Stakeholder Impact Analysis in Construction Project Management Report

This report provides a detailed analysis of stakeholder impact in construction project management. It explores the concept of stakeholders, their needs, and expectations, and how these often conflict with each other. The study introduces a stakeholder impact index as a tool for project managers to evaluate the relative importance of different stakeholders and the nature of their potential impact. It also examines stakeholder attributes such as power, legitimacy, and urgency, and defines different stakeholder classes based on these attributes. The goal is to help project managers formalize a stakeholder management process, maximize positive stakeholder input, and minimize detrimental impacts, ultimately improving the chances of project success. Desklib provides access to this document and many other resources for students.

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

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 impactof stakeholderinfluence,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,
a vast number of interestswill be affected,both
positivelyand negatively.Representativesof these
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
it is unlikely thatall stakeholder expectations willbe
met (McManus, 2002). Thus, the challenge forthe
construction project manager is to evaluate stakeholder
needs and expectationsin relation to the main
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
variousstakeholdersis a critical skill for successful
projectmanagers … Withoutattention to needs and
expectationsof a diverserange of stakeholders,a
projectwill probably notbe regarded assuccessful,
even if the project manager was able to stay within the
originaltime, budget and scope’ (Bourne and Walker,
2005). Managers should attempt to identify their
significantand legitimate stakeholdersand to listen
and respond to their interests and concerns (Post et al.,
2002). This management process is necessary in order
to determine how the probable stakeholders are likely
to react to project decisions,what influencetheir
reaction willcarry, and how the stakeholdersmight
interact with each other and the project’s managers and
professionalsto affect the chancesfor successof a
proposed project strategy (Cleland, 1986).
Steuer(2006) sorts stakeholdertheory into three
different perspectives: corporate, stakeholder and con-
ceptual.The corporateperspectivedeals with how
corporationshandle stakeholders,the stakeholder
perspective analyses how stakeholders try to influence
the organizationand the conceptual perspective
exploreshow particularconcepts,such as common
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,knowledgeof stakeholder
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: [e-mail]
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

any detrimentalor negativeimpact (Bourne and
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?
Project stakeholdersaffect project management
processes.It is therefore importantto recognize the
stakeholders in order to plan and execute a sufficiently
rigorous stakeholder management process.The ambi-
tion of the study described hereis to develop a
stakeholder impact index as a toolfor comprehensive
project stakeholderanalysisthat can help project
managers in planning and evaluating the stakeholder
managementprocess.The stakeholderimpactindex
analysesthe relativeimportanceof differentstake-
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 is a developmentof the first stakeholder
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 isabout groupsand individualswho can
affect the organization,and is about managerial
behaviourtaken in response to those groups and
individuals. Phillips (2003) adds that stakeholder
theory should be concerned with who hasinput in
decision making aswell as who benefitsfrom the
outcomesof such decision.Thus, for construction
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.
There has been debateon how to define stake-
holders. Freeman’s (1984) definition, those that affect
or are affected,is viewed as being broad,because it
merits all to be stakeholders.If everyoneis a
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. Post et al. (2002) state that the fundamental
idea is for stakeholdersto have a stake in the
organization, and they define the stakeholders as those
that contributevoluntarilyor involuntarilyto the
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
definitionsof projectstakeholders.PMI (2004) has
basically adopted the Freeman (1984) definition and
statesthat project stakeholdersare individualsand
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.McElroy and Mills (2000) adopt a
narrowerview much in line with Postet al. (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 Post etal. (2002),and
Donaldson and Preston (1995), stake could be defined
as actual or perceived benefitsor risks/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 thus not as a stakeholder.Olander and
Landin (2005) also define the media as notbeing a
stakeholder, because it has no stake in the organization
or the project. However, this view is problematic
becauseit is evident that the media can have a
tremendousimpact on organizationaland project
activities.
Mitchell et al. (1997) addressthis problem.Even
though influencersdo not have legitimate claimsor
perhaps any claims at all, they do have power over an
organization or project. Power and 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. Classesof stakeholderscan be identified by
their possession of one, two or all three of the following
attributes:the stakeholder’spower to influence;the
legitimacy of stakeholder relationships; and the urgency
278 Olander

