Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcme20 Construction Management and Economics ISSN: 0144-6193 (Print) 1466-433X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20 Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management Stefan Olander To cite this article:Stefan Olander (2007) Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management, Construction Management and Economics, 25:3, 277-287, DOI: 10.1080/01446190600879125 To link to this article:https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190600879125 Published online: 26 Mar 2007. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 8128 View related articles Citing articles: 114 View citing articles
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management STEFAN OLANDER* Construction Management Department, Lund University, Sweden Received 21 March 2006; accepted 23 June 2006 Construction projects attract interest from various stakeholders who express needs and expectations about the project.These are often in conflict with each other and it is unlikely that allof them can be fulfilled.The stakeholder management process involves evaluating the needs and expectations of stakeholders in relation to the main objectives of the project. An important basis for this evaluation is stakeholder analysis. The approach is based upon established theory,knowledge ofstakeholder managementand empiricaldata.The analysis consists ofa stakeholderimpactindex to determine the nature and impactofstakeholderinfluence,the probability of stakeholders exercising their influence and each stakeholder’s position in relation to the project— are they proponents or opponents? The analysis of the stakeholder impact index can help project managers to formalize a stakeholder management process. Keywords:Project management, project stakeholders, project strategies Introduction During the differentstages ofa construction project, from initiation to handover of completed construction, avastnumberofinterestswillbeaffected,both positivelyandnegatively.Representativesofthese interests are referred to as the project’s stakeholders. The stakeholders express needs and expectations about the project, which often conflict with one another, and itis unlikely thatallstakeholder expectations willbe met(McManus,2002).Thus,the challenge forthe construction project manager is to evaluate stakeholder needsandexpectationsinrelationtothemain objectives ofthe projectin order to determine which needs and expectations are to be fulfilled. ‘The ability to understand the often hidden power and influence of variousstakeholdersisa criticalskillforsuccessful projectmanagers … Withoutattention to needs and expectationsofadiverserangeofstakeholders,a projectwillprobably notbe regarded assuccessful, even if the project manager was able to stay within the originaltime, budget and scope’ (Bourne and Walker, 2005).Managersshould attempttoidentifytheir significantand legitimate stakeholdersand to listen and respond to their interests and concerns (Postet al., 2002). This management process is necessary in order to determine how the probable stakeholders are likely to reactto projectdecisions,whatinfluencetheir reaction willcarry,and how the stakeholdersmight interact with each other and the project’s managers and professionalsto affectthe chancesforsuccessofa proposed project strategy (Cleland, 1986). Steuer(2006)sortsstakeholdertheory into three different perspectives: corporate, stakeholder and con- ceptual.Thecorporateperspectivedealswith how corporationshandlestakeholders,thestakeholder perspective analyses how stakeholders try to influence theorganizationandtheconceptualperspective exploreshow particularconcepts,such ascommon good or sustainable development,relate to business– stakeholder interactions. The purpose of this paper is to present a method for project stakeholder analysis from a stakeholder perspective.The method is constructed from established theory,knowledgeofstakeholder management and from empirical data. An important issue for the project management team is to identify and analyse those stakeholders who can have an influence over project decisions (Olander and Landin, 2005). This facilitates managing a process that maximizesstakeholderpositive inputand minimizes*E-mail: stefan.olander@bekon.lth.se Construction Management and Economics(March 2007)25, 277–287 Construction Management and Economics ISSN 0144-6193 print/ISSN 1466-433X online#2007 Taylor & Francis http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/01446190600879125
