Stakeholder Analysis Pauline Hall

Stakeholder Analysis

Managing Service Delivery change

Management and Organisation Development Unit

Who Are Stakeholders? Stakeholders are those

individuals/groups/agencies who have an interest in your activities


Why Are They Important? They can have a positive or

negative impact on the outcome of your activities

Stakeholders can affect you whether you know it or not!


A Stakeholder Analysis Framework

AREAS OF INTEREST

WHAT IS CONSIDERED VALUABLE?

HOPES/ASPIRATIONS FOR FUTURE

FEARS/ CONCERNS FOR

FUTURE

YOU(E.g. Health Service Manager)

Implementing national strategyGeneration of additional fundingGetting an extra staff member

Quality, equity and acountabilityCustomer careMaking best use of resources available to me

Greater co-operation with other service providersMore direct control and discretion over budget and staff resourcing

Service will not be funded as well as it is nowEffects of new technology on staffSkill mix evaluation will lead to fewer staff

Your Major Stakeholder(s)(E.g. Customers)

Good service for allAffordable health serviceUser-friendly health serviceNo cuts in service

Value for moneyEfficient and fast serviceCustomer-focused serviceNo waiting lists for hospital services

Avoidance of illnessCheaper/more comprehensive health care More customer-friendly health services

Cut in funding or higher health levyTwo-tier medicineMore expensive VHIHaving to take more responsibility for own health


A Stakeholder Analysis Framework

CUSTOMERS/ CLIENTS

MAJOR SUPPLIERS/

DISTRIBUTORS

RIVALS FOR RESOURCES

COLLABORATORS

DIRECTION OF INFLUENCEe.g. you on them/ them on you

NATURE OF INFLUENCEFor, against, neutral

THEIR VALUES AND INTERESTSe.g. value for money, bigger market share

YOUR VALUE AND INTERESTSe.g. quality of service, product development


Mapping Stakeholder Interests

Strength of

Influence

Direction of Influence

Positive Negative

Strong

Weak


Stakeholder Importance/Disposition Matrix Ask the following questions:

Where are they? Where do I want them to be? How supportive/opposed are they? Are they all alike? What are the prospects for coalition?


Tactics for Dealing with Each Category For potentially antagonistic: check

those in problematic and low-priority aligned to antagonistic

Surprise/develop counter-arguments/bargain/block coalitions between antagonistic and problematic

Prevent antagonistic from undermining supporters


Tactics for Advocates Provide information to reinforce their

beliefs Co-opt into discussion or decision-

making Ask them to sell to indifferent If balanced perspective needed, ask

those nearly neutral to react to strategy after supporters and antagonistic have stated their positions


Problematic/Low Priority Coalition of problematic stakeholders

emerges and takes position opposing Target the uncommitted for education Low-Priority

Bring tem closer to importance boundary Educate those near importance boundary Promote involvement with advocates


Interacting With Key Stakeholders

Colder - AutonomousColder - AutonomousGo It AloneGo It Alone

Cooperate On A Limited BasisCooperate On A Limited Basis

Cooperate ImplicitlyCooperate Implicitly

Co-Opt/ AbsorbCo-Opt/ Absorb

CoalesceCoalesce

Merge/AcquireMerge/AcquireWarmer- CommonWarmer- Common


Interacting With Stakeholders If aiming to minimise dependence on stakeholders

you will work as far as possible at the top of this continuum (go it alone or implicit cooperation)

If your stakeholders have so much power that your room to manoeuvre is limited, you have to find a degree of commonality with them, however costly that is to you in terms of your autonomy (limited cooperation or co-option)

Third way of looking at the relationship is interdependence (coalition or merger), both explicitly agree to join forces because there are mutual benefits


Go It Alone Aim is to minimise scope of influence of

stakeholder Very effective if you can simultaneously

increase your influence over them or over a third party who is common to both of you e.g. trough use of public relations

Not appropriate when you are dependent on your stakeholder or vice versa, or in conditions of change or uncertainty


Implicit Cooperation May be neither feasible nor politic to

distance yourself from a key stakeholder

May still wish to limit their sphere of influence as much as possible

Therefore accept degree of informal cooperation

Usually fine when you can easily keep tabs on your stakeholder and when the environment is relatively stable


Limited Cooperation Conditions may create need to

formally negotiate a basis for cooperation

Likely to be limited in scope (specific tasks or time period)

E.g. where one stakeholder might agree to contract out aspects of his/her functioning to another stakeholder


Co-Opting/Absorbing If both have a strong mutual objective –

possible to co-opt elements of one into the other

E.g. liasion between two departments improved by having representatives one involved at other’s meetings

E.g. boards of public service organisations use co-opting to build alliances and schieve greater information-seeking


Coalition Each stakeholder remains a separate entity Agree to act jointly with respect to some set of

issues for a period of time Includes an agreement on joint decision-making as

well as action Prevalent where stakeholders have mutual

objectives but neither has enough power on their own

Habit of breaking down if the power, demands or support of one partner significantly outweighs the other

Often formed to stabilise conditions of uncertainty or to destabilise environments that are sluggish


Merger/Acquisition Differs from coalition in that one

stakeholder has usually been out-manoeuvred by the other

I.e. allowed more powerful to take over the less powerful of the two

Often used in order to reduce uncertainty in their environment by increasing their control over certain actors in that environment

Business

Stakeholder Analysis Pauline Hall