Overview of Stakeholder Engagement Techniques

Inspired by the quote, "Tell me about your friends, I will tell you who you are!" I used to tell any project manager "Tell me about stakeholder engagement strategy, I will tell you how successful your project will be!"  This is the same message when a group of learners in a project management professional certification asked about which models to use in stakeholder engagement.  Since projects come in many sizes of varying complexity and not all stakeholders are the same, there is no one correct answer for selecting the model that fits! 

Furthermore, Palan (2020) provides four different stakeholder persona which is a very interesting way to look at how stakeholders may be categorized. These include the following. So, each stakeholder persona focuses on several areas of the problem and their overall perception needs to be managed. Finally, in the end, all stakeholder engagement approaches are getting people to identify, deliver, and sustain value maximization (Barth, Ulvenblad, & Ulvenblad, 2017).

• HIPPO (Highest Paid Person's Opinion), 
• WOLF (Working on Latest Fire), 
• RHINO (Really High-value New Opportunity), and 
• Zebra (Zero Evidence But Really Arrogant).

In my book on Organized Common Sense (Rajagopalan, 2018), I expand on a basic technique on the ABC of Stakeholder. It is understanding the authority (power), behavior (influence) they have on people, and the extent of concern or care (interest). Over the years of my experience managing stakeholders, I have called these principles the ABC of stakeholders. Now, as the project size varies and depending on the stage the project is in, there are many techniques. Some are very common and some are not. 

1. Power-Interest Grid
• This is a very common technique (PMBOK, 2017) where people map the stakeholder engagement strategy with four quadrants. The X-axis has a interest on low-to-high scale and the Y-axis has the power on a low-to-high scale with (low, low) at the origin. Accordingly, four strategies emerge.
• High-Power, High-Interest 👉Manage Closely (Sponsor, Regulators)
• High-Power, Low-Interest 👉Keep Satisfied (Other Decision-Makers, Suppliers)
• Low-Power, High-Interest 👉Keep Informed (Delivery Team, Operational Team)
• Low-Power, Low-Interest 👉Monitor Marginally (Employees, Users)
• This approach is good for small-to-medium projects but doesn't scale very well for larger projects unless only critical stakeholders are captured. 
2. Stakeholder Map
• While the Power-Interest Grid is a good one to identify the way you engage with people, one can draw significant stakeholder-to-stakeholder influence, such as who has the listening ears of another, who has more trustworthy relationship, who can gather insights from other sources, etc. 
• The knowledge of these behavioral influence maps is inferred and observed and not necessarily drawn from the title or hierarchy in the organizational chart. 
• People can use arrows, colors, and size of the stakeholder circle in the quadrant to draw such influence directions so that this knowledge furthermore can be used (Anonymous, personal communication, PMI MassBay Chapter Meeting, 2014). 
• Since "influence" is about leadership and leadership is not just with a title, I prefer the Power-Interest over "Influence-Interest" or "Influence-Impact" or "Power-Influence" diagrams. 
• This approach is good for small-to-medium projects but doesn't scale very well for larger projects unless only critical stakeholders are captured.
3. Stakeholder Cube
• This approach is an attempt to scale power-interest grid (PMBOK, 2017) with the influence making three dimensions and evaluating the engagement strategy.
• This approach, in my experience, is more theoretical than practical as it is very hard for people conceptualize the strategy in three dimensions with influence being an observed behavior that can't be mapped to a quantitative or qualitative scale.
4. RACI
• This is a popular tabular structure indicating responsibility assignment matrix (RAM) (PMBOK, 2017) that maps people or the role to four areas. They include responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed (Rajagopalan, 2014a). 
• There are many conceptual errors people inculcate due to the lack of understanding the power of this tool. Please read Rajagopalan (2014b) for more details.
• This tool will work well for larger projects, programs, and portfolios but care is required in capturing more critical stakeholders. 
5. Stakeholder Engagement Assessment Matrix
• This is another good tool to evaluate the perception of the stakeholders' journey (PMBOK, 2017) in your project. Typically, these perceptions are that they are unaware of the project, negatively influenced and so resistant, neutral about supporting the project due to lack of connection with the project outcomes, supportive of project's outcome, or champions of the project.  Depending upon what stage of the stakeholder journey they are in, the strategy may involve informing, educating, or committing them. 
• This is also a good tool for small-to-medium projects. It can scale well for a larger project, program, or portfolio with some modifications of the critical stakeholders captured.
6. Stakeholder Register
• This is another popular tool and is more of a tabular structure (PMBOK, 2017) summarize essential details. It may be difficult to read the diagram and charts and so this structure helps with stakeholder-engagement to communication management plan. 
7. Salience Model
• This is a good model that makes the first attempt to scale to larger initiatives (PMBOK, 2017). Here, three variables are evaluated, and these include power, legitimacy, and urgency. 
• It uses the Powe∩Legitimacy∩Urgency Venn diagram to demonstrate seven types of stakeholders. 
• These involve dormant, discretionary, demanding stakeholders at the external side of power, legitimacy and urgency.
• The dominant stakeholder is between power and legitimacy, the dependent stakeholder is between legitimacy and urgency, and the dangerous stakeholder is between power and urgency. 
• The definitive stakeholder is at the intersection.
• The model does not recommend removing any type of stakeholder but expects one to evaluate the characteristics of when to engage them.
8. CATWOE Analysis
• This model recommends (Bergvall-Kåreborn, Mirijamdotter, Basden, 2004) looking at the categories of stakeholders and evaluate perceptions from their viewpoint. 
• It stands for customer, actor, transformation, worldwide view, owner, and environment. 
• Customer 👉 Mostly made up of company paying client or the client's customers or the company's direct end-users
• Actor 👉Any person or group responsible for delivering the solution (product, service, or result)
• Transformation 👉Any process, tool, or method that the actors use to convert input to outputs (This could be executional, decision-making, or operational processes)
• Worldwide view 👉 This aspect corresponds to high level policy and associated standards and regulations that they need to adhere and be compliant with. 
• Owner 👉This member or group is responsible for collective decision-making 
• Environment 👉The internal and external environment that facilitates all the above to work together (the people, process, product)
• In practice, the order of events should be Worldwide View, Transformation, Customer, Actor, Owner, and Environment 
• Worldwide view binds the reasons why projects or programs started (e.g.: regulation)
• Transformation investigates the internal and external processes that support the projects and programs to deliver
• Customer provides the requirements that the actors must evaluate to understand, fill the gaps, and prioritize (Backlog or scope)
• Actors work together to deliver the output, capability, outcome and benefit for value realization
• Owner approves the project for the team to continue their work 
• Owner and actor are also responsible to create the environment conducive for delivery 
• This model is more to ensure that everyone is on the same page in terms of the project scope and no shocks or surprises are present. It is more of a stakeholder perception management tool.
9. I-C-ICE
• This framework is large-to-larger projects mostly in the public services (IAP2 Spectrum, n.d.), such as building a city, highway or railway management, new supply chain route, airport and telecommunication network, etc. 
• It stands for Inform-Consult-Involve-Collaborate-Empower and predominantly derives support from many of the previous techniques such as Power-Interest Grid, Salience Model, RACI, etc.
10. Onion Diagram
• Just like the layers of onion, (some of you may be familiar with the layers of onion used in the Agile approaches), this approach derives its approach from identifying the stakeholders or stakeholder groups closer to the delivery team (Alexander, 2004). 
• Think of the core as the "Customer Operating System". The people closer to this core are the business analyst, product owner, project manager, developers, and testers. 
• The group in the next outer layer are operational team members, customer support, help desk, users, and some of the extended business teams (marketing, for instance).
• The next layer will be decision makers mostly internal to the company such as the sponsor and governance committee
• The next layer could be internal or external influential experts, consultants, suppliers, vendors, or regulators 
• The final layer could be a market research team focusing on competition, users, market segments, etc.
• While there are benefits to this approach, it also distances people and unless there is a good communication cadence to regularly collect voice of customer and voice of business feedback and ongoing market intelligence, there could be challenges. 
11. Proximity Chart
• This model is a revision of the onion diagram with some level of stakeholder engagement assessment matrix. 
• It has emerged from data analysis techniques on how closely data points related together on the central tendency.
• It still uses the layered approach but brings the SEAM approaches like who opposes the project and who supports the project to evaluate strategies.
• Stakeholder Map ideas can be brought here to draw influence directions. 
• It still has the same challenge of distancing people and requires frequent communication to ensure that stakeholders feel engaged and connected.
12. Resistance Pyramid
1. This approach emerged from the change management context on understanding how humans perceive and deal with change. The model was introduced by Nieder and Zimmerman (Galpin, 1996). Instead of using a layered concentric circle approach, this approach builds on a pyramid.
2. The layers of the pyramid list people that are not knowing about the project, not able to deliver on the outcome, and not willing to support the initiative. 
3. On either side of the pyramid, the reasons for their current state and the potential actions that can be taken are listed. 
4. I have seen people that breakdown the reasons with root-cause-analysis and further extend by force-field-analysis. 
5. While this is a good one in concept, some of the earlier techniques like Power-Interest grid and Stakeholder Engagement Assessment Matrix are simpler and more manageable!

