must be chosen.

12
7. Initiating and implementing the stakeholder involvement process
Group processes: Prior to initiating the SI process, it is important to clarify also possible
group processes based on the SA. The following checklist contains questions that should be
asked:

• To what extent will hidden agendas and the previous histories of group members
influence their voicing of opinions in the group?

• What members of the group will tend to remain silent, and what members of the group
will articulate their opinions and thus tend to sway the group?

• What opinion of the project could end up as the typical opinion of the group?

• What opinions of the project on the part of respected, outstanding, or powerful persons
in the group could get through?

• What minority opinions could get through and how?

• Is polarization of the entire group to a particular opinion possible?

When implementing the SI process, an appropriate form that is acceptable to all parties must
be found. Here, questions like the following are pertinent: Should the group always meet as a
whole, or should there also be meetings of sub-groups within the group? Is the frequency of
the meetings tolerable to all participants (time burden)? How binding should group decisions
be for the individual members of the group?
Further points that must be clarified and are indispensable if the project is to succeed are the
following (these are based in part on The Worldbank Participation Sourcebook, 1996):

• Shared interests: With no shared interests, there will be no cooperation among

stakeholders. For this reason it is necessary to unmask any commonality in stakeholders'
underlying interests and to highlight and assure common ground that the stakeholders will
recognize as such.

• Credibility of the corporation: Projects are usually conducted by a corporation – federal or

municipal authorities or a coalition of organizations and persons (NGOs, churches,
associations, residents). For credibility, project proponents must be broadly supported and
their members must be persons who have proved themselves, who act in an integrative
manner, and who are held in high esteem.

• Legitimization: The corporation of a project must acquire official legitimization in the

form of financial resolutions, cooperation, and submission of the required
communications to the authorities.

• Resources: It is important to clarify in advance the availability of the resources required

for conducting a stakeholder involvement program adequately (time, money, know-how).

13
• Transparency: High transparency and comprehensibility of ongoing decision processes
make a significant contribution by giving stakeholders the opportunity to learn about
higher-order decision problems and abstract planning issues, which ultimately impacts the
quality of their participation. Ongoing public relations efforts are necessary in order to
assure the flow of information to the outside.

• Collaborative setting of rules for decision-making and procedures: At the start of the
process, it is important to establish consensus regarding basic procedures and constitutive
decision rules that will hold for the SI process.

• Secure expectations: Participatory processes are credible only if they have an influence on
the decisions to be made. At the start of the SI process, the extent to which participatory
results will be binding in the project it should be clarified.

• Motivation of participants: For influential actors, participating in SI processes, which not

least of all strive towards the equality of all participants, is connected with risks and a real
loss of power. The willingness of influential actors to participate increases if they have the
possibility of obtaining other resources, such as social prestige, honor, and acceptance of
their concerns.

• Results for the SH: Before stakeholders commit themselves to participation, they should
be informed as to their role within the SA and as to what they can expect from the results.
It is conceivable that false expectations and disappointments on the part of stakeholders
can have consequences of all kinds. These can start with stakeholders being no longer
willing to cooperate and can move on to sabotage, open opposition, and possibly to
disapproval and rejection of the project in public opinion.

• Competency of participants: If participants are not given sufficient information, there is

the danger that their decision will be inconsistent and not base on the facts, with high
resulting costs. To prevent this, it is essential to ensure that participants are sufficiently
technically informed as soon as possible.

• Turning zero-sum conflicts into positive-sum conflicts: The attempt should be made to
change potential conflict situations in such a way that a situation is created in which one
actor does not win at the cost of another, but rather all actors gain additional benefit.

• Institutional integration: Participatory processes need to be “practical in the real world,”

meaning that their organization and structure can be integrated into overreaching decision
processes and that they take into account participants’ limited resources in time and
means.
The above points are examined and clarified so that the suitability of SI can be assessed. Of
course, this is a matter of interpretation, and it has to make sense within the specific situation.
To arrive at the least distorted interpretation, the assessment should be conducted by a team,

14
or at least by two persons, so that comparison is possible. It is also important to repeat the
assessment of the conditions periodically, so that transformation processes do not go
unnoticed.

8. Continuous and formative evaluation

In the best case, every meeting of the SH results in a plan of goals and actions that are
accepted and borne by all. The entire SI process must undergo continuous evaluation, and the
results of the evaluation must constantly inform the process, revising it as needed (formative
evaluation). Evaluation of the process should be conducted in such a way that (a) after every
meeting and (b) otherwise, at regular intervals, stakeholders are asked about their satisfaction
with the SI process with regard to form, course of the process, development, results, and
more. For a formative evaluation, the results must impact the process. For example, if some
participants are dissatisfied with the form of the process, it should be corrected as quickly as
possible. The following points should be explored with the stakeholders in an interview using
a semi-structured interview protocol (taken and adapted from Project XL, p. 107 f.):

• involvement in the process, including their decision to participate, how they were
invited to participate, and any involvement in their community or with the facility
before this process began

• perceptions as to whether the stakeholder participation process was well designed and
implemented, including whether it afforded the stakeholder a real opportunity for
input, whether the level of involvement and the timeframe of involvement were
appropriate, and whether there were any barriers to effective participation

• perspectives as to what the stakeholder process was trying to accomplish, including

whether the process goals were appropriate and successfully accomplished, and
whether the process focused on the right issues, addressed those issues adequately, and
brought together the right people in the process to effectively represent stakeholder
interests

