Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Supervisors
Prof. Robyn Keast, Prof. Kerry Brown,
Dr Jennifer Waterhouse,
Dr Mark Lauchs
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
BY GOVERNANCE NETWORKS
A Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements
for the award of the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
from
Queensland University of Technology
QUT Business School
by
Sandra Beach
MBA Sunshine Coast University
June 2013
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. I
KEY WORDS .............................................................................................................. IV
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... VI
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS .......................................................................................... IX
ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... XI
KEY TERMS ............................................................................................................... XII
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... XIV
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... XV
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH .................................................................................. 1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................... 4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................................. 8 JUSTIFICATION OF RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 9 RESEARCH DESIGN ....................................................................................................... 11 FORMAT OF THIS THESIS ................................................................................................ 12 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 14
CHAPTER 2 - RESEARCH ISSUES AND NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 16
BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 16 STAKEHOLDER THEORY ................................................................................................. 19 STAKEHOLDER SALIENCE THEORY ................................................................................. 24 GAPS IN UNDERSTANDING EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF STAKEHOLDER SALIENCE .................... 29 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT THEORY ........................................................................... 30 CONCEPTUALISING NETWORKS ...................................................................................... 34 MANAGING STAKEHOLDER RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH NETWORK MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................... 38 NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................... 43 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 47
CHAPTER 3 – CASE CONTEXT ............................................................................... 49
ROAD DELIVERY IN QUEENSLAND ................................................................................... 49 FACTORS THAT SHAPED ROAD DELIVERY ....................................................................... 49 TURBULENT TIMES FOR ROAD PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION ........................................ 53 NEW APPROACHES ....................................................................................................... 59 NETWORKED ARRANGEMENTS FOR ROAD PLANNING AND DELIVERY ................................ 64 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 68 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 70
CHAPTER 4 – METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 71
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 71 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE .............................................................................................. 72 RESEARCH DESIGN ....................................................................................................... 73 CASE STUDY SELECTION PROCESS................................................................................ 75 MIXED METHOD RESEARCH STRATEGY .......................................................................... 78 DATA COLLECTION ......................................................................................................... 83 DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 96 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................ 108 TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE RESEARCH .......................................................................... 109
-ii-
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 112
CHAPTER 5 - CASE 1: FAR NORTH QUEENSLAND REGIONAL ROAD GROUP 113
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 113 BACKGROUND TO FNQ RRG GOVERNANCE NETWORK ................................................... 113 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ..................................................................................... 115 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION ...................................................................................... 117 SALIENCE OF STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................................................ 123 FACTORS IMPACTING ON POWER, LEGITIMACY, TEMPORALITY AND CRITICALITY ............... 135 ENGAGEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................................. 138 FACTORS IMPACTING ON STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ................................................... 153 LINKS BETWEEN STAKEHOLDER SALIENCE AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT .................. 157 CASE SUMMARY AND PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS .......................................................... 159 DOMAINS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ..................................................................... 161 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 163
CHAPTER 6 - CASE 2: WIDE BAY BURNETT REGIONAL ROAD GROUP ........... 164
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 164 BACKGROUND TO WBB RRG GOVERNANCE NETWORK .................................................. 164 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ..................................................................................... 166 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION ...................................................................................... 169 SALIENCE OF STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................................................ 175 FACTORS IMPACTING ON POWER, LEGITIMACY, TEMPORALITY AND CRITICALITY ............... 188 ENGAGEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................................. 191 FACTORS IMPACTING ON STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ................................................... 206 LINKS BETWEEN STAKEHOLDER SALIENCE AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT .................. 208 CASE SUMMARY AND PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS .......................................................... 210 DOMAINS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ..................................................................... 212 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 214
CHAPTER 7- CASE 3: NORTHERN SOUTH-EAST QUEENSLAND REGIONAL
ROAD GROUP ........................................................................................................... 217
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 217 BACKGROUND TO THE NSEQ RRG GOVERNANCE NETWORK .......................................... 217 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ..................................................................................... 219 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION ...................................................................................... 222 SALIENCE OF STAKEHOLDERS ....................................................................................... 226 FACTORS IMPACTING ON POWER, LEGITIMACY, TEMPORALITY AND CRITICALITY ............... 235 ENGAGEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................................. 238 LINKS BETWEEN STAKEHOLDER SALIENCE AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT .................. 244 CASE SUMMARY AND PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS .......................................................... 246 DOMAINS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ..................................................................... 247 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 248
CHAPTER 8 - CROSS CASE ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ................................. 250
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 250 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION AND SALIENCE................................................................ 251 NETWORK ROLES AND STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION .................................................... 256 SALIENCE OF STAKEHOLDERS: COMBINATIONS OF POWER, LEGITIMACY, TEMPORALITY
AND CRITICALITY ........................................................................................................... 259 STAKEHOLDER TYPES .................................................................................................... 262 FACTORS RELATED TO ATTRIBUTIONS OF POWER, LEGITIMACY, TEMPORALITY AND
CRITICALITY .................................................................................................................. 265 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................................ 272 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STAKEHOLDER SALIENCE AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT .... 275 NETWORK MANAGEMENT AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ........................................... 278 DOMAINS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ..................................................................... 288 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 290
-iii-
CHAPTER 9 – DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
DIRECTIONS .............................................................................................................. 292
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 292 RESPONSES TO THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THIS STUDY ........................................... 294 ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE .................................................................... 312 LIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH .................................................................................... 316 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ................................................................................... 317
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 319
APPENDIX 4.1 SCHEDULE OF INTERVIEWS ...................................................................... 320 APPENDIX 4.2 INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS .............................. 321 APPENDIX 4.3 INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ..................... 325 APPENDIX 4.4 STEPS: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER SALIENCE DATA .......... 328 APPENDIX 4.5 STEPS: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT DATA .... 330 APPENDIX 4.6 WITHIN CASE ANALYSIS EXCERPT FROM CONCEPTUALLY CLUSTERED
MATRIX USED TO IDENTIFY PATTERNS............................................................................. 331 APPENDIX 4.7 STEPS: QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS .......................................... 332 APPENDIX 8.1 TYPES OF POWER ATTRIBUTED TO STAKEHOLDERS ................................... 335 APPENDIX 8.2 COMBINATIONS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT USED WITH SPECIFIC
STAKEHOLDERS, CLASSIFIED BY STAKEHOLDER TYPE AND ROLE ..................................... 336
REFERENCE LIST ..................................................................................................... 337
-iv-
KEY WORDS
Governance networks, stakeholder, stakeholder engagement,
stakeholder salience, network management
-v-
ABSTRACT
In Australia, there is a high level of public scrutiny of road planning and
placement decisions as roads create significant environmental and
quality-of-life impacts on communities. Given the substantial and long-
lasting consequences of road projects, different stakeholder groups are
likely to have competing interests that need to be accommodated for
successful project completion. Adding to the complexity, roads are
increasingly being delivered through approaches such as governance
networks. However, there is little understanding of how governance
networks go about prioritising and subsequently engaging with the
broad range of stakeholders associated with road delivery. The purpose
of this thesis was to examine how stakeholders were engaged by
governance networks and, in doing so, uncover how the priority of
stakeholders, as a determinant of stakeholder salience, was linked to
subsequent stakeholder engagement. Using a mixed methods case
study research design, this thesis unpacked three exemplars of
governance networks within the Queensland road delivery arena.
The research produced a number of findings. First it provided empirical
evidence to show that there was a link between stakeholder salience
and engagement but in very specific circumstances. Such a link was
found to exist in the case of internal network stakeholders whose
predominant classification was the Deliberative stakeholder Type, a
new salience category theorised and confirmed by the empirical
evidence. Second, stakeholder engagement was primarily confined to
a single Domain and as such was internally focused and exclusive to
internal network stakeholder groups. Third, in the case of the internal
network stakeholder groups, externally imposed institutional
arrangements and resource access impacted markedly on both
stakeholder salience and engagement. Despite the networks seeking to
operate in a more relational way, relationships played a secondary role
in determining stakeholder salience and stakeholder engagement.
Finally, non-traditional network management activities were
implemented to a limited extent, being selectively applied to maintain
relationships within the networks.
-vi-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I came over to academia following a long career in Government so that
I could fulfil my long held dream to do a PhD. Thanks to my
supervisors, I soon became part of an international community of
researchers who were interested in understanding the twists and turns
of managing Government agencies around the world. I was also invited
into the international asset management community and learned that
managing assets had quite a lot do with managing relationships, my
area of research interest. Being part of these research communities
was both a developmentally and personally rewarding experience for
which I am grateful.
For me, undertaking a PhD was an apprenticeship in doing research.
During this period, I learned a tremendous amount about the practical
aspects and skills of research, about myself as a researcher and my
content area. An early challenge that I faced was making the transition
from senior manager to apprentice researcher. Once I let go, I really
enjoyed the learning experience; soaking up the opportunities. With the
help of my supervisors, I set about becoming an effective researcher
and better writer, both of which I now know to be lifelong tasks.
I was very fortunate to have had financial support while undertaking my
research. I would like to express my gratitude to the Commonwealth
Government and to QUT for the scholarships that they provided to me.
My sincere thanks also goes to the Cooperative Research Centre for
Infrastructure and Asset Management for the financial support and the
amazing development opportunities they provided.
In the course of my research, I was fortunate to have access to three
case study networks: Far North Queensland Regional Road Group,
Wide Bay Burnett Regional Road Group and Northern South-East
Queensland Regional Road Group. During the data collection phase of
my research, parts of Far North Queensland, the Wide Bay Burnett and
-vii-
Somerset Regions experienced significant floods which caused severe
road damage. Despite being involved in the significant road
rehabilitation and repair works, group members made time to answer
my questions. I will always be grateful for this generosity, without it, my
research would have been the poorer.
I would like to thank and acknowledge that I owe a great deal to my
supervisory team: Professor Robyn Keast, Professor Kerry Brown, Dr
Jennifer Waterhouse and Dr Mark Lauchs. They challenged my ideas,
provided technical support and then having read endless drafts, steered
me back on to the path. This was all made possible through the miracle
of coffee and their incredible generosity of spirit.
Special thanks to my principal supervisor Professor Robyn Keast who
stood by me, stood up for me and gently pushed me along when I
needed it. At times I despaired of ever finishing this thesis, particularly
after the 2011 floods, but with the immense support of Robyn and my
husband Peter Johnston I made it. Neither of them gave up on me or
allowed me to give up on myself.
I will always be grateful to my family, friends and colleagues, who
supported me on my academic journey. Even though it made your eyes
glaze over, like the good friends you are, you never stopped asking me
how things were going. I would also like to thank my fellow PhD
students for helping me to maintain my sanity, particularly through your
encouraging and humorous Facebook postings. Although she can't
possibly know how much of a help she has been, I would also like to
thank my cat Cleo Beach for her own unique brand of encouragement.
In conclusion, this thesis is dedicated to my husband Peter Johnston for
giving me the time, support and space to pursue my dream. Without his
love, encouragement, editing skills and the courage to give me
unvarnished feedback I would not have achieved this incredible
milestone in my life.
-viii-
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP
I certify that the work presented in this thesis is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, original, except as acknowledged in the text, and
that the material has not been submitted, either in whole or in part, for a
degree at this or any other university.
I acknowledge that I have read and understood the University’s rules,
requirements, procedures and policy relating to my higher degree
research award and to my thesis. I certify that I have complied with the
rules, requirements, procedures and policy of the University (as they
may be from time to time).
Print Name:
Sandra Beach
Signature:
Date: 01 June 2013
QUT Verified Signature
-ix-
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
Journal Articles
Beach, S, Keast R. L. and Pickernell, D.G. (2012) Unpacking the
connections between network and stakeholder management and
their application to road infrastructure networks in Queensland.
Public Management Review, 14(5), pp.609-629.
Books
Brown, K. A., Mandell, M., Furneaux, C. W., Beach, S. Eds. (2008).
Contemporary Issues in Public Management: Proceedings of the
Twelfth Annual Conference of the International Research Society
for Public Management (IRSPM XII) 26-28 March 2008.
Brisbane: Faculty of Business, QUT.
Practitioner Journals
Beach, S., Brown, K.A. and Keast, R.L (2010),” How Government
Agencies Engage With Stakeholders” Public Administration
Today January-March. pp. 34-41.
Beach, S. (2008) “Getting Engaged: Stakeholders and Queensland
Government Agencies” Public Interest December pp. 10-11.
Conference Papers and Presentations
2012 World Congress on Engineering Asset Management
Beach, Sandra, Infrastructure Delivered through Networks:
Engagement of Stakeholders. In: 7th World Congress on
Engineering Asset Management, 8-10 October 2012, Daejeon,
Korea.
2011 International Research Society for Public Management
Conference, Trinity College, Dublin
Beach, Sandra, Keast, Robyn, L. and Pickernell, David, G (2011) Long
Range Relations: Stakeholder Engagement in Queensland Road
Construction. In: 15th Annual Conference of the International
-x-
Research Society for Public Management (IRSPMXV), 11-14
April 2011, Dublin, Ireland.
2010 International Research Society for Public Management
Conference, Bern
Beach, Sandra (2010) Stakeholder engagement by governance
networks. In: 14th Annual Conference of the International
Research Society for Public Management (IRSPMXIV), 7‐9 April
2010, Bern, Switzerland.
2009 International Research Society for Public Management,
Copenhagen, Beach, Sandra, Brown, Kerry A. and Keast,
Robyn L. (2009) Staking a claim: the role of stakeholders in
government. In: 13th International Research Society for Public
Management Conference (IRSPM XIII), 6–8 April 2009,
Copenhagen Business School, Fredericksburg, Denmark.
2008 International Research Society for Public Management
Conference, Brisbane.
Beach, Sandra and Brown, Kerry A. and Keast, Robyn L. (2008) All
Together Now: Stakeholders in Government Agencies. In Brown,
Kerry A. and Mandell, Myrna and Furneaux, Craig W. and
Beach, Sandra, Eds. Proceedings Contemporary Issues in
Public Management: The Twelfth Annual Conference of the
International Research Society for Public Management (IRSPM
XII), pages pp. 1-14, Brisbane, Australia.
Beach, Sandra (2008) Sustainability of Network Governance:
Stakeholder Influence. In Brown, Kerry A. and Mandell, Myrna
and Furneaux, Craig W. and Beach, Sandra, Eds. Proceedings
Contemporary Issues in Public Management: The Twelfth
Annual Conference of the International Research Society for
Public Management (IRSPM XII), pages pp. 1-23, Brisbane,
Australia.
-xi-
ABBREVIATIONS
ASC ....................... Aboriginal Shire Council
CART ...............….. Citizens Against Route Twenty
DERM .................... Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management
DTMR .................... Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads
FDIT ...................... Federal Department of Infrastructure and Transport
FNQ ....................... Far North Queensland
FNQ RRG .............. Far North Queensland Regional Road Group
FNQROC ............... Far North Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils
LGAQ Local Government Association of Queensland Inc.
MAP ....................... Member of Australian Parliament
MQP ...................... Member of Queensland Parliament
NSEQ .................... Northern South-East Queensland
NSEQ RRG ........... Northern South-East Queensland Regional Road Group
PoBM ..................... Port of Brisbane Motorway
QAS ....................... Queensland Ambulance Service
QES ....................... Queensland Department of Emergency Services
QPS ....................... Queensland Police Service
RAPT ..................... Roads Alliance Project Team
RC ......................... Regional Council
RRG ...................... Regional Road Group
SC ......................... Shire Council
TIDS ...................... Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme
TMFRN .................. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads Far North Region
TMRNC ................. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads North Coast Region
TMRWBB .............. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads Wide Bay Burnett Region
WBB ...................... Wide Bay Burnett
WBB RRG ............. Far North Queensland Regional Road Group
WBBROC .............. Wide Bay Burnett Regional Organisation of Councils
WTMA ................... Wet Tropics Management Authority
-xii-
KEY TERMS
The literatures on both governance networks and stakeholders are
large and complex and include a range of terms that can be differently
interpreted. Therefore the key terms used in this thesis are defined and
explained below so as to remove ambiguity for the reader.
Term Definition
Activating Activities undertaken to recruit and activate network members and resources
(McGuire, 2006)
Coercive power Control obtained through the application of physical resources such as restraint,
force or violence (Agle, Mitchell, & Sonnenfeld, 1999; Etzioni, 1964)
Cognitive
legitimacy
Obtaining approval for actions on the basis that they are comprehensible and
taken-for-granted by constituencies (Suchman, 1995, p. 583)
Criticality Level of importance of stakeholder’s claim (Agle et al., 1999)
Dialogue Exchange of arguments and creation of common meaning within a relationship
based framework (Welp & Stoll-Kleemann, 2006)
Framing Establishing the vision and rules for a network (McGuire, 2006)
Governance
networks
Horizontally linked group of interdependent but operationally autonomous actors,
who interact through negotiations which occur within regulatory, cognitive and
normative frameworks, are self-regulating within the boundaries established by
external agencies and contribute to the production of public value (Sorensen &
Torfing, 2007)
Legitimacy A generalised perception or assumption that the stakeholder claim is desirable,
proper, or appropriate within a socially constructed system of norms, values,
beliefs, definitions (Suchman, 1995)
Main Roads The former Queensland Department of Main Roads
Mobilising Activities designed to foster joint commitment to the network (McGuire, 2006)
Moral legitimacy Positive normative assessments of organisational behaviour and activities
(Suchman, 1995, p. 589)
Multi-way
stakeholder
processes
Multi-way set of interactions among stakeholders who together produce outcomes
(Innes & Booher, 2004, p. 419)
Network
management
A range of non-traditional management activities relevant to managing interactions
with actors within and beyond network boundaries (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001b,
2003; Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004; Mandell, 2001)
Normative power Control obtained through the use of symbolic resources including displeasure,
prestige, acceptance and rejection (Agle et al., 1999; Etzioni, 1964)
Power A relationship in which the stakeholder can get an organisation to do something
which it would not have otherwise done (Agle et al., 1999)
Pragmatic
legitimacy
Achieving support from constituencies by providing specific favourable exchanges
(Suchman, 1995,p. 578)
Regional Road
Group
A Regional Road Group is a group of Regional Councils and a Department of
Transport and Main Roads Region who jointly manage a regionally significant road
network which is jointly owned by the Queensland State and Local governments
(The Roads Alliance, 2008 )
Roads Alliance The Roads Alliance is a partnership between the Queensland Government, the
-xiii-
Term Definition
Local Government Association of Queensland and local government authorities
across Queensland to manage 32,000 kilometres of regionally significant roads
across Queensland (The Roads Alliance, 2008 )
Stakeholders Groups or individuals who can actually or potentially affect or be affected by the
achievement of governance network outcomes (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997, p.
869)
Stakeholder
engagement
The practices undertaken by governance networks to communicate with
stakeholders, involve them in network activities and develop relationships with them
(Chinyio & Akintoye, 2008; Harrison & Mort, 1998)
Stakeholder
engagement
frequency
The number of engagement opportunities made available to stakeholders (Leach
et al., 2005)
Stakeholder
engagement
process
Types of contact between governance networks and stakeholders ranging from
one- way communication to multi-way way dialogue processes (Crane & Livesey,
2003)
Stakeholder
salience
Stakeholders acquire salience as a result of perceptions that they possess the
power to influence outcomes and that their claims are perceived to have legitimacy,
temporality and criticality (Mitchell et al., 1997)
Synthesising Activities designed to build and maintain internal and external network relationships
(McGuire, 2006)
Temporality Immediate attention is paid to stakeholder claims
(Agle et al., 1999)
Transport and
Infrastructure and
Development
Scheme
The Transport and Infrastructure and Development Scheme program provides
funding to local governments for transport related infrastructure development which
supported state government objectives (Transport and Main Roads, 2011). This
funding is used in particular for minor road works and maintenance projects
Utilitarian power Control obtained through the use of material resources, including goods and
services (Agle et al., 1999; Etzioni, 1964)
-xiv-
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Synthesis of Stakeholder Definitions ......................................................... 21
Table 2.2 Stakeholder Classification Systems .......................................................... 23
Table 2.3 Stakeholder Salience Types ...................................................................... 26
Table 2.4 Revised Stakeholder Salience Types ........................................................ 44
Table 4.1 Schedule of Presentations to RRG Governance Networks ....................... 77
Table 4.2 Dimensions of Stakeholder Salience ......................................................... 88
Table 4.3 Population and Response Rates for Networks .......................................... 89
Table 4.4 Stakeholder Engagement: Operational Definitions and Interview
Questions ................................................................................................................... 93
Table 4.5 Example of Salience Data for One Stakeholder ........................................ 99
Table 5.1 FNQ RRG Governance Network Structure, Membership and Roles ....... 116
Table 5.2 FNQ RRG Stakeholders Sector Represented, Roles and
Interactions .............................................................................................................. 118
Table 5.3 FNQ RRG Stakeholders Classified by Salience Variables and
Resultant Stakeholder Types ................................................................................... 124
Table 5.4 FNQ RRG Summary of Factors which Impacted on Attributions of
Power, Legitimacy, Temporality and Criticality ........................................................ 136
Table 5.5 FNQ RRG Snapshot of Stakeholder Engagement .................................. 139
Table 5.6 FNQ RRG Factors which Impacted on Stakeholder Engagement .......... 154
Table 6.1 WBB RRG Governance Network Structure, Membership And Roles .... 167
Table 6.2 WBB RRG Stakeholders: Sector Represented, Roles and
Interactions .............................................................................................................. 170
Table 6.3 WBB RRG: Stakeholders Classified by Salience Variables and
Resultant Stakeholder Types ................................................................................... 176
Table 6.4 WBB RRG: Summary of Factors which Impacted on Attributions of
Power, Legitimacy, Temporality and Criticality ........................................................ 189
Table 6.5 WBB RRG: Snapshot of Stakeholder Engagement ................................ 193
Table 6.6 WBB RRG Frequency and Processes of Engagement and Factors
Impacting on Stakeholder Engagement................................................................... 207
Table 7.1 NSEQ RRG Governance Network Structure, Membership and Roles .... 218
Table 7.2 NSEQ RRG Stakeholders Sector Represented, Roles and
Interactions .............................................................................................................. 222
Table 7.3 NSEQ RRG Governance Network Structure, Membership and Roles .... 227
Table 7.4 NSEQ RRG Summary of Factors which Impacted on Attributions of
Power, Legitimacy, Temporality and Criticality ........................................................ 236
Table 7.5 NSEQ RRG Snapshot of Stakeholder Engagement ............................... 239
Table 8.1 Active Stakeholder Relationships Identified by the Three
Governance Networks ............................................................................................. 253
Table 8.2 Inactive Stakeholder Relationships Identified by the Three
Governance Networks ............................................................................................. 253
Table 8.3 Stakeholder Salience Combinations and Corresponding
Stakeholder Types Identified Across the Three Governance Networks .................. 260
Table 8.4 Factors Relating to Attributions of Power, Legitimacy, Temporality
and Criticality to Stakeholders ................................................................................. 266
Table 8.5 Implementation of Network Management Tasks with Stakeholders........ 280
Table 9.1 Summary of the Theoretical Contributions of this Study ......................... 313
-xv-
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Analytical Framework for the Study……………………………......... 12 12 Figure 2.1 Stakeholder Identification and Salience Model……………………… 25 Figure 2.2 Proposed Framework for Stakeholder Salience and Engagement 45 Figure 3.1 Western Section of the Proposed Route 20 ………………………… 56 Figure 3.2 Route Proposed for the South Coast Motorway…………………….. 58 Figure 3.3 Media Commentary Pacific Motorway Duplication Project………… 59 Figure 3.4 Port of Brisbane Motorway Route……………………………….……. 61 Figure 3.5 Bulimba Creek Oxbow ……………………………………………….... 62 Figure 3.6 Roads Alliance Governance Structure……………………………….. 66 Figure 4.1 Three Setting Case Study Design…………………………………….. 78 Figure 4.2 Sequencing of Data Collection and Analysis………………………… 81 Figure 4.3 Qualitative Data Example of Coding Structure ………………….… 101 Figure 4.4 Initial Thematic Map from Qualitative Data …..……………….…… 103 Figure 5.1 Map showing the Geographic Coverage of FNQ RRG…………..… 114 Figure 5.2 FNQ RRG Governance Network Stakeholders and Levels of Contact……………………………………………………………………………….. 152 Figure 5.3 FNQ RRG Links between Stakeholder Salience and Engagement 158 Figure 5.4 FNQ RRG Governance Network Domains of Stakeholder Engagement…………………………………………………………………………. 161 Figure 6.1 Map Showing the Geographic Coverage of WBB RRG …………… 165 Figure 6.2 WBB RRG Governance Network Stakeholders and Levels of Contact……………………………………………………………………………….. 204 Figure 6.3 WBB RRG Links between Stakeholder Salience and Engagement 209 Figure 6.4 WBB RRG Domains of Stakeholder Engagement……………….… 213 Figure 7.1 Map Showing the Geographic Coverage of NSEQ RRG……..…… 218 Figure 7.2 NSEQ RRG Governance Network Stakeholders and Levels of Contact……………………………………………………………………………….. 243 Figure 7.3 NSEQ RRG Links between Stakeholder Salience and Engagement………………………………………………………………………… 245 Figure 7.4 NSEQ RRG Domains of Stakeholder Engagement………………… 248 Figure 8.1 Structure of Stakeholder Roles………………………………..……… 256 Figure 8.2 Distribution of Stakeholder Types in the Active Relationships Category Identified for Each Network ……………………………………….…… 263 Figure 8.3 Combinations of Engagement in use by Networks ………………… 273 Figure 8.4 Relationship Between Combinations of Power, Legitimacy, Temporality and Criticality (Stakeholder Type) and Combinations of Frequency and Process of Stakeholder Engagement by Network and the Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………….…........ 276 Figure 8.5 Domains of Stakeholder Engagement……………..………………… 288 Figure 9.1 Road Governance Networks Stakeholder Types…………………… 298 Figure 9.2 Domains of Stakeholder Engagement by Governance Networks... 310
-1-
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH
In Australia, the construction and renewal of infrastructure including
roads, transport, water and energy have recently been the subject of
massive funding injections at both federal and state levels
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2009). For example under a recent Nation
Building Program, the Australian Government invested approximately
$5.5 billion in road projects (Australian Government, n/d). Similarly, the
Queensland State government has also invested heavily in road
infrastructure, committing $4.45 billion to road capital expenditure in
2012/2013 (Queensland Government, 2012).
Public awareness of road infrastructure projects is high because they
require significant public investment, may involve multiple and
conflicting stakeholders and have potentially significant environmental
impacts (Lim & Yang, 2008). Additionally, provision of infrastructure can
have an impact on local economies and the quality-of-life of individuals
and communities (Yang & Yuan, 2009, p. 1). The impact of
infrastructure is felt in communities through factors including: job
creation, access to social services and amenity loss (Rodrigue,
Comtois, & Slack, 2006).
Yang and Lim (2008) contend that the successful completion of road
projects depends on meeting stakeholder expectations. However it is
likely that stakeholders will have different levels of interest, expectations
and influence in such projects. Effective management of these complex
dynamics is central to ensuring that projects are not jeopardised by
delays and cost overruns. Consequently, stakeholder engagement has
come to constitute a critical activity in infrastructure development.
Within the road infrastructure context, there has been a call (Yang &
Lim, 2008, p. 2) to implement new approaches which integrate the
-2-
different perspectives of multiple stakeholders involved in road
infrastructure delivery. Reconciling these potentially conflicting agendas
is an important step in ensuring that roads meet the needs of
communities and road users without comprising the environment.
However, building and maintaining relationships with stakeholders has
been and continues to be difficult because of the potential for
community based protest to erupt if the impacts of the infrastructure are
not “perceived to be managed effectively in the public’s eye “ (Teo &
Loosemore, 2011, p. 131). Implementation of strategies such as
political lobbying and public protests can have a significant impact on
project completion and delivery of outcomes. For example, in the
1990’s, the anti-roads movement in the United Kingdom was able to
force a substantial cut in the size of the national roads program
(Doherty, 1998).
Adding a further level of complexity, roads are increasingly being
delivered through overlapping networks of interaction and decision
making. As such there is increased pressure for interconnected
networks of stakeholders to participate in road program delivery. Such
networks collectively take responsibility for delivery of outcomes using a
system of governance which involves continuous negotiation within a
framework of game-like rules (H De Bruijn & Dicke, 2006; Keast,
Mandell, & Brown, 2006; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000; Waterhouse, Keast,
& Brown, 2011). These governance networks may need to be fine-
tuned to deliver outcomes within a complex environment which
incorporates bureaucratic processes, contractual arrangements and
relationship based ways of working (Lowndes & Skelcher, 2002).
Over the last two decades, governance networks, particularly public-
private partnerships have come to the fore internationally as
mechanisms for road infrastructure delivery. However, there is
incomplete understanding about how these types of networks go about
engaging with the broader range of actors associated with road
provision. This lack of knowledge is problematic given the imperative to
-3-
engage with stakeholders (Calabrese, 2008) as a means of eliminating
or reducing the social and environmental impacts of roads and
minimising the possibility of road projects becoming embroiled in
spiralling cycles of conflict.
Governance networks responsible for delivering public outcomes may
face an additional layer of complexity resulting from being embedded in
a particular social or political context and in particular, managing
stakeholder expectations in an environment in which political influence
can be leveraged by stakeholders. Operating within a government
context may also impose regulatory, social justice or budgetary
constraints which need to be brought into the mix in the management of
stakeholder relationships by governance networks (Mandell & Keast,
2007).
From an infrastructure perspective, the importance of stakeholder
engagement has become more apparent in the literature. El-Gohary,
Osman and El-Diraby (2006) have argued that stakeholder involvement
was a critical factor in the success of public private partnerships.
Furthermore, Koppenjan, Charles and Ryan (2008), proposed that
public values are embedded in infrastructure delivery and as a
consequence trade-offs are required to balance the needs of the range
of stakeholders likely to be involved in such projects. These viewpoints
provide a deeper understanding of both the importance and intricacies
of managing stakeholder dynamics in infrastructure delivery.
Despite these advances in knowledge, there is still no robust model for
understanding how governance networks delivering infrastructure,
particularly roads, interact with various types of stakeholders. Given the
complex nature of infrastructure delivery and constantly shifting
stakeholder dynamics that need to be managed in such projects, the
lack of knowledge about stakeholder management in infrastructure
projects could result in project failure (Bourne & Walker, 2006).
Consequently, this thesis explores how stakeholder relationships are
-4-
constructed by governance networks in the context of road provision.
Furthermore, these relationships are analysed through the lenses of
stakeholder salience and engagement so as to understand the link
between the perceived importance of stakeholders and subsequent
engagement activities undertaken. In arriving at conclusions, network
management activities which impact on stakeholder engagement are
also examined to obtain a more nuanced view of how stakeholder
engagement unfolds in governance networks. Providing a foundation
for the analysis, the theoretical framework for this research is discussed
next.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Although originating in the private sector, the stakeholder concept has
increasingly become more prominent in the public management
literature (Bryson, 2004). However, it remains a continuing challenge for
governance networks to identify appropriate stakeholders, to determine
when and how to engage with them and to effectively manage these
relationships to achieve results and derive benefits. Given that these
relationships provide the form, create constraints and present
opportunities for the way public outcomes are achieved (Feldman &
Khademian, 2002), it is important that governance networks find
effective ways to engage with stakeholders as a means of improving
the quality of those outcomes. The literature has suggested a number
of steps that are important in effectively building relationships with
stakeholders.
The first step, stakeholder identification (A. Friedman & Miles, 2006),
focuses on how the stakeholders are defined. Stakeholder identification
incorporates two steps. Firstly, based on criteria established by an
organisation, an opportunity would be provided for stakeholders to
identify themselves and consequently participate in engagement
processes. A second step would be to classify and prioritise
stakeholders according to one of the many schemas suggested in the
literature (A. Friedman & Miles, 2006). Following the allocation of
-5-
priorities to various stakeholders, stakeholder engagement would
centre on building stakeholder relationships that are strategically
important (Preble, 2005) and buffering projects against spiralling
conflict. The final step would be the maintenance or de-activation of
stakeholder relationships (Crane & Livesey, 2003) depending upon
their continuing strategic importance.
One of the more prominent frameworks for identification and
classification of stakeholders is Mitchell, Agle and Wood’s (1997) Model
of Stakeholder Identification and Salience. This Model incorporates
various combinations of the stakeholder attributes: power, urgency and
legitimacy, from which are composed seven categories of stakeholders
ranging from high salience where managers have a clear and specific
requirement to act on the stakeholder’s claims immediately to low
salience where managerial action is discretionary (Mitchell et al.,
1997). The model theorises that decisions about stakeholder
involvement would be based on an assessment of stakeholder
salience. This assessment, it is argued (Mitchell et al., 1997) should be
based on a consideration of the power of stakeholders and the urgency
and legitimacy of their claims. Providing an indication that stakeholder
salience has relevance within the network context, (Klijn, Koppenjan, &
Termeer, 1995) have identified that power and legitimacy can influence
who is included in a network and further the rules of engagement within
the network and the outcomes achieved.
A number of studies of stakeholder salience, which are discussed in
detail in Chapter 3, have been undertaken in the business sector (Agle
et al., 1999), public sector (Parent & Deephouse, 2007) and
infrastructure context (Aaltonen & Jaakko, 2010). These empirical
studies contributed to understanding how Mitchell et al.’s (1997) Model
operated in practice and also revealed a number of gaps. Although
showing the links between stakeholder salience and relationships
between stakeholders and decision makers, these studies did not
extend to showing how stakeholder salience impacts on choices about
-6-
engagement activities. Furthermore, none of these studies were
situated within the more relational environment of governance
networks. Therefore, further empirical testing is required to extend and
align the study of stakeholder salience to the context of governance
networks. This study will begin to fill in this gap by examining how
stakeholder salience applies in the networked governance environment.
Focusing on stakeholder management and engagement, A. Friedman
and Miles (2006) proposed a power based continuum of stakeholder
engagement activities beginning with one-way static communication
techniques and concluding with multi-way stakeholder processes.
However, stakeholder engagement activities that may be applicable to
different configurations of stakeholder salience are yet to be articulated.
Achieving equilibrium between stakeholder salience and engagement is
particularly pertinent for governance networks because stakeholders
can seriously disrupt networks through withdrawal of resources or by
creating reputational damage. Therefore, to obtain a more fine grained
view of the relationship between stakeholder salience and stakeholder
engagement by governance networks, both the frequency and type of
stakeholder engagement requires consideration.
Although not explicitly addressed in the literature, there are a number of
features which may impact on the way stakeholder salience and
stakeholder engagement are approached by governance networks.
Firstly, while power is seldom at the forefront of theorising about
governance networks (Klijn & Skelcher, 2007, p. 602), the literature has
recognised that power distribution within networks is likely to be
asymmetrical, resulting in a series of power dependence relationships
(Agranoff and McGuire 2001). Given that power is also an attribute of
stakeholder salience, power dependency may affect salience ratings.
The literature has acknowledged that governance networks can
simultaneously exhibit facets of hierarchical, market and networked
arrangements thus operating in a hybrid governance environment
-7-
(Considine & Lewis, 1999; Keast et al., 2006; Powell, 1990). Under
such arrangements, stakeholder engagement may be a function of
bureaucratic institutional arrangements and relational processes based
on reciprocity, trust and interdependency. Given the differing premises
underpinning bureaucratic and relational governance arrangements,
conflicting attributions of stakeholder salience may occur. Sorensen and
Torfing (2003) contend that individual actors may be unable to discard
the responsibilities of belonging to a particular organisation in favour of
the collective network approach; despite the pressure of working in a
networked environment. This inability or unwillingness of network
members to set aside their representative role (Mandell & Keast, 2008)
may again influence decision making about stakeholders, particularly as
the result of power domination.
A prominent feature of the governance network literature (Agranoff,
2007) is the importance of establishing, maintaining and managing
relationships in network processes. Keast and Hampson (2007), in
examining construction networks confirmed that such relationships
need to be strategically managed to achieve effective results. However
despite this strong relational emphasis in the literature, there is a
significant gap about how and under what circumstances governance
networks create relationships with the specific actor set; stakeholders.
As a consequence, there is no model for understanding how
governance networks use stakeholder prioritisation tools and then how
these decisions flow on to activities which are implemented so as to
build connections with stakeholders. This limitation is problematic
because it may hinder the development of effective relationships with
appropriate stakeholders.
Therefore, this study proposed an integrated model of Stakeholder
Salience and Engagement which combines elements of the following
theoretical frameworks and empirical studies:
-8-
Stakeholder Identification and Salience Model (Mitchell et al.,
1997)
Study of stakeholder engagement undertaken by Local
Authorities (Leach, Lowndes, Cowell, & Downe, 2005)
Ladder of Stakeholder Management and Engagement (A.
Friedman & Miles, 2006).
Drawing together the concepts of stakeholder salience and
engagement, the proposed model of Stakeholder Salience and
Engagement provide a more developed conceptual framework for
addressing the identification, classification and engagement of
stakeholders. By combining stakeholder salience and engagement, the
proposed model also offers a more nuanced way of understanding the
complex interactions between governance networks and their
stakeholders. This test of the proposed model of Stakeholder Salience
and Engagement will contribute to the stakeholder literature by showing
how and why stakeholder salience and engagement are connected. It
will also develop the literature on governance networks by creating an
understanding of how various features of governance networks impact
on stakeholder engagement, currently an underexplored area of
research.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
By answering the following research questions, this study will generate
new theoretical and practical knowledge about how governance
networks engage with stakeholders in the delivery of road services:
How are stakeholders engaged by governance networks?