anydetrimentalornegativeimpact(Bourneand Walker,2005).The analysis consists ofa stakeholder impactindex to determine the nature and impactof stakeholder influence,the probability ofstakeholders using their influence, and each stakeholder’s position in relation to the project—are they proponents or oppo- nents? Projectstakeholdersaffectprojectmanagement processes.Itistherefore importantto recognize the stakeholders in order to plan and execute a sufficiently rigorous stakeholder management process.The ambi- tion ofthestudydescribed hereisto develop a stakeholder impact index as a toolfor comprehensive projectstakeholderanalysisthatcanhelpproject managers in planning and evaluating the stakeholder managementprocess.The stakeholderimpactindex analysestherelativeimportanceofdifferentstake- holders and the nature of their potential impact. Who are the stakeholders? Freeman (1984) describes the concept of stakeholders as any group or individual who can affect, or is affected by,the achievement ofa corporation’s purpose.This definition isa developmentofthe firststakeholder definition, which Freeman (1984) had traced back to a memo from Stanford Research Institute in 1963.The memo states that stakeholders are those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist. In conclusion, Freeman (1984) states that the stakeholder approach isaboutgroupsand individualswho can affecttheorganization,andisaboutmanagerial behaviourtaken in responseto thosegroupsand individuals.Phillips(2003)addsthatstakeholder theory should be concerned with who hasinputin decision making aswellaswho benefitsfrom the outcomesofsuch decision.Thus,forconstruction projects it is the responsibility of the project manager to respond to the needs and expectations addressed by the project’s stakeholders and to be concerned with how the decision-making process is carried out. Therehasbeen debateon how to definestake- holders. Freeman’s (1984) definition, those that affect or are affected,is viewed as being broad,because it meritsalltobestakeholders.Ifeveryoneisa stakeholder of everyone else there is little value-added in the use ofthe stakeholder concept (Phillips,2003; Sternberg, 1997;and Mitchellet al., 1997). The view expressed in the Stanford definition—those without whose support the organization would cease to exist—is regarded asnarrow since relevantgroupswould be excluded. Postet al.(2002) state that the fundamental ideaisforstakeholderstohaveastakeinthe organization, and they define the stakeholders as those thatcontributevoluntarilyorinvoluntarilytothe organization’s wealth-creating capacity and activities: they are, therefore, its potential beneficiaries and/or risk bearers. Donaldson and Preston (1995) identify stake- holders through the potentialharms and benefits that they experience or anticipate experiencing as a result of the organization’s actions or inactions. Broad and narrow viewscan also be seen in the definitionsofprojectstakeholders.PMI(2004)has basically adopted the Freeman (1984) definition and statesthatprojectstakeholdersareindividualsand organizations that are actively involved in the project or whose interests may be affected as a result ofproject execution orprojectcompletion.Thus,PMI(2004) suffers the same criticism as Freeman (1984) that all groups or individuals in some sense can be defined as stakeholders.McElroyandMills(2000)adopta narrowerview much in line with Postetal.(2002). Projectstakeholders are a person or group ofpeople who have a vested interest in the success of a project and the environment within which the project operates. The term ‘vested interest’ can here be viewed as equal to the key term ‘stake’.From Postetal.(2002),and Donaldson and Preston (1995), stake could be defined asactualorperceived benefitsorrisks/harmsfrom organizational activities. Donaldson and Preston (1995) draw a distinction between influencers and stakeholders.Some actors in the organization may have influence and a stake, some may only have a stake in the organization, while others may have influence only.Those actors that only have an influence are defined as influencers. Donaldson and Preston (1995) exemplify the media as typical influen- cers,and thusnotasastakeholder.Olanderand Landin (2005) also define the media as notbeing a stakeholder, because it has no stake in the organization ortheproject.However,thisview isproblematic becauseitisevidentthatthemediacan havea tremendousimpactonorganizationalandproject activities. Mitchelletal.(1997)addressthisproblem.Even though influencersdo nothave legitimate claimsor perhaps any claims at all, they do have power over an organization orproject.Powerand legitimacyare differentand sometimesoverlapping dimensions,so that theory ofstakeholder identification mustaccom- modate these differences. Thus, Mitchellet al.(1997) define powerand legitimacy ascore attributesin a comprehensivestakeholderidentification modeland add a dynamic attribute ofurgency to complete that model.Classesofstakeholderscan be identified by their possession of one, two or all three of the following attributes:the stakeholder’spowerto influence;the legitimacy of stakeholder relationships; and the urgency 278Olander