• perceptions as to the organization of the process

• roles of the stakeholders, including whether the roles were developed by the company
alone or in conjunction with other stakeholders, the stage in the decision making
process at which stakeholders became involved, whether the roles were consistent
with what the stakeholders envisioned when they decided to participate, and the
effectiveness of these roles

• overall satisfaction of stakeholders with the stakeholder involvement process,

including their perceptions about the major strengths and weaknesses of the
stakeholder involvement process and suggestions for improving the process

15
 • how technical issues were addressed in the stakeholder process and if this enabled
technical information to be understandable to all participants

• the degree to which differences in interests or perspectives existed between

stakeholders and how any differences that did exist were addressed

• how meetings (if held) were managed, including issues of setting the agenda and
ground rules, the use of a facilitator and that person’s effectiveness, and whether these
meetings provided a good opportunity for dialogue

• the outcomes of the process, and whether the stakeholder felt that they had an impact
on the outcome, how satisfied they were with the “Final Project Agreement,” and what
outcomes were most and least satisfying to them and their constituency

• what had been accomplished since the signing of the Final Project Agreement, how
the stakeholders had continued to be involved, and the effectiveness of that
involvement.

9. Evaluating completed projects according to sustainability criteria

It is necessary to conduct a global, summative evaluation of the project. The worth and value
of the project aimed for is sustainable development of the region in which the project was
conducted. Sustainable development is a guideline for developing a human society that aims
to satisfy the needs of all people – current or future generations – and to ensure a good quality
of life for all.
Project success should be measured on four dimensions of sustainability: economic,
ecological, social, and technical sustainability (it makes sense to include technical
sustainability where technical facilities have been installed). Fulfillment of each dimension is
assessed according to criteria. The following presents some initial suggestions for assessment
criteria for each dimension:

A. Social sustainability
• the largest possible percentage of the population has profited from the project
• as many different groups within the population have profited from the project as possible
• the needs of several generations have been taken into account
• the highest possible number of jobs has been created
• no aggression arose
• the project promoted broad improvement of the populations’ competencies
• institutional, political, and organizational structures were reinforced or established
B. Economic sustainability
• independent of external resources, self-supporting, funding secured
• implementation was as rapid as possible
16
• project benefit felt as early as possible
C. Ecological sustainability
• no damage to nature and environment, environmentally friendly
• increase/no reduction of biodiversity
• the health and well being of the population was not impaired, but improved
D. Technical sustainability
• the installation functions with no technical problems
• the installation functions for as long as possible
• the installation can be repaired and maintained with onsite spare parts and know-how
If the overall evaluation reveals that some criteria have not been met, or fulfilled only in part,
the process should be modified and corrected if it is still possible.
Only once the overall evaluation of the project is positive can SA and SI be considered to be
completed.

References and suggested readings

Babiuch, W. M. & Farhar, B. C. (1994). Stakeholder Analysis Methodologies Resource Book. Colorado:
National Reneweble Energy Laboratory.

Banville, C., Landry, M., Martel, J. M. & Boulaire, C. (1998). A stakeholder approach to MCDA. Systems
research, 15, 15-32.

Beierle, T. & Konisky, D. (2000).Values, Conflict, and Trust in Participatory Environmental Planning. Journal
of Policy Analysis and Management, 19 (4), 587-602.

Burgoyne, J. (1994). Stakeholder Analysis. In Cassell, C. & Symon, G. (Eds.), Qualitative Methods in
Organizational Research. A Practical Guide (pp. 187-207). London: Sage.

Department for International Development (1995a). Technical note on enhancing stakeholder participation in
aid activities [On-line]. Available: http://www.euforic.org/gb/stake2.htm

Department for International Development (1995b). Guidance note on how to do stakeholder analysis of aid
projects and programmes [On-line]. Available: http://www.euforic.org/gb/stake1.htm

Department for International Development (1995c). Guidance Note on Indicators for measuring and assessing
primary stakeholder participation [On-line]. Available: http://www.euforic.org/gb/stake3.htm

Diallo, A. & Thuillier, D. (2004). The success dimensions of international development projects: the perceptions
of African project coordinators. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 19-31.

Grimble, R. & Wellard, K. (1997). Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of
principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural systems, 55 (2), 173-193.

17
International Institute for Environment and Development (2003). Stakeholder Power Analysis Part 1 [On-line].
Available: http://www.iied.org/forestry/tools/stakeholder.html

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, R. B. & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory stakeholder identification and salience:
defining the principle of who and what really counts. The academy of management review, 22 (4), 226-
249.

Morrison, K. (2003). Stakeholder involvement in water management: necessity or luxury? Water Science and
Technology, 47, 43-51.

Project XL, Stakeholder Involvment: A guide for project sponsors and stakeholders (1999). [On-line]. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/032599.pdf.

Project XL, Stakeholder Involvment Evaluation, Final Report (2000). [On-line]. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/finalreport.pdf.

Ravnborg, H. M. & Westermann, O. (2002).Understanding interdependencies: stakeholder identification and

negociation for collective natural resource management. Agricultural systems, 73, 41-56.

Smutko, L. S., Klimek, S. H., Perrin, C. A. & Danielson, L. E. (2001). Involving watershed stakeholders: an
issue attribute approach to determine willingness and need. Journal of the american water resources
association, 38 (4), 995-1006.

Soma, K. (2003). How to involve stakeholders in fisheries management - a country case study in Trinidad and
Tobago. Marine Policy, 27, 47-58.

The World Bank (1996). The World Bank Participation Sourcebook [On-line]. Available:
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sbhome.htm

18