So, after reviewing these frameworks, that have been present for a long period, which is good? There is no one-size-fits-all. The more we look at these techniques, the more we can see that there are a lot of similarities and differences. Depending upon the specific project, pick what matters and improvise! If we recommend one as the best, then, it is like saying agile or traditional approach is a good candidate for all projects. 

What are your thoughts? I am sure I may have missed a technique in a specific industry. Let me know your thoughts.

References

A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (2017). Project Management Institute, 2017. APA, 7th ed. Project Management Institute.

Alexander, I. F. (2004, June). A Better Fit-Characterising the Stakeholders. In CAiSE Workshops (2) (pp. 215-223).

Barth, H., Ulvenblad, P. O., & Ulvenblad, P. (2017). Towards a conceptual framework of sustainable business model innovation in the agri-food sector: A systematic literature review. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(9), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091620

Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Mirijamdotter, A. & Basden, A. (2004). Basic Principles of SSM Modeling: An Examination of CATWOE from a Soft Perspective. Systemic Practice and Action Research 17, 55–73.

Galpin, T (1996). The Human Side of Change, San Francisco, Jossey Bass.

IAP2 Spectrum (n.d).  https://iap2usa.org/resources/Documents/Core%20Values%20Awards/IAP2%20-%20Spectrum%20-%20stand%20alone%20document.pdf

Palan, H. (2020). The dangerous animals of product management and how to tame them. Customer Think.  https://customerthink.com/the-dangerous-animals-of-product-management-and-how-to-tame-them/

Rajagopalan, S. (2014a). RACI: An important tool to manage project outcomes and stakeholder expectations. https://agilesriram.blogspot.com/2014/06/raci-important-tool-to-manage-project.html

Rajagopalan, S. (2014b). RACI: Errors and Implications in building the right one. https://agilesriram.blogspot.com/2014/07/raci-errors-and-implications-in.html

Rajagopalan, S. (2018). Organized Common Sense. Outskirts Press.