of the stakeholder’s claim (Mitchell et al., 1997). Thus,
a projectstakeholdercan be defined as a person or
group of people who has a vested interest in the success
of a project and 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 categoriesof stakeholder: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
well as their ability to withdraw resourcesfrom the
organization (Post et al., 2002). Government agencies
and courts have a special kind of formal power. While
they usually do notinitiate action,they can serve as
resolverof conflictsor as guarantorof due process
(Freeman, 1984).
The central idea of legitimacy is understood in terms
of normative legitimacyand derivativelegitimacy
(Phillips, 2003).Normative stakeholders are those to
whom the organization hasa moral obligation,an
obligation of stakeholder fairness over and above that
due to other social actorssimply 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.Legitimacyis a social good, that is
something largerand more shared than mereself-
perception,and thatmay be defined and negotiated
differentlyat various levels of social organization
(Mitchell et al., 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,
at any given time,some stakeholderswill be more
important than others (Jawahar and McLaughlin,
2001). Concerns and priorities change over time; new
classesand configurationsof stakeholdersappearin
response to changing circumstances (Post et al., 2002).
Mitchell et 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 is defined as the
degree to which claims call for immediate attention.
From the definition of stakeholderattributes,
Mitchell et al. (1997) define different stakeholder
classesthat are dependenton the distribution of
stakeholder attributes:
(1) Dormant stakeholders possess power to impose
their will, but do not have any legitimate
relationship or urgent claim. Their power
remains unused.
(2) Discretionary stakeholders possess the attribute
of legitimacy, but they have no power or urgent
claim. There is no absolute pressure for
managers to engage in an active relationship,
although they may choose to do so.
(3) Demanding stakeholderspossessan 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
of any stakeholders perceived by managers to
have power and legitimacy will matter.
(5) Dangerousstakeholderslack legitimacy,but
possesspower and urgency. They will be
coercive and possibly violent, making the
stakeholder ‘dangerous’.
(6) Dependent stakeholders have urgent and legit-
imate claims, but possessno 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 will already
be membersof an 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
simply to identify stakeholders.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
their power towardsthe project and their level of
interest (Olander and Landin, 2005; Winch and Bonke,
Stakeholder impact analysis 279

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 assessmentof the 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
of the 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 15very low. The
vested interest–impactindex is then 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
to assess the stakeholderattributes and classes
(Mitchell etal., 1997),and their position towards the
project (Cleland, 1986; Winch and Bonke, 2002)—are
they opponentsor proponents?McElroy and Mills
(2000) propose five different levels of stakeholder
position towards the project: active opposition, passive
opposition, not committed, passive support and active
support. The position that each stakeholderhas
towardsthe projectsetsthe direction ofthe impact
each stakeholderhas on the projectdecision-making
process.The conceptsof impact, 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) forms a tool for comprehensive
stakeholder analysis.
The stakeholder impact index
A case study of external stakeholders (those affected by
project execution) has been conducted with the
purpose ofevaluating and understanding the external
stakeholdermanagementprocess within construction
project management.Various documents,including
newspaper articles,have been studied in combination
with interviews of different stakeholders in construction
projects, from project managers and local authorities to
affected membersof the public and specialinterest
groups. From the study it was evident that construction
projects affect,and are affected by,a vast number of
stakeholders.The study was limited to external
stakeholders,which means that the analysishere
excludes internal stakeholders, for example the project
owner, contractors and financial institutions.
Stakeholdersare eitherproponentsor opponents,
and often use the powerbase ofone stakeholderto
enhancetheir own. From a project management
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
level and influence impact level, which basically
describe the level and probability of stakeholder impact
on projectexecution.However,for a 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 combining the stakeholderattribute
value (A), and position value (Pos),with the vested
interest–impactindex (ViII), project managerscan
evaluate a stakeholder impact index (SII) as a function
of A, Pos and ViII.
The stakeholder attribute value (A) is assessed with
the help of weighing,where each attribute (power,
legitimacy or urgency) is given a weight between 0 and
1, with the sum of the attribute weightsas 1. The
stakeholder attribute value will depend on the distribu-
tion of the three attributes (power (p),legitimacy (l)
and urgency (u)) that each stakeholderpossesses,
showing the relativestrengthwith respectto the
project. The distribution of weightswill vary 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
were roughly of equal importance,but power was
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
Figure 1 The stakeholder impact/probability matrix
(adapted from Johnson and Scholes, 1999)
280 Olander