1. What is the focus of stakeholder identification?
2. What different combinations of stakeholder power, legitimacy,
temporality and criticality are attributed to stakeholders and why?
3. How do these combinations of power, legitimacy, temporality and
criticality relate to the combinations frequency and processes of
stakeholder engagement undertaken?
-9-
4. To what extent are network management activities used by
governance networks in managing relationships with
stakeholders?
JUSTIFICATION OF RESEARCH
Governance networks, which comprise webs of interactions between a
broad range of actors, are well established world-wide as a mechanism
for delivery of infrastructure (Grimsey & Lewis, 2007), however, the
circumstances in which stakeholders emerge in interconnected
networks is under researched (Bovaird, 2005). Furthermore, it is not
well understood how stakeholder salience, a potentially important
aspect of stakeholder relationship management, links with stakeholder
engagement activities and how these interactions play out in
infrastructure delivery networks, in particular road service delivery
networks. This lack of knowledge may lead to over investment in a
particular stakeholder group while other more important stakeholders
receive little attention thus creating the opportunity for conflict and
costly project delays in road projects.
This thesis advances knowledge in the fields of stakeholder and
governance networks by addressing three gaps in these literatures.
First, although the literature has considered stakeholder salience in
some depth, previous studies have treated the construct of urgency as
a single variable despite widespread acknowledgment (Agle et al.,
1999; A. Friedman & Miles, 2006; Mitchell et al., 1997) that it comprises
two elements: criticality and temporality. However, treating urgency as
two discrete variables: criticality and temporality, may result in a
broader categorisation of stakeholder salience than previously
proposed by Mitchell et al. (1997).
Second, the relationship between stakeholder salience and stakeholder
engagement has yet to be examined. As a consequence, there is no
clear understanding of how decisions about stakeholder salience
impact on decisions about stakeholder engagement. Furthermore, there
-10-
has been little theoretical development about how variations in the
frequency and type of stakeholder engagement processes apply to
different types of stakeholders. Studying stakeholder salience and its
relationship with stakeholder engagement as a function of frequency
and type of engagement processes will extend the stakeholder
literature by showing how stakeholder salience impacts on decisions
about the types of engagement processes implemented.
Finally, the literature has identified stakeholders an actor group with
whom governance networks interact (Bell & Park, 2006). However the
theory of governance networks has not developed to the point of
exploring interactions with stakeholders as a specific actor group.
Further, there has been little research on how these interactions may
occur within an environment in which three types of governance:
hierarchical, market and network operate simultaneously. Taking into
consideration the governance network environment, this study will
provide some initial indications about one aspect of interactions
between governance networks and stakeholders: the link between
stakeholder salience and engagement. As an environment in which
accurate assessments of stakeholder salience are a fundamental
aspect of effective stakeholder engagement, the road infrastructure
arena represents a suitable context for this study.
From a practical perspective, this research will provide a framework for
matching engagement activities to different stakeholder types
possessing varying combinations of power and legitimate, temporal and
critical claims. Furthermore this research will identify governance
network factors that are important in stakeholder engagement. By
applying this augmented knowledge, infrastructure governance
networks will be able to more effectively engage with stakeholders to
deliver infrastructure in a timely and more cost efficient manner while
better meeting community objectives. The next section provides an
overview of the research design employed for this research: multiple
case studies.
-11-
RESEARCH DESIGN
Case study research is considered to be suitable where the research
addresses a contemporary phenomenon within its context and when
the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are unclear
(Yin, 2003) as in the case of stakeholder engagement by governance
networks. Furthermore given the dynamic interactions of stakeholders
and governance networks and the unfolding context in which they
occur, the flexibility and guidance of the case study approach provides
a robust framework for capturing and analysing the intricacies,
processes, roles and adjustments in the networks as they occur
(Marshall & Rossman, 2006).
The case study approach to the study of stakeholders in the context of
governance networks has been used on a number of occasions. In their
research on stakeholder involvement in decision making, Edelenbos
and Klijn (2006, p. 7) chose a case study approach because of the
interactive and multi-actor nature of the processes being considered.
Consequently, a case study approach was considered to be
appropriate for an investigation of stakeholder salience and
engagement in governance networks because it requires an in depth
understanding of how dynamic social relationships play out in
interactive multi-actor processes.
A multiple case study design involving three case studies was selected
because it was considered to be useful for extending and refining
theoretical perspectives (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Therefore, the
case study design incorporated the intensive study of three (3)
Regional Road Group (RRG) governance networks in Queensland.
These governance networks have responsibility for managing
investment in and delivery of local roads in the regions of Far North
Queensland (FNQ RRG), Wide Bay Burnett (WBB RRG) and the
northern areas South-East Queensland (NSEQ RRG). The approach of
-12-
using multiple case studies provided more nuanced insights into how
stakeholder salience linked to stakeholder engagement undertaken by
RRGs and also provided clarity about which features of these
governance networks impacted upon stakeholder engagement.
These case studies were conducted on a cross-sectional basis using
stakeholder analysis, structured interviews and semi-structured
interview methods to collect data. Furthermore a range of documentary
sources from the RRGs, member councils and Department of Transport
and Main Roads (DTMR) were scrutinised and represented a further
source for triangulation of data. The next section contains an overview
of the contents of the remaining chapters of this thesis.
FORMAT OF THIS THESIS
Incorporating the elements shown in the Analytical Framework in Figure
1.1, this thesis is structured into nine (9) chapters including the
introductory chapter.
Governance
Networks
Stakeholder
Salience
Stakeholder
Engagement
Network
Management
Research
Questions
Background
to the Study
Case Study Approach
Mixed Methods
Framework
Qualitative and
Quantitative Data
Qualitative and Quantitative
Analysis
Theoretical
Framework
Research
Problem Methodology
Case Studies (3)
Cross Case Analysis and Discussion
Empirical
Findings
Case Context
Conclusions
Figure 1.1 Analytical Framework for the Study
-13-
Chapter 2: Research Issues and New Theoretical Framework
presents an analysis of the literature of stakeholder salience and
engagement and governance networks. The chapter further develops
arguments about the mediating role of stakeholder salience on
interactions between governance networks and stakeholders.
Furthermore, significant gaps in the stakeholder and governance
network literatures are identified. In order to narrow these gaps, the
chapter also documents and justifies the development of a theoretical
model of Stakeholder Salience and Engagement.
Chapter 3: Case Context establishes the contextual background for
the case studies by focusing the historical and contextual background
of road construction by State and Local government in Queensland. It
also highlights key events that have shaped stakeholder participation in
road infrastructure service delivery and the move to more relational
approaches to stakeholder engagement.
Chapter 4: Methodology provides a detailed account of the research
design used to generate the empirical data for this study, documents
the data collection methodology and provides a rationale for choosing
this methodology as a suitable approach to answering the research
questions. The use of a sequential mixed methods approach is also
justified in this chapter. Furthermore, this chapter discusses the various
methods used to collect data and in particular the choice of structured
interviews and semi-structured interviews to obtain an in-depth
understanding of how stakeholders were engaged and the similarities,
differences and overlaps between these interactions.
Chapters 5, 6 and 7: Case Studies present a detailed profile of one of
the three case studies: the FNQ RRG Governance Network, the WBB
RRG Governance Network and the NSEQ RRG Governance Network.
Each case study includes an in-depth analysis of
stakeholders identified by the network
-14-
stakeholder types identified by varying combinations of power,
legitimacy, temporality and criticality
factors which impacted on attributions power, legitimacy,
temporality and criticality
combinations of engagement frequency and engagement
processes for various stakeholders types and
network management activities factors which impacted on
management and engagement of various stakeholders.
Chapter 8: Cross Case Analysis and Discussion integrates the
findings from the three case studies through a cross case analysis. This
critical analysis provides insights into the relationships between
stakeholder salience and engagement and the operation of the Model
of Stakeholder Salience and Engagement across the three networks.
Furthermore, the analysis shows the similarities and differences
between the governance network issues that are identified as having an
impact on stakeholder engagement. As a result of these comparisons,
conclusions are drawn about how stakeholder salience impacts on
stakeholder engagement by governance networks.
Chapter 9: Conclusions and Future Research Directions draws
together the theoretical, methodological and empirical strands of this
thesis to show how governance networks engage with their
stakeholders. Accordingly the final chapter provides a summary and
critique of findings and specifies the contributions that this research has
made to the stakeholder and governance network literatures. This
chapter also outlines the limitations of the study. Finally, directions for
future research, for example, empirical testing in environments outside
of the road program management context, are suggested.
CONCLUSION
This introductory chapter has established the research problem which is
that there is incomplete understanding about how governance networks
-15-
engage with the range of actors associated with road provision. The
chapter has outlined the key questions that this thesis endeavours to
answer in order to gain an understanding of how governance networks
engage with stakeholders. The chapter also justifies the need for
research to be undertaken. This introduction has situated this study
within the literatures on stakeholders and governance networks and
has identified that the stakeholder engagement by governance
networks is insufficiently addressed in prior studies and further that the
relationship between stakeholder salience and engagement is also
under researched. Significantly, this chapter has identified that there is
sparse research about the theoretical link between stakeholder salience
and engagement and that governance networks have not yet
addressed the issue of how to engage with stakeholders.
This chapter also presented the research design, incorporating multiple
case studies along with the methodologies used in this research:
stakeholder analysis, structured interviews and semi-structured
interviews. Finally, the format of the thesis was outlined. Having
established the basis on which this thesis is structured, the following
chapter provides a review of the key literature applicable to the
research questions and proposes a new theoretical model derived from
the literature on stakeholders.
-16-
CHAPTER 2 - RESEARCH ISSUES AND NEW
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW
The previous chapter presented an overview of this thesis and
introduced the concept that governance networks delivering
infrastructure can achieve more effective results through engagement
with stakeholders. However undertaking effective engagement with a
broad range of stakeholders poses difficulties due to the need to
balance stakeholder interests while at the same time meeting budget
constraints and dealing with political pressures (Waterhouse, Brown, &
Flynn, 2001). While acknowledging the difficulty of engaging with
stakeholders, it is an important issue in road service delivery because
of the lack of attention to the public debate and denial of the legitimate
worries and objections of local stakeholders can cause resistance and
delays (Beach, Keast, & Pickernell, 2012). The nature of road
construction raises a number of challenges for stakeholder
engagement. Road projects may cover considerable distances, traverse
different local government boundaries and have different types of
impact on property owners. As a result, stakeholder concerns may vary
significantly, requiring specialised and highly time consuming
responses.
Acknowledging the need to engage with directly affected stakeholders
such as those facing loss of amenity due to factors such as noise,
pollution and reduced property values, there are also likely to be ‘hard
to reach’ (Brackertz, Zwart, Meredyth, & Ralston, 2005, p. 6) or
reluctant stakeholders who are difficult to identify and connect with.
Moreover, the significance of citizen involvement in decision making
cannot be under estimated (Edelenbos & Klijn, 2006), although the
‘silent majority’ in the community may not be heard directly.
-17-
Yang and Lim (2008, p. 2) have identified that there is a need to
establish new approaches that integrate and synthesise the different
perspectives of multiple stakeholders within new frameworks of local
governance not previously addressed (Tavares & Camões, 2010). This
is not a simple activity given that road infrastructure may be planned,
constructed and managed through arrangements that involve the public
and private sectors working jointly within networks (Chinyio &
Olomolaiye, 2010). Furthermore, the scale of infrastructure projects
may also impact on stakeholder engagement. While large infrastructure
projects may stretch across many local government areas and
communities, smaller scale works programs may be more localised.
The differing levels of interest may also lead to shifting levels of
commitment and contribution to projects and their outcomes
(Newcombe, 2003). Dealing with these dynamics through stakeholder
engagement, however, offers the possibility that potential risks
associated with stakeholders can be more effectively managed (Bourne
& Walker, 2008). As El-Gohary, et al. (2006, p. 604) note: ‘involvement
with stakeholders can be a decisive factor that can “make or break” a
project. From a governance network perspective, the pathways to
develop the requisite combination of stakeholders to achieve successful
outcomes have yet to be identified. Therefore, it remains a continuing
challenge for governance networks to identify appropriate stakeholders,
to determine when and how to engage with them and to effectively
manage these relationships to achieve results and derive benefits.
Scope of the Review
To effectively narrow down the vast literatures on stakeholders and
governance networks, selection of empirical and theoretical literature
for inclusion in this review was undertaken in accordance with four (4)
criteria. First, publications were selected from books and reputable
journals known in the research community to have published articles
focused on stakeholders and governance networks. These included:
Academy of Management Review, Business Ethics Quarterly, Journal
-18-
of Business Ethics, Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, Public Administration Review and Public Management Review.
A second and related criterion was to identify relevant publications from
the network of citing articles generated from the list of publications
identified above. Third, conceptual pieces and empirical studies were
selected where they demonstrated the development of the stakeholder
and governance networks concepts. Finally, there was a focus on
selecting empirical studies conducted in both the business and public
sectors so as to develop a balanced view of how the stakeholder
concept was treated in the two domains.
Structure of the Chapter
This chapter provides the theoretical foundations for understanding how
governance networks engage with stakeholders and maps the
development of the literature in both domains. Focusing on the broader
scholarly literature, the stakeholder approach, the debates on
stakeholding and the ways in which stakeholders are managed, are
traced. In particular, the concept of stakeholder salience as a
classification system is discussed. Subsequently, the conceptual
development of stakeholder engagement is discussed, arguing that
there is a link between stakeholder salience and engagement.
Next, there is a discussion of the literature on governance, governance
networks and network management, proposing a relationship between
network management and stakeholder engagement. The review
concludes by identifying and presenting the gaps in the stakeholder
salience and governance network literatures, proposing a synthesised
model which draws together the concepts of stakeholder salience and
engagement and stating the contribution of this thesis to the literatures
of stakeholders and governance networks. The next section explores
stakeholder theory, a building block for this review.
-19-
STAKEHOLDER THEORY
Stakeholder Concept
The stakeholder concept emerged from the business sector in the mid
1980’s (Freeman, 1984). In essence, the theory contends that
organisational behaviour may be impacted by its constituencies
depending on the extent to which they can affect or are affected by
organisational actions (Freeman, 1984). A number of authors have
commented on the deceptive simplicity of stakeholder theory (Clarke &
Clegg, 1998; Foster & Jonker, 2005; Freeman, 1984) which according
to Fassin (2008) has contributed to its success. Despite this veneer of
simplicity, the concept of stakeholders is complicated by being
notoriously vague (TM Jones & Wicks, 1999). This contention is
supported by the continuing lack of agreement about who is regarded
as a stakeholder (Derry, 2012; Freeman, 1984; Mitchell et al., 1997)
and indicates that the managerial conception of stakeholders is far from
being self-evident.
The theoretical completeness of the stakeholder concept continues to
be contested (Agle et al., 2008). This issue is illustrated by the long
standing ideological argument in the literature about whether
stakeholder management should be viewed from a managerial
perspective (why stakeholders and organisations interact) (Freeman,
1984; Hill & Jones, 1992; Mitchell et al., 1997) or from a normative
perspective (with whom should organisations interact) (Donaldson &
Preston, 1995; Phillips, 2003a; Wicks, Berman, & Jones, 1999). The
three-part typology proposed by Donaldson and Preston (1995)
indicated several traits that could be relevant in managing stakeholders.
These traits are:
managers behave in different ways (descriptive theories)
particular outcomes are likely to be achieved if managers behave
in particular ways (instrumental theories) and
managers should behave in particular ways (normative theories)
(TM Jones & Wicks, 1999).
-20-
However Donaldson and Preston’s (1995) approach has been the
subject of widespread critique in the literature (Reed et al., 2009).
Additionally, Jones, Wicks and Freeman (2002) and Agle et al. (2008)
cast doubt on the usefulness of dividing stakeholder theory into three
seemingly separate approaches. There have been calls for a more
integrated approach which focuses on the multiple and varied ways
that stakeholder and organisations interact (Agle et al., 2008; Harris &
Freeman, 2008).
A further criticism of stakeholder theory that is of particular relevance to
the study of governance networks is the perceived centrality of the
organisation in stakeholder relationships: the hub-and-spoke view
(Frooman, 1999; Frooman & Murrell, 2005; Steurer, 2006; Svendsen &
Laberge, 2005). In this model, stakeholders are characterised as
satellites which orbit around a central organisation. To remedy these
shortcomings, Rowley (1997) developed a network theory of
stakeholder influences which indicated that stakeholders operate in a
networked way, showing that the organisation is not necessarily the
focal point of interactions. Rowley’s (1997) study also argued that
relationships between stakeholders are an influential factor in the
stakeholder approach and should be managed accordingly. This
alternative model, which places stakeholders at the centre of analysis,
has become more prominent as it demonstrates how stakeholders are
linked within networks (Roloff, 2008; Savage et al., 2010).
This thesis argues that despite its imperfections (Fassin, 2008),
stakeholder theory offers a sound heuristic basis for understanding the
interactions between organisations and the actors who can affect or are
affected by organisational decisions. In particular the concept that
groups of stakeholders operate as networks provides a foundation for
understanding how stakeholder engagement operates in networked
environments. The first steps in managing interactions with
stakeholders, their definition and identification are addressed next.
-21-
Stakeholder Definition and Identification
Since Freeman’s (1984) landmark publication, stakeholder identification
has been the subject of much theoretical and analytical study. The first
step in identifying and differentiating types of stakeholders is to define
them. Stakeholder identification is a complex task due to the large
number and varying foci, of extant stakeholder definitions. Seeking to
explain such diversity, Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Parmar and De Colle
(2010, p. 211) suggested that stakeholder definitions served different
purposes and could not necessarily be synthesised. Based around the
three categories defined by Donaldson and Preston (1995), Table 2.1
presents a summary of the major approaches to defining stakeholders.
Table 2.1 Synthesis of Stakeholder Definitions
Category of
Theory
Definitions
1. Descriptive Groups or individuals who can actually or potentially affect or be affected by
the achievement of organisational outcomes (Freeman, 1984)
2. Instrumental Stakeholders which the organisation considers could be taken into account
from the following perspectives:
organisational outcomes (Freeman, 1984; Mitchell et al., 1997)
stakeholder-focal group (A. Friedman & Miles, 2006)
stakeholder-network (Rowley, 1997)
3. Normative Stakeholders who are considered to have a valid claim on the organisation e.g.
property rights (Donaldson & Preston, 1995)
common good (Freeman, 2004)
The first category, incorporating descriptive approaches, tends to
identify stakeholders based on the perceived influence that they can
have on an organisation or the extent to which they are impacted upon.
In the second category, instrumental models focus on the extent to
which an organisation perceives that stakeholders need to be involved.
The final category: normative approaches restrict stakeholders to those
with whom the organisation has a contractual or moral obligation.
While descriptive approaches have the potential to identify large
numbers of stakeholders, normative definitions may have the opposite
impact by narrowing stakeholder groups excessively. Instrumental
-22-
definitions, however, strike a balance between the broad and narrow
approaches by filtering the broader group of stakeholders and
concentrating on those stakeholders who the organisation considers
need to be taken into account to achieve organisational objectives.
Taking an instrumental approach, stakeholder management activities
can be linked to the achievement of specific outcomes (Donaldson &
Preston, 1995). Supporting the instrumental approach, Reed et al.
(2009, p. 1936) suggested that such approaches were more pragmatic
and focused on understanding how to identify, explain and manage the
actions of stakeholders to achieve organisational outcomes.
As this research is instrumental in nature and seeks to identify, explain
and understand how governance networks engage with stakeholders,
the following instrumental definition frames this study: stakeholders are
defined as groups or individuals who can have either an actual or
potential effect on governance network outcomes (Freeman, 1984;
Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 869). This definition frames the study by
restricting the stakeholder pool to actors who can impact or may be
impacted by the activities undertaken by governance networks to
deliver roads within a specific timeframe and budget. As the literature
lacks a clear perspective about how governance networks define and
identify stakeholders, this study will examine the extent to which
governance networks subscribe to or depart from such an instrumental
approach to their engagement with stakeholders. Providing a
mechanism to structure and prioritise previously identified stakeholders,
stakeholder classification is addressed next.
Classifying stakeholders
The classification of stakeholders has been undertaken in a variety of
ways in an effort to prioritise stakeholders (Achterkamp & Vos, 2007);
claimant versus influencers (Savage, Nix, Whitehead, & Blair, 1991);
actual versus potential relationships (Clarkson in Mitchell et al., 1997;
Starik, 1994), as well as power dependency and legitimacy in
-23-
relationships (Mitchell et al., 1997). These classification systems are
summarised in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 Stakeholder Classification Systems
Focus Classification System
Single dimension Fiduciary and non-fiduciary stakeholders (Goodpaster, 1991)
Assessing and managing stakeholders (Savage et al., 1991)
Stakeholder agency (Hill & Jones, 1992)
Primary and secondary stakeholder (Clarkson, 1995)
Voluntary and involuntary stakeholders (Clarkson 1994 in Mitchell et al.,
1997)
Stakeholder influencing strategies (Frooman, 1999; Frooman & Murrell,
2005)
Multiple dimensions Organisational life-cycle stages (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001)
Managerial perceptions of stakeholder characteristics: power, urgency and
legitimacy (Mitchell et al., 1997)
The first group of classifications use only one dimension to classify
stakeholders. While Goodpaster (1991) seeks to normatively classify
stakeholders in accordance with fiduciary responsibilities, the remaining
approaches take an instrumental perspective based on various criteria:
extent of co-operation by stakeholders (Savage et al., 1991)
perceived legitimacy of stakeholders (Hill & Jones, 1992)
extent to which stakeholder support is essential to the
organisation (Clarkson, 1995)
degree to which stakeholders have invested resources in the
organisation (Clarkson 1994 in Mitchell et al., 1997) and
extent to which stakeholders wield influence through provision or
withdrawal of resources (Frooman, 1999; Frooman & Murrell,
2005).
However, due to the numerous complexities associated with
governance networks these singly focused approaches are not
sufficiently nuanced to provide a meaningful framework for classifying
stakeholders of such networks. In contrast, two stakeholder
classification systems (Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001; Mitchell et al.,
1997) sought to capture the multidimensional nature of stakeholder
interactions. Jawahar and McLaughlin (2001) and later Neville and
-24-
Menguc (2006) argued that the classification of stakeholders may be
distinctively different at the various stages of an organisation’s lifecycle.
As such, a temporal element was introduced to stakeholder
classification. However, Jawahar and McLaughlin’s (2001) approach is
limited because it focuses on classifying stakeholders based on
financial risks associated with different life cycle stages rather than
more broadly.
Thus Mitchell et al.’s (1997) Model of Stakeholder Identification and
Salience offers an alternative structure for framing and classifying
stakeholders in accordance with managerial perceptions of stakeholder
characteristics: power, legitimacy and urgency. The model theorises
that managers make decisions about stakeholder involvement through
an assessment of their salience based on the power of stakeholders
and the urgency and legitimacy of their claims (Mitchell et al., 1997).
The next section discusses Mitchell et al.’s (1997) model in more detail.
STAKEHOLDER SALIENCE THEORY
The model of Stakeholder Identification and Salience (Mitchell et al.,
1997) incorporates three variables: power, urgency and legitimacy
which are aggregated into the construct of stakeholder salience. The
Model also suggests that various combinations of these variables result
in different stakeholder types, which Mitchell et al. (1997) claim,
influences the way that stakeholders are perceived and approached by
an organisation. Figure 2.1 presents the Stakeholder Identification and
Salience model.
-25-
Figure 2.1 Stakeholder Identification and Salience Model
Adapted from “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the
principle of who and what really counts, by R. Mitchell, B. Agle and D. Wood, 1997
Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
Within the model, power is considered to be the ability of actors to
achieve their desired outcomes and incorporates three dimensions:
normative, coercive and utilitarian. While normative power is
demonstrated through the use of symbolic resources such as media
attention; coercive power derives from control obtained through the
application of physical resources such as restraint, force or violence (A.
Friedman & Miles, 2006). The final dimension, utilitarian power, is the
use of material resources, specifically goods and services, for control
purposes (Etzioni, 1964, p. 59).
Following Suchman’s (1995) approach, the second variable in the
Stakeholder Identification and Salience Model, legitimacy, is defined as
“a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity
are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed
system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (Suchman, 1995, p.
574). Legitimacy as defined by Suchman (1995) has three bases:
pragmatic, which is linked to self-interest, moral, which is derived from
normative approval and cognitive which incorporates the concept of
taken-for-grantedness.
-26-
The third variable in the model, urgency, is determined by the time
sensitivity of a stakeholder’s claim and the criticality or perceived
importance of the claim to the organisation (Mitchell et al.,1997). In this
context, urgency implies a shifting power balance in the relationship
when a particular stakeholder’s claim is critical to the organisation and
warrants immediate attention by the organisation. Despite the multi-
dimensionality of urgency, Mitchell et al. (1997, p. 864) go on to define
urgency as a single dimension, “the degree to which stakeholder claims
call for immediate attention”.
Table 2.3 highlights the combinations of the stakeholder attributes:
power, urgency and legitimacy, from which are composed eight (8)
stakeholder types with differing levels of salience.
Table 2.3 Stakeholder Salience Types
Stakeholder Salience Attributes
Priority Category Power Legitimacy Urgency
High Definitive * * *
Moderate Dominant * *
Dangerous * *
Dependent * *
Low Dormant *
Discretionary *
Demanding *
None Non-stakeholders
Legend: symbol=attribute present, grey shaded cell=attribute not present
Adapted from “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the
principle of who and what really counts, by R. Mitchell, B. Agle and D. Wood, 1997
Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
From Table 2.3, it can be seen that stakeholders fall into different
categories ranging from Dormant, Discretionary and Demanding (low
priority) where action is optional to Definitive (high priority), where
managers have a clear and specific requirement to act on the
stakeholder’s claims immediately (Mitchell et al., 1997). Non-
stakeholders are identified; however this category was treated as
irrelevant in the model. A further characteristic of the Model is that
-27-
stakeholder salience is not static because stakeholders can acquire or
relinquish the characteristics of power, urgency and legitimacy thus
changing their categorisation (Agle et al., 1999; Mitchell et al., 1997).
Empirical Studies of Stakeholder Salience
In the first empirical test of the stakeholder salience model, Agle et al.
(1999) examined salience in the context of Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) values and corporate performance. This study found that CEO’s
perceived power, urgency and legitimacy to be individually and
cumulatively related to stakeholder salience. However the study was
limited in that it was approached from a normative focus i.e. CEO
values and the findings were specifically related to normative
stakeholder theory (Agle et al., 1999) rather than taking a broader
approach. In a study of stakeholder salience in the domain of political
organisations, O’Higgins and Morgan (2006) found that legitimacy is
more likely than power and urgency to encourage ideologically focused
organisations to attribute salience to stakeholders. However, this finding
is not supported by other studies.
Currie, Seaton and Wesley (2009) empirically tested the applicability of
the Stakeholder Identification and Salience Model (Mitchell et al., 1997)
in the context of feasibility planning for tourism development. This
study found that the Model may “leave social and environmental
concerns underrepresented” (Currie et al., 2009, p. 58) suggesting that
the Model has the propensity to overly narrow the stakeholder pool.
Taking a different perspective again, Aaltonen and Kujala (2010)
studied the application of the Model in large scale infrastructure
projects. This research found that project specific characteristics such
as uniqueness of projects, irreversibility of decision making and
institutional arrangements influenced stakeholder salience (Aaltonen &
Jaakko, 2010, p. 392). These findings point to the role of context as a
factor that influences stakeholder salience.
-28-
Stakeholder salience has also been studied in the public context. A. M
Friedman and Mason (2004) studied stakeholder salience in
government subsidisation decisions relating to construction of major
sporting facilities. A limitation of the study was that in assessing
urgency, only criticality was tested. Therefore, the role of temporality in
the determining urgency was unclear. The authors found that only five
(5) out of the seven (7) stakeholder categories as proposed were
present. In a further empirical study, which examined stakeholder
salience in the context of the Nashville Coliseum stadium, M. Friedman
and Mason (2005) found that a dormant stakeholder, the public,
changed its status to the dangerous stakeholder category by forcing a
referendum about the development of the stadium. Similar to the
previous study by M. Friedman and Mason (2004), criticality was used
as the proxy for urgency.
In 2007, Parent and Deephouse tested the stakeholder salience
framework with the organising committees of two large-scale sporting
events. In this study, urgency was considered to include either time
sensitivity or criticality, departing from the extant literature in which both
time sensitivity and criticality are required components of urgency.
Despite this issue, the case studies found that the categories of
stakeholders were more limited than theorised by Mitchell et al. (1997),
in that stakeholders tended to move between dormant, dominant and
definitive classifications (Parent & Deephouse, 2007).
The study questioned the relevance of four of the seven stakeholder
categories identified by Mitchell et al. (1997) by suggesting that the
dormant, dominant and definitive classifications might be more
applicable in practice. This result supported M. Friedman and Mason’s
(2005) findings that the dormant stakeholder grouping continues to be
of importance. Although showing the links between stakeholder
salience and relationships between stakeholders and decision makers,
this research did not extend to showing how stakeholder salience
impacts on choices about engagement activities.
-29-
GAPS IN UNDERSTANDING EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF STAKEHOLDER
SALIENCE
The preceding studies provide an understanding of the extent of
development of the literature of stakeholder salience and taken
together highlight several issues. First, the concept of urgency has
been inconsistently applied in some studies. Although the construct of
urgency is considered to have two components; criticality and
temporality (Agle et al., 1999; Mitchell et al., 1997), urgency has been
treated as a single element; criticality, as two alternative elements;
criticality or temporality and both criticality and temporality. Despite
these variations, criticality and temporality have not been tested as
individual factors in stakeholder salience. Furthermore, the emergence
of network context as a factor which impacts on temporality (Ansell,
2003) adds weight to the notion that criticality and temporality merit
individual empirical testing.
Second, Mitchell et al.’s (1997) model assumes the organisation to be
at the centre of the nexus orchestrating stakeholder processes (Hill and
Jones, 1992). However, in networked settings, the responsibility for
operation of the network is diffused among network members thus
diminishing the relevance of the traditional central/peripheral view of
stakeholder relationships. Furthermore, there has been a call (Rowley,
1997) for studies to move away from an organisation-centric approach.
Third, the application of the stakeholder salience model in more
collaborative governance settings raises a number of questions. As the
stakeholder salience model has emerged from the business
environment, (Greenwood, 2007) there is limited evidence about how it
operates in the public context (M. Friedman & Mason, 2004, 2005;
Parent & Deephouse, 2007). However, as none of these studies
involved testing the impact of stakeholder salience in networked
arrangements, this research provides an opportunity to understand how
-30-
stakeholder salience operates in governance networks. The next
section examines various perspectives on stakeholder engagement.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT THEORY
Over the past decade, the value of stakeholder engagement has
become more evident to organisations seeking to create constructive
dialogue with and between community groups and business interests to
achieve policy reform and enhanced service delivery (Fox, Ward, &
Howard, 2002). Within the public context, stakeholder engagement has
been suggested as a means of improving the quality of outcomes by
harnessing different ideas and perspectives for improving service
delivery by exerting pressure on bureaucracies and creating more
robust communities through direct engagement in planning and delivery
of services (Martin, 2010).
Stakeholder engagement has also been described as a deceptively
simple idea (Kivits, 2011). However, despite this view, there is
confusion within the literature about how stakeholder engagement is
conceptualised. To begin with, the concept of stakeholder management
and stakeholder engagement are used interchangeably within the
stakeholder literature (A. Friedman & Miles, 2006). Despite blurring of
the two concepts, there are differences between the two. Stakeholder
management was first proposed by Freeman (1984) as an overarching
concept which theorised that stakeholder management incorporated a
number of stages, one of which was interacting with stakeholders. Thus
interacting and engaging with stakeholders could be seen as a subset
of stakeholder management rather than its equivalent.
Second, stakeholder engagement has been characterised as an
ambiguous concept “because it is idiosyncratic and context-specific’’
(Vredenburg & Hall, 2005, p. 11). Thus stakeholder engagement
requires clear specification to ensure that its application is understood.
However this task is made difficult by the wide variety of definitions that
have attached to stakeholder engagement. For example, Greenwood
-31-
(2007, p. 319) identified twenty one (21) understandings of stakeholder
engagement which were aggregated into three categories:
responsibility (acquittal of accountability and responsibilities to
stakeholders)
managerialist (eliciting contributions from or managing risks
posed by stakeholders) and
social control and construction (a form of managerial control and
a mechanism for managing a firm’s image).
This definitional breadth suggests that stakeholder engagement is an
emerging concept that requires further theoretical and empirical
development to overcome its ambiguity.
Third, an additional layer of complexity is added to the concept of
stakeholder engagement when the parallel concept of public
participation is also included in the mix. Like stakeholder engagement,
the meaning of public participation is “not well formulated” resulting in is
disagreement about its definition and scope (Rowe & Frewer, 2005, p.
252). Adding to the complexity, public participation has been variously
referred to in the literature as community engagement (Head, 2007),
public involvement (Shipley & Utz, 2012) and public engagement
(Lowndes & Sullivan, 2004).
When considered as “the practice of consulting and involving members
of the public in the agenda-setting, decision making, policy-formulation
and implementation activities of public organisations” (Rowe & Frewer,
2004, p. 512) public participation may be considered a form of
stakeholder engagement. However in a study of stakeholder
engagement by local authorities in the United Kingdom, Sullivan (2008,
p. 16) found that “stakeholder engagement is distinct and different from
wider public engagement” resulting in tension between the claims of
organised stakeholders and the requirements of the broader
community. However, this contention is not widely supported in the
literature and the cleavage between community and stakeholders may
-32-
be more a matter of terminology than a substantive reflection of
different stakeholder types requiring different stakeholder engagement
processes.
To clarify, in this study, stakeholder engagement is considered to be a
subset of stakeholder management and also takes into account
network management activities. As such, stakeholder engagement
refers to the practices undertaken by governance networks to
communicate with stakeholders, involve them in network activities and
develop relationships with them (Chinyio & Akintoye, 2008; Harrison &
Mort, 1998).
Approaches to Stakeholder Engagement
An early contribution which is pertinent to the debate about stakeholder
engagement was Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation in
urban planning. Arnstein (1969) contended that public participation was
motivated by a range of factors from manipulation to the desire to
engender citizen control. However the Ladder of Citizen Participation
has been subsequently criticised for being overly hierarchical and
portraying citizen control as the ultimate outcome of participation (Tritter
and McCallum, 2006) thus diminishing its relevance in more
collaborative environments. Furthermore, the goal of power-sharing
was seen to be impractical and inappropriate (Head, 2011).
In another adaptation of Arnstein’s (1969) model, Johnston and Buckley
(2001) proposed a four step hierarchy of involvement in decision
making:
1. inform
2. listen to and advise
3. interact and
4. collaborate.
Johnston and Buckley’s (2001) approach also acknowledged that the
transfer of power to citizens by government was unlikely to occur. Also
-33-
applying Arnstein’s (1969) model, O’Higgins and Morgan (2006),
studied stakeholder engagement in the context of political
organisations. This study found that those stakeholders who were more
important to the organisation received higher levels of engagement
than less critical stakeholders.
Despite its shortcomings, Arnstein’s (1969) ladder, was adapted for the
stakeholder context and ‘re-emerged’ as a tool for understanding
stakeholder engagement (A. Friedman & Miles, 2006). In the Ladder of
Stakeholder Management and Engagement, A. Friedman and Miles
(2006) theorise that the types of engagement processes undertaken by
organisations are indicative of the level of power ascribed to
stakeholders, ranging from non-participation through various degrees of
tokenism, involvement and power. Furthermore, A. Friedman and Miles
(2006) proposed a power based continuum of stakeholder engagement
activities beginning with one-way static communication techniques and
concluding with multi-way stakeholder processes. Moving up this
continuum, it appears that as interdependency with stakeholders
increases stakeholder engagement processes become more
collaborative.
In keeping with Arnstein’s (1969) premise that the ultimate objective of
public participation was the transfer of control to citizens, A. Friedman
and Miles (2006) theorise that the highest level of stakeholder
engagement would involve transfer of control and thus power to
stakeholders. Rixon (2010) empirically tested the Ladder of Stakeholder
Management and Engagement to understand how consultation
processes undertaken by a public sector agency addressed
accountability frameworks. The study found that the agency placated
stakeholders rather than providing genuine opportunities for
engagement as suggested by A. Friedman and Miles (2006). However
neither A. Friedman and Miles (2006) nor Rixon (2010) suggested that
there was a connection between stakeholder classification and
engagement.
-34-
Studying the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement in Local
Government Modernisation Agenda activities in the United Kingdom
Leach, Lowndes, Cowell and Downe (2005) introduced the concepts of
frequency and quality of engagement. This research showed that as
local authorities placed greater emphasis on stakeholder engagement,
frequency of engagement increased. (Leach et al., 2005). In
suggesting that engagement opportunities should be tailored to
stakeholder needs, particularly for marginalised or previously excluded
groups (Leach et al., 2005), the study pointed to a link between
stakeholder classification and engagement practices.