of the stakeholder’s claim (Mitchellet al., 1997). Thus, a projectstakeholdercan be defined as a person or group of people who has a vested interest in the success ofa projectand the environmentwithin which the projectoperates.Vested interestis defined as having possession of one or more of the stakeholder attributes of power,legitimacy or urgency.There are essentially two categoriesofstakeholder:internalstakeholders, who are those actively involved in projectexecution; and external stakeholders, who are those affected by the project. Stakeholder attributes A party to a relationship has power to the extent it has or can gain access to coercive, utilitarian or normative means to impose its willin the relationship (Mitchell et al., 1997). The power of stakeholders may arise from their ability to mobilize socialand politicalforces as wellastheirability to withdraw resourcesfrom the organization (Postet al., 2002). Government agencies and courts have a special kind of formal power. While they usually do notinitiate action,they can serve as resolverofconflictsorasguarantorofdue process (Freeman, 1984). The central idea of legitimacy is understood in terms ofnormativelegitimacyandderivativelegitimacy (Phillips,2003).Normative stakeholders are those to whom theorganization hasamoralobligation,an obligation of stakeholder fairness over and above that due to othersocialactorssimply by virtue ofbeing human.Derivatively legitimate stakeholders are those whose actions and claims mustbe accounted for by managers due to their potential effects upon normative stakeholders.Legitimacyisasocialgood,thatis something largerand moreshared than mereself- perception,and thatmay be defined and negotiated differentlyatvariouslevelsofsocialorganization (Mitchelletal.,1997).Legitimacy could,thus,be defined in terms of stakeholders that bear some sort of risk in relation to the organization,be it beneficialor harmful. The importance of a stakeholder will depend on the needs of the organization and the extent to which the organization is dependent on that stakeholder, relative to other stakeholders, in meeting its needs. Therefore, atany given time,some stakeholderswillbe more importantthanothers(JawaharandMcLaughlin, 2001). Concerns and priorities change over time; new classesand configurationsofstakeholdersappearin response to changing circumstances (Postet al., 2002). Mitchellet al.(1997) argue that urgency is based on the following two attributes: time sensitivity, the degree to which managerialdelay in attending to the claim or relationship isunacceptable to the stakeholder;and criticality, the importance of the claim or the relation- ship to the stakeholder.Urgency isdefined asthe degree to which claims call for immediate attention. From thedefinitionofstakeholderattributes, Mitchelletal.(1997)definedifferentstakeholder classesthataredependenton thedistribution of stakeholder attributes: (1)Dormant stakeholders possess power to impose theirwill,butdo nothaveanylegitimate relationship orurgentclaim.Theirpower remains unused. (2)Discretionary stakeholders possess the attribute of legitimacy, but they have no power or urgent claim.Thereisnoabsolutepressurefor managers to engage in an active relationship, although they may choose to do so. (3)Demandingstakeholderspossessan urgent claim, but have no power or legitimate relation- ship. This is bothersome, but does not warrant more than passing management attention. (4)Dominant stakeholders are both powerfuland legitimate. It seems clear that the expectations ofany stakeholders perceived by managers to have power and legitimacy will matter. (5)Dangerousstakeholderslack legitimacy,but possesspowerand urgency.Theywillbe coerciveand possiblyviolent,makingthe stakeholder ‘dangerous’. (6)Dependent stakeholders have urgent and legit- imateclaims,butpossessno power.These stakeholders depend upon others for the power necessary to carry out their will. (7)Definitive stakeholders are those thatpossess both power and legitimacy.They willalready bemembersofan organization’sdominant coalition.When such a stakeholder’s claim is urgent,managers have a clear and immediate mandate to attend to and give priority to that claim. Impact, probability and position Johnson and Scholes (1999) state that it is not enough simplyto identifystakeholders.Managersneed to assess each stakeholder’s interest to express its expecta- tions on project decisions and if there is the power to follow it through. Johnson and Scholes (1999) propose a stakeholdermapping technique,the power/interest matrix, for this evaluation. In the power/interest matrix, project stakeholders can be categorized depending on theirpowertowardstheprojectand theirlevelof interest (Olander and Landin, 2005; Winch and Bonke, Stakeholder impact analysis279
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
2002; Newcombe, 2003). Olander and Landin (2005) addressed the need to grade the two parameters, power and interest. However, it is hard to assess power on a scale,rather one assesses the impact each stakeholder has on the project.The interestlevelis in the same sense an assessmentofthe probability thata stake- holder will have an impact on project decisions. Thus, the assessment can, alternatively, be made by using the probability-impact analysis ofrisk assessment,see for example Ward and Chapman (2003),and change the power/interest matrix to the impact/probability matrix (see Figure 1). Bourne and Walker (2005) develop this concept into the vested interest–impact index (ViII), which consists ofthe parameter vested interestlevels (probability of impact), and influence impact levels (levelof impact). The vested interest levels (v) and the influence impact levels(i)are qualitatively assessed as55very high, 45high,35neutral,25low and 15verylow.The vested interest–impactindexisthen calculated as ViII5!