numerically assessed as:active opposition (Pos521),
passive opposition (Pos520.5), not committed
(Pos50), passive support(Pos50.5), and active sup-
port (Pos51). The stakeholder impact index can then
be calculated as:
SII~ViII A Pos
The total stakeholderimpact index for the project
(SIIproj) is:
SIIproj~S SII k,
where k51 to n number of stakeholders.
If SIIproj is positive the projecthas a favourable
stakeholder impact, but if it is negative the stakeholder
impact is unfavourable.Furthermore, a sufficient
stakeholdermanagementprocessshould ensurean
increasing SIIprojduring the project’s life cycle,or at
leastnot one 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 ofimpacthas been evaluated on a scale
from 1 to 5 to calculate the vested impact index (ViII).
Second,the attributes have been evaluated foreach
stakeholderduring different stagesof the project.
Third, the position of each stakeholderhas been
evaluated based on how theyhave reacted to the
implementation ofthe project during different stages.
The analysisrevealsexternalstakeholderimpacton
project implementation over time during the planning
and design stagesup to the permit to 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. This proposal was stopped 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
the same year. The main concernsfrom opposing
stakeholderswere that the 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).
NThe county administrativeboard (the first
instance of appeals in the formal planning
process).
NThe national government(the last instance of
appeals in the formal planning process).
NResidents in the vicinity (perceived themselves to
be negatively affected by the project).
NInterest group for the preservation of the
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
The project’s planning and design stage had a
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).
NThe county administrativeboard (the first
instance of appeals in the formal planning
process).
NThe national government(the last instance of
appeals in the formal planning process).
NResidents in the vicinity (perceived themselves to
be negatively affected by the project).
NNational Board of Housing (nationalbody to
which a proposed measure is referred for
consideration and which raised concerns about
the negative impacts on living conditions).
NSwedish Rescue Services Agency (nationalbody
to which a proposed measureis referred for
consideration and which raised concerns about
Stakeholder impact analysis 281

the increased chanceof accidentsalong the
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 other two projectsthis was subjectto a
relativelyshort process (from 2001 to 2003) for
obtaining the necessarypermit to start construc-
ftion on site. This was due to strong politicalsup-
port from politicians in the municipalityand 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:
NPoliticians in the municipality(stronglysup-
ported the projectand had the power to grant
the permit to build).
NPlanning officialsin the municipality (did not
believethat the project harmonized with the
community as a whole and raised concerns about
a potentially rapid increase in population).
NThe local tenants’association (supported the
project becauseof the need for rental apart-
ments).
NResidentsin the vicinity (concerned with the
quality and levelof socialservices in the local
community).
NThe localcommunity board (did not feelthat it
could guarantee the quality and levelof social
services if the development were realized)
NThe media.
The stakeholderanalysis,the stakeholderimpact
index and the total project stakeholder impact index are
presented in Tables 1 to 4.Table 1 shows the stake-
holder analysis of the first phase of project 1.
Depending on the controversy surrounding the pro-
posed developmentmany opposing stakeholders
formed alliancesto stop the project and ultimately
managed to do so when the national government
disapproved the municipal permit to start the proposed
development.In the second phase (see Table 2),the
real estate developerrevised the proposalto be less
controversial.The most opposing stakeholder—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 order to stop or delay 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
stakeholderswas mainly limited to strong verbal
opposition and criticalpress reports.The opposing
stakeholders had no powerbase of their own as they did
not have the formal right to appeal the municipal
decision to approve,and the developer negotiated an
agreement with those stakeholders who did have that
right: this reduced 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 a prolonged and delayed planning and
design processdue to the combined powerbaseof
opposing stakeholders.Project 3 did not sufferlong
delays becauseof powerful proponentsand weak
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 not been the case.The problemsraised by
opposing stakeholders remain and are unresolved.
Discussion
The relative importanceof different stakeholders
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’s decision-makingprocess.This is because
power is a necessity in order to raise the impact level
and has a strong influence on the projectdecision-
making process. From a strict project perspective it can
be argued that the stakeholders holding the attribute of
power are the most relevantto consider in the
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 address the needs of the legitimate
stakeholdersfully. If not, they may try to achieve a
powerbase by themselves or by forming an alliance with
282 Olander