Gaps in Empirical Studies of Stakeholder Engagement
The preceding studies provide an understanding of the extent of
development of the literature of stakeholder engagement particularly
from the standpoint of typologies of participation. However of two key
studies undertaken (Leach et al., 2005; Rixon, 2010), only Leach et al.
(2005) suggested that there may be a link between stakeholder
classification and stakeholder engagement. However, this premise
requires empirical testing. Since governance networks are likely to be
influenced by power and legitimacy (Klijn et al., 1995) there is a need to
gain a better understanding of the link between stakeholder salience
and engagement. The next section analyses the literature of
governance forms and in particular governance networks to identify
issues that may impact on stakeholder engagement by such networks.
CONCEPTUALISING NETWORKS
Like the network concept itself, there is significant variability in how
network forms have been conceptualised and defined (Kim & Lee,
2004). This analysis will be confined to a social science application of
networks, and more specifically, one in which networks deliver public
outcomes. At its simplest level, the network concept refers to a set of
relationships (Möller & Halinen, 1999). At the other end of the spectrum,
-35-
the network has developed into an architecture for managing
complexity (Borzel, 1998).
Although these definitions provide a glimpse of what networks might
look like, it is necessary to drill down into the core of the concept to get
a clearer picture. Networks have been variously described as highly
connected (Granovetter, 1983) or loosely coupled (Orton & Weick,
1990), including vertical and horizontal exchanges (Galaskiewicz, 1985;
Powell, 1990) and ranging between highly informal structures and
integrated systems (Keast, Mandell, Brown, & Woolcock, 2004).
Agranoff (2003) has suggested that networks may fall into four (4)
categories:
information networks based on resource exchange
developmental networks which engage in the creation and
exchange of knowledge and technologies
outreach networks which develop service delivery programs and
action networks which co-produce policy and services.
This classification system is supported by the contention that networks
can be differentiated as communication, co-ordination and collaborative
forms (Keast, Brown, & Mandell, 2007; Keast & Hampson, 2007; Keast
et al., 2006; Keast et al., 2004). Agranoff and McGuire’s (2001b)
conceptualisation of networks, as multi-organisational arrangements for
solving problems that cannot be achieved by an individual organisation
provides a sense of the interconnectedness between actors that is
fundamental to networks. The concept of governance and its role in
networks is addressed next.
Governance
There has been a longstanding debate in the economics and
governance literatures about the similarities and differences between
bureaucratic, market and network governance (Järvensivu & Möller,
2008). Hierarchical governance is characterised as a vertical or top
-36-
down co-ordinating mechanism which is based on the bureaucratic
model of organisation (Bovaird, 2005; Kooiman, 2005). By contrast,
market governance is a more spontaneous co-ordination mechanism
which operates in a market context and makes use of multiple
economic and judicial institutions and contractual arrangements to
govern economic transactions (Powell, 1990; Van Kersbergen & Van
Waarden, 2004).
While network governance is acknowledged as the overarching form of
more collaborative styles of governance (Lowndes & Skelcher, 1998),
the literature also incorporates the concept of governance networks
(Sorensen & Torfing, 2007). Such networks are mechanisms for public
policy making and implementation which occurs through a web of
relationships between government, business and civil society (Klijn &
Skelcher, 2007, p. 587). Furthermore, governance networks can
simultaneously exhibit various hierarchical, market and networked
arrangements through the adoption of a hybrid approach (Considine &
Lewis, 1999; Keast et al., 2006; Powell, 1990); that is, governance
networks link together a range of actors through a mix of governance
modes one of which is network governance.
Moreover, it is possible that the dominant governance mode would
influence the form of management and development of relationships
within the network. Within the bureaucratic governance mode,
relationships with stakeholders may be framed by government
frameworks and institutional arrangements, thus stakeholder
participation could depend on the goodwill of government. The market
mode of governance stimulates independent relationships which are
managed through contracts which contrasts with the network
governance mode in which interdependent relationships are fostered
through the creation of linkages.
-37-
Governance through Networks and Relationships
The focus on governance networks came into greater prominence
following the reforms of new public management in the 1980’s (Martin,
2010) such that policy provision and service delivery were increasingly
undertaken by organisations external to government. Consequently,
government services were outsourced to the not-for-profit and business
sectors. Subsequent privatisation and contracting out (Milward &
Provan, 2003) was designed to reduce costs, increase efficiency and
obtain legitimacy. Furthermore, this marketisation of government
services may have contributed to an erosion of relationships (Keast,
2004), within government, between sectors and with service users and
stakeholders. Consequently, there was an emergence of governance
networks which achieve objectives through relationships based on
mutual interdependence rather than through control by price signals or
administrative authority (Larson, 1992).
Governance networks are conceived of as horizontally linked groups of
interdependent but operationally autonomous actors, who interact
through negotiations which occur within regulatory, cognitive and
normative frameworks, are self-regulating within the boundaries
established by external agencies and contribute to the production of
public value (Sorensen & Torfing, 2007, p. 9). An integral link in the
governance network literature is the importance of engaging with and
managing actors in network processes, with the objective of improving
outcomes by incorporating a range of diverse ideas, insights, responses
and solutions (Agranoff, 2007). While the literature of governance
networks appears to implicitly assume that stakeholders are a relevant
actor group, it has not yet developed to the point of identifying
stakeholders as a specific group and addressing how different
stakeholder groups should be approached.
While the literatures on governance, governance networks and network
management each focus on the importance of engaging with and
-38-
managing actors in network processes (Agranoff, 2007) less attention
has been paid to examining stakeholders as an actor group. As such,
governance network studies reflect little understanding of the interlinked
issues of stakeholder identification and classification and their impact
on the choices of stakeholder engagement activities.
MANAGING STAKEHOLDER RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH NETWORK
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
This review proposes a number of factors that may be relevant to way
that governance networks manage and engage with stakeholders, in
particular, network management activities. Suggesting a potential link
between stakeholder engagement and network management activities,
Klijn, Koppenjan and Termeer (1995) argue that power and legitimacy
can affect who is and who is not included in a network and therefore,
the network structure, the rules of engagement within the network and
the outcomes achieved. The linkages between stakeholder
engagement and network embeddedness and power are discussed
next.
Managing Stakeholders in a Network Context
Managing a diverse set of stakeholders, possessing different attributes
and stakes in multiple issues is a complex undertaking. In advocating
for a comprehensive approach, Preble (2005) built on a model
suggested by Freeman (1984), constructing a six step process model
incorporating the following activities:
1. stakeholder identification
2. stakeholder analysis
3. determining performance gaps
4. stakeholder prioritisation
5. develop organisational responses and
6. monitoring and control setting.
-39-
In the network domain, a different approach to management of
interactions inside of the network and those occurring beyond a
network’s boundary has been suggested (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001b,
2003; Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004). Agranoff and McGuire (2001a and
2001b) have previously established that a series of non-traditional
management activities are necessary to effectively manage network
interactions: activating, framing, mobilising and synthesising. However
despite the different terminology used, some linkages can be drawn
between Preble’s (2005) six step model and network management
activities suggesting that the two processes are overlapping. These
linkages are discussed next beginning with activating.
Activating
Network activating refers to the identification of network members and
evaluating the capabilities, knowledge and resources that they can
bring into a network (Agranoff and McGuire 2001). Agranoff and
McGuire (2003) argue that obtaining the commitment of network actors
is critical to network effectiveness. However, Gray (1989) took a
broader view indicating that there was a need for networks to identify
stakeholders implying a broader view of network participation.
Indicating an overlap with Preble’s (2005) model, this review, argues
that the activating function of network management incorporates a
stakeholder identification element.
Klijn (1996) argues that selectivity is necessary when including new
actors in networks. This focus on selectivity alludes to similar processes
in the stakeholder literature: stakeholder classification and prioritisation.
De Bruijn and Ten Heuvelhof’s (2008) argument that actor analyses
need to be undertaken to identify who would be impacted by network
decisions suggests that such classifications could be determined
through stakeholder analysis, a parallel process suggested by Preble
(2005).
-40-
Framing
The framing activities of network management focus on establishing the
vision and rules of a network (Herranz Jnr., 2005). Framing focuses on
crafting a network’s operating system through adoption of rules and
norms and shaping the perceptions of network participants (Keast &
Hampson, 2007). An important aspect of framing which follows from
stakeholder identification is the establishment of core/periphery roles
(Nordin & Svensson, 2007) developed from the classifications
attributed to stakeholders. As defined, these roles would form part of
the terms of engagement both within the network and with stakeholders
in the surrounding web of relationships.
However the style of governance adopted by the network can
complicate the inclusion of stakeholders into network activities. As
discussed previously, governance networks comprise various mixes of
hierarchical, market and networked arrangements. Managing
stakeholders within this hybrid operating environment can create
tensions for governance networks because such relationships may
incorporate contractual, dependent or interdependent elements. As
these three types of relationships are underpinned by differing
assumptions this complexity may impact on the way that stakeholders
are engaged.
Mobilising
Mobilising focuses on convincing individual network actors to commit to
joint action by building ‘a sense of interdependency and the need for
collective action’ (Keast & Hampson, 2007, p. 368). Key mobilisation
tasks include forming new coalitions and engendering support within
and beyond network boundaries (McGuire, 2006) both of which
resonate with Preble’s (2005) notion of developing organisational
responses as a stakeholder management task. The formation of
coalitions has also been addressed in the stakeholder literature. For
example, Bryson (2004) has argued that stakeholder analysis is an
-41-
important factor in coalition building. Furthermore, Mitchell et al. (1997)
have confirmed that coalition building may be an objective of
stakeholder identification.
Thus mobilising behaviours can also be used to engender support for
network activities and this may involve bringing key stakeholders into
the network. Used as a stakeholder engagement strategy, mobilisation
can be a catalyst for building support beyond network boundaries. By
mobilising stakeholder support and resources in this way, networks can
ensure resource flows are more stable (Keast & Hampson, 2007).
Synthesising
Network synthesis emphasises the creation of an environment and
conditions that foster effective relationships among members so that
collective benefit can be leveraged from these relationships (Keast et
al., 2006). A key task in sustaining such relationships is ‘checking levels
of engagement and contribution’ (Keast & Hampson, 2007, p. 370). The
concept of monitoring stakeholder commitment is incorporated in the
stakeholder management literature (Freeman, 1984) and is also a
component of Preble’s (2005) framework.
Thus network synthesis can be viewed as a mechanism through which
stakeholder engagement processes both within and beyond the
network can be fine-tuned. Furthermore, additional resources and
capabilities can be tapped to achieve stakeholder and network
outcomes. This type of leveraging results from networks and
stakeholders uniting ‘to improve everyone's circumstance’ (Freeman,
Wicks, & Parmar, 2004, p. 364). However value needs to be created for
both stakeholders and the network for such relational leveraging to
operate effectively.
To sum up, the preceding discussion has highlighted areas where
stakeholder management activities and in particular aspects of Preble’s
(2005) framework overlap with the activating, framing, mobilising and
-42-
synthesising functions of network management. Given that similar
relational tasks are featured in both network management (Koppenjan
& Klijn, 2004) and stakeholder management (Maak & Pless, 2006) this
review argues that there is a degree of alignment between the two
concepts and in particular through stakeholder engagement activities.
As such, questions exist about the extent of alignment between network
management and stakeholder management.
Gaps in the Literature
While the concept of stakeholding is evident in the governance network
literature (Agranoff, 2007; Agranoff & McGuire, 2001b, 2003;
Edelenbos & Klijn, 2006; McGuire, 2002) it has not yet developed to the
point of identifying stakeholders as a specific group and addressing
how different stakeholders could be engaged. As such there is a
scarcity of studies on how stakeholder classification and engagement
are undertaken in networked arrangements. Furthermore, little is known
about the factors which may influence interactions between governance
networks and stakeholders. As mismanagement of stakeholders can
have significant negative consequences for the delivery of public
outcomes (Gleeson & Low, 2000), developing an in-depth knowledge
about the priorities that drive stakeholder engagement by governance
networks is a critical area that is under researched.
This review has suggested that network management, may influence
how governance networks interact with stakeholders who are accorded
different salience levels. Furthermore, the review has argued that that
there is a degree of alignment between network and stakeholder
management and in particular through stakeholder engagement
activities. However, empirical testing is required to understand how
these contextual issues may impact on stakeholder classification and
engagement. To begin to bridge gaps in knowledge about how
governance networks engage with stakeholders, the next section
proposes a new theoretical framework.
-43-
NEW THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This study proposes a new theoretical Framework for Stakeholder
Salience and Engagement and shows its usefulness in beginning to
explain how differing stakeholder engagement activities may be related
to particular stakeholder Types. The major theoretical components of
this Framework are:
Stakeholder Identification and Salience Model (Mitchell et al.,
1997)
Study of stakeholder engagement undertaken by Local
Authorities (Leach et al., 2005)
Ladder of Stakeholder Management and Engagement (A.
Friedman & Miles, 2006).
Focusing on stakeholder salience, the first element of the theoretical
Framework for Stakeholder Salience and Engagement departs from
Mitchell et al.’s (1997) model in one major respect; the construct of
urgency has been divided into its two individual attributes: criticality and
temporality. This study proposes that urgency represents two separate
concepts which may result in the emergence of new stakeholder
salience Types.
By substituting urgency with criticality and temporality there is the
potential to increase the number of stakeholder types from seven (7) to
sixteen (16). Reflecting the disaggregation of urgency, the various
combinations of power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality,
comprising different stakeholder Types are shown in Table 2.4. These
Types represent stakeholders who range from possessing all of the
attributes of power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality to possession
of none of these attributes.
-44-
Table 2.4 Revised Stakeholder Salience Types
Def
initi
ve
Del
iber
ativ
e
Dan
gero
us
Influ
entia
l1
Dep
ende
nt
Dom
inan
t1
Dom
inan
t2
Dep
ende
nt1
Dem
andi
ng
Dep
ende
nt2
Dom
inan
t
Dor
man
t
Dis
cret
iona
ry1
Dis
cret
iona
ry2
Dis
cret
iona
ry
Non
-sta
keho
lder
s
Stakeholder Type
Sal
ienc
e A
ttrib
utes
Pre
sent
Power *
* * *
* *
* *
Legitimacy * *
* *
*
* *
*
Temporality *
*
* *
*
* *
*
Criticality * * *
* *
* *
*
Legend: * symbol = attribute present, Grey shaded cell = attribute not present
Adapted from “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the
principle of who and what really counts, by R. Mitchell, B. Agle and D. Wood, 1997
Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
From Table 2.4 it can be seen that there are sixteen (16) possible
stakeholder salience Types; seven (7) of which were proposed Mitchell
et al. (1997), Non-stakeholders and eight (8) new stakeholder Types
proposed in this study. Furthermore, this study further proposes that the
different stakeholder Types will be provided with differing levels of
engagement which corresponds to a particular stakeholder Type. Thus
a link is drawn between stakeholder salience and engagement.
As the current study incorporates a different approach to salience, the
proposed Framework for Stakeholder Salience and Engagement also
departs from the traditional examination of stakeholder engagement as
a single variable. The framework builds on Leach et al.’s (2005)
approach of splitting stakeholder engagement into two (2) variables.
Within the proposed framework, the frequency of engagement is
considered to be the number of engagement opportunities made
available to stakeholders (Leach et al., 2005) and is aggregated into
three (3) categories: high, moderate and low. Departing from Leach et
-45-
al. (2005), the proposed Framework incorporates the type of
engagement processes undertaken rather than quality of engagement
which is a measure of satisfaction rather than a demonstration of
activities undertaken. The types of engagement activities are those
processes in which there is contact between governance networks and
stakeholders ranging from one-way communication through to multi-
way dialogical processes (Crane and Livesy, 2003).
Towards an Integrated Framework
The proposed Framework for Stakeholder Salience and Engagement is
presented in Figure 2.2 and shows how different stakeholder Types
might be engaged through different combinations of stakeholder
engagement frequency and types of engagement processes.
Figure 2.2 Proposed Framework for Stakeholder Salience and Engagement
Figure 2.2 presents the sixteen (16) proposed stakeholder Types with
their corresponding combinations of engagement frequency and
engagement processes. Within the proposed framework, this review
theorises that Definitive Type stakeholders (possessing all four salience
attributes), and Deliberative Type stakeholder (possessing power,
legitimacy and criticality) would encounter a high level of continuing
engagement by governance networks. Where there are pre-existing
relationships based on trust (Andriof & Waddock, 2002) it is theorised
that a lower frequency of engagement would be necessary to maintain
Multi-way Definitive
Deliberative Dominant
Two-way Demanding
Dependent2
Influential1
Dependent
Dominant1
Dominant2
Dependent1
Dangerous
One-Way
Dormant
Discretionary
Discretionary2
Discretionary3
Low Moderate High
Frequency of Engagement
Type o
f E
ng
agem
ent
-46-
those relationships, provided that opportunities to participate in high
quality engagement processes are made available. Thus Definitive and
Deliberative Type stakeholders may participate in infrequent multi-way
processes involving the entire network and permitting stakeholders to
influence outcomes in a collaborative arrangement.
The Framework also proposes that Dominant Type stakeholders with
the attributes of power and legitimacy would encounter high frequency
engagement through participation in multi-way network processes.
From a resource dependency perspective, the Model theorises that
Dominant stakeholders who have resources required by the network
would be closely incorporated into network processes thus having the
opportunity to influence network outcomes. However this proposition
calls into question Mitchell et al.’s (1997) contention that Dominant
stakeholders who only possess power and legitimacy would be of
lesser importance because there is no urgency in their interactions.
Within the Framework, it is anticipated that five stakeholder Types:
Influential1 and Dominant 1 (three (3) salience attributes) and
Dependent, Dependent1 and Dependent 2 (two salience attributes)
would encounter moderately frequent engagement through two-way
interactions with the network. It is further argued that interactions would
allow discussion of contentious issues and serve as a mechanism for
networks to monitor changes in salience, particularly an increase in
power which may warrant a higher frequency or more relational
engagement process. While acknowledging that a moderate volume of
stakeholder engagement may be required with these stakeholders, it is
theorised that the network would seek to closely control the type of
engagement undertaken.
For Dangerous Type stakeholders with the attributes of power,
temporality and criticality, the Framework anticipates that frequency of
engagement would be high and involve two-way interactions with a
network member responsible for managing a specific issue. The
-47-
purpose of such meetings would be to exchange information and
monitor changes in salience which may require a different approach to
stakeholder so as to manage potential acrimony and conflict that could
be anticipated from Dangerous Type stakeholders.
In the Framework, it is further suggested that for Demanding and
Dependent2 stakeholder Types possessing two salience attributes,
engagement would be moderately frequent and involve two-way
interactions with the network. To avoid over-servicing or over
committing resources it is proposed that meetings with a network
member who is allocated responsibility for a specific stakeholder would
be undertaken. This approach would encourage information exchange
and allow the network to detect any changes in salience which may
require an adjusted stakeholder engagement strategy.
The Framework also proposes that Dormant, Discretionary,
Discretionary1 and Discretionary2 stakeholders who possess only one
salience attribute would be involved through low frequency one way
communication processes. Using such an engagement combination
would keep these four stakeholder Types linked to the network in a
loose arrangement and prevent over servicing a low salience group. At
the lowest level, Non-stakeholders have none of the salience attributes.
Consistent with Mitchell et al. (1997) the proposed Framework
anticipates that there would be no engagement with this group because
they have no salience. Using this Framework it will be possible to
identify the frequency and type of engagement processes that
governance networks undertake with different stakeholder Types.
CONCLUSION
The objective of this chapter was to present the theoretical foundation
of stakeholder identification, classification and engagement by
governance networks. The nature and scope of current stakeholder
classification and engagement literature was then discussed,
highlighting that there is a shortage of research which addresses how
-48-
governance networks engage with stakeholders and more specifically,
the relationship between stakeholder salience and engagement within
governance networks. A conceptual Framework for Stakeholder
Salience and Engagement which draws upon two theories: Stakeholder
Identification and Salience Model (Mitchell et al., 1997) and the Ladder
of Stakeholder Management and Engagement (A. Friedman & Miles,
2006), underpinned by the Study of stakeholder engagement
undertaken by Local Authorities (Leach et al., 2005) was presented.
Furthermore, it was proposed that network management activities
would be used in the management and engagement of stakeholders by
governance networks.
To provide grounding for this study, the following chapter presents the
historical and contextual background of road construction by State and
Local authorities in Queensland. The chapter highlights key events,
particularly in the late twentieth century that shaped stakeholder
participation in road infrastructure planning and delivery. From this
analysis, the implications for stakeholder engagement in road service
delivery are identified.
-49-
CHAPTER 3 – CASE CONTEXT
ROAD DELIVERY IN QUEENSLAND
Chapter 1 has highlighted that public infrastructure is increasingly
provided through multiple and overlapping networks of interaction and
decision making by a range of stakeholders, rather than purely through
hierarchical or contractual processes. Furthermore, Chapter 1 also
established that delivering road infrastructure through networked forms
of organisation raises questions about how stakeholder status is
negotiated in this more complex environment. While Chapter 2 provided
more detailed theoretical support and framework for the analysis of
stakeholder engagement by governance networks, this chapter
presents the historical and contextual background of road construction
by State and Local government in Queensland.
The chapter also highlights some key events that have shaped
stakeholder participation in road infrastructure planning and delivery.
This synthesis was developed from a review of publications,
organisational documents and initial interviews with key respondents
and provides deeper contextualisation of the cases. To set the scene,
the factors that shaped road delivery will be discussed.
FACTORS THAT SHAPED ROAD DELIVERY
Queensland has the most decentralised population of any state in
Australia with a relatively high proportion of that population (37%), living
in regional areas (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008, p. 9). This
settlement pattern broadly relates to the agriculture, resources and
tourism economic zones across Queensland (Department of Local
Government and Planning, 2011). As a consequence of the need to
service this dispersed population; Queensland has a substantial and
geographically wide-spread road network. The public road network in
Queensland covers over 180,000km, comprising over 30,000km of state-
controlled roads (Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2009b) and
-50-
150,000km of road which are under the stewardship of seventy three
(73) local government councils (Local Government Association of
Queensland Inc., 2002). Public investment in these road assets by
State and Local government is in the order of $30 billion annually
(Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2009b).
Private vehicles are the predominant mode of transport in Queensland
(Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2009c), thus the road
network in Queensland is one of the primary connectors for regional
and urban communities and is important for their sustainability.
Surpassing rail, road transport is the leading mode of transport for
commodities (Productivity Commission, 2006) making road
infrastructure critical to state and regional economic development in
Queensland. Furthermore, decisions about roads can have significant
social impacts on those who are directly affected by them and to the
wider society. However, the current social and economic importance of
roads in Queensland and decisions about who should have input into
their planning and delivery has been influenced by government policy
decisions and subsequent events over the past 150 years.
Early Days of Road Construction
Although roads were constructed throughout Queensland from the early
days of colonisation, the concept of establishing a state-wide managed
road network only began to emerge in the late nineteenth century. This
state-wide approach to road management was legitimised by the
creation of a central roads authority, the State Government Main Roads
Board in 1920. The total length of roads controlled by the Board at that
time was 1,209 miles (1,945 km) (Simmonds, 2007), which is less than
.02% of the size of the current state road network. Prior to 1920, road
construction had been the domain of Shire Councils that focused on
meeting the requirements of local communities. This situation meant
that road construction between towns was largely ad hoc, unplanned,
and lacked a state-wide focus. To overcome this problem, the Main
Roads Board established a road classification system under which
-51-
Local Shire councils retained responsibility for roads within towns, while
roads outside towns became the responsibility of the Main Roads
Board.
Three priorities underpinned the activities of the Main Roads Board:
construction of roads which joined towns not connected by railway,
construction of a series of feeder roads linking farming areas to the
existing rail network and construction of developmental roads designed
to open new areas for settlement (Department of Main Roads, n/d, p.
15). While the Main Roads Board assumed responsibility for
construction of these roads, local shire councils contributed up to half of
the construction costs and were responsible for subsequent
maintenance (Department of Main Roads, n/d). This approach to
sharing road construction costs between regional councils and the now
amalgamated Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) is
currently reflected in the Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme
(TIDS) (Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2009b).
As awareness grew of the strategic importance of roads in Australia’s
economic development and a means of nation building by linking rural
communities, the Federal government began to inject funding into the
Queensland road network. By 1922, the Federal Government provided
road subsidies totalling ₤35,000 (Department of Main Roads, n/d)
which, based on the assumptions of the Reserve Bank of Australia
(2012) represented over $2.5 million in 2011. Federal funding continues
today through the “Roads to Recovery Program” which is investing
$356 million in road funding to local authorities in Queensland between
2009-2014 (Department of Infrastructure and Transport, 2010).
In addition to funding obtained through Local government and Federal
government arrangements, from the early 1920s the Main Roads
Board, which was later re-established as the Department of Main
Roads (Main Roads), had access to another funding stream: fees from
vehicle registrations. Access to this revenue gave the department “a
-52-
measure of independence within the public service in determining its
activities” (Department of Main Roads, n/d, p. 15). This degree of
financial autonomy continued throughout the twentieth century with
Main Roads being perceived as having “buckets of money” from vehicle
registrations and from tapping into Federal government road funding
(Waterhouse, 2003, p. 56). However the positioning of Main Roads as a
well-funded and relatively autonomous department was seen to be a
contributory factor in the department “becoming arrogant and inward
looking manifested in their autocratic approach to the delivery of roads”
(Waterhouse & Keast, 2007, p. 7). Consequently this approach led to
an emphasis on the Department’s road planning and construction
activities being expert-led rather than stakeholder driven.
By the time that the Main Roads Board was re-established as a
Commission in 1922, the political dimensions of road decision making
were becoming evident, with questions being asked about political
favouritism and “why certain road projects were chosen at the expense
of others” (Department of Main Roads, n/d, p. 26). This politicisation
was also demonstrated in the long-standing rivalry between road and
rail transport which was partially driven by the differing priorities of the
State and Federal governments. At the State government level,
maintaining employment on the railways and the repayment of the
massive debt incurred in construction of railways was a high priority.
However, without the debt burden, the Federal government’s priority
was national highway construction. The Royal Automobile Club of
Queensland (RACQ) lobbied in favour of motor vehicle transport
(Department of Main Roads, n/d, p. 30) and aligned itself with Federal
government priorities.
The dominance of rail over road began to diminish with the introduction
of the Road Plan for Queensland in 1963 (Ford, 2009). In responding to
shifts in population, the Road Plan, which remained in force until 2001,
provided for roads to be constructed to service populations over 500.
The decision to dramatically increase the size of the road network in
-53-
Queensland, also contributed to the rise of road freight transport. In
such a highly decentralised state, the expanded road network provided
greater road access to agricultural and mining areas in rural and remote
Queensland, which improved the viability of road freight. Over time, the
accessibility of roads has resulted in a high level of dependence on
road transport to undertake the freight task across Queensland (Local
Government Association of Queensland Inc, n/d).
From the early 1920s, the Queensland state road construction authority
has had to balance the competing demands of a range of groups
including: Federal, State and Local government elected
representatives, the RACQ, local authorities, industry and farming
communities (Department of Main Roads, n/d). However, the political
sensitivity of road placement meant that road planning during the
twentieth century was tightly controlled by State government and
centralised within Main Roads. Implicit in this approach was that road
planning and delivery involved technical problems to be solved rather
than negotiation processes involving a wide range of actors with
conflicting needs and interests. As a result of this technocratic
approach, “little consultation or consideration of stakeholders other than
motor vehicle users occurred” (Waterhouse & Keast, 2007).
However, the technocratic approach began to be eroded in the late
1980s as a range of different actors, including project specific lobby
groups, began to push back against traditional insular road planning
decisions. This shift was evident in the forceful response of
stakeholders in two (2) high profile road projects in South-East
Queensland. These cases will be examined in the next section to
illustrate the complex nature of growing stakeholder engagement in
road infrastructure.
TURBULENT TIMES FOR ROAD PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION
Between 1987 and 1996, there was a significant government
investment in road infrastructure in Queensland, particularly in the
-54-
South-East corner of the state. Route 20 and the South Coast
Motorway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast were two (2) high
profile road construction projects of that period which attracted
significant negative attention from an extended range of stakeholders.
In many ways these projects also help explain why there was, by the
end of the twentieth century, greater direct involvement of stakeholders
in road decision-making. Up until then, the Queensland government
had been dismissive of attempts by citizens and interest groups to
secure input into the Route 20 and the South Coast Motorway projects.
In the face of unrelenting pressure however Main Roads ultimately
accepted that citizens and interest groups had a legitimate stake in
road projects.
Route 20
In 1987, Main Roads commenced planning to construct the Western
Arterial Bypass ring road in Brisbane, commonly known as Route 20.
The western and most contentious section of the proposed Route 20 is
shown circled in Figure 3.1 .The Route 20 proposal met with significant
opposition from the public and a coalition of stakeholders, Citizens
Against Route Twenty (CART) was formed (Whelan, 2001; Witherby,
1996). Planning for Route 20 was seen to be shrouded in secrecy and
subterfuge (Citizens Against Route Twenty, 1989, p. 5). Opposition
strengthened after CART came into possession of a leaked confidential
government document which indicated that the government was
seeking to “defuse the Route 20 issue and try to eliminate public
comment” (Citizens Against Route Twenty, 1989, p. 6 ). Ultimately,
work was suspended on Route 20 until completion of an environmental
and social impact statement. By effectively mobilising the media to
oppose the road, “Route 20 was scuttled in 1990 after resident
protests” (Heywood, 2000, p. 19).
-55-
Figure 3.1 Western Section of the Proposed Route 20
Reproduced from “PART 2 - HISTORY OF BRISBANE'S MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADS – A MAIN ROADS PERSPECTIVE,“ by A. Krosch, QUEENSLAND ROADS 8(March), 2010.
-56-
Criticising the defunct Route 20 planning process, a member of the
Queensland Parliamentary Opposition observed that the roads policy
“had more in common with a Monty Python script than sensible town-
planning”(Queensland Parliament, Record of Proceedings, March 20,
1990, p.410). Following a change of government, a new Main Roads
Minister stated that “People deserve the chance to have a say in
significant decisions that affect their lives and lifestyles” and “gave an
undertaking to establish proper consultative programs to address road
safety issues on Route 20” (Queensland Parliament, Record of
Proceedings, August 2, 1990, p. 2664). The problematic nature of the
Route 20 project pointed to the fact that neither the State government
nor Main Roads had understood the necessity of engaging with
stakeholders in road projects.
The inadequacy of using a State controlled expert-led approach which
shut out external inputs into the planning for Route 20 resulted in
significant concessions by the State government. These included a
comprehensive consultation process (Dick, 1990), which was described
as “a rare event in Queensland at the time“ (Hutton & Connors, 1999,
p.220). While a change of approach had been forced by the Route 20
stakeholders, government had not, by the mid-1990s, embraced the
fundamental issue that effective engagement of stakeholders was
required to achieve successful road program planning and delivery.
South Coast Motorway (Koala Highway)
In 1995, the interest of stakeholders in road planning decisions
intensified as a result of the proposal by the State Government to build
the South Coast Motorway parallel to the Pacific Highway. As the
motorway was to pass through the koala habitat of the Daisy Hill State
Forest, it was dubbed the “Koala Highway”. The proposed route for the
motorway is shown by the red line in Figure 3.2 and the darker shaded
areas represent the koala habitat (Australian Koala Foundation, 1994).
-57-
Figure 3.2 Route Proposed for the South Coast Motorway
Reproduced from “Koala Habitat Map Edition 2,” by Australian Koala Foundation,
1994.
The proposal evoked significant community opposition (Krosch, 2010)
with residents fearing the destruction of koala habitats during and after
the development of the highway (Marinac, 2002). It appeared that the
State government had misjudged the strength of public feeling about
the roadway and faced intense opposition with the Environment
Minister being targeted with protests, placards and dead koalas (Wason
Moore, 2005). The “Koala Highway” protests were, unsurprisingly,
widely covered by the media and “it became obvious that no amount of
reassurance was going to swing public opinion in favour of the plan”
(Marinac, 2002, p. 82). The cartoon in Figure 3.3 exemplifies the
unfavourable treatment that the government received from the media
about the issue.
-58-
Figure 3.3 Media Commentary Pacific Motorway Duplication Project
Cartoon by Nicholson from “The Australian” newspaper www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au. 1975.
As a result of the widespread and unrelenting opposition, the road
proposal was ultimately abandoned by the State government. The
“Koala Highway” was, however, a decisive issue in the 1995
Queensland State election (Riley, 1993). The incumbent government
consequently losing four (4) seats, including that of the Environment
Minister, and later lost government in a by-election in 1996
(Waterhouse et al., 2001).
The Route 20 and the South Coast Motorway conflicts represented
extreme actions by stakeholders who considered that their concerns
were not being treated seriously (Citizens Against Route Twenty, 1989;
Marinac, 2002). As such, the problematic nature of these two projects
served to demonstrate the difficulties of managing the diverse
-59-
expectations and interests of stakeholders within the complex and
politically volatile environment of road infrastructure planning and
delivery. The impact that stakeholders had on both the Route 20 and
the South Coast Motorway projects also exemplified the problems
associated with conventional approaches to stakeholder engagement.
These approaches, perhaps unsurprisingly, subsequently gave way to
more relational and deliberative methods of stakeholder engagement
which are discussed next.
NEW APPROACHES
The Route 20 and the South Coast Motorway experiences galvanised
Main Roads into reviewing how and when it should engage
stakeholders and the wider community and how it could improve on its
public consultation policy. This internal policy review may also have
been prompted by the realisation that the Department’s “future survival
as a separate government department was closely tied to its ability to
foster good external relationships both with the community and through
partnerships and alliances, community groups, private enterprise and
local government ” (Waterhouse, 2003, p. 111). By 2000, Main Roads
had acknowledged that a change of approach was required because
road work was becoming more complex and community involvement
more contentious (McLennan, p. 7). subsequently, Main Roads shifted
its policy position away from technically led public consultation,
introducing a requirement for community engagement in all
departmental projects (Doyle & Addison, 2005). Adoption of the
Community Engagement Improvement Strategy by the Queensland
Government (2003) then legitimised the position taken by Main Roads
to focus strongly on community engagement.
The shift to more networked approaches to road delivery by Main
Roads could be seen through the establishment of alliances such as
the State and Local Government Roads Alliance. This type of alliance
paved the way for the introduction of more formal partnering
arrangements in the area of project delivery. As a means of improving
-60-
project outcomes, alliance contracts combining contractual
arrangements with an agreement to a joint project vision and a focus on
managing relationships began to emerge as an alternate project
delivery methodology. Alliance contracting was thought to be
particularly suitable for projects where there were “diverse key
stakeholder interests” and with complex relationships (Queensland
Government, 2008, p.16). Through the use of alliance contacting, Main
Roads was able to ensure early engagement of both project partners
and external stakeholders to negotiate solutions, blending local
knowledge and community expertise with technical knowledge.
Port of Brisbane Motorway Project
The Port of Brisbane Motorway (PoBM) project in the early 2000s
provided an example of the benefits of alliance contracts through
improved relationships with stakeholders. The project was highly
complex; involving the construction of five (5)km of motorway, twelve
(12) bridges and a multi-level interchange over the Gateway Motorway
(Manley & Blayse, 2003). Figure 3.4 (Google Inc) shows the location
and extent of the Motorway.
As a result of this complexity, an alliance contract was chosen as the
project procurement method. The underpinning premise of this
decision was that optimal project outcomes and minimisation of
conflicts and disputes could be achieved by embedding collaboration
and sound relationships into the project governance system. Alliance
contracting was also partially selected in recognition of the need to
more effectively manage “stakeholder/community relations” (Manley &
Blayse, 2003, p. 19) during the project.
-61-
Figure 3.4 Port of Brisbane Motorway Route
Generated by Sandra Beach November 21, 2012; using Google Earth.
-62-
The project involved two (2) types of stakeholders: project partners who
were the decision makers and community stakeholders who were
consulted during the project. The project partners included the “the
state and federal government, two (2) government owned corporations
and a consortium of three (3) private sector organisations”
(Waterhouse, 2003, p. 139). External stakeholders included a local
school, residents, road users and environmental groups.
Difficulties were experienced by external stakeholders for several
reasons: the “stop/start” character of the project, noise concerns, loss of
access and environmental problems (Cooperative Research Centre for
Construction Innovation, 2004). The Alliance proactively addressed
these issues by implementing a series of targeted processes designed
to increase community interest and connectivity with the project. A
particularly difficult stakeholder issue facing the project was the
rehabilitation of the Bulimba Creek Oxbow Lake and surrounding
wetlands and marine areas as shown in Figure 3.5 (Rankin, Dorricott, &
Henry, 2004, p. 59)
Figure 3.5 Bulimba Creek Oxbow
Reproduced from Planning For Sustainability: The Bulimba Creek Oxbow
Rehabilitation. By D. Rankin, F. Dorricot and K. Henry, Sustainable Development,
XiX(59), 1-104. 2004.