(v*i/25) (Bourne and Walker, 2005). Evaluating the total impact of stakeholders in relation to the project requires more than identifying the impact level and probability of impact. Project managers need toassessthestakeholderattributesandclasses (Mitchelletal.,1997),and their position towards the project (Cleland, 1986; Winch and Bonke, 2002)—are they opponentsorproponents?McElroy and Mills (2000)proposefivedifferentlevelsofstakeholder position towards the project: active opposition, passive opposition, not committed, passive support and active support.Thepositionthateachstakeholderhas towardsthe projectsetsthe direction ofthe impact each stakeholderhas on the projectdecision-making process.Theconceptsofimpact,probabilityand position need to be valued together with stakeholder attributes.The stakeholder impact index introduces a valuation ofthe stakeholderattributesand position, which together with the vested interest index (Bourne and Walker,2005)formsa toolforcomprehensive stakeholder analysis. The stakeholder impact index A case study of external stakeholders (those affected by projectexecution)hasbeenconductedwiththe purpose ofevaluating and understanding the external stakeholdermanagementprocess within construction projectmanagement.Variousdocuments,including newspaper articles,have been studied in combination with interviews of different stakeholders in construction projects, from project managers and local authorities to affected membersofthe public and specialinterest groups. From the study it was evident that construction projects affect,and are affected by,a vast number of stakeholders.Thestudywaslimitedtoexternal stakeholders,whichmeansthattheanalysishere excludes internal stakeholders, for example the project owner, contractors and financial institutions. Stakeholdersare eitherproponentsoropponents, and often use the powerbase ofone stakeholderto enhancetheirown.From aprojectmanagement perspective there is,thus,a need to understand,plan for and evaluate the impact that different stakeholders have on the projectdecision-making process.Bourne and Walker (2005) introduced the vested interest index which consists ofthe two parameters:vested interest levelandinfluenceimpactlevel,whichbasically describe the level and probability of stakeholder impact on projectexecution.However,fora comprehensive stakeholder analysis the nature of the impact needs to be incorporated. Thus, the two concepts are added: the attribute value based on stakeholder classes (Mitchell et al., 1997) and the position value based on the levels of stakeholder position proposed by McElroy and Mills (2000).When combiningthestakeholderattribute value (A),and position value (Pos),with the vested interest–impactindex(ViII),projectmanagerscan evaluate a stakeholder impact index (SII) as a function of A, Pos and ViII. The stakeholder attribute value (A) is assessed with the help ofweighing,where each attribute (power, legitimacy or urgency) is given a weight between 0 and 1,with the sum ofthe attribute weightsas1.The stakeholder attribute value will depend on the distribu- tion ofthe three attributes (power (p),legitimacy (l) and urgency(u))thateach stakeholderpossesses, showingtherelativestrengthwithrespecttothe project.Thedistribution ofweightswillvary from project to project. In this paper the weights have been determined as p50.4,l50.3 and u50.3,because the empiricaldata implied thatthe attributesin general wereroughlyofequalimportance,butpowerwas slightly more importantthan the others.The vested interest–impact index (ViII) is valued as described by Bourne and Walker (2005). The position value (Pos) is Figure1Thestakeholderimpact/probabilitymatrix (adapted from Johnson and Scholes, 1999) 280Olander
numerically assessed as:active opposition (Pos521), passiveopposition(Pos520.5),notcommitted (Pos50),passive support(Pos50.5),and active sup- port (Pos51). The stakeholder impact index can then be calculated as: SII~ViIIAPos Thetotalstakeholderimpactindex fortheproject (SIIproj) is: SIIproj~SSIIk, where k51 to n number of stakeholders. IfSIIprojispositive the projecthasa favourable stakeholder impact, but if it is negative the stakeholder impactisunfavourable.Furthermore,asufficient stakeholdermanagementprocessshould ensurean increasing SIIprojduring the project’s life cycle,or at leastnotone thatdecreases.From the studied cases presented below, three aspects will illustrate the use of the stakeholder impact index. A qualitative analysis has been performed where the inputto the stakeholder impactindex (SII) was based on empiricaldata and identified externalstakeholders.Three basic evalua- tions have been undertaken and each has been for a different stage in the project in order to provide a basis for analysing the project over time. First, the level and probability ofimpacthasbeen evaluated on a scale from 1 to 5 to calculate the vested impact index (ViII). Second,the attributes have been evaluated foreach stakeholderduringdifferentstagesoftheproject. Third,theposition ofeach stakeholderhasbeen evaluated based on how theyhavereacted to the implementation ofthe project during different stages. The analysisrevealsexternalstakeholderimpacton project implementation over time during the planning and design stagesup to