more powerful stakeholders. In either case, the project
managerlosescontrol over the stakeholdermanage-
ment process.
From the stakeholderimpactanalysis,the project
managercan establisha stakeholdermanagement
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 is a
necessary obligation to the powerful stakeholders, who
must be monitored in the stakeholdermanagement
process in orderto proactively manage the potential
impactthat they may have.Finally, there is a timely
obligation to attend to the needs of the urgent
stakeholders.Thus, depending on the possession of
stakeholderattributes the projectmanagementhas a
moral, necessaryor timely obligation towardsthe
stakeholders.These obligationswill consequently be
combined for those stakeholders thatpossess two or
Table 1 Stakeholder analysis for project 1, phase 1
Feasibility and conceptual design stage (project 1:1)
Stakeholders Attributes Class Stakeholder Value Index
Pow Leg Urg A v i Pos ViII SII
The Municipality 0.4 0.3 Dominant 0.7 2 2 0.5 0.40 0.14
The County Administrative Board 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 1 0 0.35 0.00
The National Government 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 1 0 0.35 0.00
Residents in the vicinity 0.3 0.3 Dependent 0.6 1 4 21 0.40 20.24
Interest group for the preservation of
the city image
0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 3 20.5 0.60 20.12
Interest group for senior citizens 0.3 Discretionary 0.3 1 4 0.5 0.40 0.06
The media 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 3 0 0.60 0.00
Project Stakeholder Value 20.16
Formal planning stage (project 1:1)
Stakeholders Attributes Class Stakeholder Value Index
Pow Leg Urg A v i Pos ViII SII
The Municipality 0.4 0.3 0.3 Definitive 1 5 4 0.5 0.89 0.45
The County Administrative Board 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 1 0 0.35 0.00
The National Government 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 1 0 0.35 0.00
Residents in the vicinity 0.3 0.3 Dependent 0.6 2 5 21 0.63 20.38
Interest group for the preservation of
the city image
0.4 0.3 Dangerous 0.7 3 4 21 0.69 20.48
Interest group for senior citizens 0.3 0.3 Dependent 0.6 1 4 1 0.40 0.24
The media 0.4 0.3 Dangerous 0.7 4 4 20.5 0.80 20.28
Project Stakeholder Value 20.46
Stage of appeals (project 1:1)
Stakeholders Attributes Class Stakeholder Value Index
Pow Leg Urg A v i Pos ViII SII
The Municipality 0.3 0.3 Dependent 0.6 3 5 1 0.77 0.46
The County Administrative Board 0.4 0.3 Dominant 0.7 5 2 0.5 0.63 0.22
The National Government 0.4 0.3 Dominant 0.7 5 3 20.5 0.77 20.27
Residents in the vicinity 0.4 0.3 0.3 Definitive 1 4 5 21 0.89 20.89
Interest group for the preservation of
the city image
0.4 0.3 Dangerous 0.7 3 3 21 0.60 20.42
Interest group for senior citizens 0.3 Discretionary 0.3 1 1 20.5 0.20 20.03
The media 0.4 0.3 Dangerous 0.7 4 4 20.5 0.80 20.28
Project Stakeholder Value 21.21
Stakeholder impact analysis 283