-63-
Work undertaken on the Bulimba Creek Oxbow as part of the PoBM
project involved the reintroduction of tidal and flood movements, an
increase in the overall size of the wetland areas through removal of
invasive weed species and construction of water treatment devices that
blended into the environment (Queensland Parliament, Record of
Proceedings, October 30, 2002). Originally, commitments were given to
undertake some of this rehabilitation. However the scope of the work
was extended to satisfy stakeholder demands. An additional $250,000
in funding was injected into the rehabilitation project and flood
modelling technology was used to demonstrate to stakeholders that
appropriate environmental outcomes could be achieved (Cooperative
Research Centre for Construction Innovation, 2004). By bringing
stakeholders into the project from an early stage, providing ongoing
opportunities for issues to be raised and working collaboratively to find
solutions, stakeholder engagement reportedly contributed to the project
being completed six months early with a cost saving of $13.4 million
(Manley & Blayse, 2003).
In addition to using alliances and alliance contracts which focused on
the importance of relationships, the adoption of the Community
Engagement Improvement Strategy (Queensland Government, 2003)
had a significant impact on the breadth of stakeholders involved in road
planning and construction due to the number, value and geographic
reach of contracts awarded by the department. In 2010/11 the newly
formed Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) awarded
contracts to the value of $650 million for fifty two (52) projects situated
across eighteen (18) local government areas in Queensland (Transport
and Main Roads, n/d). Despite the changed focus of stakeholder
engagement in planning and construction of State government
controlled roads, until recently, Local government did not have the
same impetus to be included in community engagement processes.
-64-
NETWORKED ARRANGEMENTS FOR ROAD PLANNING AND
DELIVERY
Changes for Local Government
Prior to changes to legislation in 2010, the engagement of local
communities in council planning decisions, including road decision
making, was discretionary. In 2004 growing concern was expressed
“that Local Government’s engagement practice and techniques,
including community consultation, demand improvement” (Local
Government Association of Queensland Inc, 2004, p. 3). Changes to
the Local Government Act 2009 included a requirement that
“meaningful community engagement” must inform council decision
making processes (Department of Infrastructure and Planning, 2010b,
p. 2).
From this legislative change, there is likely to be a flow-on effect,
resulting in higher levels of stakeholder engagement between DTMR
and Regional Councils in road planning and delivery. Policy and
legislative changes which have impacted on stakeholder engagement
in road decision making in Queensland have been accompanied by
changes in the way road planning and construction occurs. Of
significance has been the introduction of networked arrangements for
road delivery, in particular through the Roads Alliance.
The Roads Alliance
As a result of the long-standing relationships between Local
government and Main Roads, a high degree of interdependence
existed between the levels of government. For example, in some parts
of the state, Main Roads relied on Local authorities to deliver its
maintenance program. In 2002, Main Roads built on the long-standing
relationship with a key stakeholder, Local government (Department of
Main Roads, 2008), by establishing the Roads Alliance, a partnership
with the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) and
Local government authorities across Queensland. The Roads Alliance
-65-
became responsible for managing a five (5) year program of regional
investment for 32,000 kilometres of Local Roads of Regional
Significance (regionally significant roads) across Queensland
(Department of Main Roads & Local Government Association of
Queensland, 2008).
The primary source of funding was through the TIDS program which
was in the order of $3 billion over five (5) years (Department of
Transport and Main Roads, 2010). The TIDS program provided funding
to Local governments for transport related infrastructure development
which supported state government objectives (Department of Transport
and Main Roads, 2011). In particular, TIDS funding was used to fund
minor road works and maintenance projects.
Establishment of the Roads Alliance was approached by Main Roads
as a stakeholder engagement activity targeting two (2) key stakeholder
groups: LGAQ and 125 regional local councils. Following Local
government amalgamations in 2007, local council numbers were
reduced to 73. Bringing these stakeholders together in partnership with
Main Roads involved extensive state-wide consultation to obtain
commitment to the alliance approach. Acknowledging “that the
community wants a seamless high standard road system irrespective of
the ownership of individual links” (The Roads Alliance, 2010a, p. 14)
the Roads Alliance brought together Regional Councils and Main
Roads in a co-operative arrangement to deliver an integrated road
program across Queensland. This joint commitment by State and Local
government was also driven by the “need to act collectively to achieve
systemic, state-wide improvement in planning, resource-use and
capability...to deliver the outcomes required by their stakeholders”
(Doyle & Addison, 2006, p. 19).
Governance through the Roads Alliance
In 2008, Main Roads expounded that the Roads Alliance represented
“a new way of thinking about governance”, challenging the traditional
-66-
siloed ways that Main Roads and Local government managed the road
system (Doyle, 2008, p. 185). This new approach incorporated a
number of key features: it brought together political and technical actors
in collaborative decision-making processes, provided a mechanism for
long-term road planning that transcended Local government and State
government election cycles, and transferred control of State
government funding priorities to a series of regionally-based
governance networks: RRGs. As depicted in Figure 3.6 the Roads
Alliance operates through a multi-level structure comprising a Board,
the Roads Alliance Project Team (RAPT) network management group
and eighteen (18) RRGs and their associated Technical Committees.
Figure 3.6 Roads Alliance Governance Structure
Adapted from “The Roads Alliance Progress Report June 2007-June 2008” by.
Department of Main Roads and Local Government Association of Queensland Inc.,
2008.
As also can be seen from Figure 3.5 the Roads Alliance has a three (3)
tier governance structure. At the meso level, the Board is responsible
for setting the strategic direction of the Roads Alliance and overseeing
implementation and operations across the state. RAPT undertakes a
number of network management functions with a particular focus on co-
ordination and driving the implementation of programs and initiatives
set by the Board. RAPT also acts as a conduit between the Board and
-67-
RRGs. At the operational level, each RRG is responsible for the
management of a regionally significant road network which is jointly
owned by the Queensland State and Local governments. RRGs have
accountability for investment and maintenance decisions as well as
collaborating to address regional transport issues (The Roads Alliance,
2008 ).
Governance through Regional Road Groups
As regional decision making bodies, the RRGs make use of both
bureaucratic and networked governance arrangements to deliver small,
but politically significant, regional works programs. Although
participation by Local governments is voluntary, there are financial
incentives for participating i.e. additional road funding is provided to
individual councils. RRGs are structured as two (2) interlinked groups,
one of which focuses on engineering issues and the other operates at
the political level. This approach distinguishes between the technical
and political aspects of regional road delivery.
RRGs operate in complex environments which combine both
hierarchical and network governance modes, which are “Underpinned
by differing operating frameworks” (Keast, Mandell, & Brown, 2006, p.
27) requiring the involvement of different actors, alternative institutional
arrangements and new strategies. The formal governance structure of
RRGs mandated by the Roads Alliance is incorporated in each group’s
constitution (The Roads Alliance, 2008 ) and follows a traditional
hierarchical approach in which decision making occurs vertically
between the political and engineering focused subgroups. Alongside
the hierarchical arrangements, RRGs also display some network
features. For example, as a result of DTMR ceding authority for the
TIDS program to RRGs, handing over decision-making authority for
prioritisation and expenditure of state government funds for local road
development, cycling and road safety projects.
-68-
Further, there is an expectation by the Roads Alliance Board that the
RRGs operate in a manner which promotes ”cross regional
collaboration” and resource sharing (The Roads Alliance, 2008, p. 5).
Additionally, some RRGs have a designated network manager
(technical co-ordinators) whose role is primarily co-ordination and
driving joint initiatives to keep RRGs “moving forward and achieving
desired milestones” (Local Government Association of Queensland Inc.,
2009, p. 9). Clearly, RRG governance networks were established to
operate within a blended governance system incorporating hierarchical
and networked arrangements, and, in some instances, market based
processes. Given that “Road investment decisions have a long-term
effect on stakeholders” (Department of Transport and Main Roads,
2009b, p. 4) understanding how stakeholder interactions unfold in road
infrastructure networks operating with blended governance
arrangements is an important issue.
SUMMARY
This chapter has provided an historical and contextual background
pertaining to road planning and delivery in Queensland, and has shown
that the influence of stakeholders on road planning and delivery is not a
new issue. From the early twentieth century, road construction
authorities have been buffeted by competing pressures exerted by
traditional stakeholders including the three (3) tiers of government,
elected representatives, motorists and motoring organisations, industry
and communities. As well, new stakeholders including environmental
groups, industry organisations covering primary industries, tourism,
mining and regional development and community based organisations
have emerged as the social, economic and environmental impacts of
road management have become more apparent. However it is not
always clear how the needs of these stakeholders have been
incorporated in road decision-making and what approaches have been
the most effective.
-69-
Traditional expert-led responses to stakeholder pressures appear to be
no longer effective. This position is supported by Stirling (2001, p. 71)
who asserts that “Divergent public interests and values cannot therefore
be adequately addressed by ‘bolting on’ inclusive deliberation at the
end of an expert-led process”. As demonstrated in the Route 20 and
Pacific Motorway cases, inadequate stakeholder engagement at the
outset of planning was a major contributor to significant and costly
project disruptions. In the case of the Pacific Motorway, this approach
had severe political consequences.
As a result, top-down technically focused processes of consultation
about road planning and construction have gradually given way to more
inclusive processes. The introduction of new models of governance has
driven the development of networked arrangements for road delivery
which incorporate more relational approaches to managing interactions
with stakeholders. The effectiveness of such approaches was
exemplified in the PoBM project, in which well-planned and executed
stakeholder engagement contributed to delivery of the motorway under
budget and ahead of schedule.
At a regional level, DTMR and Local governments have come together
to jointly manage a regional system of roads through networked
arrangements which incorporate a mix of hierarchical and relational
elements. RRGs operate in a mixed governance mode incorporating
institutional arrangements specified by the Roads Alliance Board (Local
Government Association of Queensland Ltd and Queensland
Government, 2011), bureaucratic administrative systems and network
features that cut across State and Local government jurisdictional
boundaries. However what drives stakeholder prioritisation and
engagement within this fluid environment, and how such processes are
linked remains unclear. For the transition to more inclusive processes to
be effective, more needs to be understood about how the governance
frameworks that RRGs employ impact on relationships with
stakeholders within and beyond network boundaries.
-70-
The exploration of examples of governance networks responsible for
road planning and delivery will provide insights into what drives
stakeholder prioritisation and how stakeholders are included or
excluded from network activities. By exploring the link between
stakeholder prioritisation and engagement within a complex
governance environment it will also be possible to obtain a deeper
understanding of which facets of governance network operations
impact on stakeholder engagement.
CONCLUSION
In order to advance this research, three (3) current exemplars of
networked road delivery arrangements have been identified. These
exemplars will form the basis of three (3) case studies designed to
show the intricate patterns of interaction between actors, which is
fundamental to understanding how governance networks engage with
stakeholders. The following chapter will present and justify the
methodology that will be used in examining stakeholder prioritisation
and engagement by networked governance forms and to identify the
features of governance networks that impact on stakeholder
engagement decisions.
-71-
CHAPTER 4 – METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
Previous chapters have highlighted the need for infrastructure
governance networks to effectively manage relationships with
stakeholders because of their capacity to obstruct or provide support for
projects (Olander & Landin, 2005) and ongoing service delivery. Within
the governance context, establishing and maintaining relationships with
stakeholders has been and continues to be challenging. Part of the
challenge is that road infrastructure may be planned, constructed and
managed through joint arrangements which blend hierarchical, market
and networked governance arrangements (Keast & Hampson, 2007).
While governance networks have come to the fore as mechanisms for
road infrastructure development, little is known about how these types
of networks go about engaging with various types of stakeholders, the
subject of this thesis. This chapter provides the justification for the
methodological approach adopted in this thesis: a multi-case study
approach incorporating a mixed methods research strategy. The
approach offered a multi-dimensional means of understanding the
complex interactions and relationships between governance networks
and their stakeholders involved in the governance and delivery of road
infrastructure. In particular, the research methodology was focused on
understanding how stakeholder salience was conceptualised by
governance networks and operationalised through stakeholder
engagement activities.
This research design is discussed in detail in this chapter and focuses
on case study selection, data collection and analysis processes,
justifies the use of the methodologies and identifies the potential
limitations associated with the selected research design. The
philosophical underpinnings of this research design are identified
showing the research perspective and way of understanding the
-72-
complex sequences of events which occur through stakeholder
engagement.
RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE
The engagement of stakeholders by governance networks occurs
through a complex web of relationships with individual stakeholders and
simultaneous management of multiple stakeholder relationships
(Johnson-Cramer, Berman, & Post, 2003). These interactions are
driven by the motivations, goals and capacity of both the network and
stakeholders and perceptions of risks and rewards (Lawrence, 2002).
Therefore, to understand the complex realities of relationships between
governance networks and stakeholders, a critical realist philosophy was
adopted. Taking a critical realist approach, the study involved testing a
predetermined theoretical framework of stakeholder salience and
engagement and assessing a range of alternative plausible
explanations about how infrastructure delivery networks engage with
stakeholders. Furthermore, it has been suggested (Olsen, 2002) that in
many cases, a critical realist approach can be applied effectively by
using a mixed model of qualitative and quantitative methods such as
occurred in this study.
Accordingly, this research adopted a mixed methods research design,
underpinned by this critical realist approach and combined qualitative
and quantitative methods (R. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) within a
case study framework. The approach built on the strengths of
quantitative methods by providing a mechanism for identifying and
comparing (McEvoy & Richards, 2006) stakeholder salience
combinations and engagement techniques. Qualitative methods were
employed to further understand which features of governance networks
drove attributions of salience and subsequent choices about
stakeholder engagement undertaken. This hybrid approach was
supported by Van de Ven’s (2007) contention that understanding
complex phenomena requires multiple approaches which allow
evidence to be tested through the use of multiple methods and
-73-
triangulation of resultant data The mixed methods research design
selected for this study is discussed next.
RESEARCH DESIGN
This study focused on investigating how governance networks made
decisions about the priority of their stakeholders, how such decisions
translated into action to involve stakeholders in governance network
activities and identifying contextual issues such as network
management that impacted on stakeholder engagement. To clarify, the
boundaries between the phenomena of stakeholder salience and
engagement and the context in which they occurred (governance
networks) were not clearly differentiated suggesting that a case based
approach (Yin, 2011) may be a suitable research framework. Despite
ongoing definitional ambiguities pointed out by Luck, Jackson and
Usher (2006), case studies have commonly come to represent an
approach to exploring, describing or explaining a real-life phenomenon
so as to obtain holistic, meaningful and contextualised insights (Yin,
2011).
Both Yin (1989) and Stake (1995, 2000) have addressed the
conceptualisation of case studies but in different ways. Yin (1989)
suggested that case studies may take a singular or multiple formats and
may be describe, explain or explore phenomena. However, Stake
(2000) categorised cases as being intrinsic (of particular interest rather
than generalisable), instrumental (using a particular case setting as a
means of illustrating theoretical or empirical understandings) or
collective (using data from a number of cases to understand a
phenomenon). The variety of approaches described above illustrates
the flexibility of case study research (Luck et al., 2006).
A number of studies have used the case study format to understand the
operation of governance networks. Sorensen and Torfing (2003) used
the case study approach in a study of the complexity of relationships of
two governance networks in the municipality of Skoderberg in Denmark.
-74-
More recently, Agranoff (2007) employed the case study approach to
understand how fourteen (14) public management networks in the
United States of America managed network functions and relationships.
Focusing on infrastructure, Yuan, Skibniewski, Li and Shan (2010)
used case studies to explore the factors that impacted on transportation
infrastructure delivery by Chinese public private partnerships, a variant
of governance networks. The significant role that case studies play in
governance research was recently confirmed by Stewart (2012). In
these various studies, the case study approach provided the flexibility
to explore and analyse the interactions, roles and processes occurring
within the networks while being guided by a case study framework.
Considering the dynamic interactions of stakeholders and governance
networks and the unfolding context in which they occurred, the flexibility
and guidance of the case study approach provided a robust framework
for capturing and analysing the intricate processes, roles and
adjustments in the networks as they occurred (Marshall & Rossman,
2006). There were several reasons that this approach was selected.
First, a case study approach enabled a holistic view to be obtained
about stakeholder and network interactions in the specific context of
governance networks as a result of studying these networks in their
natural context (Benbasat, Goldstein, & Mead, 1987).
Second, the case study format allowed rich detail to be generated
about interactions between the networks and stakeholders and the
issues that impacted on these relationships. This level of detail was
obtained because the complexities of each of the networks were able to
be studied intensively (Eisenhardt, 1989). Finally, the use of a mixed
methodological approach within the case study framework facilitated a
more in-depth and nuanced understanding of the relationships between
stakeholder salience and engagement because it allowed an
overlapping examination of this phenomena (Ellinger, Watkins, &
-75-
Marsick, 2005). The next section provides the rationale for case study
selection.
CASE STUDY SELECTION PROCESS
The intent of the case study design was to investigate stakeholder
relationships at two (2) levels: network and stakeholder type. By
studying the primary and sub-units of analysis, it was possible to make
cross-case comparisons and analytic generalisations (Eisenhardt,
1989) from the cases. By collecting detailed descriptions about how
each network interacted with stakeholders, an understanding was
obtained of the unique features of each case and the identification of
significant “shared patterns that cut across cases” (Patton, 2002). This
design was a good fit for the study of stakeholder engagement by
governance networks for three (3) reasons:
it showed how the different governance networks perceived the
salience of stakeholders
how these stakeholders were engaged in governance processes
and
uncovered the factors that impacted on each network’s approach
to stakeholder engagement.
The selection of case studies for this study followed the principles
expounded by Stake (1995):
relevance of the cases to the phenomenon being studied,
contextual diversity of the cases and
cases provided worthwhile opportunities to understand the
complexities and contexts in which the cases were situated.
Therefore, a purposive sampling strategy was employed to achieve
comparability and enhance transferability to other situations (Teddlie &
Yu, 2007). For this study, a collective approach (Stake, 2000) was
-76-
taken and case selection focused on generating information about
stakeholder interactions in typical governance networks rather than
investigating “extreme, unique or revelatory” cases (Yin, 2011, p. 7).
Identification of cases that were relevant to studying the phenomenon
of stakeholder engagement by governance networks was undertaken in
three (3) stages. First, leads about potential cases were sought from
senior representatives of the DTMR, LGAQ and the Queensland Audit
Office. From these leads, twelve (12) potential cases of road
infrastructure governance networks were identified.
Second, to identify the extent to which these twelve (12) potential cases
represented a good opportunity to understand the complexities of
stakeholder engagement, each case was examined though a review of
website information and publicly available reports to understand the
networks’ functions, scope and regional context. The networks were
also assessed to obtain a preliminary understanding of the extent to
which they may have interacted with different stakeholder types within
contextually diverse environments. Finally, in-depth discussions were
held with senior managers in DTMR to understand the extent to which
each of the networks was likely to engage with stakeholders.
Informed by these discussions, four (4) RRG governance networks
across Queensland were identified as the most suitable case study
candidates: FNQ RRG, WBB RRG, NSEQ RRG and Eastern Downs
RRG. However following attendance at network meetings, Eastern
Downs RRG was found to be unsuitable because it had a membership
of only one regional council. FNQ RRG, WBB RRG and NSEQ RRG
were finally selected because each of them incorporated several
regional councils; they operated under similar institutional
arrangements set by the Roads Alliance Board, undertook stakeholder
engagement, were situated in different locations and had either a
primarily regional or urban focus. The next section outlines the steps
-77-
that were taken to obtain approval to undertake the case studies with
FNQ RRG, WBB RRG and NSEQ RRG.
Approval for Case Studies
Following identification of appropriate cases, negotiation of access to
the research setting was undertaken in several steps so as to obtain
the trust of participants and thus maintain the quality of data gathered
(Lofland & Lofland, 1995). Following discussions with DTMR senior
managers, formal approval to undertake the research was sought from
the Roads Alliance Board. Approval to proceed with the research was
granted by Roads Alliance Board on 07 October 2009. The next step
was to secure approval to undertake a case study with each of the
networks: FNQ RRG, WBB RRG and NSEQ RRG. While initially
seeking permission to undertake case studies with each of the three (3)
networks, the researcher attended meetings of the RRG Political and
RRG Technical committees as summarised in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Schedule of Presentations to RRG Governance Networks
Network Date Location
FNQ RRG Technical 05 November 2009 Cooktown
FNQ RRG Political 09 November 2009 Cairns
WBB RRG Technical 17 November 2009 Gympie
WBB RRG Political 26 November 2009 Kingaroy
NSEQ RRG Technical 01 April 2010 Nambour
At these meetings, approval to participate in case studies and
undertake interviews was sought and obtained from network
participants. As NSEQ RRG Political did not meet during this time,
approval to participate was sought and obtained from the Chair of the
RRG at an interview on 31May 2010. At this stage permission was
requested and granted by each network to identify them by name in this
thesis. Accordingly, a three (3) setting case study design as depicted in
Figure 4.1 was used.
-78-
Stakeholders
1. Network level
FNQ RRG
governance network
2. Stakeholder
Types
Stakeholders
1. Network level
WBB RRG
governance network
2. Stakeholder
Types
Stakeholders
1. Network level
NSEQ RRG
governance network
2. Stakeholder
Types
Case 1:
Far North Queensland Regional
Road Group
Case 2:
Wide Bay Burnett
Regional Road Group
Case 3:
Northern South-East Queensland
Regional Road Group
Figure 4.1 Three Setting Case Study Design
Taking into account the context of this study and the research
questions proposed in Chapter 2, the next section outlines the priority
and sequencing of the phases of data collection and analysis
undertaken in this study.
MIXED METHOD RESEARCH STRATEGY
Development of the research framework for this study involved a
pragmatic approach leading to the selection of methods that worked
best for the particular research problem being studied (Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 1998, p. 5). The suitability of a range of qualitative and
quantitative research techniques was evaluated for this study and
subsequently, a mixed methods approach which combined qualitative
and quantitative data collection and data analysis (Creswell, 2003) was
selected.
The incidence of mixed methods studies of stakeholder engagement
has become more prevalent. In 2008, Crump and Logan used a mixed
methods approach to evaluate stakeholder engagement in the
government funded Smart Newtown community computing project. In
this study, a mixed methods approach was justified because it provided
a systematic and thorough approach to data collection and analysis so
-79-
as to effectively capture the views of a disparate group of stakeholders
(Crump & Logan, 2008, p. 27). More recently, Kivits (2011) used a
mixed methods approach to study the involvement of stakeholders in
airport infrastructure provision in Australia finding that individual
methodological tools were too narrow to develop a comprehensive view
stakeholder interactions.
The justification for mixing methods in this study was based on a
rationale of complementarity which involved the collection and analysis
of quantitative and qualitative data which were juxtaposed to generate
deeper insights (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989) about the
functioning of stakeholder salience and engagement. By mixing
methods in this way, a multi-dimensional view of the different facets of
stakeholder salience and engagement and the features of governance
networks that led to particular interactions with different types of
stakeholders was obtained. Subsequent triangulation of the different
types of data and analysis also provided a means of corroborating
findings from the quantitative and qualitative data thus increasing the
validity and interpretability of the results and conclusions of the study.
Three (3) further factors guided the development of this mixed methods
research strategy:
1. prioritisation and implementation of data collection and
analysis techniques
2. extent and timing of data integration and
3. level of fit with the theoretical framework being tested.
(Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003).
Data collection was primarily sequential so that data from each phase
could be analysed and used in subsequent stages to incrementally gain
a better understanding of the interactions between governance
networks and stakeholders. Commencing with a qualitative strand,
priority was given to qualitative data in this study. In the first phase,
stakeholder identification data was collected through a stakeholder
-80-
analysis. These data were then formed into a stakeholder listing which
became the “building block” for subsequent quantitative and qualitative
research phases. The quantitative data collected during the study were
primarily used to illustrate the theoretical stakeholder Types. As such,
the theoretical framework for the study was explicit and guided the
study.
Data were integrated at several points in the research to “confirm,
cross-validate, or corroborate findings” (Creswell et al., 2003, p. 20).
Both the structured and semi-structured interviews incorporated closed
and open ended questions. While the closed questions were designed
to elicit structured data about stakeholder salience and engagement,
the open ended questions were designed to obtain insights about why
such interactions occurred.
The quantitative data were then translated into a framework of
stakeholder Types, which formed a coding structure for the analysis of
the qualitative data. Furthermore data collected during the document
analysis phase was used to critically question and challenge emergent
understandings and findings. Accordingly data collection and analysis
occurred in four (4) phases as shown in Figure 4.2 which visually
conveys the structure of the research design and follows the format for
mixed methods studies suggested by Ivankova, Creswell and Stick
(2006). The use of capitalised or lower case letters designates the
priority of quantitative and qualitative elements of the study.
-81-
Data Collection
QUAL
Data analysis
QUAN=QUAL
Data Collection
QUAN + qual
PHASES PROCEDURES OUTPUTS
Review of key documentation
Stakeholder analysis for each
case
Identification of potential
stakeholders
Identification of key
stakeholders for each case
Structured Interviews
incorporating closed and
open ended questions with
respondents
Interview protocol
Interview recordings
and notes
Numeric data
Analysis of responses using Excel
to determine the salience type for
each stakeholder
Preliminary coding of data using
NVivo
Descriptive statistics
Identification of stakeholder
salience types
Coding structure
Coding of data using NVivo
Identification of within case
themes using constant
comparative method
Cross case thematic analysis
Qualitative comparative analysis
Interpretation and explanation of
quantitative and qualitative
results across the cases
In-depth semi-structured
interviews incorporating open
ended and closed questions with
respondents
Interview protocol
Interview recordings
and notes
Revised coding structure
Thematic matrix for each
case
Cross case thematic matrix
Identification of convergent
and divergent themes
Truth tables
Findings
Alternative plausible
explanations for findings
Discussion of findings
Identification of implications
Data Collection
QUAL +quan
Data Analysis
QUAL+ quan
Data Analysis
QUAL = quan
Data Analysis
QUAL
PHASE 4
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 3
Figure 4.2 Sequencing of Data Collection and Analysis
Adapted from “Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to
practice”, by N. Ivankova, J. Cresswell and S. Stick. Field Methods, 18(1), 1-20. 2006.
-82-
To identify and initially make sense of recurring patterns within the
qualitative data collected for this study, a systematic thematic analysis
was undertaken. Thematic analysis has been described as the
identification of themes or patterns of meaning in data, coding and
classifying data in accordance with these themes and interpreting the
resultant thematic structures by identifying repeated patterns (Lapadat,
2010, p. 926). Thematic analysis was considered to be a suitable
analytical framework for this study because it was sufficiently flexible to
allow for both theoretical and data driven insights to be generated
(Boyatzis, 1998). Based on the thematic mapping processes
developed by Braun and Clarke (2006) and Swallow, Newton and Van
Lottum (2003) the following steps were undertaken in this study:
data familiarisation
development of a preliminary coding structure
revision of the coding structure, mapping and
interpretation, and writing up the analysis.
To sum up, the three (3) case studies undertaken in this research
incorporated a mixed methods approach to ensure that an in-depth
understanding of what has been described as the “murky arena”
(Agranoff, 2007, p. 41) in which participants of governance networks
work to achieve outcomes across organisational borders. The use of
both qualitative and quantitative methods allowed the different
dimensions of stakeholder relationships, and in particular stakeholder
salience and engagement to be uncovered as well as providing an
understanding of the structures, perceptions and processes which the
governance networks used in interacting with stakeholders. In the next
section, specific data collection techniques are discussed and justified
for use in this study.
-83-
DATA COLLECTION
The collection of both qualitative and quantitative data strengthened the
study in a number of ways. Firstly, mixed data was used to provide
specific detail about the salience and engagement of stakeholders, later
corroborated with qualitative data about why features of governance
networks led to perceptions of salience which were enacted through
stakeholder engagement. Secondly, through the analysis of the
different types of data, a number of plausible alternatives were
developed to explain the occurrence of stakeholder types and the
activities employed by the governance networks to engage with them.
Further analysis of the mixed data was used to reduce the alternative
explanations upon which conclusions were based (Greene & Caracelli,
1997). Finally, through analysis of the mixed data divergent viewpoints
(B. Johnson & Turner, 2003) about how and why particular interactions
with stakeholders occurred were pinpointed. As indicated in Figure 4.2,
data collection incorporated three (3) techniques: stakeholder analysis,
structured interviews and semi-structured interviews.
Phase 1: Qualitative Stakeholder Identification and Analysis
The first phase of the data collection strategy was to identify
governance network stakeholders as to gain insights into the salience
of such stakeholders. A number of authors have proposed conceptual
frameworks for stakeholder analysis and identification (Bryson, 2004;
Hubacek, Prell, Quinn, & Reed, 2007; Reed et al., 2009). It has been
acknowledged (Bryson, 2004) that stakeholder analysis can take many
forms and incorporate varying degrees of complexity. This position was
supported by Reed et al. (2009) and Kivits (2011) who characterised to
stakeholder analysis tools as a “long list” which was not well integrated.
In this study, a simplified stakeholder analysis process was selected
because the sole objective was to identify stakeholders which were
presented to each RRG for verification. This information was gathered
-84-
by undertaking a stakeholder analysis which is a systematic approach
to obtaining knowledge about stakeholders (Varvasovszky & Brugha,
2000). The major advantage of using stakeholder analysis was that it
provided a structured approach to stakeholder identification which could
be replicated across the cases in this study thus increasing the quality
of the data collected.
Two major limitations of stakeholder analysis have been identified:
potential for omission of relevant stakeholders and researcher bias
(Brugha & Varvasovszky, 2000; Varvasovszky & Brugha, 2000). To
ensure that the identification of stakeholders was not limited
prematurely, respondents were given opportunities to add to the list of
stakeholders during the structured interviews. To reduce potential
researcher bias, care was taken to ensure that decisions about which
stakeholders were relevant to a particular network were made by
respondents rather than being pre-determined by the researcher.
The first step in this process was to identify, through discussions with
network members and network managers; the organisations, groups or
individuals who could be an RRG stakeholder. Stakeholders were
defined as actors or organisations who could or could potentially affect
or be affected by the achievement of RRG outcomes (Mitchell et al.,
1997). Beginning in late 2009, a range of documents was reviewed to
ascertain if there were documented links to the stakeholders identified
by the RRGs. These documents included strategic plans, budgets,
annual reports, newsletters and minutes of meetings which related to
the operation of the RRGs from DTMR, The Roads Alliance, LGAQ,
Regional Councils and Far North Queensland Regional Organisation of
Councils (FNQROC). From this review, a list of key stakeholders was
distilled and later validated with representatives from each RRG.
Between 2010 and 2012, the researcher continued to scan DTMR,
Roads Alliance, LGAQ and Regional Council strategic plans, budgets,
annual reports, newsletters and minutes of RRG Political and RRG
-85-
Technical meetings across the three networks. The purpose of this was
to identify contextual and institutional changes which may have had an
impact on who was regarded as a stakeholder. This approach allowed
the researcher to identify shifts in governance network operating
environments which may have influenced the prioritisation and
engagement of stakeholders.
Phase 2: Quantitative and Qualitative Structured Interviews
Quantitative data collection methods, in particular surveys, have been
widely used in the stakeholder salience research (Agle et al., 1999;
Gago & Antolín, 2004; Parent & Deephouse, 2007; Samaras, 2010).
Bryman (2004) argues that structured interviews are primarily
undertaken within the survey context. Therefore, structured interviews
were used to concurrently collect quantitative and qualitative data about
attributions of power, legitimacy, criticality and temporality to
stakeholders and thus, stakeholder salience. The major advantage of
using the structured interview approach was that it allowed for precise
and replicable quantitative data to be quickly collected (Barlow, 2010;
Fowler, 2002) about the salience of stakeholders.
To draw out deeper insights from the quantitative data about the factors
that drove stakeholder salience attributions, more exploratory
qualitative data (Creswell, 2003) were also collected. Furthermore, as
the interviews were undertaken by telephone, interviews were able to
be scheduled at the convenience of interviewees, thus reducing the
non-response rate (Fowler, 2002). Finally, to improve the validity of
responses, a copy of the Interview Protocol (Appendix 4.1) was
provided to subjects prior to the interviews so that it could be used as a
visual aid during the interview (Fowler, 2002).
Using this approach, a large amount of quantitative data were quickly
collected (Bryman, 2004) about the salience of various stakeholders for
each network. By ensuring that participants were offered the same set
of quantitative questions with the exact wording in the same sequence,
-86-
not only was data quality improved, salience data were able to be
triangulated within and across cases. The incorporation of a qualitative
component provided the flexibility to obtain insights about the
governance network factors that influenced perceptions of power,
legitimacy, criticality and temporality. To manage the potential for
interviewees to provide socially desirable responses that pleased or
helped the interviewer, the researcher was not overly friendly with
respondents or judgemental of their responses (Bryman, 2004, p. 127).
Interview Strategy
Each interview was undertaken within an overarching framework of
objectives which were aligned with the research design. These
objectives were to:
present and validate the list of stakeholders identified from the
stakeholder analysis and ascertain if relevant stakeholders had
been omitted
obtain a sense of how stakeholders were perceived and the
functioning of relationships with stakeholders.
understand how stakeholders were prioritised by the networks
and the underlying factors that influenced prioritisation.
The interviews explored core themes aligned with this framework of
objectives and were developed from the literature on stakeholder
salience (Agle et al., 1999; Mitchell et al., 1997).
Development of Interview Questions
Questions relating to the salience of stakeholders were derived from
Agle et al. (1999), who tested the three salience variables: power,
legitimacy and urgency in the context of the values of Chief Executive
Officers. Moreover, as occurred in a study of stakeholder salience
undertaken by Parent and Deephouse (2007), the variable of power
was separated into the three dimensions: coercive, utilitarian and
normative, as originally proposed by Mitchell et al. (1997). Similarly, the
-87-
variable of legitimacy, was also separated into three dimensions:
pragmatic, moral and cognitive as proposed by Suchman (1995) and
also treated in the same way by Mitchell et al. (1997).
This separation of power and legitimacy into component parts allowed a
more fine grained examination of the types of power and legitimacy
which impacted on stakeholder salience. The variable urgency was also
separated into the two dimensions (Mitchell et al., 1997): temporality
and criticality so as to better understand the extent to which each one
played a role in determinations of stakeholder salience. Table 4.2
contains the operational definitions which were used in testing the
existence of each of the dimensions of power, legitimacy, temporality
and criticality.
Following the lead of Agle et al. (1999), Jones et al., (2007) and Parent
and Deephouse (2007), salience attributes were treated as
dichotomous: absent or present. However given the nuanced nature of
power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality a five point descriptive
rating scale which ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”
with a neutral point of “neither agree nor disagree” was selected. This
rating scale was based on the scale used by Agle et al. (1999). The use
of a descriptive rating scale rather than a binary yes/no approach
allowed respondents “to express both the direction and strength of their
opinion” (Garland, 1991, p. 66) about the perceived existence of power,
legitimacy, temporality and criticality.
Further, it was decided that absence or presence of each variable
would be derived from these ratings. Ratings of strongly disagree,
disagree or neither agree nor disagree were collapsed and indicated
that a particular variable was not present. Similarly the ratings of agree
and strongly agree were collapsed and indicated the presence of a
salience variable.
-88-
Table 4.2 Dimensions of Stakeholder Salience
Operational Definitions
POWER
LEGITIMACY
TEMPORALITY
CRITICALITY
A relationship in which the stakeholder can get the Regional Road Group to do something which the network would not
have otherwise done (Agle et al., 1999)
A generalised perception or assumption that the stakeholder claim is desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially
constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, definitions (Suchman, 1995)
Immediate attention is
paid to stakeholder claims
(Agle et al., 1999)
Level of importance of
stakeholder claim (Agle et al., 1999)
COERCIVE
UTILITARIAN
NORMATIVE
PRAGMATIC
MORAL
COGNITIVE
Basis of power: physical resources of force, violence, restraint
Basis of power: material, financial resources or incentives
Basis of power: positive or negative social influence on reputation, prestige through the media and other sources
Basis of legitimacy: self interest
Basis of legitimacy: normative approval
Basis of legitimacy: comprehensibility and taken for grantedness (Vidaver-Cohen & Bronn, 2008)
The degree to which a delay by the Regional Road Group in attending to the claim is unacceptable to the stakeholder
The perceived importance of the claim to the stakeholder
Corresponding Statement used in the Interviews
This stakeholder had the potential to threaten the Regional Road Group
This stakeholder had the potential to provide or withdraw resources from the Regional Road Group
This stakeholder had the potential to influence the reputation of the Regional Road Group
It was in the best interest of the Regional Road Group to agree to this stakeholder’s claims
Accepting this stakeholder’s claims was the “right thing to do” for the Regional Road Group
Accepting this stakeholder’s claims was necessary and taken for granted by the Regional Road Group
This stakeholder sought to have their claim attended to immediately by the Regional Road Group
This stakeholder expressed the importance of their claim by the Regional Road Group
- 89-
Interview Data Capture
The identification of the sample for the structured interviews followed a
purposeful sampling approach which involved selection of subjects for a
“specific purpose rather than randomly” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003, p.
713). As can be seen from Table 4.3, the three governance networks
respectively had sixteen (16), twenty (20) and nine (9) participants
spread across the political and technical committees comprising each
RRG. To ensure that a balanced and complete understanding of the
salience of stakeholders was obtained for each network, all political and
technical committee participants of each network were considered as
potential respondents.