thepermitto build.The projects are all located in the south of Sweden. Stakeholder analysis for a construction project Project 1: Housing for senior citizens consisting of 60 apartments The project duration was 11 years, from 1988 to 1999, and the project had two distinct phases. The first phase was from 1988 to 1993 and consisted of two 9-storey buildings.Thisproposalwasstopped becausethe permits to build were not granted,mainly because of influence from stakeholders who opposed the project and appealed against the municipal decision to grant it. In the second phase from 1994 to 1999,the project changed to consist of five 5–6 storey buildings,which were a less controversialproposal. In 1998 the permit to build was granted and construction on site began in thesameyear.Themain concernsfrom opposing stakeholderswere thatthe new developmentwould negatively affectthe living conditions ofsurrounding houses and that the site of the proposed development had some intrinsic cultural value. Seven external stakeholder groups could be identified in the project: NThe municipality (grants localbuilding permits in the formal planning process). NThecountyadministrativeboard (thefirst instanceofappealsin theformalplanning process). NThe nationalgovernment(the lastinstance of appeals in the formal planning process). NResidents in the vicinity (perceived themselves to be negatively affected by the project). NInterestgroup forthepreservation ofthe historical city image. NInterest groups for senior citizens (spokesperson for the future tenants). NThe media. Project 2: A civil engineering project consisting of the expansion of a single track railway into twin track through densely populated areas Theproject’splanninganddesignstagehada combined duration of12 years,from 1991 to 2003, before the final permit to start construction on site was issued.Six of these years were non-value-adding time due to a long process ofappeals againstthe munici- pality’s decision to approve the project. Eight external stakeholder groups could be identified in the project: NThe municipality (grants localbuilding permits in the formal planning process). NThecountyadministrativeboard (thefirst instanceofappealsin theformalplanning process). NThe nationalgovernment(the lastinstance of appeals in the formal planning process). NResidents in the vicinity (perceived themselves to be negatively affected by the project). NNationalBoard ofHousing (nationalbody to whichaproposed measureisreferred for consideration and which raised concerns about the negative impacts on living conditions). NSwedish Rescue Services Agency (nationalbody to which aproposed measureisreferred for consideration and which raised concerns about Stakeholder impact analysis281
theincreased chanceofaccidentsalongthe expanded railway). NThe railroad companies (the project was needed for them to maintain a sufficient levelof public transport). NThe media. Project 3: A housing project consisting of about 1,200 apartments Unlike the othertwo projectsthiswassubjectto a relativelyshortprocess(from 2001to2003)for obtainingthenecessarypermittostartconstruc- ftion on site.Thiswasdue to strong politicalsup- portfrom politiciansin themunicipalityand the weak powerbase ofopposing stakeholders.The main reason for opposition was that the number of people in the localcommunity would double in a short period, which would then affect the leveland quality of social services. Six external stakeholder groups could be identified in the project: NPoliticiansin themunicipality(stronglysup- ported the projectand had the power to grant the permit to build). NPlanning officialsin the municipality (did not believethattheprojectharmonized with the community as a whole and raised concerns about a potentially rapid increase in population). NThelocaltenants’association (supported the projectbecauseoftheneed forrentalapart- ments). NResidentsin the vicinity (concerned with the quality and levelofsocialservices in the local community). NThe localcommunity board (did not feelthat it could guarantee the quality and levelofsocial services if the development were realized) NThe media. Thestakeholderanalysis,thestakeholderimpact index and the total project stakeholder impact index are presented in Tables 1 to 4.Table 1 shows the stake- holderanalysisofthefirstphaseofproject1. Depending on the controversy surrounding the pro- poseddevelopmentmanyopposingstakeholders formed alliancesto stop the projectand ultimately managed to do so when thenationalgovernment disapproved the municipal permit to start the proposed development.In the second phase (see Table 2),the realestate developerrevised the proposalto be less controversial.Themostopposingstakeholder—the residents in the vicinity—then lost their allies and thus their powerbase to stop the project. Table 3 shows the development of project 2. In this project,the major opposing stakeholder (residents in the vicinity) established a protestgroup thatactively tried to find alliancesin orderto stop ordelay the project. The residents ultimately succeeded in delaying the project for six years through their active opposition, lack of interest on the part of the project managers in responding to criticism and support