more attributes.To the definitive stakeholders,the
project managerhas all of the obligations(moral,
necessary and timely).Stakeholder attributes are the
basis of the stakeholderanalysis and define the
obligationsthat the project managerhas towards
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,and the potential impact from 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 2 Stakeholder analysis for project 1, phase 2
Feasibility and conceptual design stage (project 1:2)
Stakeholders Attributes Class Stakeholder Value Index
Pow Leg Urg A v i Pos ViII SII
The Municipality 0.3 0.3 Dependent 0.6 3 4 1 0.69 0.42
The County Administrative Board 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 1 0 0.35 0.00
The National Government 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 1 0 0.35 0.00
Residents in the vicinity 0.3 0.3 Dependent 0.6 1 5 21 0.45 20.27
Interest group for the preservation of
the city image
0.4 Dormant 0.4 2 2 20.5 0.40 20.08
Interest group for senior citizens 0.3 Discretionary 0.3 1 1 0.5 0.20 0.03
The media 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 3 20.5 0.60 20.12
Project Stakeholder Value 20.02
Formal planning stage (project 1:2)
Stakeholders Attributes Class Stakeholder Value Index
Pow Leg Urg A v i Pos ViII SII
The Municipality 0.4 0.3 0.3 Definitive 1 5 4 1 0.89 0.89
The County Administrative Board 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 1 0 0.35 0.00
The National Government 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 1 0 0.35 0.00
Residents in the vicinity 0.3 0.3 Dependent 0.6 1 5 21 0.45 20.27
Interest group for the preservation of
the city image
0.4 Dormant 0.4 2 2 0 0.40 0.00
Interest group for senior citizens 0.3 0.3 Dependent 0.6 1 4 1 0.40 0.24
The media 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 3 20.5 0.60 20.12
Project Stakeholder Value 0.75
Stage of appeals (project 1:2)
Stakeholders Attributes Class Stakeholder Value Index
Pow Leg Urg A v i Pos ViII SII
The Municipality 0.3 0.3 Dependent 0.6 3 3 1 0.60 0.36
The County Administrative Board 0.4 0.3 Dominant 0.7 5 3 0.5 0.77 0.27
The National Government 0.4 0.3 Dominant 0.7 5 3 0.5 0.77 0.27
Residents in the vicinity 0.4 0.3 0.3 Definitive 1 3 5 21 0.77 20.77
Interest group for the preservation of
the city image
0.4 Dangerous 0.4 1 1 0 0.20 0.00
Interest group for senior citizens 0.3 Discretionary 0.3 1 1 20.5 0.20 20.03
The media 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 3 0 0.60 0.00
Project Stakeholder Value 0.10
284 Olander

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 stakeholderimpact is
dynamic and changes over time. After project comple-
tion an evaluation of the stakeholdermanagement
processis necessary to transferknowledge to forth-
coming projects.Additionally,it can 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
other agencies.However,if this input is thoroughly
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 major decision in the project, a stakeholder
analysisshould be conductedin order to obtain
Table 3 Stakeholder analysis for project 2
Feasibility and conceptual design stage (project 2)
Stakeholders Attributes Class Stakeholder Value Index
Pow Leg Urg A v i Pos ViII SII
The Municipality 0.3 Discretionary 0.3 2 2 0.5 0.40 0.06
The County Administrative Board 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 1 0 0.35 0.00
The National Government 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 1 0 0.35 0.00
Residents in the vicinity 0.3 Discretionary 0.3 1 3 20.5 0.35 20.05
National Board of Housing 0.4 Dormant 0.4 1 1 0 0.20 0.00
Swedish Rescue Services 0.4 Dormant 0.4 1 1 0 0.20 0.00
Railroad companies 0.4 0.3 0.3 Definitive 1 3 5 1 0.77 0.77
The media 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 3 0 0.60 0.00
Project Stakeholder Value 0.78
Formal planning stage (project 2)
Stakeholders Attributes Class Stakeholder Value Index
Pow Leg Urg A v i Pos ViII SII
The Municipality 0.4 0.3 0.3 Definitive 1 5 4 0.5 0.89 0.45
The County Administrative Board 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 1 0 0.35 0.00
The National Government 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 1 0 0.35 0.00
Residents in the vicinity 0.3 0.3 Dependent 0.6 2 5 21 0.63 20.38
National Board of Housing 0.4 Dormant 0.4 2 2 0 0.40 0.00
Swedish Rescue Services 0.4 Dormant 0.4 1 1 0 0.20 0.00
Railroad companies 0.3 0.3 Dependent 0.6 2 5 1 0.63 0.38
The media 0.4 0.3 Dangerous 0.7 5 5 20.5 1.00 20.35
Project Stakeholder Value 0.10
Stage of appeals (project 2)
Stakeholders Attributes Class Stakeholder Value Index
Pow Leg Urg A v i Pos ViII SII
The Municipality 0.3 0.3 Dependent 0.6 2 3 1 0.49 0.29
The County Administrative Board 0.4 0.3 Dominant 0.7 5 2 0.5 0.63 0.22
The National Government 0.4 0.3 Dominant 0.7 5 1 20.5 0.45 20.16
Residents in the vicinity 0.4 0.3 0.3 Definitive 1 3 5 21 0.77 20.77
National Board of Housing 0.4 Dormant 0.4 5 3 20.5 0.77 20.15
Swedish Rescue Services 0.4 Dormant 0.4 5 3 20.5 0.77 20.15
Railroad companies 0.3 0.3 Discretionary 0.6 1 1 0.5 0.20 0.06
The media 0.4 Dormant 0.4 4 4 20.5 0.80 20.16
Project Stakeholder Value 20.83
Stakeholder impact analysis 285