Table 4.3 Population and Response Rates for Networks
Case Number in
Population
Number of
Respondents
Far North Queensland Regional Road
Group participants
16 10
Wide Bay Burnett Regional Road
Group participants
20 17
Northern South-East Queensland
Regional Road Group participants
9 7
Total 45 34
Between October 2009 and May 2010, members of each of the three
(3) governance networks were contacted to request their participation in
a structured interview. As a result of presentations given at previous
governance network meetings, participants were familiar with the
researcher and had been advised that it was intended to conduct
interviews. Subsequently, a follow up email was forwarded to
respondents explaining the interview format, provided a confidentiality
undertaking and discussed ethical issues associated with recording of
the interview.
Across the networks, two (2) network members declined to participate
in a structured interview or participate further in the research due their
- 90-
time constraints. Despite repeated telephone calls and emails, the
interviews were unable to be scheduled with a further nine (9)
respondents. As indicated in Appendix 4.1, a total of thirty (30)
structured interviews were undertaken. The rate of participation in
structured interviews level, was 63%, 85% and 78% for each of the
cases and 75% overall. Although having a 78% response rate, in one
network there was a lower ratio of political to technical representatives.
Therefore, for this network, the technical perspective may have been
more dominant. As a result, the views of political respondents were
explored more fully during the interview process.
The structured interviews were of 45 to 60 minutes in duration and were
conducted via telephone using the Interview Protocol included in
Appendix 4.2. With the permission of respondents, interviews were
digitally recorded and later transcribed verbatim. Two (2) interviewees
declined to have their interviews recorded and in this instance, detailed
notes were taken. A three (3) step question sequence was employed
during the interviews:
general demographic questions were posed to draw out
information about the role of respondents; their occupational
group and involvement in the network.
the graphically formatted list of stakeholders was presented to
elicit comments and suggested changes
a set of closed questions were posed about each stakeholder
and followed up with two open ended questions designed to
uncover why stakeholders were perceived to have or not have
particular attributes.
The full set of developed questions is included in Appendix 4.2. The
next section provides the rationale for selecting semi-structured
interviews for the third stage of the research and details the interview
strategy used.
- 91-
Phase 3: Qualitative and Quantitative Semi-structured Interviews
The third stage of the research design focused on obtaining in depth
knowledge and understanding of how and why governance networks
chose particular configurations of stakeholder engagement. Semi-
structured interviews have been used in a number of stakeholder
engagement studies (Leach et al., 2005; Owen, Swift, Humphrey, &
Bowerman, 2000; Prell et al., 2007; Skelcher, Mathur, & Smith, 2005)
so as to gain an in depth understanding of the circumstances and
reasons that stakeholder engagement is enacted in particular ways.
Thus semi-structured interviews were selected as a data collection
method for this phase of the research because of their usefulness in
unpacking and subsequently understanding the intricacies of
stakeholder relationships in the governance network setting.
The focus of the interviews was to explore theoretical aspects of
stakeholder engagement (A. Friedman & Miles, 2006; Leach et al.,
2005; Voci & Hewstone, 2003) and governance networks and emergent
themes. Similar to the structured interviews, the second wave of
interviews was undertaken within a framework of objectives which were
consistent with the research design. The objectives for these interviews
were to:
identify the frequency and quality of engagement that applied to
individual stakeholders
obtain a sense of why particular combinations of engagement
were chosen and what factors influenced these choices and
understand which features of governance networks influenced
stakeholder engagement and how these factors impacted on
interactions.
- 92-
Rationale
To capture rich and complex insights, data collection was undertaken
through semi-structured face to face interviews which had a degree of
structure but also allowed for emergent themes to be explored in
greater detail (Bryman, 2004). Furthermore, semi-structured interviews
provided a mechanism for cross checking and further extending insights
that were drawn from the structured interviews as part of a larger data
triangulation strategy (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Jick, 1979). Taking a
less structured interview approach also allowed for interactions
between the governance networks and stakeholders to be understood
in context rather than simply explained (Fontana & Frey, 2005, p. 706).
A semi-structured interview design incorporating closed and open
ended questions (Appendix 4.3) was purposefully chosen for a number
of reasons. First, this approach allowed for a focused discussion of
stakeholder engagement which was the foundation for further
exploration of emergent theoretical and contextual issues. Second, the
closed questions allowed for the fast and accurate collection of data
concerning the frequency and type of engagement activities which were
undertaken by each network. Collection of these data allowed for the
final step in testing the Framework of Stakeholder Salience and
Engagement: to understand how frequently and what type of
engagement processes were used with different stakeholder Types.
Third, open ended questions were used to explore the issues that
impacted on choices about stakeholder engagement activities and the
features of governance networks that underpinned these decisions.
Development of Interview Questions
The closed questions relating to the frequency and quality of
engagement were derived from Leach et al. (2005), Crane and Livesey
(2003) and Freidman and Miles (2006) as indicated in Table 4.4. The
study of stakeholder engagement by local authorities by Leach et al.
(2005) related directly to the research topic and was also situated in the
Local government context, which was the primary operating domain of
- 93-
the RRG governance networks and stakeholders. Consequently, the
question for identifying the frequency of stakeholder engagement was
based on similar questions used by Leach et al. (2005) which
measured frequency of engagement by the number of engagement
opportunities available to stakeholders.
Table 4.4 Stakeholder Engagement: Operational Definitions and Interview
Questions
Operational Definitions
Engagement Frequency Engagement Process
The number of engagement
opportunities made available to
stakeholders (Leach et al., 2005)
Types of engagement processes used by governance
networks ranging from one way communication to multi-way
stakeholder processes (Crane & Livesey, 2003; A. Friedman &
Miles, 2006)
Corresponding Closed Interview Questions
How often do you engage with this
stakeholder?
What engagement processes were used with this stakeholder?
Rating Scales
Eleven point descriptive rating scale
(Not at all –Multiple times daily)
(Tausch, Tam, Hewstone, Kenworthy,
& Cairns, 2007)
Eleven point descriptive rating scale
(None- Network membership) (A. Friedman & Miles, 2006)
The question relating to type of engagement process was defined and
formulated using two sources: Crane and Livesey (2003) and A.
Friedman and Miles (2006). Crane and Livesey (2003) proposed that
communication with stakeholders ranged from passive one-way
processes through to multi-way stakeholder processes geared towards
problem solving and relationship building. This approach was supported
by A. Friedman and Miles (2006) who in the theoretical Ladder of
Stakeholder Management and Engagement proposed a continuum of
engagement activities ranging from one-way dialogue in which
stakeholders were informed after decisions were made through to multi-
party dialogical processes which actively sought to engage
stakeholders in decision making. Both of these aspects were captured
in the operational definition of frequency of engagement and process of
engagement as can be seen in Table 4.4 which also shows the
corresponding closed interview questions and rating scales that were
presented to interviewees.
- 94-
Respondents were asked to rate the two dimensions of stakeholder
engagement: frequency and process, using scales derived from Tausch
et al. (2007) and A. Friedman and Miles (2006). In a study of cross-
community contact in Northern Ireland, Tausch et al. (2007) used a five
(5) point rating scale to measure the frequency of intergroup contact.
Their scale ranged from 1 (None at all) to 5 (Great deal). However
given the tendency for stakeholders to make time sensitive demands at
varying intervals, a five (5) point rating scale was not considered to be
sufficiently nuanced to capture the varying degrees of frequency at
which stakeholder engagement occurred.
Therefore the five (5) point rating scale employed by Tausch et al.
(2007) was extended into an eleven (11) point descriptive rating scale
(Thurstone, 1928) as shown in Appendix 4.3. The eleven (11) point
scale in which frequency of engagement was rated between the anchor
points ranged from Not at all to Multiple times daily. Using this approach
it was possible to obtain a clear indication of the frequency with which
engagement activities were undertaken.
Although not developing a formal rating scale for measuring quality of
engagement, A. Friedman and Miles (2006) theorised that stakeholder
engagement could include a broad range of engagement processes
from one way communication to multi stakeholder decision making.
Using the exemplars suggested by A. Freidman and Miles (2006, p.
162), an eleven (11) point scale was devised and is included in
Appendix 4.3. Using this approach, engagement processes were rated
between the anchor points: None to Network Membership thus making
it possible to identify the type of engagement processes undertaken the
networks. Using the eleven (11) point rating scale to collect data about
the frequency and process of engagement maximised the trade-off
between the ease with which subjects responded to questions and the
slight increase in reliability due to the greater number of response
choices (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
- 95-
Ten (10) open ended questions were developed to explore more deeply
how stakeholder interactions unfolded within the governance networks
and more specifically to understand how network management
activities undertaken by the networks had an impact on stakeholder
engagement. Questions relating to governance arrangements and
network management were created following Keast and Hampson’s
(2007) study of relational network management in an
interorganisational innovation network. To understand how relational
embeddedness impacted on stakeholder engagement, questions were
designed to elicit information about the four (4) elements of relational
embeddedness suggested by Uzzi (1997): trust, information sharing,
commitment and joint problem solving. The impact of power differentials
on stakeholder relationships was addressed through a question
concerning the extent to which representational roles were set aside by
network participants (Mandell & Keast, 2008).
Interview Data Capture
The respondents from the first round of interviews undertaken across
the three (3) networks formed the sample for the second round of
interviews. Again due to time commitments, two (2) interviewees from
the first round declined to be interviewed in the second round of
interviews. An additional four (4) subjects referred by interviewees were
also interviewed in the second round. In total 32 interviews were
undertaken between February 2010 and February 2012 as indicated in
the Schedule of Interviews contained in Appendix 4.1. This rate was
very similar to the response rate of thirty (30) subjects interviewed in
the first round of interviews. Additionally, ten (10) follow up interviews
and three (3) email follow ups were undertaken to clarify issues raised.
Interview Approach
Following an initial telephone request to participate in the second round
of interviews, a follow up email was forwarded to each subject providing
details about the interview format, confidential undertakings and to
- 96-
request permission to record the interview. Interviews were undertaken
face to face in a location convenient to the subject. The locations
included Atherton, Bundaberg, Brisbane, Cairns, Cooktown, Gympie,
Kingaroy, Nambour and Strathpine. However due to severe flooding
across many parts of Queensland in early 2011, it was not possible to
continue undertaking interviews in situ. Therefore five (5) second round
and follow up interviews were conducted by telephone so as to
maintain data continuity. The interview protocol including the questions
incorporated in Appendix 4.3 and was provided to each interviewee in
advance so that they were able to make an informed decision about
consenting to the interview.
A two-step question sequence was employed during the interviews. All
respondents were asked the two (2) closed questions about the
frequency of engagement and type of process undertaken with each
individual stakeholder. These questions were followed with ten (10)
open ended questions designed to uncover why stakeholders were
engaged in particular ways and which governance network
characteristics influenced interactions with stakeholders. The full set of
developed questions is included in Appendix 4.3. The next section
discusses how data generated from the stakeholder analysis, structured
and semi-structured interviews was analysed.
DATA ANALYSIS
This mixed methods study generated a large amount of data, both
quantitative and qualitative about the stakeholders of governance
networks. There were two (2) units of analysis. The primary unit of
analysis was an individual governance network and the secondary unit
of analysis was stakeholder Type. As shown previously in Figure 4.2,
data analysis was undertaken using a building block approach in which
the analysis undertaken at each stage of data collection was integrated
into the next stage of data collection. Data analysis was undertaken
iteratively as a “recursive, process-oriented, analytic procedure” (Locke,
- 97-
1996, p. 240). Throughout this study there were four (4) stages of
analysis as was indicated in Figure 4.2.
Phase 1: Qualitative Data Analysis
The stakeholder analysis for each governance network was undertaken
as an informal textual analysis (McKee, 2002). This informal approach
was selected because stakeholder identification was only one element
of the broader research design which drew more heavily on material
generated from interviews (Peräkylä, 2005, p. 870). This process
involved the analysis of publicly available texts pertaining to individual
networks: DTMR, The Roads Alliance, LGAQ and Regional Councils’
strategic plans, budgets, annual reports and newsletters. Internal
organisational documents analysed included agendas and minutes of
network meetings.
The primary purpose of the textual analysis was to identify potential
stakeholders who were of importance to each network. The analysis
involved reading and rereading (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2008) the
document set for each network and from this process, potential
stakeholders were identified. In addition, contextual themes pertinent to
particular stakeholders and the networks in which they were embedded
were identified. The resultant list of stakeholders was presented to
respondents as a graphic which is contained in Appendix 4.2, and was
then used in the subsequent phase of the research. Contextual themes
identified during the stakeholder analysis were integrated into the data
coding structure.
Phase 2: Quantitative and Qualitative Data Analysis
Quantitative Data Analysis
Quantitative data collected during interviews were coded numerically
and transferred into an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. Two (2) types of
data were included in the spreadsheet. First, demographic data about
- 98-
respondents: unique identification code, organisation, organisational
role, RRG membership, role in RRG and years of participation. Second,
stakeholder data: stakeholder identification code and the subjects’
responses to the eight (8) questions about perceived power, legitimacy,
temporality and criticality as shown in Table .4.2. The analytical
procedure for determining the presence or absence of the individual
salience attributes: power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality was
primarily qualitative. This approach had its basis in the analysis
undertaken by Parent and Deephouse (2007) who qualitatively
analysed textual interview data to determine the salience of
stakeholders of two major Canadian sporting events.
As an example, Table 4.5 contains the data collected for one
stakeholder in one case and also highlights the steps involved in
determining the presence or absence of the salience variables. A two-
step process was undertaken to determine whether or not a salience
attribute was present or absent. At respondent level, individual ratings
of 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly agree) on the five (5) point rating scale used
during the interviews were identified as instances in which an attribute
was present. Ratings of 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree) and 3
(neither agree nor disagree) indicated that an attribute was absent. The
items circled in Table 4.5 show instances of where an attribute was
present (4) and absent (2).
- 99-
Table 4.5 Example of Salience Data for One Stakeholder
The next step in the process was to integrate the multiple perceptions
of respondents within a particular network to develop a whole of
network perspective on the presence or absence of salience attributes.
For each interview question, ratings greater than 3 were counted. In the
case of both power and legitimacy these counts were aggregated
because questions covered three (3) different types of power and three
(3) different types of legitimacy. The results for each salience attribute
were then converted into percentages.
A cut off for point of greater than 50% was used to determine if the
network perceived an attribute to be present as indicated by the thick
red border in Table 4.5. This benchmark was selected because it
indicated that the majority of respondents had either agreed or strongly
agreed to the perceived existence of a variable. Table 4.5 provides an
example of this process and shows that while power was perceived to
be present, temporality was perceived to be absent. This analysis
process was repeated for 138 stakeholders identified by respondents
from across the three (3) case study networks. The final step in this part
- 100-
of the analysis was to plot the presence or absence of individual
salience attributes: power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality in a
tabular form to show the combinations of attributes and thus
stakeholder Types identified from the data. For further information, a
diagrammatic representation of the steps taken in the quantitative data
analysis is incorporated in Appendix 4.4. The next section discusses
the analysis of the qualitative data collected during the structured
interviews.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Representing a foundation for the analysis, the three (3) research
cases were set up as a project within the NVivo software program
(Bazeley, 2007) and documentary materials were imported into the
program. At this step, each interview recording was listened to and
interview transcriptions and relevant documentation for each case were
read for data familiarisation. Transcriptions were reviewed and following
correction of errors, transcriptions were uploaded into NVivo. Initial
observations about stakeholders and how they were perceived by the
networks were listed in memos. Both coding and analysis of the data
was undertaken using NVivo because the program permitted the
transfer and coding of interview transcriptions from recorded interviews,
inclusion of data tables, interview notes and documentation relating to
each case. The advantage of using NVivo was that it supported the
management of large amounts of data and facilitated the iterative
processes of coding, searching for themes and evaluation of themes.
Development of Preliminary Coding Structure
Developing the preliminary coding structure involved identifying
features of the data that related to the research questions and
conceptual framework for the study (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Consequently, transcriptions and documentation were coded using both
a priori and data driven approaches. A priori coding was based on the
theoretical constructs of stakeholder salience and aspects of
governance networks that may have impacted on stakeholder
- 101-
engagement. Data driven coding involved inductively identifying ideas
and issues grounded in the data. Care was taken to ensure that
emergent codes were not forced into the a priori categories.
Throughout the initial coding phase, a substantial number of codes
were identified in the data and were assembled into categories and
created as NVivo nodes. From these nodes, data were categorised
under one of the three (3) governance networks and then by
respondents from each network. As can be seen from the example in
Figure 4.3, relevant data were coded and labelled using NVivo and
formed into an interrelated structure so that data remained connected
with cases and specific stakeholders.
Figure 4.3 Qualitative Data Example of Coding Structure and Evidence
Throughout the coding process the researcher reflected upon emergent
ideas and trends, annotated relevant blocks of coded data and created
memos to capture reflections and nascent ideas. The next section
discusses the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data collected
during the semi-structured interviews.
Phase 3: Qualitative and Quantitative Data Analysis
The focus of this stage of the analysis was to bring together the multiple
perceptions of respondents within a particular network to develop a
- 102-
whole of network perspective on engagement frequency and
engagement processes used with different stakeholder types. Building
on the analysis of quantitative data previously undertaken, data about
the frequency of engagement and engagement processes was coded
and added to the Excel spreadsheet containing the salience data. The
next step was to determine each network’s collective view of the
frequency of engagement undertaken and type of engagement process
used with stakeholders.
Accordingly, the mode was calculated for each variable: 1. frequency of
engagement undertaken and 2. type of engagement process used with
each stakeholder across the three (3) case study networks. The modes
as calculated for each stakeholder were used as the proxy for the
network view of frequency of engagement undertaken and type of
engagement process used. For further information, the steps in this
analytical process are depicted diagrammatically in Appendix 4.5.
With the quantitative data set for the study completed, data tables
containing the salience and engagement data were imported into the
pre-existing NVivo project. As such, this represented the first step in
combining the qualitative and quantitative data collected from the case
study networks. This approach allowed for the quantitative data to be
analysed in conjunction with the textual collected during the two (2)
rounds of interviews.
Analysis of the qualitative data collected during the semi-structured
interviews began with scrutinising interview transcriptions to identify
factors that may have affected choices of engagement processes and
the frequency with which they were undertaken. Following corrections,
the interview transcriptions were imported into the pre-existing NVivo
project and, from analysis of these documents, new codes were
identified and incorporated into the preliminary coding structure.
- 103-
Using the extended data set and codes identified during the two (2)
rounds of initial coding, the next step in the data reduction process
involved searching for themes among the array of codes. During this
phase of the analysis, codes were critically evaluated rather than the
data they contained so as to obtain a sense of coherence of the revised
coding structure. As a next step, categories and themes identified
during coding were evaluated further and integrated into higher order
categories, renamed, removed or new categories identified. Figure 4.4
shows the initial thematic map developed around four (4) main themes:
stakeholder identification, stakeholder types, stakeholder engagement
and governance network features. Using memos, data analysis was
undertaken iteratively alongside the coding to ensure a high degree of
integration was achieved.
Figure 4.4 Initial Thematic Map from Qualitative Data
Created from the data analysis, Figure 4.4 presents the connections
between the major categories and themes identified and provided an
- 104-
initial picture of how stakeholder Types were engaged by the
governance networks. From the analysis, features of governance
networks that promoted or inhibited stakeholder engagement were
identifiable. During this period of analysis, memos were used
extensively to record discoveries, summarise analyses, identify
connections with theoretical constructs and documents reflections
(Huberman & Miles, 2002; Strauss, 1987).
The next stage of the analysis, involved reviewing themes at two (2)
levels: coded data extracts and the complete data set to determine
whether or not initial themes represented the same concept and where
there were identifiable distinctions which justified development of new
themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The initial thematic map in Figure 4.4
was used as the basis for further analysis. First, the all extracts
highlighted under each theme were evaluated to ascertain whether or
not they formed a formed a cohesive pattern. For example, the theme
labelled “governance network features” was reworked because a
number of codes had common characteristics. Using the outputs from
the analysis, the initial thematic map was revised. Using this revised
map, the total data set was systematically reviewed to ascertain
whether or not themes were representative of the larger data set and to
code additional data that was overlooked during earlier stages of
coding (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The thematic map was again updated
to accommodate changes. The next section discusses the within case
analysis that was undertaken for each of the three (3) governance
networks.
Within Case Analysis
Using the coding structures and revised thematic map, a within case
analysis was undertaken for each of the governance networks and the
stakeholder Types that were identified within each case. In the within
case analysis, each network was treated as a single phenomenon
(Eisenhardt, 1989) as were the stakeholder Types identified. Each
within case analysis involved the development of a descriptive account
- 105-
of the themes, factors and experiences of respondents which had a
bearing on stakeholder prioritisation and how subsequent interactions
with different stakeholders unfolded within individual networks. The a
priori and the emergent themes developed through the preceding
stages of analysis were reintegrated during the within case analysis to
obtain an understanding of how they worked together in context (Ayres,
Kavanaugh, & Knafl, 2003, p. 881).
To assist in drawing conclusions from the data, a number of matrices
were developed to uncover the underlying the structures of meaning
within the data (Smircich & Morgan, 1982) and identify patterns.
Appendix 4.4 shows an excerpt from a conceptually clustered matrix
developed for one case. From similar matrices developed for each
case, unique patterns of how stakeholder salience was constructed, the
links with engagement activities and governance network factors were
identified and are presented in Chapters 5, 6 and 7.
Phase 4: Cross Case Analysis
Building on the results of the within case analysis for each network a
cross case analysis was undertaken so as to generate more accurate
and reliable theory (Eisenhardt, 1989) from the cases studied. The
cross case analysis was the final step in reaching “analytic
generalisation” (Yin, 2003, p. 10) in which the results of this research
were generalised to the broader theories of stakeholder salience and
engagement, and governance networks. In this study, a mixed cross
case analysis strategy combining variable oriented and case oriented
approaches was implemented (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Using a
variable oriented approach, the variables associated with stakeholder
salience and engagement were applied to each case and using these
results, cross case matrices were developed for further analysis. The
case oriented element of the strategy focused on surfacing emergent
patterns which occurred in more than one case.
- 106-
Incorporating the results of both types of analysis, a number of matrices
were developed to facilitate comparison between cases. Each case was
condensed and incorporated into a meta matrix allowing the three (3)
cases to be collectively visualised and systematically analysed (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). From this point, analysis focused on pattern
matching and explanation building within a cross case synthesis (Yin,
2003). Pattern matching involved a comparison of the theoretical
patterns of stakeholder salience and engagement and network
management with the empirical patterns observable from the data
analysis.
Meta-analysis using Qualitative Comparative Analysis
To facilitate pattern identification and matching, a meta-analysis tool,
which bridges traditional qualitative and quantitative analyses,
Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) (Ragin, 2008) was used. QCA
is an analytical tool which identifies aspects of generalisability while
taking into account the complexity of cases (Greckhamer & Mossholder,
2011). In essence, the process of QCA used in this study involved the
application of Boolean algebra to construct a truth table output matrix
which identified the minimum set of causal conditions to explain
particular outcomes. Appendix 4.7 provides a description of the steps
taken in this application of QCA.
QCA has been used as an analytical tool in a range of settings
(Greckhamer & Mossholder, 2011) including stakeholder management.
For example Maurer (2007) used QCA as a tool for analysing corporate
stakeholder responsiveness. QCA was also used by Crilly (2010) in a
study of stakeholder orientation in a multinational enterprise. Using
QCA, Crilly (2010) was able to pinpoint causal factors which led to
particular stakeholder orientations.
In the current study, the objective of undertaking QCA was to identify
whether or not there were causal factors which linked stakeholder
salience to particular combinations of stakeholder engagement used by
- 107-
governance networks. The initial step involved summarising data about
the factors which influenced salience and engagement in each of the
three (3) case studies in an Excel spreadsheet. These data were
translated into binary format: 1= attribute present and 0= attribute
absent and distilled into a truth table. From this truth table, further
analysis was undertaken to identify “all logically possible combinations
of the presence and absence of independent variables and the
corresponding outcome variable” (Dixon-Woods, Agarwal, Jones,
Young, & Sutton, 2005, p. 50).
The Tosmana (Tool for Small-N Analysis) software package (Cronqvist,
2011) was used to identify the various combinations of factors that were
logically linked to stakeholder engagement outcomes. In the analytical
process used for this study, the independent variables were the factors
explaining attributions of stakeholder salience and the governance
network factors explaining stakeholder engagement activities. The
outcome variables were the combinations of engagement frequency
and engagement process that were found to have occurred within the
cases.
Truth tables for each stakeholder engagement outcomes, stakeholder
salience and the governance network factors were generated using
Tosmana. Further analysis of the individual data tables was undertaken
manually to ensure that conclusions could be linked back to the case
data. This step in the analysis focused on identifying convergence and
divergence in the data to identify similar and opposing patterns (Guba,
1978). A worked example of the QCA process used in analysing the link
between the salience variable of legitimacy and stakeholder
engagement is provided in Appendix 4.7.
Particular attention was paid to divergent data which did not fit into the
categories as a means of identifying “unexpected results or unseen
contextual factors” which required further analysis. (Jick, 1979, p. 607).
A further step in the analysis was to apply an explanation building
- 108-
process which involved the creation and testing of alternative
“compelling ways to make sense of the data” (Tobin, 2010, p. 834). This
cross case data analysis is presented in Chapter 8. Having outlined the
research design, data collection methods and approach to data
analysis for this study, ethical considerations are discussed next.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The main ethical consideration of this study was protecting participant
confidentiality by ensuring that inadvertent identification did not occur,
particularly given the small size and close knit environment in which the
RRG governance networks operate. The major approach to managing
confidentiality was through the informed consent process. Following the
informed consent protocol incorporated in Queensland University of
Technology Ethics Approval Number 0900000931, participants were
advised of the purpose and approach of the study, the proposed extent
of their participation, confidentiality safeguards and what they could
expect to receive from their involvement (Borgatti & Molina, 2005). The
informed consent process specifically acknowledged that participants
had a right to decide who can access their data and under what
circumstances.
The informed consent agreement included a disclosure section which
clarified what data would be seen by whom, in what form and how the
data and analysis would be used by the researcher. Participants were
also advised that data would be anonymised by replacing identifying
details with codes so that only the researcher could link data to
respondents (Byrne, 2001). Furthermore, data were aggregated and
presented at RRG network level as a further protection (Borgatti &
Molina, 2005). By implementing these safeguards, the risks associated
with maintaining participant confidentiality were reduced and more
rigorous outcomes achieved. To strengthen the outcomes of this
research, a number of strategies were implemented to ensure
trustworthiness and these are discussed next.
- 109-
TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE RESEARCH
Establishing credibility and rigour was a priority for the researcher
because without rigour, “research is worthless” (Morse, Barrett, Mayan,
Olson, & Spiers, 2008, p. 14). Given that this research incorporated
mixed methods the major focus was to design strategies that could
assure the quality of both the quantitative and qualitative components.
Bryman (2006, p. 122) suggested three (3) approaches to assess the
quality of mixed methods research:
convergent criteria (quantitative and qualitative components
assessed using the same criteria)
separate criteria (quantitative and qualitative components
assessed using separate criteria) and
bespoke criteria (devise new criteria).
Collins, Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2012, p. 852) indicated that the
choice of quality criteria may be linked to the dominant approach to
“drawing conclusions and findings” and thus applying divergent criteria
associated with that approach. As this study was qualitatively led and
involved primarily inductive analysis which moved from specific
observations within the case studies and built towards analytical
generalisations (Patton, 2002), qualitative criteria were used to ensure
data quality. In particular Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) four measures of
trustworthiness: credibility, transferability, dependability and
confirmability were used as a standard for ensuring quality. The next
section details specific measures of trustworthiness employed in this
research.
Credibility
Credibility refers to the extent to which a research account is believable
and the level of fit between participants’ views and the researcher’s
interpretations (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). The research design
contained a number of features designed to maintain a high standard of
- 110-
credibility. Yin (2003, p. 133) suggested that as a result of undertaking
using multiple case studies to explore a phenomenon, “findings are
likely to be more robust”. Therefore, a multiple case study design was
selected to explore stakeholder salience and engagement across three
(3) governance networks in different regional settings.
Furthermore, the deliberate choice of multiple data collection
techniques to understand how the case study governance networks
engaged with their stakeholders, produced several layers of data
examining the processes thus allowing cross validation of
interpretations. Finally, feedback about the interpretations and
conclusions being drawn was sought at least once from each network.
As such, respondents in a leadership position in each network were
contacted to obtain feedback on the veracity of interpretations
(Interviews, 08 March, 14 March and 15 March 2011).
Transferability
Transferability relates to the degree to which findings generated in one
context can be transferred to a different context (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). To demonstrate transferability, extensive explanations (Geertz,
1973) of the sampling techniques, data and analytical frameworks
have been provided for this study to allow external judgements to be
made about the aptness of the conclusions to other settings. In
particular, the purposive sampling technique used in the study was
described to make the process transparent to other researchers
evaluating the transferability of the conclusions.
Dependability
Dependability largely concerns establishing the veracity of the research
processes undertaken over the course of a study (Bryman, 2006). For
this research, the dependability of this study was framed around
building internal controls into the research process such that a peer
reviewer could assess the process and products of the research. First
a research data base was created within NVivo and research records
- 111-
such as documentation relating to each governance networks, interview
recordings and transcripts, data collection and analysis decisions,
analytical memos, and coding memos were incrementally added to the
database over a three (3) year period. Meticulous maintenance of this
database contributed to the rigour and transparency of the processes
used to develop findings and conclusions (Yin, 1989).
Over the course of the research, an experienced reviewer from a
scientific discipline who had some knowledge of the content area
reviewed the research processes and products at three (3) stages: data
collection, data analysis and final write up. Using samples of data and
documentation from the research database, and later research reports,
findings and conclusions, this experienced reviewer questioned and
critiqued research processes and challenged the researcher to justify
interpretations and conclusions drawn from the data.
Confirmability
Confirmability refers to the extent that research findings are the shaped
by respondents and not researcher bias or interests (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). While feedback from the networks, and the critiques of the
external reviewer also contributed to the confirmability of research
findings, an additional level of legitimacy was provided through
implementation of a triangulation strategy. This triangulation strategy
involved corroboration of evidence from different data collection
methods (Creswell, 2003). Using data generated from the three (3) data
collection tools, the consistency of findings was able to be checked and
inconsistencies investigated. A further advantage was that findings from
quantitative and qualitative data were also able to be cross checked for
inconsistencies. As a result of using a blended triangulation approach,
the researcher highlighted a number of gaps and inconsistencies were
identified, prompting further follow up enquiries with respondents.
- 112-
CONCLUSION
This chapter has described and justified the research design and
methodologies which were used in this study. In developing the case
studies, the primary research tools included stakeholder analysis,
structured interviews and semi-structured interviews. The data which
were generated from these tools were used to report findings and
develop conclusions about each of the case studies. The next three (3)
chapters synthesise the empirical evidence generated using the
preceding methodology to report on the findings for each individual
case study. Drawing on these data, each of these chapters contains an
analysis of how individual RRGs understand the salience of
stakeholders and the actions they take to engage with these
stakeholders.
- 113-
CHAPTER 5 - CASE 1: FAR NORTH
QUEENSLAND REGIONAL ROAD GROUP
INTRODUCTION
This chapter draws on data generated through the application of the
methodology presented in Chapter Four to present findings about the
function and operation of the Far North Queensland (FNQ) RRG
infrastructure governance network and how the network classify and
engage with stakeholders. Divided into five (5) sections, the first section
of the chapter positions the case within its contextual background and
discusses the institutional arrangements under which the FNQ RRG
operates. The second section presents an analysis of the RRG
governance network, in particular focusing on stakeholder identification
and salience.
This section also identifies the factors which impacted on stakeholder
attributions of power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality. The third
section discusses the network’s approach to stakeholder engagement
and the processes and frequency with which stakeholder engagement
was undertaken. Section four examines the governance network factors
which impact on stakeholder engagement, in particular nark
management activities. The final section summarises the major
discoveries from the case analysis and proffers some preliminary
conclusions.
BACKGROUND TO FNQ RRG GOVERNANCE NETWORK
The FNQ RRG was established in 2002 and, in its current form brings,
together five (5) councils: Cairns Regional Council (RC), Cassowary
Coast RC, Tablelands RC, Cook Shire Council, (SC), Wujal Wujal
Aboriginal Shire Council (ASC) and the Transport and Main Roads Far
North Region (TMRFN) as joint managers of a network of regionally
significant local roads within their collective boundaries. Funding for
RRG activities is obtained from a number of Local, State and Federal
- 114-
government sources; in particular the state government controlled TIDS
Program. The shaded area in Figure 5.1 delineates the territory of the
FNQ RRG which covers over 180,000 sqkm, and is geographically
diverse, incorporating parts of the Wet Tropics, Cape York Peninsula,
the Atherton Tablelands and part of the outback Gulf Savannah
(Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2008).
Figure 5 1 Map Showing the Geographic Coverage of FNQ RRG.
Adapted from “The Roads Alliance Addendum to the Roads Implementation program
2009-10 to 2013-14” by Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2009.
The FNQ RRG manages ninety seven (97) local roads of regional
significance of approximately 1,200 kilometres (Department of
Transport and Main Roads, 2008). Although the road network managed
by FNQ RRG is relatively small, a number of these roads are important
regional links such as the Bloomfield Track which was the subject of
bitter stakeholder protests in the 1980’s (Niemeyer, 2004). Roads have
long been a symbol of progress in Far North Queensland and play a
critical role in connecting people with employment centres and social
service infrastructures (Department of Infrastructure and Planning,
- 115-
2010b). As parts of the region are environmentally sensitive, the
positioning of roads in Far North Queensland is politically volatile, thus
attracting a high level of scrutiny from stakeholders. There is particular
sensitivity about impacts on two World Heritage listed sites: the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park and Wet Tropics Management Authority
(WTMA) controlled rainforests including the Daintree. The institutional
arrangements governing the network are discussed next.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
There have been two distinct iterations of the FNQ RRG over a period
of eight (8) years. In the first iteration beginning on 2002, the FNQ RRG
had a membership of nine (9) organisations: TMRFN and eight (8) city
and shire councils, Atherton Shire Council (SC), Cairns City Council,
Cook SC, Douglas SC, Eacham SC, Herberton SC, Johnstone SC and
Mareeba SC. Following Local government amalgamations across
Queensland in 2009, the RRG was reduced to five (5) members: Cairns
RC, Cassowary Coast RC, and Tablelands Regional RC, Cook SC and
TMRFN. Wujal Wujal ASC joined the RRG in 2010. Although the
decreased membership initially reduced the diversity of views being
brought into RRG processes, the later inclusion of Wujal Wujal ASC as
a member brought a stronger focus on Indigenous issues. The
structural changes had a significant impact on the RRG and requiring
the development of a new Regional Works Program that catered for
three (3) much larger councils.
In accordance with the requirements of the Roads Alliance (Local
Government Association of Queensland Ltd and Queensland
Government, 2011) the reconfigured FNQ RRG governance network is
structured as two (2) interrelated groups: the political committee, NSEQ
Political and the technical group, NSEQ Technical. Table 5.1 illustrates
the structure of the RRG and the two (2) committees through which it
operates and the number and roles of RRG members. As can be seen
from Table 5.1, the core membership of the two groups is fifteen (15),
with membership relatively balanced between the two (2) groups. The
- 116-
decision making group which is dominated by elected officials is
referred to from herein as FNQ Political. The second group, which is
comprised entirely of engineers, is referred to from herein as FNQ
Technical.
The configuration of the two (2) groups reflects the roles: political and
technical as established in the RRG constitution (Main Roads and Local
Government Roads
Alliance, 2010). Roads
Alliance Operational
Guidelines (Local
Government Association
of Queensland Ltd and
Queensland
Government, 2011).
This separation of
technical and political
responsibilities follows a
similar separation of the
elected and administrative arms of Councils in accordance with the
provisions of the Local Government Act (2009). Consequently there is a
clear separation of roles within the RRG: FNQ Political focuses on
managerial decision making and FNQ Technical concentrates on the
technical aspects of road delivery.
Division of technical and political responsibilities in this way followed the
separation of political and managerial responsibilities within councils.
As a result of this segregation of responsibilities, there was minimal
overlap in the membership of the two (2) groups: the Chair of RRG
Technical participated in both groups (Main Roads and Local
Government Roads Alliance, 2010). As a result, the dual committee
structure provided little opportunity for interaction between political and
engineering members of the RRG.
Table 5.1 FNQ RRG Governance Network Structure,
Membership and Roles
GROUPS MEMBERS ROLES
FNQ Political 7 Mayor or Deputy Mayors (4)
Local Government Councillor
(1)
Engineer (1)
Designated Network Manager
(1)
FNQ Technical 8 Engineers (8)
FNQ RRG
Governance
Network
collectively
15 Elected Representatives (5)
Engineers (9)
Designated Network
Manager (1)
- 117-
Respondent Demographics
The respondent group for this case study was twelve (12) comprising
17% elected representatives, 58% engineers and 25% managers. Two
(2) levels of government were represented in the respondent group, the
majority came from Local government (82%) and the remainder came
from State government, indicating that Local government was the
predominant jurisdiction represented. The domination of the network by
Local government organisations is predictable because the focus of the
RRG is primarily local roads in the Far North Queensland region. Two
(2) professional orientations with differing emphases were evident
within the network: political and engineering. However as the RRG
decision making involved a blended technical-political process, both
groups worked together to achieve common objectives rather than
exercising their political or expert power.