from other allies. For project3 (see Table 4),the negative impact of stakeholderswasmainlylimitedtostrongverbal opposition and criticalpressreports.The opposing stakeholders had no powerbase of their own as they did nothavetheformalrightto appealthemunicipal decision to approve,and the developer negotiated an agreement with those stakeholders who did have that right:thisreduced the delaysarising from appeals. This,in combination with a strong politicalsupport from the municipality to fast track the project, resulted in (from a project viewpoint) a limited negative impact from opposing stakeholders due mainly to the support of project proponents. All the projects failed to acknowledge the concerns of opposing external stakeholders. In projects 1 and 2, this resulted in aprolonged and delayed planning and design processdueto thecombined powerbaseof opposing stakeholders.Project3 did notsufferlong delaysbecauseofpowerfulproponentsandweak opponents.In projects 1 and 2,the projectmanager was ultimately forced to acknowledge the concerns of externalstakeholders,which to some extentresolved the problems initially raised by opponents. In project 3, this has notbeen the case.The problemsraised by opposing stakeholders remain and are unresolved. Discussion Therelativeimportanceofdifferentstakeholders dependson the possession ofstakeholderattributes. From the stakeholder impact analysis above it is evident that power is the main attribute in order to affect the project’sdecision-makingprocess.Thisisbecause power is a necessity in order to raise the impact level and hasa strong influence on the projectdecision- making process. From a strict project perspective it can be argued that the stakeholders holding the attribute of powerarethemostrelevanttoconsiderinthe stakeholder management process. However, the stake- holders thathold the attribute oflegitimacy are in a sense more important, because they are the risk bearers in the project. Thus, it is more important, from a moral standpoint,to addresstheneedsofthelegitimate stakeholdersfully.Ifnot,they may try to achieve a powerbase by themselves or by forming an alliance with 282Olander
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
more powerful stakeholders. In either case, the project managerlosescontroloverthe stakeholdermanage- ment process. From the stakeholderimpactanalysis,the project managercanestablishastakeholdermanagement process.The stakeholder management process can be divided into three different parts depending on which attributes the stakeholders possess.To the legitimate stakeholders there is a moral obligation to include their interestin the decision-making process.There isa necessary obligation to the powerful stakeholders, who mustbe monitored in the stakeholdermanagement process in orderto proactively manage the potential impactthatthey may have.Finally,there is a timely obligationtoattendtotheneedsoftheurgent stakeholders.Thus,depending on the possession of stakeholderattributes the projectmanagementhas a moral,necessaryortimelyobligation towardsthe stakeholders.These obligationswillconsequently be combined for those stakeholders thatpossess two or Table 1Stakeholder analysis for project 1, phase 1 Feasibility and conceptual design stage (project 1:1) StakeholdersAttributesClassStakeholder Value Index PowLegUrgAviPosViIISII The Municipality0.40.3Dominant0.7220.50.400.14 The County Administrative Board0.4Dormant0.43100.350.00 The National Government0.4Dormant0.43100.350.00 Residents in the vicinity0.30.3Dependent0.614210.4020.24 Interest group for the preservation of the city image 0.4Dormant0.43320.50.6020.12 Interest group for senior citizens0.3Discretionary0.3140.50.400.06 The media0.4Dormant0.43300.600.00 Project Stakeholder Value20.16 Formal planning stage (project 1:1) StakeholdersAttributesClassStakeholder Value Index PowLegUrgAviPosViIISII The Municipality0.40.30.3Definitive1540.50.890.45 The County Administrative Board0.4Dormant0.43100.350.00 The National Government0.4Dormant0.43100.350.00 Residents in the vicinity0.30.3Dependent0.625210.6320.38 Interest group for the preservation of the city image 0.40.3Dangerous0.734210.6920.48 Interest group for senior citizens0.30.3Dependent0.61410.400.24 The media0.40.3Dangerous0.74420.50.8020.28 Project Stakeholder Value20.46 Stage of appeals (project 1:1) StakeholdersAttributesClassStakeholder Value Index PowLegUrgAviPosViIISII The Municipality0.30.3Dependent0.63510.770.46 The County Administrative Board0.40.3Dominant0.7520.50.630.22 The National Government0.40.3Dominant0.75320.50.7720.27 Residents in the vicinity0.40.30.3Definitive145210.8920.89 Interest group for the preservation of the city image 0.40.3Dangerous0.733210.6020.42 Interest group for senior citizens0.3Discretionary0.31120.50.2020.03 The media0.40.3Dangerous0.74420.50.8020.28 Project Stakeholder Value21.21 Stakeholder impact analysis283