feedback on how alternative ways to proceed will affect
the positive inputand negative impactfrom project
stakeholders.This can 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 effectof this was
that the 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
the application of the stakeholderimpact index in
construction project managementacross different
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
mapping stakeholderinfluence. 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) The stakeholder
theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implica-
tions. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
Table 4 Stakeholder analysis for project 3
Feasibility and conceptual design stage (project 3)
Stakeholders Attributes Class Stakeholder Value Index
Pow Leg Urg A v i Pos ViII SII
Politicians in the municipality 0.4 0.3 0.3 Definitive 1 5 5 1 1.00 1.00
Planning officials 0.3 Discretionary 0.3 1 3 20.5 0.35 20.05
Residents in the vicinity 0.3 Dependent 0.3 1 3 20.5 0.35 20.05
Local coomunity board 0.3 Discretionary 0.3 2 2 0 0.40 0.00
Local tenants association 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 3 0.5 0.60 0.12
The media 0.4 Dormant 0.4 1 1 0 0.20 0.00
Project Stakeholder Value 1.02
Formal planning stage (project 3)
Stakeholders Attributes Class Stakeholder Value Index
Pow Leg Urg A v i Pos ViII SII
Politicians in the municipality 0.4 0.3 0.3 Definitive 1 5 5 1 1.00 1.00
Planning officials 0.4 0.3 0.3 Definitive 1 3 4 21 0.69 20.69
Residents in the vicinity 0.3 0.3 Dependent 0.6 1 4 21 0.40 20.24
Local coomunity board 0.4 0.3 Dominant 0.7 3 3 20.5 0.60 20.21
Local tenants association 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 4 1 0.69 0.28
The media 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 4 20.5 0.69 20.14
Project Stakeholder Value 0.00
Stage of appeals (project 3)
Stakeholders Attributes Class Stakeholder Value Index
Pow Leg Urg A v i Pos ViII SII
Politicians in the municipality 0.4 0.3 0.3 Dependent 1 2 5 1 0.63 0.63
Planning officials 0.3 Discretionary 0.3 2 3 20.5 0.49 20.07
Residents in the vicinity 0.3 Discretionary 0.3 2 5 21 0.63 20.19
Local coomunity board 0.3 Discretionary 0.3 3 4 20.5 0.69 20.10
Local tenants association 0.3 Discretionary 0.3 2 3 0.5 0.49 0.07
The media 0.4 Dormant 0.4 3 4 0.5 0.69 0.14
Project Stakeholder Value 0.48
286 Olander

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) The defectsof stakeholdertheory.
Corporate Governance: An InternationalReview, 5(1), 3–9.
Steuer, R. (2006) Mapping stakeholderanew: from the
‘stakeholdertheory ofthe firm’ to three perspectives on
business–societyrelations. BusinessStrategyand the
Environment, 15(1), 55–69.
Ward, S. and Chapman,C. (2003) Transforming project
risk managementinto project uncertainty manage-
ment.InternationalJournalof ProjectManagement,21(2),
97–105.
Winch, G. and Bonke, S. (2002) Project stakeholder
mapping:analysing the interests ofprojectstakeholders,
in Slevin, D.P., Cleland,D.I. and Pinto, J.K. (eds) The
Frontiers of Project ManagementResearch, Project
Management Institute Inc, Newtown Square, PA.
Stakeholder impact analysis 287