Participation in Governance Network
As discussed previously, the FNQ RRG comprises two (2) committees
which met seventy nine (79) times between 2002 and 2009. The
average duration of participation in the governance network was 4.6
years, ranging from 1 to 6 years thus indicating a long-term
commitment to the RRG. Therefore, over the eight (8) year life of the
RRG, network members made a substantial commitment of time and
resources to the achievement of RRG outcomes. As such, relationships
were long-term and were underpinned by accumulated knowledge and
shared experiences that developed over time. The next section
examines how stakeholders were identified by the RRG governance
network.
STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION
From the data collected during structured interviews with twelve (12)
key informants, a set of twenty (20) stakeholders was identified as
relevant to the FNQ RRG. These stakeholders were groups or
individuals who could affect or be affected by the achievement of
outcomes, and were drawn from across government, business and not-
- 118-
for-profit sectors as shown in Table 5.2. These stakeholders had a
variety of roles including transportation management, environmental
management, emergency management, regional and economic
development, lobbying and political representation at both State and
Federal level. Transport management and environmental management
stakeholders were the most prominent groups.
Table 5.2 FNQ RRG Stakeholders Sector Represented, Roles and Interactions
Stakeholder Sector Represented Role Interactions with stakeholder
Transport and Main Roads, Far
North
State government Transport management
Members of the Queensland
Parliament 4, 11
State government Political representation
Member of the Queensland
Parliament 21
State government Political representation
Department of Environment and
Resource Management
State government Environmental
management
Department of Employment,
Economic Development and
Innovation
State government Environmental
management
Queensland Emergency Services State government Emergency services
Queensland Ambulance Service State government Ambulance services
Queensland Police Service State government Police services
Heavy Transport Operators Business Industry group
Advance Cairns Not-for-profit Economic development
Cairns Regional Council Local government Transport management
Cassowary Coast Regional
Council
Local government Transport management
Cook Shire Council Local government Transport management
Tablelands Regional Council Local government Transport management
Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire
Council
Local government Transport management
Federal Department of
Infrastructure and Transport
Federal government Transport management
Member of Australian Parliament 1 Federal government Political representation
Wet Tropics Management
Authority
Federal government Environmental
management
Roads Alliance Project Team State and Local
government
Transport management
- 119-
From the data presented in Table 5.2 it can be seen that FNQ RRG had
differing levels of contact with stakeholder groupings. As indicated by
the shaded areas in Table 5.2, FNQ RRG had no reported contact with
over 30% of the stakeholder group, indicating that these relationships
were inactive. Furthermore, the majority (90%) of stakeholders
represented one of the three (3) tiers of government. This high
concentration of government bodies represented among the
stakeholder group indicated that there was little non-government input
into the activities of the RRG.
The breakdown in Table 5.2 shows the extent to which government was
influential in decision making, to the exclusion of other stakeholders. As
such, inputs about important issues such as tourism and economic
development were not taken into account. The various stakeholder
groupings identified in Table 5.2 are now discussed in greater detail.
Transport Management Stakeholders
Respondents identified several transport management organisations as
stakeholders: TMRFN, FDIT, RAPT and the five (5) RRG member
councils. Both TMRFN and FDIT were identified by respondents as
funding authorities because they provided road funding at the State or
Federal government levels. For example, eight (8) respondents
(Interviews, 27 November 2009 a and b, 03, 10 and 11 December
2009, 19 February 2010 and 16 and 24 March 2010) described TMRFN
as a stakeholder because of their role as a funding body. The role of
TMFRN as a funding provider was also confirmed in the institutional
arrangements framing RRG activities (Local Government Association
of Queensland Ltd and Queensland Government, 2011).
Unlike other transport management stakeholders, RAPT did not have a
direct funding role, rather the group operated as a conduit between the
FNQRRG and Roads Alliance Board. However, seven (7) respondents
(Interviews, 27 November 2009 a and b, 03 and 10 December 2009, 19
February 2010, 16 and 24 March 2010) indicated that RAPT was a
- 120-
stakeholder because of their ability to influence the level of TIDS
funding made available to the RRG. The following comment by a
senior engineer summed up the situation, “they [RAPT] control the
money” (Interview, 27 November 2009). Another respondent elaborated
on how RAPT influenced funding levels, indicating that “RAPT was the
mechanism through which [RRG] projects get approved [by the Roads
Alliance Board]” (Interview, 19 February 2010).
At Local government level, RRG member councils were also identified
as stakeholders. As key decision makers alongside TMRFN, member
councils also contributed to the resource flows within the RRG (Local
Government Association of Queensland Ltd and Queensland
Government, 2011). Confirmed in the Operating Guidelines for RRG’s
(Local Government Association of Queensland Ltd and Queensland
Government, 2011), regional councils were expected to match State
Government TIDS funding allocations on a dollar for dollar basis.
Commenting on the significant role of council funding to the RRG, one
respondent noted that while the RRG “is an alliance, councils are
contributing the other 50% of the funds” (Interview, 10 December 2009).
Furthermore, FDIT was identified as a stakeholder because regional
councils could apply for Federal government road funding through two
(2) programs managed by FDIT: AusLink (Interview, 24 March 2010)
and Roads to Recovery (Interview, 16 March 2010). To sum up, access
to funds was a common factor in the identification of transport
management stakeholders by respondents.
Economic and Regional Development Stakeholders
Advance Cairns, a not–for-profit group which lobbied on economic
development issues throughout Far North Queensland, was nominated
by respondents as a stakeholder (Interviews, 27 November 2009 and
18 February 2010). However, an engineering respondent from FNQ
Technical speculated that the relationship between Advance Cairns and
network did not “seem to be that strong” (Interview, 27 November
2009). In contrast a respondent from FNQ Political who was “a
- 121-
member of the Advance Cairns Board” (Interview, 18 February 2010),
indicated that there was a much stronger relationship at the governance
network level. This differentiation indicated that stakeholder
relationships were not necessarily of the same priority at different levels
of the RRG.
Environmental Management Stakeholders
Three (3) environmental management stakeholders represented 15% of
the stakeholder group and included Federal and State government
environmental regulatory bodies: WTMA and DERM. Discussing
WTMA, two (2) respondents in particular were identified as having
differing degrees of contact with the agency. While a political
respondent identified that “we [FNQ RRG] haven’t had much to do with
them [WTMA]”, an engineering respondent recounted a situation in
which a member council had more intense contact with WTMA, having
been fined by them for illegally “clearing in a road reserve” (Interview,
15 December 2010). DERM was also identified as a stakeholder in the
context of their regulatory role. Two (2) key respondents identified that
the strong regulatory stance taken by DERM had impeded road
maintenance on Cape York Peninsula (Interviews, 24 March 2010 a
and b). In summary, there was recognition by some respondents that
WTMA and DERM were stakeholders by virtue of their role as
environmental regulators in Far North Queensland.
Another environmental regulatory stakeholder, the Fisheries
Queensland Division of DEEDI was considered by one respondent to
be “very important, because you can’t do anything in a river without
them” (Interview, 03 December 2009). This view was not shared among
RRG members as the contact with DEEDI was related to a specific
member council road project. Thus the relationship with DEEDI was
inactive at the time of the study.
- 122-
Industry Groups
The Heavy Transport Operators were also nominated as a stakeholder.
Explaining the rationale for their identification, a member council
respondent indicated that “all the cane on the Tablelands is transported
by truck” (Interview, 10 December 2009). A political respondent also
confirmed the status of Heavy Transport Operators as a stakeholder
group, because of the frequent lobbying they undertook with Councils.
(Interview, 10 December 2009). These views were not shared by
remaining respondents indicating that the Heavy Transport Operators
were of peripheral interest to the RRG.
Emergency Management Stakeholders
Three (3) state government agencies: QPS, QAS, and QES were
identified as stakeholders due to their role as emergency service first
responders (Interview, 06 March and 27 May 2010). However, the data
shows that there was no current relationship with QPS, QAS, or QES at
network level. As an example, one (1) respondent suggested that
contact with police and emergency services agencies would be
undertaken by individual regional councils as emergencies arose
(Interview, 27 May 2010). Supporting this assertion, another
respondent noted that “we deal with police but not heavily” (Interview,
06 March 2010). In both of these instances, the RRG had no direct
contact with the three (3) emergency management organisations, these
relationships being inactive.
Elected Representatives
Four (4) Federal and State elected representatives were also identified
as stakeholders. An RRG Political respondent identified that a state
elected representative (MQP21) acted ‘as a conduit [to government]”
(Interview, 08 March 2011) and was thus a stakeholder. MQP21 was
seen to be connected to the RRG through their role in brokering a
solution to a dispute between DERM and Cook SC and not at network
level. The remaining elected representatives (MQP4, MQP11 and
MAP1) were also identified as stakeholders; however there was no
- 123-
evidence of a relationship either at RRG or member organisation level.
Thus relationships between the RRG and the elected representatives
were inactive; the RRG lacking the impetus to involve them in RRG
activities.
To sum up, respondents identified a number (20) of stakeholders of
relevance to the FNQ RRG indicating that there was a level of
awareness of stakeholders both within the network and beyond the
network boundary. Despite the number of stakeholder groups identified,
RRG stakeholders were primarily drawn from State, Federal and Local
governments with transport management and environmental
management as their major focus. The focus on inter-governmental
groups as stakeholders meant that the diverse perspectives of wider
community and business groups such as contractors, property owners,
road users and citizens were overlooked. These omissions may be
explained, in part, by the network’s primary function which was to
manage a funding program rather than to undertaking projects. The
next section examines the salience of RRG stakeholders through an
analysis of respondents’ attributions of power, legitimacy, temporality
and criticality to each stakeholder.
SALIENCE OF STAKEHOLDERS
As discussed in the literature review, the salience of stakeholders is
derived from combinations of power, legitimacy, temporality and
criticality. Accordingly, respondents rated the following stakeholders for
salience: TMRFN, the six (6) member councils, RAPT, WTMA, Advance
Cairns, DERM, FDIT, Heavy Transport Operators and MQP 21. Based
on the ratings of the respondent group overall, stakeholders were
among four (4) stakeholder types: Deliberative , Dangerous, Dominant,
and Demanding. Respondents declined to rate the salience of the
remaining stakeholders: MQP4, MQP1, DEEDI, QES, QPS, QAS, MAP,
citing that relationships with these stakeholders were inactive. Table 5.3
contains a tabular summary of the combinations of power, and
legitimacy, temporality and criticality attributed to various stakeholders
- 124-
and the subsequent stakeholder Types that these combinations
represented.
Table 5.3 FNQ RRG Stakeholders Classified by Salience Variables and Resultant
Stakeholder Types
Legend: * symbol=attribute present. Grey shaded cell=attribute not present.
From Table 5.3 it has been calculated that, excluding Non-stakeholders,
(those stakeholders with whom the RRG reported having no contact)
43% of stakeholders were Deliberative Type with the majority of these
stakeholders (70%) being governance network members. The
remaining stakeholders were distributed among three (3) Types:
Dangerous (6%), Demanding (12%) and Dominant (6%). Furthermore
Table 5.3 shows that power, legitimacy and criticality were the dominant
attributes among the stakeholder group. However, temporality was only
perceived to be present in the case of two (2) stakeholder types:
Dangerous and Demanding. The next sections explain in detail the
different stakeholder Types that were identified from various
combinations of power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality and the
Del
iber
ativ
e
Del
iber
ativ
e
Del
iber
ativ
e
Del
iber
ativ
e
Del
iber
ativ
e
Del
iber
ativ
e
Del
iber
ativ
e
Del
iber
ativ
e
Del
iber
ativ
e
- 125-
factors which influenced these attributions. The next section begins by
discussing Deliberative Type stakeholders.
Deliberative Type Stakeholders 1
A significant proportion (64%) of FNQ RRG stakeholders were
classified as Deliberative: TMRFN, the five (5) member councils, RAPT
and MQP21. Excluding MQP21, the respondent group rated the
salience of stakeholders in their context as core network participants.
MQP21 was rated as a stakeholder of a member council rather than the
RRG collectively. The next sections examine how stakeholder salience
was constructed in the case of Deliberative Type stakeholders
beginning with the attribute of power.
Power
From the data collected, it was identified that Deliberative Type
stakeholders had three (3) types of power: coercive, utilitarian and
normative, indicating that power was balanced within the network. For
TMRFN and member councils, their power was linked to their capacity
to control resource flows through the RRG Regional Works Program
and their status as governance network members. For example, the
extent to which TMRFN had utilitarian power and how this could be
used coercively to interrupt resources flows was explained by a
respondent in this way,
“the RRG only exists because we’ve got some funding
that has been agreed to be funded effectively from the
Department of Transport and Main Roads budget, so at
the end of the day no roads alliance, no funding, therefore
the RRG ceases to exist” (Interview, 27 November, 2009).
1 To assist the reader, diagrams are provided to indicate the existence of salience attributes
for each stakeholder type. Grey shading in the diagrams indicates the presence of a variable.
Salience
Attributes Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
- 126-
Confirming this statement, another respondent commented that TMRFN
had the coercive power to “completely derail the RRG [through
withdrawal of resources]” (Interview, 24 March 2010).
Respondents observed that member councils also had power through
their contribution to resource flows to the RRG. This was made
apparent by the following comment by an engineering respondent
which indicated that member councils each provided “50/50 funding for
projects” (Interview, 16 March 2010) demonstrating the extent of their
investment in the network and potential to collectively apply their
utilitarian power. Since there was no evidence that TMRFN or the
member councils used their power to interrupt resource flows, it can be
assumed that their power was latent rather than enacted and was not
used coercively. Supporting this position, a respondent in a leadership
position indicated that power remained latent because the RRG did “not
want to jeopardise long term relationships built up over the life of the
RRG” (Interview, 09 January 2012). Thus respondents indicated that
the existence of long term relationship within the network mitigated the
need to use power to achieve objectives.
RAPT was also considered by respondents to have utilitarian power
derived from their reporting relationship with the Roads Alliance Board,
which was described by a network manager as “the finance company”
for the RRG (Interview, 27 May 2010). Supporting the connection
between the influence of RAPT and access to resources, an
engineering respondent contended that “the money provides great
influence” (Interview, 27 November 2009). There was no evidence to
suggest that network members used coercion to achieve outcomes
suggesting that their power remained latent.
RAPT was identifiable as the pipeline through which resources flowed
between the Roads Alliance Board and the FNQ RRG indicating that
RAPT held utilitarian power. Respondents also attributed utilitarian
- 127-
power to MQP21, another Deliberative Type stakeholder. Rather than
deriving power from financial resources, MQP21 was seen by
respondents to supply political influence through advocacy to
government on behalf of an RRG member organisation (Interviews, 18
February 2010 and 24 March 2010 a and b). Confirming a link, a
respondent from FNQ suggested that MQP21 though their “capacity as
a member of parliament” (Interview, 24 March 2010) could influence the
flow of information to state government agencies.
The preceding discussion indicated that continuing access to
resources, particularly funds, was an important issue in attributing
power to Deliberative Type stakeholders. Therefore, interactions
between Deliberative Type stakeholders who were core network
participants were influenced by utilitarian power and the potential loss
of TIDS funding. Although the use of coercive power through
withdrawal of resources was raised as an issue for the network,
resource flows were not interrupted over the long life of the RRG
suggesting that such a threat was more symbolic than actual.
Therefore, it is suggested that FNQ RRG operates in the shadow of
hierarchy such that power exists in network but remains latent enacted
because objectives are realised through relationships rather than force
(Scharpf, 1994).
Legitimacy
The group of Deliberative Type stakeholders had both power and
legitimate claims and while they were seen to convey the importance of
these claims to the RRG, such claims lacked a temporal element.
Furthermore, the claims of all stakeholders in this group were noted as
having pragmatic legitimacy indicating the existence of a high level of
self-interest. The majority (88%) of claims were considered to have
moral legitimacy and thus accepted because they were in keeping with
RRG norms. Only 13% of Deliberative Type stakeholders were
considered to have cognitively legitimate claims indicating that
acceptance of such claims by the RRG was not taken for granted.
- 128-
Three (3) respondents elaborated on the question of legitimacy
indicating that the claims made by TMRFN held pragmatic legitimacy
because of the group’s role in managing the reimbursement of TIDS
funding from DTMR. One respondent described how such legitimacy
was conferred, “they [TMRFN] are the overarching body over the top [of
the RRG]” (Interview, 10 December 2009) with responsibility for co-
ordinating access to funds. Thus it can be seen that TMRFN had a lead
role in managing distribution of funds among governance network
members and this contributed to the perceived legitimacy of TMRFN’s
claims. Discussing the legitimacy of member councils’ claims, a political
respondent proposed that legitimacy was linked to the RRG’s operating
rules indicating that irrespective of the relative size or power of member
councils, “you only get one vote at the table, so you have a moderating
effect on the other councils” (Interview, 24 March 2010). Therefore, the
institutional arrangements under which the RRG appeared to underpin
the legitimacy of claims made by member councils.
The legitimacy of RAPT’s claims was linked to their long-standing and
continuous relationship with the FNQ RRG. A managerial respondent
indicated that such legitimacy was based on “the trust” between RAPT
and the RRG (Interview, 26 August 2010). According to an engineering
respondent, the legitimacy of RAPT’s claims had a moral basis in that
“[RAPT] have got our common goals, common good in mind” (Interview,
24 March 2010). RAPT’s claims were further legitimised by their
institutional role of information broker on behalf of the Roads Alliance
Board (Interview, 15 December 2010).
In the case of MQP21, the legitimacy of claims was determined in the
context of a dispute between DERM and Cook SC about access to
gravel from an existing gravel pit located in a State National Park
(Interviews, 10 December 2009, 24 March 2010 and 15 December
2010). However, the dispute was specific to a member council rather
than a collective problem for the RRG and did not spill over into the
- 129-
governance network environment. Within this context, two (2)
respondents from the same member council indicated that MQP21
used pragmatic legitimacy derived from being an elected representative
by interceding with government to resolve the gravel extraction issue.
However this view was not widely raised by respondents as the dispute
was at member council level and only peripherally involved the RRG.
Temporality
In considering the temporality of stakeholders’ claims, several
respondents highlighted the importance of timeframes. In considering
whether or not TMRFN made time sensitive claims, a key respondent
suggested that “our Road Alliance, it is very much a partnership type
basis, they [TMRFN] don’t come to us and say you have to do this”
(Interview, 24 March 2010). A similar theme emerged with RAPT, with
an engineering respondent commenting that “they [RAPT] give us
realistic timeframes, and it is more of a discussion [than a direction]”
(Interview, 24 March 2010). Another engineering respondent confirmed
that RAPT did not make time sensitive claims, stating that there was
“No pressure … as this group [RAPT] is more of an advisory group”
(Interview, 16 March 2010). In the case of MQP21, a respondent
indicated that this stakeholder had “not ever come up demanding, it is
always driven by a good relationship” (Interview, 24 March 2010). Thus
the identification of clear timeframes and a relational approach seemed
to underlie the absence of temporality in Deliberative Type
stakeholders’ claims.
Criticality
Member councils and TMRFN were perceived by respondents as
conveying the critical nature of their claims to the RRG; however,
criticality was expressed within the collective process of negotiation
rather than as a demand. Such processes were characterised as
establishing “what track we want to go and how are we going to get
there” (Interview, 24 March 2010), indicating adherence to the norm of
mutual co-operation by RRG members. In discussing the criticality of
- 130-
claims made by RAPT, an engineering respondent noted that “they
explain the position rather than make demands” (Interview, 24 March
2010). Another respondent went further stating that “They [RAPT] put
their advice forward with fairly strong backing usually” (Interview, 16
March 2010). Commenting on the criticality of MQP’s claims, a council
respondent firmly stated that “if they are trying to get something, they
put their case forward” (Interview, 24 March 2010). In summary, it can
be seen that these Deliberative Type stakeholders indicated that their
claims were important but that time demands were made within
institutional timeframes and moderated by relational elements such as
trust.
Dangerous Type Stakeholders
Peripheral to the core network, DERM, was the sole Dangerous Type
stakeholder identified from respondents’ ratings. As such, DERM was
perceived have power, push to have their claims attended to
immediately and also stress the criticality of those claims. However
such claims were perceived to lack legitimacy.
Power and Legitimacy
DERM was considered to have three (3) types of power: coercive,
utilitarian and normative. Indicating the presence of coercive power,
DERM was seen to wield power through what was described by one
respondent as a “legislative big stick” (Interview, 04 June 2010).
Another respondent speculated about how DERM could use its
utilitarian power, “if you [RRG member] don’t get the environmental
approvals you can’t go ahead with the project” (Interview, 24 March
2010). Using coercive and utilitarian power together to withhold
environmental approvals, DERM’s actions could have potentially
impeded the completion of the Regional Works Program because funds
were unable to be expended. However his situation was not reported to
have occurred.
Salience Attibutes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
- 131-
Implying a lack of legitimacy, one respondent commented that DERM
“has been trying to exact revenge against us [a member council]”
(Interview, 15 December 2010) during the conflict about gravel
extraction. However other respondents did not share this view which
may be due to the fact that the conflict did not directly concern the
RRG. In the case of DERM, legitimacy was constructed in relation to a
specific situation involving an RRG member council and not the
governance network itself.
Temporality and Criticality
DERM was seen to convey the time sensitivity of their claims and also
stress their criticality. An engineering respondent indicated that DERM
“strongly pursued” their claims with immediacy and criticality (Interview,
24 March 2010). An FNQ Political respondent confirmed that “the local
government and DERM interface suffered” (Interview, 08 March 2011)
because of the forceful way in which DERM pursued its claims
regarding the Cape York gravel extraction conflict. Moreover, by making
claims in this manner, DERM was seen to have escalated the conflict
by withholding a permit for gravel extraction. The result was described
by a key respondent who stated that “we have got ourselves fully
entrenched on both sides and just fighting a war of attrition” (Interview,
15 December 2010). Thus temporality and criticality seemed to be
prominent factors in this contentious stakeholder relationship.
Demanding Type Stakeholders
The sole Demanding Type stakeholder who was also peripheral to the
governance network, the Heavy Transport Operators, were perceived
by respondents to lack power or to have legitimate claims. They were
however, considered to make time sensitive demands and transmit their
criticality to RRG member organisation which dealt with them. The next
sections examine how stakeholder salience was socially constructed in
the case of a Demanding Type stakeholder.
Salience Atrtributes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
- 132-
Power, Legitimacy, Temporality and Criticality
Discussing power, a managerial respondent stated that “they [Heavy
Transport Operators] don’t support us [the RRG]” (Interview, 27
November 2009) and therefore had no power in the RRG context. This
perceived linkage between stakeholder support and power is in keeping
with the finding by Olander and Landin (2005) that stakeholder power
and support were connected in the context of construction projects.
Illustrating the demands Heavy Transport Operators made, an
engineering respondent described a situation where transport
companies
“were pushing pretty hard . . . to get a particular road
upgraded under this program and there was an
expectation there that it would be fixed as quickly as
possible” (Interview, 15 April 2010).
This comment indicated the existence of both temporality and criticality
of claims. The demanding nature of the claims made by Heavy
Transport Operators could be in part explained by the time-critical
nature of freight movements around Far North Queensland.
Dominant Type Stakeholders
Peripheral to the network, the sole Dominant Type stakeholder, WTMA
was seen by respondents to be powerful and their claims were
considered to have legitimacy. However WTMA neither pressed to have
their claims attended to immediately nor pushed the importance of
those claims. Respondents rated WTMA in the context that they were
the authorising body which controlled the issue of permits that were
essential for remedial works to proceed on the Bloomfield Track. The
next section illustrates how salience was constructed for a Dominant
Type stakeholder.
Salience Atrtributes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
- 133-
Power, Legitimacy, Temporality and Criticality
Respondents’ perceptions that WTMA had utilitarian power and
pragmatic legitimacy could be explained by the agency’s role in
enforcing the provisions of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection
and Management Act 1993. As a result of this legislative base, WTMA
has the power to postpone or veto road projects on environmental
grounds. For example, according to documentation dated February
2012 (Far North Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils,
2012b) FNQ RRG continued to be involved negotiations with WTMA to
obtain permits to undertake ongoing maintenance and future
development of the Bloomfield Road. These negotiations had been
underway since mid-2011.
The absence of pressure through making time sensitive claims or
pressing the importance of such claims can be partially explained by
the explicit time frames and processes for issuing permits. Apart from
instituting a High Court challenge, there was no opportunity for
negotiation outside of the legislative timeframes. While imbuing WTMA
with significant power, these institutional arrangements also partially
explain the lack of pressure in claims made by WTMA.
Dormant Type Stakeholders
Identified as Dormant Type stakeholders, Advance Cairns and FDIT,
also peripheral to the network, were perceived as having power but
none of the other salience attributes. Neither of these stakeholders
was considered to have a direct link to the FNQ RRG, rather they were
stakeholders at member organisation level. The next section explores
how respondents interpreted the salience of Dormant Type
stakeholders.
Power, Legitimacy, Temporality and Criticality
In the role of stimulating regional and economic development in the Far
North Queensland, Advance Cairns advocated for the development of
regional infrastructure (Advance Cairns, n/d) including roads. From the
Salience
Attributes Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
- 134-
data analysis, it was concluded that Advance Cairns was considered to
have utilitarian power that could be used to influence resource flows.
However there was no evidence that Advance Cairns used this power
in respect of the RRG. Furthermore it was not apparent that Advance
Cairns made any claims at all on the RRG despite the fact that an RRG
member was a member of the Advance Cairns Board. Thus Advance
Cairns was a Dormant Type stakeholder.
Respondents indicated that FDIT was in possession of normative
power, which could be used to influence the reputation of the RRG,
however this power was not enacted. In discussing FDIT, a political
respondent noted that “I’ve never seen them there [at the RRG
meetings]” (Interview, 11 December 2009) but also acknowledged that
FDIT as powerful because “of their money” (Interview, 11 December
2009). Another respondent identified that FDIT provided access to
funds through “AusLink and programs like that” (Interview, 24 March
2010). This connection further supported a link between resources and
perceived power of stakeholders. However, respondents did not report
FDIT as having made any claims and thus they were perceived to lack
temporality and criticality as would be expected for a Dormant Type
stakeholder.
Non-Stakeholders
As previously stated, none of the respondents rated the salience of the
following group of stakeholders: MQP4, MQP1, DEEDI, QES, QPS,
QAS and MAP1, citing that they had no interactions with these
stakeholders about RRG matters. The following comments typified the
responses of interviewees: “we deal with them [emergency services
agencies] but not in the RRG” (Interview, 16 March 2010) and “I don’t
deal with them [MQP4 and MAP1]” (Interview, 24 March 2010). As such
it is could be inferred that they that had none of the salience attributes
and were therefore Non-stakeholders in accordance with Mitchell et al.
(1997). The identification of these Non-stakeholders indicated that the
RRG was aware of stakeholders outside of the network. However this
Salience Atrtributes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
- 135-
awareness did not translate into interactions with the governance
network, the RRG having no articulated strategy for bringing these
stakeholders into the network.
FACTORS IMPACTING ON POWER, LEGITIMACY, TEMPORALITY AND
CRITICALITY
Drawing together analyses undertaken for the FNQ RRG case, three
(3) major factors were found to impact on attributions of power,
legitimacy, temporality and criticality: access to resources, institutional
arrangements and relationships. Table 5.4 shows the occurrence of
these factors by stakeholder Type and for each salience attribute.
- 136-
Table 5.4 FNQ RRG Summary of Factors which Impacted on Attributions of Power, Legitimacy, Temporality and Criticality
Legend: symbol = issue found to exist, Grey shaded cell = issue not found to exist.
Stakeholders Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
Stakeholder Stakeholder type
Resources Institutional arrangements
Relationships Resources Institutional arrangements
Relationships Institutional arrangements
Relationships Institutional arrangements
Relationships
CO
RE
NE
TW
OR
KS
TA
KE
HO
LDE
RS
Transport and Main Roads, Far North
Deliberative
* * * *
*
*
*
Cairns Regional Council Deliberative
* *
* Cook Shire Council Deliberative
* *
* Cassowary Coast Regional
Council Deliberative
* *
* Tablelands Regional Council Deliberative
* *
* Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire
Council Deliberative
* *
* Roads Alliance Project Team Deliberative
* *
*
*
*
PE
RIP
HE
RA
L N
ET
WO
RK
ST
AK
EH
OLD
ER
S
Member of Queensland Parliament 21
Deliberative
*
*
*
Federal Department of Infrastructure and Transport
Dormant
* Advance Cairns
Dormant
* Wet Tropics Management
Authority Dominant
*
* *
*
Department of Environment and Resource Management
Dangerous
*
*
*
Heavy Transport Operators
Demanding *
- 137-
From the data presented in Table 5.4, it can be seen that across the
case, access to resources was a significant issue in attributions of
power and legitimacy particularly for core network stakeholders and is
most notably related to power. More specifically, when individual
network members were negotiating project priorities and a share of the
TIDS funding, power and legitimacy came to the fore. The institutional
arrangements under which FNQ RRG governance network operated
also impacted on attributions of salience and in particular on the
attribute of power. Relationships were also a key factor but were spread
relatively evenly across the four (4) salience attributes.
Institutional arrangements set down by the Roads Alliance Board,
established the core and peripheral roles that were attributed to
different stakeholder groupings and provided a framework for
determining which stakeholders i.e. network members had a legitimate
role in network decision making. These findings can be linked back to
the context in which the network functioned: it coalesced around a
source of funds and operated within formal bureaucratic institutional
arrangements. For the remaining stakeholders who were peripheral to
the governance network, relationships were the major driver of
attributions of salience rather than resources or institutional
arrangements.
Furthermore, temporality and criticality had a contingent element and
were made in the context of a specific issue: the Regional Works
Program. As such, the cyclical development of the Regional Works
Program was a key driver of the FNQ RRG governance network and
salience of internal stakeholders was formed within this context. To sum
up, the core-periphery delineation of network boundaries impact on the
emphasis given to each of the three factors that impacted on
stakeholder salience. The next section elaborates on how stakeholders
were engaged by the FNQ RRG beginning with a description of the
approach taken.
- 138-
ENGAGEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS
Approach
From the analysis, it could be seen that FNQ RRG’s approach to
stakeholder engagement was focused mainly on core network
stakeholders. Furthermore, the analysis also indicated that the
designated network managers played a role in stakeholder engagement
particularly within FNQ Technical. The strategy for internal stakeholder
engagement within the network was primarily derived from the
network’s communication strategy, (FNQROC, 2010) “which covers
stakeholder engagement between councils” (Interview, 15 March 2011).
This strategy established the framework for internal communication
within the FNQ RRG. However, these network rules did not articulate
how deeper levels of engagement would be developed and sustained
within the network. The principal strategy in use for internal
engagement within the core network was regularly scheduled network
meetings as required by the Roads Alliance operating procedures
(Local Government Association of Queensland Ltd and Queensland
Government, 2011). Separate meetings were conducted for FNQ
Political and FNQ Technical.
To ensure co-ordination between the activities of the two (2) groups, the
two (2) network managers and the leader of FNQ Technical participated
in both fora. A respondent in a leadership position confirmed this
interpretation, indicating that such “cross linkages really helped” the
RRG to function more effectively as a collective body (Interview, 18
February 2010). However such meetings were effectively closed to
external influences.
As a result of the institutional arrangements in place, there was a
degree of formality and organisation of engagement within the network.
However, FNQ RRG had no agreed approach to engagement with
stakeholders who were beyond network boundaries and therefore,
- 139-
decisions were primarily based on recommendations made by technical
experts, to the exclusion of broader representative groups and
individuals who may have been affected by the roads in the region. This
situation was confirmed by a managerial respondent who indicated that
the RRG did “not have an engagement strategy for externals”
(Interview, 15 March 2011).
To sum up, the collective development of external stakeholder
relationships was not seen to be an activity of the FNQ RRG.
Therefore, decisions made by the network did not incorporate the
perspectives of external stakeholders as a means of improving road
service delivery in the region. The next section looks more specifically
at stakeholder engagement beginning with frequency and type of
stakeholder engagement processes implemented.
Frequency and Types of Stakeholder Engagement Processes
The FNQ RRG and its members undertook or participated in a range of
engagement activities which occurred at different frequencies. Table
5.5 sets out these combinations of activities undertaken with
stakeholders. For ease of understanding, the data in Table 5.5 is
framed around the stakeholder types identified: Deliberative ,
Dangerous, Demanding, Dominant and Dormant.
Table 5.5 FNQ RRG Snapshot of Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder Stakeholder Type Combinations of Engagement Engagement Frequency and Process
Cairns Regional Council Deliberative Low frequency, multi-way stakeholder
processes
Cassowary Coast Regional
Council
Deliberative Low frequency, multi-way stakeholder
processes
Cook Shire Council Deliberative Low frequency, multi-way stakeholder
processes
Tablelands Regional Council
Regional Council
Deliberative Low frequency, multi-way stakeholder
processes
Transport and Main Roads Far
North
Deliberative Low frequency, multi-way stakeholder
processes
Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire
Council
Deliberative Low frequency, multi-way stakeholder
processes
- 140-
Stakeholder Stakeholder Type Combinations of Engagement Engagement Frequency and Process
Roads Alliance Project Team Deliberative Low frequency, multi-way stakeholder
processes
Advance Cairns Dormant Moderate frequency, multi-way
stakeholder processes
Member of the Queensland
Parliament 21
Deliberative Low frequency, two-way dialogue
processes
Federal Department of
Infrastructure and Transport
Dormant Moderate frequency, one-way
communication processes
Department of Environment and
Resource Management
Dangerous High frequency, two-way stakeholder
processes
Heavy Transport Operators Demanding Moderate frequency, two-way
exchange processes
Wet Tropics Management
Authority
Dominant Low frequency, two-way exchange
processes
The analysis in Table 5.5 demonstrates that there were relatively few
engagement processes used by the FNQ RRG. It is interesting to note
that multi-way stakeholder processes were most commonly used (77%
of cases) and that the majority of stakeholders (69%) were engaged
with low frequency. The implications of the findings drawn from Table
5.5 are discussed in the next sections which examine the connections
between the frequency and processes of engagement of each
stakeholder type to understand the factors which impact on stakeholder
engagement. The discussion begins by examining engagement with
Deliberative Type stakeholders.
Engagement of Stakeholder Types
Deliberative Type Stakeholders
The majority of Deliberative stakeholders Cairns RC, Tablelands RC
and Cassowary Coast RC, Cook SC, Wujal Wujal ASC, TMRFN and
RAPT were engaged through multi-way processes, in particular,
governance network meetings which occurred at low frequency
intervals. A respondent in a leadership position confirmed that the
regularity of FNQ Political and FNQ Technical meetings was a factor in
the success of the RRG (Interview, 18 February 2010). The scheduling
of meetings was seen to facilitate network efficiency because it allowed
Salience Attributes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
- 141-
both network managers and the engineers sufficient time to undertake
network related activities, particularly those related to management of
the Works Program (Interviews, 18 February 2010 a and b).
Moving beyond the basic terms of engagement established by the RRG
Constitution (Main Roads and Local Government Roads Alliance,
2010), stakeholder engagement through coalition building was evident
among Deliberative Type stakeholders: TMRFN and the member
councils. In particular, coalition building focused on development and
implementation of the Regional Works Program which was a unifying
task for the network. Confirming this connectivity one respondent
suggested that “[the Works Program] binds us [the RRG] all in together”
(Interview, 04 June 2010). Also indicating connectivity, another
respondent suggested that the purpose of collectively developing the
Regional Works Program was to ensure that “we get our share [of
funds] for the region” (Interview 25 May 2010).
Six (6) respondents confirmed that funding was a major driver of RRG
(Interviews, 18 February a and b, 19 February, 24 March, 15 April and
04 June 2010) and as such the RRG members coalesced tightly around
the development of the Regional Works Program, the mechanism for
obtaining RRG funding. A feature of engagement within the network
was monitoring of network member involvement during the
development of the Regional Works Program and at the final stage
when TIDS funds are claimed back from DTMR. In both of these
situations, a network manager took a key role which this respondent
described as “chasing them [network members] for information about
projects” (Interview, 18 February 2010). Another respondent
elaborated on how participation in network activities was checked, “[the
network manager] says listen blokes, there is a meeting next week and
I’m still waiting on information, you better get on to it… that [monitoring]
keeps us on track” (Interview, 15 April 2010).
- 142-
Achievement of collective network outcomes was also a focal point for
internal stakeholder engagement. Two (2) respondents (Interviews, 18
February 2 and 04 June 2010) described joint creation of the Regional
Development Manual as another task around which network members
coalesced. A managerial respondent elaborated on how creation of the
Development Manual cemented relationships within the RRG in that
“ All the engineers worked together for three years on the
Development Manual so there was trust built up there,
and there has been a lot of time together since”
(Interview, 18 February, 2010).
As such, network members collectively devoted a significant amount of
time and effort in the achievement of an important network outcome.
A further example of joint engagement was the Alternative Business
Models Project through which the RRG collectively investigated new
ways in which the network might be governed (Interviews, 18 February
a and b, 19 February and 24 March 2010). This project involved an
external review of the RRG’s operating structure and processes so as
to improve “the FNQ RRG’s strategic business approach, capability and
stewardship responsibilities” (LGIS, 2010, p. 1). FNQ Technical and
FNQ Political actively deliberated about the implementation of a new
operating approach over several months in 2010, and collectively
decided to implement joint purchasing arrangements (The Roads
Alliance, 2010b). As a result, the network, through its member
organisations, was able to leverage its collective resources to achieve
cost savings through economies of scale (Far North Queensland
Regional Organisation of Councils, 2011b).