more attributes.To the definitive stakeholders,the projectmanagerhasalloftheobligations(moral, necessary and timely).Stakeholder attributes are the basisofthestakeholderanalysisanddefinethe obligationsthattheprojectmanagerhastowards stakeholders. For a comprehensive stakeholder analysis there is, however, a need to analyse the probable impact of different stakeholders and their position towards the project.The stakeholderimpactindex combinesall these aspects into one analysis.Thus,it is possible to formalize a projectstakeholdermanagementprocess from knowledge of both the project’s obligation to each stakeholder,andthepotentialimpactfrom each stakeholder on the project decision-making process. Conclusions Stakeholder analysis based on the stakeholder impact index can be used as a planning and as an evaluation tool.As a planning tool,it can be used proactively to structure the projectstakeholders and their potential Table 2Stakeholder analysis for project 1, phase 2 Feasibility and conceptual design stage (project 1:2) StakeholdersAttributesClassStakeholder Value Index PowLegUrgAviPosViIISII The Municipality0.30.3Dependent0.63410.690.42 The County Administrative Board0.4Dormant0.43100.350.00 The National Government0.4Dormant0.43100.350.00 Residents in the vicinity0.30.3Dependent0.615210.4520.27 Interest group for the preservation of the city image 0.4Dormant0.42220.50.4020.08 Interest group for senior citizens0.3Discretionary0.3110.50.200.03 The media0.4Dormant0.43320.50.6020.12 Project Stakeholder Value20.02 Formal planning stage (project 1:2) StakeholdersAttributesClassStakeholder Value Index PowLegUrgAviPosViIISII The Municipality0.40.30.3Definitive15410.890.89 The County Administrative Board0.4Dormant0.43100.350.00 The National Government0.4Dormant0.43100.350.00 Residents in the vicinity0.30.3Dependent0.615210.4520.27 Interest group for the preservation of the city image 0.4Dormant0.42200.400.00 Interest group for senior citizens0.30.3Dependent0.61410.400.24 The media0.4Dormant0.43320.50.6020.12 Project Stakeholder Value0.75 Stage of appeals (project 1:2) StakeholdersAttributesClassStakeholder Value Index PowLegUrgAviPosViIISII The Municipality0.30.3Dependent0.63310.600.36 The County Administrative Board0.40.3Dominant0.7530.50.770.27 The National Government0.40.3Dominant0.7530.50.770.27 Residents in the vicinity0.40.30.3Definitive135210.7720.77 Interest group for the preservation of the city image 0.4Dangerous0.41100.200.00 Interest group for senior citizens0.3Discretionary0.31120.50.2020.03 The media0.4Dormant0.43300.600.00 Project Stakeholder Value0.10 284Olander
impact on the project. As an evaluation tool, it can be used to evaluate the stakeholder management process during the project and after project completion. During the project it is important to follow up the stakeholder managementprocess,because stakeholderimpactis dynamic and changes over time. After project comple- tion an evaluation ofthestakeholdermanagement processisnecessary to transferknowledge to forth- coming projects.Additionally,itcan be used as one criterion among others (e.g.investment cost,environ- mental impact and life cycle analysis) in a multi-criteria analysis,when choosing between alternative solutions for the project. The stakeholder analysis presented here is, however, of a qualitative nature, which means that it will never be better than the input made by the project manager or otheragencies.However,ifthisinputisthoroughly considered the stakeholder impact index (SII) will help projectmanagers to structure stakeholder analysis in order to plan a course of action for the project. Before each majordecision in theproject,astakeholder analysisshouldbeconductedinordertoobtain Table 3Stakeholder analysis for project 2 Feasibility and conceptual design stage (project 2) StakeholdersAttributesClassStakeholder Value Index PowLegUrgAviPosViIISII The Municipality0.3Discretionary0.3220.50.400.06 The County Administrative Board0.4Dormant0.43100.350.00 The National Government0.4Dormant0.43100.350.00 Residents in the vicinity0.3Discretionary0.31320.50.3520.05 National Board of Housing0.4Dormant0.41100.200.00 Swedish Rescue Services0.4Dormant0.41100.200.00 Railroad companies0.40.30.3Definitive13510.770.77 The media0.4Dormant0.43300.600.00 Project Stakeholder Value0.78 Formal planning stage (project 2) StakeholdersAttributesClassStakeholder Value Index PowLegUrgAviPosViIISII The Municipality0.40.30.3Definitive1540.50.890.45 The County Administrative Board0.4Dormant0.43100.350.00 The National Government0.4Dormant0.43100.350.00 Residents in the vicinity0.30.3Dependent0.625210.6320.38 National Board of Housing0.4Dormant0.42200.400.00 Swedish Rescue Services0.4Dormant0.41100.200.00 Railroad companies0.30.3Dependent0.62510.630.38 The media0.40.3Dangerous0.75520.51.0020.35 Project Stakeholder Value0.10 Stage of appeals (project 2) StakeholdersAttributesClassStakeholder Value Index PowLegUrgAviPosViIISII The Municipality0.30.3Dependent0.62310.490.29 The County Administrative Board0.40.3Dominant0.7520.50.630.22 The National Government0.40.3Dominant0.75120.50.4520.16 Residents in the vicinity0.40.30.3Definitive135210.7720.77 National Board of Housing0.4Dormant0.45320.50.7720.15 Swedish Rescue Services0.4Dormant0.45320.50.7720.15 Railroad companies0.30.3Discretionary0.6110.50.200.06 The media0.4Dormant0.44420.50.8020.16 Project Stakeholder Value20.83 Stakeholder impact analysis285
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