Another Deliberative Type stakeholder, RAPT, also participated in
governance networks meetings and activities. However, the RRG
institutional arrangements, in particular the Constitution (Main Roads
and Local Government Roads Alliance, 2010), dictated the level of
- 143-
engagement with RAPT. There was a substantive difference between
RAPT and core network members in that RAPT was classified as an
observer and not formally involved in network decision making. Despite
not having a direct decision making role in the governance network,
RAPT had significant influence within the RRG. The source of this
influence derived from RAPT’s ability to tap into the power of the Roads
Alliance Board by being the “mechanism through which projects get
approved” by the Board (Interview, 19 February 2010). Through their
role as a conduit to the Board, RAPT was seen to “control the [TIDS]
money” (Interview, 27 November 2009) upon which the RRG was
reliant to deliver the Works Program.
Furthermore, financial benefits were gained by the RRG through
engaging with RAPT. For example, RAPT was instrumental in obtaining
$63,000 from Roads Alliance Funds for a Regional Procurement Officer
to assist in implementing joint purchasing arrangements for the network
(LGIS, 2010). Thus the RRG leveraged its relationship with RAPT to
bring resources into the network which flowed back to RRG members
through reduced costs of road materials.
Four (4) respondents (Interviews, 18 February a and b, 24 March and
15 April 2010) indicated that interpersonal relationships also played a
role in engagement with RAPT. A managerial respondent summed up
the relational connection in this way:
“We have a good relationship with them [RAPT members]
so it makes it that much enjoyable when they come up
because we know them and we get on well with them,
whereas if they were different…, we probably wouldn’t be
as engaging with them as we are” (Interview, 18 February
2010).
Another respondent identified that engagement with RAPT had a
relational basis indicating that “RAPT have been nothing but helpful for
- 144-
us…we are working towards a common goal” (Interview, 15 December
2010). To sum up, three (3) key drivers: institutional arrangements,
access to resources and relationships influenced levels of engagement
with RAPT.
Although RAPT did not have membership status within the RRG, there
was some evidence of coalition building by the RRG. A managerial
respondent explained how coalitions with RAPT developed:
“we work with them [RAPT] on new initiatives that either
will or could lead to improving the way that we all deliver
the roads business for communities” (Interview, 18
February 2010).
Supporting this view, a respondent in a leadership position
described an instance of coalition building,
“We [RRG] had a beaut meeting last night in terms of
business models for our regional roads group and those
guys [RAPT] were represented and very much pragmatic
input and using everybody’s ideas to put it altogether”
(Interview, 24 March 2010).
Since other respondents did not provide supporting examples of
coalition building with RAPT, this suggests that such coalition building
was not a common activity for the RRG.
Unlike other Deliberative Type stakeholders, MQP 21 was not a
participant in the FNQ RRG and was not brought into the network or
otherwise engaged by the RRG. Rather engagement with MQP21 was
undertaken by an RRG member organisation which was party to a
dispute about access to resources required to undertake roadworks on
a governance network controlled road in a national park. Two (2)
member council respondents (Interviews, 24 March and 25 May 2010)
- 145-
confirmed that MQP21 was engaged to undertake an advocacy role on
behalf of the council involved in the dispute. The engagement of
MQP21 was clearly outside of the sphere of operation of the RRG.
One of the respondents explained the engagement of MQP21 in this
way, “we [member council] said we are not getting anywhere here, we
are going to take it to a higher level and that is when we engaged
[MQP21]” (Interview, 24 March 2010) who became actively involved in
negotiating a resolution. Another respondent commented on the crucial
nature of MQP21’s role in resolving the conflict indicating that “[MQP21]
lined it all up” (Interview, 25 May 2010). The role undertaken by MQP21
was described by a respondent in this way:
“[MQP21] set up the interview [with the Director General]
and then came along with us and shouted us lunch, and
sat in with us and was supportive during that interview”
(Interview, 8 March 2011).
Thus MQP21 was actively involved in a one off multi-way dialogue
process during which a resolution was reached. In this way, MQP21’s
resources, in particular, political influence was leveraged to the
advantage of the member council involved in the dispute. As the FNQ
RRG governance network did not become involved, the benefits of
accessing stakeholder resources did not flow back to the network.
To sum up, although all Deliberative Type stakeholders were involved
in multi-way dialogue processes, there was a clear distinction between
internal engagement within the network and issues based engagement
undertaken at member organisation level. In particular there was a
distinct boundary between resource flows in the two (2) situations. At
the network level, stakeholder resources were kept within the network,
and resources made accessible through stakeholder engagement
beyond the network boundary were unable to flow into the network
because of the rigid network boundary.
- 146-
Dangerous Type Stakeholders v
Interactions with DERM, the sole Dangerous Type stakeholder,
revolved around their sustained application of legislative power within
the context of a dispute with a Cook SC about extraction of gravel from
a National Park. Negotiations with DERM to seek a resolution to the
gravel access issue extended over “three years” (Interview, 15
December 2010). Towards the end of the conflict, engagement
occurred with high frequency and involved two way exchanges and was
finally resolved through meetings between Cook RC, MQP21 and
DERM.
As earlier indicated, DERM had used its legislative power to block
permit approvals. The legislative blockage was broken in two (2) steps.
In early 2010, the Mayor used political leverage against the DERM and
the State government by issuing a threat “to close roads on Cape York”
(Interview, 24 March 2010). Directly after the issue of the threat which
had the potential to create significant inconvenience for Cape York
communities and visitors, MQP21 was brought into the situation
assisting to broker a solution. In this instance political pressure was
used to successfully break through a withholding strategy being used
by a stakeholder (Frooman, 1999) to re-establish access to resources.
No evidence could be found of positive coalition building activities
having been undertaken with DERM. While political resources were
leveraged to achieve a positive outcomes for the member council
involved, the benefit of these resources did not flow back into the
network, the RRG having decided not to become involved in breaking
the impasse (Elks, 2010) with DERM. As such, engagement with DERM
was issues based and undertaken at member organisation level and
was clearly separated from the governance network level.
Demanding Type Stakeholders
In the case of the sole Demanding Type stakeholder: Heavy Transport
Operators, stakeholder engagement specifically related to movement of
Salience Atrtributes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
Salience Attributes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
- 147-
heavy vehicles within a member council area (Interview, 16 March
2010). As such, engagement occurred at with moderate frequency and
involved two-way exchanges, primarily meetings. A political respondent
indicated that the frequency of engagement was driven “by Heavy
transport groups [lobbying councils] for cattle and freight access”
(Interview, 08 March 2011). Therefore, engagement with the Heavy
Transport Operators was council specific (Interview, 27 May 2010) and
undertaken in response to pressure from the stakeholder, again
indicating a clear separation between engagement at governance
network and member organisation level.
Dominant Type Stakeholders
Engagement with WTMA, the sole Dominant type stakeholder was
shaped by their perceived power as an environmental regulator in Far
North Queensland. As discussed previously WTMA was directly
engaged at network level about road maintenance and improvement
projects on the Bloomfield Track. From the analysis three (3) reasons
were identified for this network level involvement.
First, the Bloomfield Track crosses the boundaries of four (4) RRG
member organisations: Cairns RC, Cook SC, Wujal Wujal ASC and
TMRFN (Interview, 27 May 2010). Second, the road is under the
stewardship of the FNQ RRG and road works undertaken on the
Bloomfield Track are governed by the FNQ RRG “Statement of Intent”
(RECS Consulting Engineers, 2011, p. 3). Finally, the Bloomfield Track
is a key regional road, with well documented political sensitivities and
environmental restrictions and three (3) RRG member organisations
had waited a substantial period of time to obtain the requisite permits
from WTMA to undertake essential projects.
Taking account of this context, engagement with WTMA was long and
complex and involved a range of initiatives, primarily two-way
exchanges that occurred at infrequent intervals over several years. In
2009 the FNQ RRG began building a coalition with WTMA, inviting
Salience
Atrtributes Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
- 148-
them to participate in a one off multi-way process described by one
respondent as “our road [inspection] trip” (Interview, 18 February 2010)
from Cairns to Cooktown to inspect the Bloomfield Track. This initiative
took two (2) days to complete and involved fifteen (15) participants, the
majority of whom were members of FNQ Technical members (Field
Notes, 5 and 6 November 2009). Involving WTMA in the “road trip” was
a strategy by the RRG to help WTMA “understand the issues...[and]
where we are coming from“ (Interview, 18 February 2010), particularly
relating to the need for work on the dangerous Woobadda Creek
crossing.
As a further step in building the case for approval of roadworks to be
undertaken on the Bloomfield Track, in 2010, Cairns RC commissioned
a “Study of the Cape Tribulation-Bloomfield Road in order to identify
locations, sections and linkages which may conflict with the Regional
Road Group’s Statement of Intent for the Route and prioritise potential
Capital Works Projects” (RECS Consulting Engineers, 2011, p. 3).
Following the completion of the study, FNQ RRG became involved in
negotiations with WTMA to secure permits for the individual road
projects. A respondent in a leadership role described how the RRG took
control of negotiations with WTMA and “found out what the real story
was, and then put together a strategy to fix it” (Interview, 15 March
2011).
This strategy focused on FNQROC coordinating the development of a
second planning study involving Cairns RC and WTMA. Indicating that
there had been a deficit in community engagement in previous planning
studies, the focus of the study shifted “away from “engineering” and
more towards public consultation to determine what the community
sees as the vision” for the Bloomfield Track (Far North Queensland
Regional Organisation of Councils, 2012b, p.4). Progress on the
planning study continues to be closely monitored by the RRG (Far
North Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils, 2012a) as does
the level of participation by WTMA (Interview, 27 May 2010). By
- 149-
coordinating engagement with WTMA, the RRG has been able to
leverage resources, in particular knowledge and funds towards
achievement an important regional outcome for the RRG: roadworks on
the Bloomfield Track, specifically upgrading of the Woobadda Creek
crossing.
To sum up, the Dominant stakeholder type, WTMA was involved in
sustained engagement at network level to obtain access to specific
resources required by network members: permits for roadworks on the
Bloomfield Track. This format and intensity of engagement was not
repeated with any other stakeholders and was considered to be an
anomaly. Therefore, the separation between core and peripheral
stakeholders was maintained by the FNQ RRG.
Dormant Type Stakeholders
Engagement with the two Dormant Type stakeholders Advance Cairns
and FDIT was undertaken by network member organisations rather
than with the network as a whole. Although both stakeholders were
perceived to have power this was not enacted at either network or
member organisation level. Engagement with both Advance Cairns and
FDIT, occurred with moderate frequency, however, substantially
different processes were employed.
In the case of Advance Cairns, an RRG respondent represented the
Mayors in Far North Queensland on the Advance Cairns Board
(Interview, 27 November 2009), participating in multi-way committee
processes. In this instance, the frequency and type of engagement
were driven by the stakeholder rather than the governance network.
However there was no evidence that the resources of Advance Cairns
were leveraged for network purposes and, as a result did not flow back
into the network.
Three (3) respondents identified that engagement with FDIT was
focused on gaining access to emergency reconstruction funds from the
Salience Attributes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
- 150-
Federal Government’s Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery
Arrangements (NDRRA) (Interviews, 27 November 2009, 03 December
2009 and 27 May 2010). As NDRRA was a Federal government
program, interactions with FDIT were not seen to be relevant to the
RRG. (Interviews, 27 November 2009, 03 December 2009). As a result
any coalition building efforts by member councils and subsequent
resources garnered were not brought back into the RRG. Again,
engagement was issues based and undertaken at member organisation
level and was clearly separated from the governance network level.
From the analysis, it could be seen that that two (2) different
approaches were used by the RRG to engage with peripheral
stakeholders. First, for issues that were specific to a RRG network
member organisation, rather than the network as a whole, the RRG did
not actively intervene because such issues were generally considered
to be project oriented and not relevant to the network overall. For
example, in reference to the dispute between Cook RC and DERM an
engineering respondent explained that, “They [the RRG] don’t get
involved in on ground stuff… we manage our own internal issues”
(Interview, 14 March 2011). Similarly, the data confirmed that the RRG
did not intervene in stakeholder engagement processes undertaken by
network member organisations with peripheral stakeholders: MQP21,
FDIT and Heavy Transport Operators. On this, a managerial
respondent noted that “member councils deal with stakeholders like
heavy transport and DERM” (Interview, 15 March 2011).
To sum up, the FNQ RRG did not engage with peripheral stakeholders
whose claims related to a member organisation and not the network as
a whole. However there was one anomalous situation in which the
designated Network Managers took the lead role in engaging with
WTMA to obtain requisite permits required for three (3) RRG members
to undertake for maintenance works on the Bloomfield Track. This
complex intensely focused engagement with WTMA suggested that
where acquiring external resources is regionally important, the network
- 151-
will act on behalf of its members to secure them. However this type of
action rarely occurred. Furthermore, no evidence was found to support
A Friedman and Miles’ (2006) contention that a power based ladder of
stakeholder engagement would be in place. Although power was an
issue for core network stakeholders, the uniform nature of stakeholder
engagement activity suggested that contextual factors were likely to
influence stakeholder engagement.
Levels of Contact with Stakeholders
Drawing together the analysis presented thus far, three (3) levels of
contact with stakeholders could be identified: continuing, sporadic and
none. Figure 5.2 shows stakeholders assigned to each of the three (3)
levels. At the first level there was continuing contact between seven (7)
stakeholders. These stakeholders were core network participants and
all were Deliberative Type, having the same levels of power, legitimacy,
temporality and criticality. Furthermore, all stakeholders in this group
were engaged with low frequency as part of the same multi-way
stakeholder process. The level of involvement had been continuous
since the inception of the RRG in 2002. Therefore there was high
degree of homogeneity among stakeholders who had continuing
engagement in network processes.
- 152-
Figure 5.2 FNQ RRG Governance Network Stakeholders and Levels of Contact
At the second level of Figure 5.2 were those stakeholders, who lacked
a formal role in the RRG but with whom there was episodic contact with
network member organisations and in the case of WTMA, the network
itself. Contact with this group of stakeholders occurred at both network
and member organisation level depending on the issue that was being
addressed with the stakeholder. Five (5) stakeholder Types:
Deliberative , Dormant, Dominant, Dangerous and Demanding,
occurred within this group, indicating the heterogeneity of levels of
power, legitimacy, and temporality within the group. Furthermore, these
stakeholders were engaged through a variety of processes which
occurred at differing frequencies.
At the third level of Figure 5.2, neither the FNQ RRG nor member
organisations had contact with 35% of the identified stakeholders. For
example an engineering respondent indicated that DEEDI was “quite
important” (Interview, 03 December 2009) but later reported that there
- 153-
was no contact with this stakeholder (Interview, 25 May 2010). This
situation illustrated Mitchell et al.’s (1997, p. 859) point that potential
stakeholder relationships can be as relevant as actual relationships.
However, the following comment by managerial respondent that “I am
limited in time so to be chasing ghosts is not a good use of my time
(Interview, 08 February 2010) indicated that time constraints (Phillips,
2003a) could also be a factor in decisions not to activate particular
stakeholders.
To sum up, the network discerned between network participants and
peripheral stakeholders (Gray, 1989). Accordingly, there was limited or
no interaction between core governance network participants (Level 1)
and the two outer levels (2 and 3) of stakeholders, the RRG not
bringing those stakeholders into core decision making processes. This
stratification of stakeholders suggests that the RRG was a tightly knit
inner group which minimised external influences indicating that the
governance network operated in a closed way. The next section
discusses the factors impacting on stakeholder engagement by the
FNQ RRG.
FACTORS IMPACTING ON STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
From the data analysis, a number of factors were identified as having
an impact of stakeholder engagement. Table 5.6 contains a summary of
the processes of engagement, the frequency of their occurrence and
the factors which impacted on stakeholder engagement. For ease of
understanding, the table is structured around stakeholders and
stakeholder Types.
- 154-
Table 5.6 FNQ RRG Factors which Impacted on Stakeholder Engagement
Legend: symbol = issue found to exist, Grey shaded cell = issue not found to exist.
Stakeholder Details Stakeholder Type
Factors which Impacted on Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder Stakeholder type
Core/ peripheral role
Network established terms of engagement
Coalition building by network
Stakeholders brought into network
Network monitored changes in participation
Network leveraged stakeholders resources
Network Manager involved in engagement
Role of Network Manager in engagement
Transport and Main Roads, Far North
Deliberative Core * * * * * *
Co-ordination
Cairns Regional Council Deliberative Core * * * * * * Co-ordination
Cook Shire Council Deliberative Core * * * * * *
Co-ordination
Cassowary Coast Regional Council
Deliberative Core
* * * * * *
Co-ordination
Tablelands Regional Council
Deliberative Core * * * * * *
Co-ordination
Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire Council
Deliberative Core
* * * * * *
Co-ordination
Roads Alliance Project Team
Deliberative Core * * * * * *
Co-ordination
Member of Queensland Parliament 21
Deliberative Periphery
Federal Department of Infrastructure and Transport
Dormant Periphery
Advance Cairns Dormant Periphery
Wet Tropics Management Authority
Dominant Periphery
* *
* * *
Negotiation
Department of Environment and Resource Management
Dangerous Periphery
Heavy Transport Operators
Demanding Periphery
-155-
As can be seen from Table 5.6 there is a high degree of consistency
among core network participants in the way that they were managed by
the FNQ RRG governance network. Moreover the majority of network
participants were Deliberative Type stakeholders, suggesting that there
is a link between Deliberative Type core network stakeholders and the
way they are managed within the network setting. From Table 5.6, it
was evident that other than for WTMA, peripheral stakeholders,
irrespective of stakeholder type, engagement activities were not
managed through the network. This evidence indicates that peripheral
stakeholders were almost exclusively engaged by network member
organisations outside of network processes. The role of network
managers on stakeholder engagement is addressed in the next section.
Role of Network Managers in Stakeholder Engagement
From the data analysis, it could be seen that the FNQ RRG governance
network had members who undertook a management role in the
network and in some instances this role included stakeholder
engagement activities. The role of the designated network manager
was described by one respondent as to “Effectively oversee the
management of the RRG” (Interview, 27 November 2009). A
respondent in a leadership position pointed that in this role, the network
manager was “the major point person” for stakeholder contact at
network level (Interview, 24 March 2010).
Four (4) respondents confirmed that the network managers undertook
stakeholder engagement activities for the RRG (Interviews, 18 February
a and b, 15 April and 04 June 2010). Table 5.6 provides further
supporting evidence. The primary focus of these activities was
facilitating engagement between members of the core network. One
respondent likened this role to “doing the overall co-ordination [for the
RRG]” (Interview, 19 February 2010). Moving beyond co-ordination, in
one situation the network managers negotiated that network resources
to be reassigned assist a network member to more effectively manage
-156-
their RRG Works Program reporting activities (Interview, 18 February
2010).
Furthermore, the network managers, alongside other RRG members in
leadership roles, were instrumental in bringing Wujal Wujal ASC into
the FNQ RRG. The role was described by a Network Manager in this
way,
“Wujal Wujal need to be involved in conversations about
what is going on in their land… They are trying to lift their
knowledge, skills and expertise, I will do anything I can to
help them” (Interview, 18 February 2010).
Another respondent indicated that the RRG had established “an
important relationship with Wujal Wujal” by bringing them into the
network (Interview, 24 March 2010).
As discussed previously, the network managers played a role in
engaging with WTMA, to obtain the requisite permits required for a
number of member councils to undertake roadworks on the Bloomfield
Track. In the 2010/11 to 2014/15 FNQ RRG Works Program, funds of
$1,500,000 had been budgeted for the roadworks (Far North
Queensland Regional Road Group, 2011). Engagement with WTMA
about the Bloomfield roadworks issue was undertaken through an
ongoing negotiation process. A designated network manager
described the reason that they became involved in the negotiations,
“we [FNQ RRG] are doing a lot of work with the
Bloomfield link now and wherever there are wet tropics we
need to deal with them [WTMA] because they effectively
have veto power over our work” (Interview, 27 May 2010).
Pointing to the protracted nature of the negotiations with WTMA, in the
minutes of the RRG Meeting on 12 December 2011, the network
-157-
indicated that it was “extremely disappointed in the delay in receiving
the draft Terms of Reference from WTMA when expediency was
promised at the previous meeting” (Far North Queensland Regional
Organisation of Councils, 2011a, p. 3). This statement alludes to the
level of interest being taken in the negotiations by the network as a
whole and thus the importance of the role of the network managers in
resolving issues blocking access to key resources. Progress on the
negotiations is continuing and is closely monitored by the RRG and
Network Managers (Far North Queensland Regional Organisation of
Councils, 2012b). Moving beyond WTMA, there was no evidence that
the network managers became involved with engaging other peripheral
stakeholders on behalf of the FNQ RRG.
To sum up, there was a clear set of circumstances under which network
managers took an active role in stakeholder engagement. Where there
was a need to maintain or obtain resources to successfully deliver the
RRG Works Program, engagement was priority for network managers.
The next section takes the analysis further and identifies the links
between stakeholder salience and engagement.
LINKS BETWEEN STAKEHOLDER SALIENCE AND STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
The theoretical Framework for Stakeholder Salience and Engagement
postulated that there would be a number of links between stakeholder
Type and the frequency and processes of engagement undertaken.
Developed from the data analysis, Figure 5.3 provides an overview of
the proposed links and the empirical data for FNQ RRG. The red cells
indicate an overlap between the two.
-158-
Legend: C in red shaded cell=Core network stakeholder, P= Peripheral stakeholder;
Grey shaded cell=no stakeholders identified
Figure 5.3 FNQ RRG Links between Stakeholder Salience and Engagement
As can be seen from Figure 5.3, there was limited support for the
linkages between stakeholder salience and engagement which were
proposed in the theoretical Framework for Stakeholder Salience and
Engagement. The link between stakeholder salience and engagement
was most pronounced in the case of core network stakeholders
(Deliberative Type) who were engaged infrequently through network
meetings. At peripheral level, only one Dangerous Type stakeholder
matched the prediction of two-way communication undertaken at high
frequency.
Multi-way C. Deliberative (7) P. Dormant (1)
Two-way P. Influential (1)
P. Dominant (1) P. Demanding (1) P. Dangerous (1)
One-Way P. Dormant (1)
Low Moderate High
Multi-way Definitive
Deliberative Dominant
Two-way Demanding
Dependent2
Influential1
Dependent
Dominant1
Dominant2
Dependent1
Dangerous
One-Way
Dormant
Discretionary
Discetuonary2
Discretionary3
Low Moderate High
Frequency of engagement
Frequency of engagement
FNQ RRG Results
Type o
f P
rocess
T
ype o
f E
ng
agem
ent
Pro
ce
ss
Linkages theorised in proposed framework for
Stakeholder Salience and Engagement
-159-
This result suggests that at network level, engagement was routine and
predictable and occurred within a stable regional context and a
predetermined institutional framework that has been in place for close
to a decade. As such stakeholder needs were met through a well-
established negotiation framework which incorporated a complex mix of
regional, technical and relational factors. However a different picture of
stakeholder engagement emerged for peripheral stakeholders.
There was evidence that stakeholder engagement was undertaken by
network member organisations with individual stakeholders in response
to specific organisational. An example was the engagement between
Cook RC and DERM to obtain access to road gravel in a Cape York
National Park. Given that engagement with peripheral stakeholders
was not a collective activity by the network it rarely spilled over into the
network context. The next section summarises and draws conclusion
about the findings of this case study.
CASE SUMMARY AND PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
From the qualitative and quantitative analysis of data collected for this
case, a number of insights have emerged. A substantial number of
stakeholders were identified as of relevance to the FNQ RRG
governance network. However this did not include the broader
community. Particularly noteworthy was the omission of road users,
citizens and property owners as stakeholders who could have been
affected by or affect the outcomes of RRG projects.
Six (6) stakeholder Types were identified within the case: Deliberative,
Dangerous, Demanding, Dominant, Dormant and Non-stakeholders.
Excluding Non-stakeholders, the majority of stakeholders were
Deliberative Type all of whom had three (3) types of power: coercive,
utilitarian and normative. In the main, the claims of this group were
perceived to have two (2) types of legitimacy: pragmatic and moral.
Furthermore their claims were perceived to be critical but lacked a
-160-
temporal element. Thus there was a uniformly high level of salience
within the FNQ RRG governance network, with participants bound
together by perceptions of power and legitimacy. Three (3) issues could
be linked to attributions of salience among Deliberative Type
stakeholders: access to resources, institutional arrangements and
relationships.
Stakeholders with a peripheral role in the network were spread across
five (5) stakeholder Types: Deliberative, Dominant, Dangerous,
Demanding and Dormant much wider range than applied to core
network stakeholders. As a result, the salience of peripheral
stakeholders varied considerably unlike the core network stakeholders.
Among the peripheral stakeholder group, utilitarian power was
perceived to be present for the majority of stakeholders, suggesting that
resources were a factor in relationships with some peripheral
stakeholders.
The incidence of legitimate claims among peripheral stakeholders was
very low, suggesting that while their claims were recognised, this was
rarely translated into action by the network. Attributions of power,
temporality and criticality for both the core network and peripheral
stakeholders were impacted by the same factors: access to resources,
institutional arrangements and relationships. However, access to
resources and institutional arrangements did not arise as a determinant
of legitimacy of peripheral stakeholders’ claims. Furthermore
relationships were very rarely identified as a key issue.
The FNQ RRG’s approach to the task of stakeholder engagement was
focused on the core network members and occurred under the
provisions of the Roads Alliance institutional arrangements which were
enshrined in the network’s Constitution. As a result of the institutional
framework in place, there was a level of formality and organisation
associated with engagement of core network stakeholders. However,
there was no agreed strategy for engagement of peripheral
-161-
stakeholders and other than in one instance, there was no evidence
that the network instigated engagement with peripheral stakeholders.
Thus the development of strategically important relationships with key
stakeholders outside of the network was not addressed collectively by
the RRG. In the longer term, this lack of engagement could leave the
RRG vulnerable to shifts in power among peripheral stakeholders which
could consequently have impact on achievement of RRG outcomes.
DOMAINS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
From the analysis of data, three (3) distinct Domains of stakeholder
engagement were identified: Network level, Representative
organisation level and Potential stakeholder level as shown in Figure
5.4.
Domain1 Network level
Scope: Ongoing engagement within
network
Low frequency of engagement
Multi-way stakeholder processes
Domain 2 Representative organisation
level
Scope: Sporadic engagement with
peripheral stakeholders by network
representative organisations
Low, moderate and high frequency
of engagement
Predominant process used:
two-way exchanges
Domain 3Potential stakeholders
Scope: No contact or engagement
by network or representative
organisations
No engagement
by network
Engagement by network
Figure 5.4 FNQ RRG Governance Network: Domains of Stakeholder
Engagement
Domain 1 comprised core network stakeholders, all of whom were
Deliberative Type and possessing power, legitimacy and criticality.
-162-
These stakeholders were engaged through ongoing multi-way
stakeholder processes: network meetings, in which representatives
from seven (7) organisations participated. This type of engagement
occurred with low frequency. A number of factors impacted on how
stakeholder engagement proceeded within the network. There was
evidence of coalition building to achieve network outcomes and to
obtain access to the collective resources of network participants.
Furthermore, these resources were leveraged for the benefit of the
network. Levels of participation within the network were checked at
several points in the RRG Regional Works Program lifecycle. In this
Domain, network managers had an active role with co-ordinating
engagement within the network. To sum up, there was a high degree
of uniformity in the type of salience perceived to exist within the
network, the type and frequency of engagement in use and the factors
which impacted on stakeholder engagement.
In Domain 2 stakeholders were spread across four (4) stakeholder
types the majority of which were perceived to have power and to a
much lesser extent legitimate, temporal or critical claims. This
configuration of salience variables suggested that power was a major
factor with Domain 2 stakeholders. While a variety of engagement
processes were used, two-way exchanges were the most common and
these occurred at low and moderate frequency. Engagement of
stakeholders in Domain 2 differed from the other Domains.
Engagement was undertaken at network member organisation level
and there was no direct connection with the network. Despite this
engagement, the resources gained from this stakeholder were not
brought back into the network. To sum up Domain 2 stakeholders were
not engaged by the network and stakeholder issues that impacted on
network member organisations did not spill into the network arena.
Having none of the salience attributes, the Potential stakeholders in
Domain 3 were not engaged within the governance network or member
organisations. These stakeholders were effectively excluded from
-163-
participation in regional road activities which could have an impact on
them. This lack of a relationship with stakeholders in Domain 3 could
become problematic if the network needed to obtain resources from this
group in the future.
CONCLUSION
This case study has demonstrated that a range of stakeholders were of
relevance to the FNQ RRG, however a considerable number of these
stakeholders were not engaged by the network. Three (3) Domains of
Stakeholder Engagement were identified, one (1) within the network
and two (2) outside of the network. Within Domain 1, the core network
stakeholders were all Deliberative Type. These stakeholders were
engaged uniformly. Thus for core network stakeholders there appeared
to be a relationship between stakeholder Type the type and frequency
of engagement.
Peripheral stakeholders in Domain 2, were not engaged by the network,
rather engagement occurred at member organisation level. Among the
stakeholders in Domain 2 there was considerable variability of
stakeholder types, engagement processes and frequency with which
these processes were undertaken. While the existence of power and
lack of legitimate claims was a found to be an issue for some
stakeholders in Domain 2, there did not appear to be a relationship
between stakeholder salience and engagement. Non-stakeholders who
were in Domain 3 were not engaged at either network or member
organisation level and thus relationships remained inactive.
A number of factors associated with the FNQ RRG governance network
were identified as impacting on stakeholder salience and engagement.
Core network stakeholders were particularly impacted by management
processes undertaken within the network. The next chapter investigates
how stakeholder salience and engagement unfolded in another road
governance network in the Wide Bay Burnett region of Queensland.
-164-
CHAPTER 6 - CASE 2: WIDE BAY BURNETT
REGIONAL ROAD GROUP
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the Wide Bay Burnett (WBB) RRG infrastructure
governance network and then outlines how the network classifies and
engages with its stakeholders. Divided into four (4) sections, the first
section of this chapter positions the case within its contextual
background and discusses the institutional arrangements under which
the WBB RRG operates. The second section presents an analysis of
the RRG governance network, in particular focusing on stakeholder
identification and salience. This second section also identifies the
factors that which impacted on attributions of power, legitimacy,
temporality and criticality. The third section discusses the network’s
approach to stakeholder engagement and the processes and frequency
with which stakeholder engagement was undertaken. Finally as
summary of the major insights/findings, the final section summarises
the major insights drawn from the case analysis and offers some
preliminary conclusions.
BACKGROUND TO WBB RRG GOVERNANCE NETWORK
The WBB RRG, in its current form, brings together five (5) councils:
Bundaberg RC, Fraser Coast RC, Gympie RC, North Burnett RC and
South Burnett RC with the Main Roads Wide Bay Burnett District Office
(TMRWBB) as joint managers of a network of regionally significant local
roads within their shared boundaries. Funding for RRG activities is
obtained from a number of local, state and federal government sources,
in particular the state government controlled TIDS program (Local
Government Association of Queensland Ltd and Queensland
Government, 2011). The shaded area in Figure 6.1 delineates the
territory of the WBB RRG which covers over 48,000 sqkm. The
geographic coverage of the WBB RRG ranged from north of
-165-
Bundaberg, south beyond the coastal regions of Fraser Island and
Hervey Bay and west covering the North and South Burnett cattle and
cropping districts. The RRG territory also includes two World Heritage
areas, Fraser Island and part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,
which are politically sensitive and subject to strict environmental
regulations. Moreover, the region incorporates a mix of coastal
communities and smaller rural areas strategically placed along trade
routes in proximity to key rural industries. As a result the region has
“developed into a set of interrelated communities” (Department of
Infrastructure and Planning, 2010a, p. 14). .
Figure 6.1 Map Showing the Geographic Coverage of WBB RRG
Adapted from “The Roads Alliance Addendum to the Roads Implementation program
2009-10 to 2013-14” by Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2009.
The WBB RRG manages 202 local roads of regional significance
covering 2780 km (Department of Main Roads & Local Government
Association of Queensland, 2008). While the road network managed
by WBB RRG is relatively small compared to other major road networks
in Queensland, a number of the roads comprise significant community
-166-
and freight links across the region and have a critical role in
transporting rural and mining products. The standard of the road
networks in the Wide Bay Burnett Region have been described
inadequate and a potential impediment to the future economic
development of the region (Regional Development Australia Wide Bay
Burnett, 2011). The inadequacy of the regional road infrastructure has
created pressure to upgrade the existing road network in particular to
service the expanding mining operations in the region. Accordingly,
there is a high level of stakeholder interest in the regional road network
governed by FNQ RRG. The institutional arrangements governing the
network are discussed next.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
The WBB RRG has had two (2) separate iterations since its inception in
2002. From 2002 to 2008, twenty three (23) local councils were
members of the RRG. Following the local government amalgamations,
in 2008, the number of councils participating in the WBB RRG was
reduced to five (5). It was commented by an engineering respondent
that the decline in council numbers “reduced tensions between
councils” (Interview, 27 May 2010) because it was easier to reach
agreement about issues. A political respondent described why tensions
had been reduced within the RRG,
“parochialism is probably not as rife, and people are
prepared now to look at the overall scheme of things and
allocate resources accordingly, rather than trying to
piecemeal it out to 23 councils, because everyone wanted
to see that they got a bit” (Interview, 25 March 2010).
Along similar lines, another respondent suggested that relationships
within the RRG had improved (Interview, 15 December 2009) as a
result of having fewer member councils because it was easier to set
regional priorities (Interview, 25 March 2010). However, this reduction
in network membership also decreased the diversity of stakeholder
-167-
views being brought into RRG processes, as input was concentrated
across six (6) organisations.
As stipulated in their
constitution (Wide Bay
Burnett Regional Roads
Group, 2008), the WBB
RRG is structured as two
interrelated groups known
as the RRG and the
Technical Committee.
Referred to by respondents
as the RRG, the decision
making group, is dominated by elected officials. To provide clarity, this
group is referred to from herein as WBB Political. The second group,
referred to by respondents as “the Technical Committee” is comprised
entirely of engineers, is referred to from herein as WBB Technical.
Table 6.1 provides demographic data about the RRG membership and
its two (2) separate committees. As can be seen from Table 6.1, the
core membership of the two groups is seventeen (17), with membership
relatively balanced between the two groups. This composition reflects
the roles: political and technical as established in the RRG constitution
(Wide Bay Burnett Regional Roads Group, 2008). The division of
technical and political responsibilities in this way followed the
separation of political and managerial responsibilities within councils.
There was minimal overlap in the membership of the two (2) groups:
the Chair of WBB Technical participated in both groups. As a result, the
dual committee structure provided little opportunity for interaction
between political decision makers and engineering members of the
RRG. Furthermore, the structure also had the potential exclude external
stakeholders because of the tight internal boundaries created.
Table 6.1 WBB RRG Governance Network
Structure, Membership And Roles
GROUPS MEMBERS ROLES
WBB
Political
9 Mayor (3)
Local Government
Councillor (5)
Engineer (1)
WBB
Technical
8 Engineers (8)
WBB RG
Governance network
collectively
17 Elected
representatives
(8)
Engineers (9)
-168-
Respondent Demographics
The respondent group for this case study was seventeen (17) and
comprised as follows: 38% elected representatives, 33% engineers and
24% managers which indicated a balance between occupational
groups. Only two (2) levels of government were represented in the
respondent group: 24% from State government and the remainder
(76%) from Local government, indicating again that Local government
was the predominant jurisdiction represented. The dominance of Local
government was to be expected as the RRG focus is on local roads in
the region.
Participation in Governance Network
There were eighty two (82) meetings of WBB Political and WBB
Technical between 2002 and 2009. The average duration of
respondents’’ participation in the network was 3.8 years, ranging from 1
to 6 years, thus indicating a long-term commitment to the RRG. A
political respondent suggested that these “long term relationships”
(Interview, 24 March 2010) were important to the functioning of the
RRG because they enabled the network to take a regional rather than
parochial perspective on road issues (Interview, 09 January 2012).
Given the longevity of the network and the high average duration of
membership, it can be assumed that the RRG has a stable membership
potentially leading to more cohesive decision-making.
However, as there was little refreshment of network membership, there
were reduced flows of information and ideas being brought into the
network. As such, the opinions and suggestions of the broader group of
stakeholders with a stake in the regional road network were effectively
excluded. The next section begins to address the research question of
this thesis through an in-depth analysis of stakeholders identified by the
RRG governance network.
-169-
STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION
From the data collected during structured interviews with sixteen (16)
key informants, a set of thirty four (34) stakeholders was identified as
relevant to the WBB RRG. The stakeholders identified were groups or
individuals who could affect or be affected by the achievement of RRG
outcomes, and were drawn primarily from across the government,
business and not for profit sectors as shown in Table 6.2. This
stakeholder set held a variety of roles including transport management,
environmental management, tourism promotion and emergency
management, economic development, local government services
delivery, lobbying and political representation at both State and Federal
level. However, as indicated by the shaded areas in Table 6.2, WBB
RRG had no contact with the majority (62%) of the stakeholder group.