feedback on how alternative ways to proceed will affect the positive inputand negative impactfrom project stakeholders.Thiscan be exemplified by the public involvement in the studied cases. In none of the cases did the project managers involve the affected public in the early stages ofthe project.The effectofthis was thatthe projectmangers were forced to reactto the concerns from the affected public instead of proactively address these concerns in their decision-making pro- cess. The result was a stigmatized and confrontational process between the developer and the affected public that opposed the project,which could have been less severe ifan analysis with for example the stakeholder impact index had been made. Further research is needed to examine and evaluate theapplication ofthestakeholderimpactindex in constructionprojectmanagementacrossdifferent stages and levels of project execution with internalas well as external stakeholders. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis of how the weighted distribution of stakeholder attribute value willaffect the analysis and the conclu- sions drawn from it should be undertaken. References Bourne,L.and Walker,D.H.T.(2005)Visualisingand mappingstakeholderinfluence.ManagementDecision, 43(5), 649–60. Cleland, D.I. (1986) Project stakeholder management.Project Management Journal,17(4), 36–45. Donaldson,T.and Preston,L.(1995)Thestakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implica- tions.Academy of Management Review,20(1), 65–91. Table 4Stakeholder analysis for project 3 Feasibility and conceptual design stage (project 3) StakeholdersAttributesClassStakeholder Value Index PowLegUrgAviPosViIISII Politicians in the municipality0.40.30.3Definitive15511.001.00 Planning officials0.3Discretionary0.31320.50.3520.05 Residents in the vicinity0.3Dependent0.31320.50.3520.05 Local coomunity board0.3Discretionary0.32200.400.00 Local tenants association0.4Dormant0.4330.50.600.12 The media0.4Dormant0.41100.200.00 Project Stakeholder Value1.02 Formal planning stage (project 3) StakeholdersAttributesClassStakeholder Value Index PowLegUrgAviPosViIISII Politicians in the municipality0.40.30.3Definitive15511.001.00 Planning officials0.40.30.3Definitive134210.6920.69 Residents in the vicinity0.30.3Dependent0.614210.4020.24 Local coomunity board0.40.3Dominant0.73320.50.6020.21 Local tenants association0.4Dormant0.43410.690.28 The media0.4Dormant0.43420.50.6920.14 Project Stakeholder Value0.00 Stage of appeals (project 3) StakeholdersAttributesClassStakeholder Value Index PowLegUrgAviPosViIISII Politicians in the municipality0.40.30.3Dependent12510.630.63 Planning officials0.3Discretionary0.32320.50.4920.07 Residents in the vicinity0.3Discretionary0.325210.6320.19 Local coomunity board0.3Discretionary0.33420.50.6920.10 Local tenants association0.3Discretionary0.3230.50.490.07 The media0.4Dormant0.4340.50.690.14 Project Stakeholder Value0.48 286Olander
Freeman,R.E.(1984)Strategic Management—A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman Publishing Inc, Marshfield, MA. Jawahar,I.M.and McLaughlin,G.L.(2001)Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory:an organizationallife cycle approach.Academy of Management Review,26(3), 397–414. Johnson,G.and Scholes,K.(1999)ExploringCorporate Strategy, Prentice Hall Europe, London. McElroy, B. and Mills, C. (2000) Managing stakeholders, in Turner,R.J.and Sinister,S.J.(eds)GowerHandbook of ProjectManagement,3rd edn,Gower Publishing Limited, Aldershot, pp. 757–75. McManus, J. (2002) The influence of stakeholder values on project management.Management Services,46(6), 8–14. Mitchell, R.K., Bradley, R.A. and Wood, D.J. (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle ofwho and whatreally counts.Academy of Management Review,22(4), 853–85. Newcombe, R. (2003) From client to project stakeholders: a stakeholdermapping approach.Construction Management and Economics,21(8), 841–8. Olander, S. and Landin, A. (2005) Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation ofconstruction projects. InternationalJournalof Project Management,23(4), 321–8. Phillips,R.(2003)StakeholderTheoryand Organizational Ethics, Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc, San Francisco, CA. PMI (Project Management Institute) (2004)A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, PMBOK, 3rd edn, Project Management Institute Inc, Newtown Square, PA. Post, J.E., Preston, L.E. and Sachs, S. (2002)Redefining the Corporation—StakeholderManagementand Organizational Wealth, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Sternberg,E.(1997)Thedefectsofstakeholdertheory. Corporate Governance: An InternationalReview,5(1), 3–9. Steuer,R.(2006)Mappingstakeholderanew:from the ‘stakeholdertheory ofthe firm’to three perspectives on business–societyrelations.BusinessStrategyandthe Environment,15(1), 55–69. Ward,S.and Chapman,C.(2003)Transforming project riskmanagementintoprojectuncertaintymanage- ment.InternationalJournalofProjectManagement,21(2), 97–105. Winch,G.andBonke,S.(2002)Projectstakeholder mapping:analysing the interests ofprojectstakeholders, in Slevin,D.P.,Cleland,D.I.and Pinto,J.K.(eds)The FrontiersofProjectManagementResearch,Project Management Institute Inc, Newtown Square, PA. Stakeholder impact analysis287