This breakdown indicated that a number of relationships were inactive
because neither the stakeholder nor the RRG had a current need to
engage for their objectives to be achieved.
-170-
Table 6.2 WBB RRG Stakeholders: Sector Represented, Roles and Interactions
Stakeholder Sector Represented Role Interactions with stakeholders
Member of Australian Parliament 3 Federal government Political representation
AGFORCE Industry peak body Industry group
Queensland Dairy Association Industry peak body Industry group
Bundaberg Regional Council Local government Transport management
Gympie Regional Council Local government Transport management
Fraser Coast Regional Council Local government Transport management
North Burnett Regional Council Local government Transport management
South Burnett Regional Council Local government Transport management
Wide Bay Burnett Regional Organisation of Councils Local government Regional coordination
Bundaberg Futures Board Local advisory group Economic development
North Burnett Futures Board Local advisory group Economic development
Bundaberg Region Ltd Not for profit Tourism promotion
Burnett Mary Region Group Not for profit Environmental management
Gympie Cooloola Tourism Not for profit Tourism promotion
Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee Not for profit Environmental management
Regional Chambers of Commerce: Maryborough and Bundaberg Not for profit Business development
Heavy Transport Operators Private sector Industry group
Mining industry Industry Industry group
Queensland Forest Products Industry Industry group
Fraser Coast South Burnett Regional Tourism Board Regional peak body Tourism promotion
Wide Bay Burnett Conservation Council Representative body Environmental management
Primary producers Rural Primary production
Roads Alliance Project Team State and Local government Transport management
Department of Resource Management State government Environmental management
Member of Queensland Parliament 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, State government Political representation
Queensland Emergency Services State government Emergency services
Queensland Police Service State government Police services
Transport and Main Roads Wide Bay Burnett Region State government Transport management
-171-
From the data in Table 6.2 it has been calculated that the majority
(53%) of stakeholders represented one of the three (3) tiers of
government. This breakdown indicates the extent to which government
was influential in decision making, to the exclusion of other
stakeholders. The various stakeholder groupings identified in Table 6.2
are now discussed in greater detail discussed next.
Transport Management Stakeholders
With respect to transport, respondents identified several transport
management organisations as stakeholders: the five (5) RRG member
councils, RAPT and TMRWBB. In addition to the role of managing road
networks in the region, TMRWBB was identified by a considerable
number (69%) of respondents to be a funding body for the RRG
(Interviews, 03 December a and b, 15 December a, b and c, 11
December, 04 December a and b, 15 December, 16 December 2009,
22 March and 23 March 2010). The Operating Guidelines for RRGs
(Local Government Association of Queensland Ltd and Queensland
Government, 2011) confirmed the role that that DTMR regions such as
TMRWBB played in maintaining access to TIDS funding.
Additionally, member councils were required to match State
government TIDS funding (50/50) for RRG projects (Local Government
Association of Queensland Ltd and Queensland Government, 2011).
As such, funding contributions of Regional Councils was linked to their
status as a stakeholder. In contrast with TMRWBB and the member
councils, RAPT did not contribute funding to the WBBRRG. RAPT’s
main resource contribution was their knowledge of the Roads Alliance
policy and their support in developing management capability within the
network (The Roads Alliance, 2010b). For example, to assist the RRG
in the implementation of its Regional Works Program, RAPT developed
and made available comprehensive manuals covering program
development, funding and asset management (Local Government
Association of Queensland Ltd and Queensland Government, 2011).
To sum up, access to resources and in particular funds, was a key
-172-
factor in the identification of transport management stakeholders by
respondents.
Economic and Regional Development Stakeholders
Four (4) respondents identified five (5) stakeholders whose prime focus
was economic development within the WBB region: the Bundaberg and
Maryborough Chambers of Commerce, the Bundaberg and North
Burnett Futures Boards and WBBROC (Interviews, 14 December a and
b, 15 December and 16 December 2009). The importance of Futures
Boards to the region was confirmed by a political respondent who
stated that the Futures Boards “are driving our economic development”
(Interview, 17 December 2009). As such, the Futures Boards,
represented an important source of information for the RRG. WBBROC,
the economic development co-ordinating body for five (5) Wide Bay
Burnett Queensland regional councils was identified as a stakeholder.
The importance of these economic development stakeholders was
highlighted by another political respondent who stated that there was
“interplay between infrastructure like roads and the economic
development potential” in the region (Interview, 16 December 2009).
Despite this stated importance of these stakeholders, as can be seen in
Table 6.2, the RRG only interacted with WBBROC, in its role as the
RRG secretariat (Interview, 03 December 2009), thus economic and
regional input into RRG processes and outcomes was restricted to this
group.
Environmental Management Stakeholders
Four (4) environmental management stakeholders were identified as of
importance to the WBB RRG: Mary River Catchment Coordinating
Committee, Wide Bay Burnett Conservation Council, Burnett Mary
Region Group and DERM. Despite their recognition as stakeholders, in
practice, none of the respondents indicated that the RRG interacted
with the Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee, Wide Bay
Burnett Conservation Council or Burnett Mary Region Group. This
-173-
disconnect was summed up by an engineering respondent in this way,
“We take consideration of environmental issues, but no, we don’t have
any specific stuff we have done with these environmental groups”
(Interview, 03 December 2009). This isolation from environmental
management stakeholders indicated that the RRG had a low level of
interest in the views of such groups. Furthermore, the RRG lacked a
mechanism for obtaining feedback on developing environmental issues
which may impact on road funding priorities.
Tourism Promotion Stakeholders
Several stakeholders with responsibility for promoting tourism in the
Wide Bay Burnett Region: Bundaberg Region Ltd, Gympie Cooloola
Tourism and Fraser Coast South Burnett Regional Tourism Board were
identified. A political respondent identified that tourism was “one of the
things that we look at from a regional road perspective,” (Interview, 03
December 2009) indicating that tourism was a driver for the RRG
because it was an important regional development issue. This position
was supported by another respondent who suggested that along with
freight movements, tourism considerations most influence the
positioning of roads (Interview, 16 December 2009. The majority of
respondents (82%) acknowledged the existence of these tourism
promotion stakeholders. However, as is demonstrated in Table 6.2
there was no evidence in the data of interactions between the RRG and
these groups.
Industry Groups
Two (2) stakeholders from the primary production and mining industries
were identified by respondents. However, overall the respondents did
not go on to discuss primary producers in-depth. The mining industry
was noted as a stakeholder by two (2) RRG member councils
(Interviews, 14 December 2009 and 23 April 2010). At the time of
interview (26 May 2010) a council respondent identified that a mining
proposal ‘which involves a lot of trucks on one of our gravel roads” was
before council for approval which was not a matter for the RRG.
-174-
Although identified as an RRG stakeholder, the relationship with the
mining industry was at council level rather than the RRG level.
Therefore in this instance, there appeared to be a lack of differentiation
between the role of council and the RRG.
Also identified as of relevance were three (3) stakeholders engaged in
industry lobbying: Heavy Transport Operators, Queensland Dairy
Association and AGFORCE, (which lobbies on behalf of graziers and
grain producers) were identified by respondents as of relevance to the
WBB RRG. Eight (8) respondents reported the existence of an ongoing
conflict between AGFORCE and an RRG member council about cattle
transportation permits.
Emergency Management Stakeholders
Two (2) engineering respondents identified two (2) stakeholders who
were involved in delivery of emergency services in the region: QPS and
QAS. However, contact with these agencies was not widespread
among RRG members and primarily occurred in emergency situations
(Interview, 04 December 2009) within the region. Furthermore, an
engineering respondent commented that contact with QPS and QAS
would be the responsibility of member councils as the RRG had “no
formal connection” with QPS and QAS (Interview, 04 December 2009).
Elected Representatives
Seven (7) State and Federal elected representatives were identified as
stakeholders of the WBB RRG. Six (6) political respondents identified
that these elected representatives were of relevance to the RRG.
However, despite being identified as stakeholders, as demonstrated in
Table 6.2, there was no relationship between the RRG and the State
and Federal elected representatives. Moreover, two (2) political
respondents proposed a link between these elected representatives
and their ability to impact on RRG resource flows, with one respondent
commenting that “They can make the funding disappear” (Interview, 14
December 2009). This link was confirmed by another political
-175-
respondent who observed that the group of elected representatives
identified could “impact the RRG through their ability to influence
Transport and Main Roads, who are providing a lot of the resources to
the RRG” (Interview, 16 December 2009). There was, however, no
evidence of this power having been enacted in the RRG and thus the
threat was considered symbolic.
To sum up, respondents identified a broad range of stakeholders who
were relevant to the WBB RRG indicating that there was a high level of
awareness of stakeholders who operated within the network and
beyond the network boundary. However these stakeholders were
primarily drawn from State, Federal and Local government, industry
groups and elected representatives. By focusing on inter-governmental
and institutional representative groups, wider groups such as
contractors, property owners, road users and citizens were excluded
from the mix of RRG stakeholders. The omission of broader community
stakeholders could be explained, in part, by the network’s primary
function which was to manage a funding program rather than project
implementation. The next section examines the salience of RRG
stakeholders, drilling down into the salience of the emergent
stakeholder types identified.
SALIENCE OF STAKEHOLDERS
As discussed in the literature review, the salience of stakeholder is
derived from combinations of power, and legitimacy, temporality and
criticality of claims. As such, the salience of the following stakeholders
was rated by respondents: TMRWBB, the five (5) member councils,
RAPT, WBBROC, QPS, QAS and AGFORCE. Based on the ratings of
the respondent group overall, these stakeholders fell into three (3) of a
possible sixteen (16) stakeholder types: Definitive, Deliberative and
Dangerous. None of the respondents rated twenty one (21)
stakeholders for salience, indicating that they had no contact with these
stakeholders. Table 6.3 graphically summarises the combinations of
-176-
power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality attributed to the eleven (11)
stakeholders and the stakeholder type represented.
Table 6.3 WBB RRG: Stakeholders Classified by Salience Variables and
Resultant Stakeholder Types
Bun
dabe
rg R
C
Gym
pie
RC
Fra
ser
Coa
st R
C
Nor
th B
urne
tt R
C
Sou
th B
urne
tt R
C
QP
S
QA
S
TM
RW
BB
RA
PT
WB
BR
OC
A
GF
OR
CE
21 g
roup
s an
d in
divi
dual
s
Stakeholders
Sal
ienc
e A
ttrib
utes
Pre
sent
Power
* * * * * * * * * * *
Legitimacy
* * * * * * * * * *
Temporality
* * * * * * * *
Criticality
* * * * * * * * * * *
Stakeholder Type
Def
initi
ve
Def
initi
ve
Def
initi
ve
Def
initi
ve
Def
initi
ve
Def
initi
ve
Def
initi
ve
Del
iber
ativ
e
Del
iber
ativ
e
Del
iber
ativ
e
Dan
gero
us
Non
-sta
keho
lder
s
Legend: * symbol=attribute present. Grey shaded cell=attribute not present.
From the respondent data summarised in Table 6.3, it has been
calculated that
33% of stakeholders were Definitive Type and the majority (71%)
of these were network members,
14% of stakeholders were Deliberative type, including one
network member,
The remaining stakeholder was a Dangerous Type.
Table 6.3 highlights that power and criticality were the dominant
attributes among the stakeholder group. Of the two (2) remaining
attributes, legitimacy was ascribed to 90% of stakeholders while
temporality occurred in 73% of cases. This breakdown indicated that
the stakeholder group overall had a high level of salience. Drilling down
-177-
into the stakeholder types inferred from the ratings of respondents,
factors that influenced attributions of power, legitimacy, temporality and
criticality are discussed in detail next beginning with Definitive Type
stakeholders.
Definitive Type Stakeholders
As Definitive Type stakeholders, the five (5) member councils, QPS and
QAS were perceived by the respondent group to have both power and
legitimate claims, and conveyed the importance of their claims which
were also considered to be time critical. Excluding QPS and QAS, the
respondent group rated the salience of the remaining stakeholders in
their context as core network participants. However QPS and QAS
were rated as stakeholders who were external to the network.
With the exception of QPS and QAS, the remaining Definitive Type
stakeholders were perceived by respondents to have three (3) sources
of power: coercive, utilitarian and normative. Furthermore, the claims of
all stakeholders in this group were considered by respondents to have
moral legitimacy which was accepted because of the apparent
“obligations of fairness” (Phillips, 1997, p. 57) operating within the RRG.
The next sections examine how stakeholder salience was constructed
by the RRG for Deliberative Type stakeholders beginning with attribute
of power.
Power
Regional councils play a major role in the WBB RRG, comprising 83%
of the network’s membership. Reflecting the importance of member
councils as stakeholders of the RRG, a political respondent alluded to
the political power base that councils had in the RRG (Interview, 15
December 2009). Given that almost 50% of RRG members were
mayors or local councillors, this power base was substantial and could
have been used coercively by withholding resources required by the
RRG. For example, two (2) respondents hinted that the power of
member councils might be exercised through withdrawal of council
Salience Atrtributes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
-178-
support for the RRG (Interviews, 04 December 2009 and 16 December
2009). However there was no evidence in the data of this situation
occurring and neither was this issue raised by other respondents. The
respondent group explicitly identified that network members did not use
coercion to achieve outcomes. Thus the power structure within
WBBRRG was not activated providing an indication that the network
operates in the shadow of the hierarchy such that power exists in
network but it is not enacted because objectives are able to be
achieved through relationships rather than force (Scharpf, 1994).
Further, the role of member councils as funding bodies seemed to
strengthen their power as stakeholders. Confirming this funding role of
councils, an elected representative from the respondent group noted
that regional councils used “ratepayer’s funds to build roads” (Interview,
16 December 2009). With respect to QPS and QAS, a respondent
(Interview, 25 March 2010) suggested these emergency services
agencies could use the media to influence the reputation of the WBB
RRG thus exercising normative power. However again there was no
evidence in the data of this occurring and thus it remained latent. To
sum up, for Definitive Type stakeholders, power was related to their
potential to withdraw resources from the RRG. Not having been
enacted, the perceived power was symbolic rather than an actual
threat.
Legitimacy
Four (4) respondents (Interviews, 14 December 2009 a and b, 23
March and 25 March 2010 ) suggested that member councils’ claims
had moral legitimacy but that this legitimacy was conferred within a
framework of due process suggesting that there was fairness and
transparency in governance processes. Confirming this claim, a
respondent stated that “whatever is done through the RRG needs to be
dealt with by a transparent process, so that all of the councils know
what is going on” (Interview, 26 May 2010). Underscoring the
importance of due process in determinations of legitimacy, another
-179-
respondent commented that “In the good old days whoever spoke the
loudest and jumped up would be accepted; that no longer applies”
(Interview, 17 December 2009). This finding tends to suggest a link
between due process and legitimacy of claims. Although QPS and QAS
were reported by respondents as having legitimacy, the reason for this
were not elaborated suggesting that acceptance of claims made by
these emergency service organisations was not a significant issue for
the RRG.
Temporality
Member councils were considered by eight (8) respondents to make
temporal demands within the RRG environment (Interviews, 03
December, 14 December, 15 December 2009 a, b and c and 24 April
2010). One respondent suggested that temporality was likely to be a
factor within the RRG when Councils were under pressure to complete
projects and “[TIDS] money was being shifted around at the end of the
financial year” (Interview, 22 April 2010). Taking a different approach, a
political respondent indicated that member councils made temporal
demands where “there are projects that need to happen a bit sooner
than the RRG’s recommendation” (Interview, 15 December 2009).
Discussing the temporality of claims made by QPS and QAS, an
engineering respondent identified that these stakeholders pressed the
time critical nature of their claims in “emergency type situations
[requiring an immediate response by councils]” (Interview, 25 March
2010). Although evident in case of QPS and QAS, this link between
temporality and local emergencies was not further raised in the context
of other Definitive Type stakeholders and could not be substantiated an
issue across the network.
Criticality
From their responses to their structured interview questions, Two (2)
respondents; one (1) political and the other engineering, indicated that
member councils effectively articulated the critical nature of their claims
(Interviews, 16 April and 22 April 2010). Another political respondent
-180-
provided an example of how criticality was expressed by member
councils, suggesting that “councillors can take a very strong parochial
view, in asking for certain roads to be included [in the Works Program]”
(Interview, 26 May 2010). Another respondent indicated that,
irrespective of their perceived importance, member councils’ claims
were managed through a structured negotiation process involving both
WBB Political and WBB Technical (Interview, 22 April 2011). More
specifically, negotiations occurred throughout the development and
approval of the Regional Works Program. Thus, the criticality of claims
made by Definitive Type stakeholders of the network was embedded
within process of negotiation involving all RRG members.
Deliberative Type Stakeholders
Three (3) stakeholders: TMRWBB, RAPT and WBBROC were
classified by respondents as Deliberative Type, perceived to have both
power and legitimate claims and able to convey the criticality of these
claims to the RRG. However the claims of these stakeholders were not
seen to be time-critical. The next sections show how stakeholder
salience was constructed for Deliberative Type stakeholders beginning
with the concept of power.
Power
Four (4) respondents (Interviews, 03 December, 04 December, and 15
December 2009 a and b) identified that TMRWBB, was the major RRG
funding body because they were the regional agent for the state road
authority, DTMR. Indicating the presence of utilitarian power, an
engineering respondent indicated that TMRWBB “make the rules [for
the RRG]” (Interview, 4 December 2009). Another respondent
described TMRWBB as “a key player who would carry more weight than
others” (Interview, 15 December 2009) and thus having greater power
and influence than other stakeholders despite being a peer in the
network. Supporting this contention, yet another respondent linked
funding and power commenting that TMRWBB’s power was related to
ensuring a stable flow of “funding coming through from the State
Salience Attibutes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
-181-
government [via the TIDS program]” (Interview, 23 March 2010).
Therefore it can be seen that power over decision making and funding
are strongly linked in the case of TMRWBB. Within this situation, RAPT
was described by an engineering respondent as “the guard at the door”
(Interview, 24 March 2010) with power to influence TIDS funding from
DTMR.
Although not having formal decision making capacity in the RRG (Wide
Bay Burnett Regional Roads Group, 2008) RAPT was nevertheless
nominated by two engineering respondents to be a powerful influencer
on the RRG funding cycle (Interviews, 04 December 2009 and 24
March 2010). In this capacity, RAPT was described by another
managerial respondent as the “gatekeeper [of the TIDS program]”
(Interview, 25 March 2010). This perspective held of RAPT’s influence
on the RRG was supported by another respondent who stated that
RAPT was the “[RRG] controlling body” (Interview, 22 April 2010)
having an intermediary role between the RRG and the Roads Alliance
Board (Local Government Association of Queensland Ltd and
Queensland Government, 2011). RAPT was also identified as
powerful because of a link between power and funding. Specifically,
RAPT were the channel through which TIDS funding applications were
submitted to the Roads Alliance Board for approval of funds (Local
Government Association of Queensland Ltd and Queensland
Government, 2011). By virtue of this role, RAPT, could potentially
influence funding outcomes.
Discussing power, an engineering respondent suggested that
WBBROC and the WBB RRG were “the same group” (Interview, 24
April 2010) because the two groups comprised the same regional
political representatives. Therefore, WBBROC could leverage political
support from local elected representatives and “drew its power from this
association” (Interview, 09 January 2012). However, this viewpoint was
not confirmed by other respondents. To sum up, the power of
Deliberative stakeholders seemed to originate from three sources: their
-182-
role as an RRG decision maker, institutional arrangements, particularly
related to funding and involvement in other networks within the region.
Legitimacy
A political respondent suggested that the acceptance of TMRWBB’s
claims were addressed as part of the consensus based processes
rather than being accepted because it was the norm for the RRG.
(Interview, 15 December 2009). Elaborating further, an engineering
respondent identified two specific types of legitimate claims; “money
and those relating to asset management” (Interview, 23 March 2010),
that would be addressed through the RRG decision making processes.
The legitimacy of RAPT’s claims, however, was linked to the manner in
which RAPT interacted with the RRG.
As the conduit between the RRG and the Roads Alliance Board, a
respondent suggested that RAPT’s “integrity is crucial” (Interview, 29
June 2010). Another respondent alluded to this veracity suggesting that
RAPT “have a bit of a tricky role; they have to be careful not to carry
tales [back to the Roads Alliance Board]” (Interview, 22 April 2010).
Therefore, the authenticity of RAPT’s relationship with the RRG
influenced the apparent legitimacy of its claims. From the structured
interviews, the claims of WBBROC were identified as being legitimate.
Indicating the presence of pragmatic legitimacy, one (1) respondent
saw WBBROC as “an avenue for us [the RRG] to be able to progress
what we need to do from a regional road group point of view” (Interview,
24 March 2010).
Temporality
Temporality was not considered to be a feature of the claims made by
TMRWBB, RAPT or WBBROC. One political respondent summed up
the absence of temporality in TMRWBB’s claims, indicating that “there
is room usually for enough latitude for some negotiation about the
timeframes” (Interview, 26 May 2010). Adding a further dimension, an
engineering respondent suggested that “the category of the work
-183-
determines that [temporality], so there is no great immediate urgency”
(Interview, 24 March 2010). Clarifying this issue a political respondent
identified that “we don’t demand to have things done immediately
because it would be to the detriment of other members” (Interview, 09
January 2011), indicating that the absence of time pressure was linked
to group norms. While three (3) respondents noted that there was a
time-element associated with claims made by RAPT, this approach was
not seen by respondents to be overly demanding. Confirming this, a
managerial respondent commented that RAPT “give us plenty of notice;
the timeframes are generally fairly realistic and generous” (Interview, 20
April 2010).
Focusing on institutional arrangements, one respondent speculated that
the temporal nature of member councils’ claims was influenced by the
timeframes embedded in the RRG operating arrangements (Local
Government Association of Queensland Ltd and Queensland
Government, 2011) and “the due process for reimbursement of funds”
(Interview, 22 April 2010). However, this view was not articulated by
other respondents. Therefore, Deliberative Type stakeholders were not
perceived to press for claims to be addressed immediately but rather
relied on group norms of co-operation and turn taking.
Criticality
TMRWBB was perceived by the majority (65%) of the respondent group
to have effectively articulated the criticality of its claims in relation to the
Regional Works Program. In this regard, a political respondent clarified
that TMRWBB expressed the importance of its claims
“but only in a nice manner, they don’t go out of the way to
push their point too much, but they certainly get their
message across” (Interview, 16 April 2010).
-184-
As such, TMRWBB were perceived to decisive about deadlines for
reimbursement of funds (Interview, 09 January 2012). A political
respondent drew a link between institutional arrangements of the RRG
and criticality of claims made by TMRWBB (Interview, 22 April 2010).
Overall, criticality appeared to operate within a framework of due
process, similar to temporality of claims.
Criticality was also seen to be a feature of the claims made by RAPT
about the Works Program and was confirmed by a political respondent
who noted that RAPT “get that message across about their
requirements” (Interview, 14 December 2009), meaning that the
importance of claims was strongly articulated. An alternative view was
presented that “it would be good if they [RAPT] told the story a little
more emphatically at times” (Interview, 22 April 2010). The importance
of claims made by RAPT was seen to be mediated by interpersonal
relationships within the network with an engineering respondent
explaining that,
“there is a degree of working with kid gloves, we are all
peers and you just don’t go in and say bang, bang, bang,
it wouldn’t work. They [RAPT] have never gone that way,
so they have never got anybody offside” (Interview, 22
April 2010).
Thus, although Deliberative Type stakeholders made critical claims,
interpersonal relationships were seen to make such claims acceptable
within the RRG.
Dangerous Type Stakeholders
The context in which AGFORCE was rated as a Dangerous Type
stakeholder stemmed from a situation in which AGFORCE and an RRG
member council were embroiled in controversy and contestation about
the number of heavy vehicle movement permits for primary producers
to transport animals and produce to market (Interview, 22 April 2010).
Salience Attibutes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
-185-
Primarily a member council’s problem, the issue spilled over into the
RRG domain in 2010 such that the RRG offered its support to the
council. Although AGFORCE was perceived to be powerful, pushed to
have their claims attended to immediately and pressed the importance
of such claims, they were perceived to lack legitimacy.
Power
There was a view expressed by four (4) respondents that AGFORCE
used their power in an attempt to coerce a regional council to
significantly increase the number of heavy vehicle permits issued. A
respondent likened the application of power to “an organised bash from
some very loud and zealous members of AGFORCE “(Interview, 24
March 2010), implying that AGFORCE was running an organised
campaign against the council. Extending the analogy, an engineering
respondent described the situation as “AGFORCE hammering people”
(Interview, 24 March 2010) to achieve their objectives. Further
supporting this view another engineering respondent indicated that
AGFORCE was being “painful as a stakeholder” (Interview, 25 March
2010) because of the forceful action AGFORCE was seen to be taking.
Subsequently, AGFORCE later augmented its power by establishing a
coalition with the Heavy Trucking Operators (AGFORCE Queensland,
n/d) thus applying extra pressure in an attempt to increase the number
of heavy vehicle permits issued. Thus AGFORCE was considered by
respondents to have employed coercive power over power to achieve
its objectives.
Legitimacy
There was a collective opinion among respondents that that
AGFORCE’s claims were not legitimate with an engineering respondent
speculating that AGFORCE “may be just trying to get some publicity
and preen their feathers prior to the AGFORCE State Council elections”
(Interview, 14 March 2011). In pursuing the vehicle permits issue,
AGFORCE was seen as pushing a political agenda and therefore, its
claims were not seen to be legitimate because they were not in the best
-186-
interest of the region. Thus the political interests of AGFORCE were
considered to have impacted negatively on the legitimacy of their
claims.
Temporality and Criticality
Five (5) respondents identified time-sensitivity was a feature of
AGFORCE’s claims, A respondent suggested that AGFORCE “tend to
want something straight away because it is impacting on their business”
(Interview, 24 March 2010). A further respondent identified that the time
pressure applied by AGFORCE “would depend on the issue” (Interview,
20 March 2010). This comment alluded to the changeable nature of
temporality which either increases or decreases according the changing
priority of an issue.
Acknowledging the temporal aspect of AGFORCE’s claims, yet another
respondent suggested that such claims “need to be addressed within a
timeframe” (Interview, 20 March 2010). However there was no
indication of such a timeframe in operation. Five (5) respondents
collectively agreed that criticality was a factor in AGFORCE’s claims. A
WBB Political respondent put the issue of criticality into context
suggesting that AGFORCE was “no respecter of people as far as
pushing their own barrel” (Interview, 24 March 2010). Thus AGFORCE
not part of the RRG’s inner circle of relationships.
Non-Stakeholders
A number of potential stakeholders and interest groups were not
identified as having any of the salience attributes: a member of the
Australian Parliament, Queensland Dairy Association, Bundaberg
Futures Board, North Burnett Futures Board , Bundaberg Region Ltd,
Burnett Mary Region Group, Gympie Cooloola Tourism, Mary River
Catchment Coordinating Committee, Regional Chambers of
Commerce: Maryborough and Bundaberg, Mining industry, Queensland
Forest Products, Fraser Coast South Burnett Regional Tourism Board,
Wide Bay Burnett Conservation Council, primary producers and six (6)
Salience Atributes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
-187-
members of the Queensland Parliament. Interviews revealed that this
was largely due to the lack of immediate involvement with RRG related
issues. The following comments typified the reasons respondents gave
for not rating this group of stakeholders, “I don’t deal with them”
(Interview, 15 December 2009) and “We don’t have any specific stuff
we have done” (Interview, 03 December 2009).
As these twenty one (21) groups and individuals were not rated for
salience, it is could be inferred that they that had none of the salience
attributes and were therefore non-stakeholders in accordance with
Mitchell et al.(1997)’s model. The identification of these non-
stakeholders indicated that the RRG was aware of stakeholders outside
of the network but this awareness was not converted into interactions
with the governance network. The next section discusses the factors
which impacted on attributions of salience by respondents.
-188-
FACTORS IMPACTING ON POWER, LEGITIMACY, TEMPORALITY AND
CRITICALITY
Whether internal to the network or focused on the problem domain of a
particular stakeholder, a range of issues can impact of attributions of
power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality to stakeholders. Within the
case, three (3) major factors were found to impact on attributions of
power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality: resources, institutional
arrangements and context. Table 6.4 shows the occurrence of these
factors by stakeholder Type and for each salience factor.
-189-
Table 6.4 WBB RRG: Summary of Factors which Impacted on Attributions of Power, Legitimacy, Temporality and Criticality
Stakeholders Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
Stakeholder Stakeholder Type
Resources Institutional arrangements
Political Influence
Resources Institutional arrangements
Due process
Resources Specific Issue
Negotiation Specific Issue
CO
RE
NE
TW
OR
KS
TA
KE
HO
LDE
RS
Bundaberg Regional Council
Definitive * * * * *
*
Gympie Regional Council
Definitive * * * * *
*
Fraser Coast Regional Council
Definitive * * * * *
*
North Burnett Regional Council
Definitive * * * * *
*
South Burnett Regional Council
Definitive * * * * *
*
Transport and Main Roads Wide Bay Burnett
Deliberative
* *
* *
*
Roads Alliance Project Team
Deliberative * * * * * *
Wide Bay Burnett Regional Organisation of Councils
Deliberative
*
* *
PE
RIP
HE
RA
L
ST
AK
EH
OLD
ER
S
Queensland Police Service
Definitive *
*
*
*
Queensland Ambulance Service
Definitive
*
*
*
*
AGFORCE Dangerous *
*
*
*
Legend: * symbol = issue found to exist, Grey shaded cell = issue not found to exist.
-190-
As distilled in Table 6.4, it can be seen that across the case, access to
resources was an important factor in attributions of power, legitimacy
and temporality for core network stakeholders. From analysis of the
case data, it could be seen that power and legitimacy came to the fore
when network members were negotiating to obtain a share of the TIDS
funding. As such, the institutional arrangements under which the WBB
RRG governance network operated also impacted on attributions of
power and legitimacy in several ways. The institutional arrangements
prescribed by the Roads Alliance, and followed by WBB RRG,
determined core and peripheral network roles. This segregation also
determined which stakeholders i.e. network members had a legitimate
decision making role. Furthermore, temporality and criticality also had a
contingent aspect in that they were determined in the context of a
specific issue: the Regional Works Program. To reiterate, the
development, implementation and acquittal of the Regional Works
Program was a key driver stakeholder salience in the WBB RRG.
For Definitive and Deliberative Type stakeholders who were core
network participants, resource access and institutional arrangement
were two (2) key factors in attributions of power and legitimacy. These
factors reflected the context in which network was embedded and in
particular the formal institutional arrangements established by the
Roads Alliance Board. In addition to formalising network membership
and structure these arrangements also impact on how the RRG
collectively managed the pool of road funds under its control.
For the remaining stakeholders, who were peripheral to the governance
network, resources were a noticeable factor in attributions of power and
legitimacy. However institutional arrangements did not arise as
significant factor in determining the salience of peripheral stakeholders.
Unlike core network stakeholders, the temporality and criticality of
claims made by peripheral stakeholders were determined within the
-191-
context of specific issues bring addressed with an individual
stakeholder.
A difference could be seen in the factors which impacted on
determinations of criticality and temporality within the core network and
beyond the network boundary. Reflecting the internal focus, of the
network, temporality was linked to resource access and criticality was
primarily established through internal processes of negotiation. For
peripheral stakeholders, however, neither resource access nor
negotiation processes were determinants of temporality and criticality.
Rather for peripheral stakeholders, these attributes were determined for
a particular stakeholder in the context of a specific issue such as the
additional heavy vehicle permits sought conflict with AGFORCE. The
next section elaborates on how stakeholders were engaged by the
WBB RRG beginning with a description of the approach taken.
ENGAGEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS
Approach
The analysis of the interview data and pertinent documents revealed
that WBB RRG’s approach to stakeholder engagement was focused on
two (2) groups: core network stakeholders and peripheral stakeholders.
In keeping with the RRG constitution, the primary strategy for engaging
within the core network was through regularly scheduled network
meetings (Wide Bay Burnett Regional Roads Group, 2008). Separate
meetings were conducted for WBB Political and WBB Technical.
To ensure co-ordination between the activities of the two (2) groups, the
Chair of the Technical Committee participated in both committees,
providing a cross-over conduit for information sharing and decision
making. Confirming this boundary spanning role, a respondent from
WBB Political stated that the Chair of the Technical Committee was the
“liaison between our technical committee and our political decision
making” (Interview, 16 April 2010). Using this type of approach, a level
-192-
of continuity was maintained such that information flowed between
each committee. Thus the institutional arrangements formalised in the
RRG Constitution underpinned the operation of the network gave a
degree of formality and organisation to stakeholder engagement among
core network participants.
However, from the analysis it was apparent that the RRG rarely
involved itself in the engagement of peripheral network stakeholders
because their issues were seen to be beyond the scope of the network.
On this separation of issues, four (4) respondents confirmed that
external stakeholder engagement was not a network matter because it
generally related to council projects and therefore undertaken by
member council representatives (Interviews, 24 March, 25 March, 22
April and 23 April 2010). However, two (2) divergent views were
expressed. Four (4) respondents, two from WBB Political and two (2)
from WBB Technical, suggested that external stakeholder engagement
should be undertaken by the RRG network managers (Interviews, 23
March, 20 April, 22 April and 24 April 2010). Two (2) other engineering
respondents indicated that the responsibility for external engagement
lay with representatives from RRG Political (Interviews, 24 March and
26 May 2010).
Taken together these views indicate that there was disagreement
among respondents about who should undertake engagement with
external stakeholders. Therefore, the development of strategically
important external relationships with stakeholders was not collectively
addressed by the governance network; rather it was left to the
discretion of network members and managers. As a result of this
disconnect, the governance network was unable to tap into the
viewpoints, resources and capabilities of external stakeholders to
inform their decision making which was arguably linked to improvising
road service delivery in the region.
-193-
To sum up the approach to engagement of stakeholders within the core
network was based on the institutional arrangements embedded in the
RRG’s Constitution. In contrast, peripheral stakeholders were engaged
were engaged through ad hoc processes that were left to the discretion
of network members. The next section focuses on stakeholder
engagement beginning with frequency and type of engagement
processes implemented.
Frequency and Types of Stakeholder Engagement Processes
The WBB RRG and its members undertook or participated in a range of
engagement activities which occurred at different frequencies and
intensities. Table 6.5 sets out these combinations of activities
undertaken with stakeholders and also shows the frequency and
processes of engagement undertaken. For ease of understanding, the
data in Table 6.5 is framed around the stakeholder Types identified:
Definitive, Deliberative and Dangerous.
Table 6.5 WBB RRG: Snapshot of Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder Stakeholder Type
Engagement Combinations Engagement Frequency and Process
Bundaberg Regional
Council
Definitive Low frequency, Multi-way stakeholder processes
Gympie Regional Council Definitive Low frequency, Multi-way stakeholder processes
Fraser Coast Regional
Council
Definitive Low frequency, Multi-way stakeholder processes
North Burnett Regional
Council
Definitive Low frequency, Multi-way stakeholder processes
South Burnett Regional
Council
Definitive Low frequency, Multi-way stakeholder processes
Queensland Police
Service
Definitive Low frequency, One-way communication
processes
Queensland Ambulance
Service
Definitive Low frequency, One-way communication
processes
Roads Alliance Project
Team
Deliberative Moderate frequency, Multi-way stakeholder
processes
Transport and Main
Roads Wide Bay Burnett
Region
Deliberative Low frequency, Multi-way stakeholder processes
Wide Bay Burnett
Regional Organisation of
Councils
Deliberative Low frequency, Multi-way stakeholder processes
-194-
Stakeholder Stakeholder Type
Engagement Combinations Engagement Frequency and Process
AGFORCE Dangerous Low frequency, Two way exchanges
It is demonstrated in Table 6.5 that there were relatively few
engagement processes in use by the governance network. It is
noteworthy that multi-way dialogue was the most commonly used
process (71% of cases) and that the majority (91%) of stakeholders
were engaged with low frequency. The deeper implications of these
findings drawn from Table 6.5 are discussed in the next sections which
examine the connections between the frequency and processes of
engagement of each stakeholder Type to gain insights about the
governance network factors which impacted on stakeholder
engagement. The discussion begins by examining engagement with
Definitive Type stakeholders.
Engagement of Stakeholder Types
Definitive Type Stakeholders
The Definitive Type stakeholder group included both internal
stakeholders (network member councils) and external network
stakeholders (QPS and QES). Engagement with stakeholders in each
of these two (2) groups was approached differently by the RRG. There
was a collective view among respondents (72%) that member councils
were primarily engaged through multi-way processes, formal network
meetings which occurred at low frequency intervals. As a result of their
membership role, member councils had an agreement to participate in
network meetings and a substantive involvement in network decision
making processes (Wide Bay Burnett Regional Roads Group, 2008),
indicating that institutional arrangements had an impact on engagement
at network level.
Four (4) respondents suggested that regular network meetings were an
effective way for network participants to engage (Interviews, 24 March a
Salience Attributes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
-195-
and b, 16 April and 20 April, 2010). A managerial respondent summed
up the advantages of having regular network meetings in this way,
“one of the biggest benefits…is that you’ve got the guys
sitting down and talking about issues on a regular basis
and they have that opportunity to bounce things off
different people” (Interview, 24 March 2010).
Furthermore, an engineering respondent noted that RRG meetings
were effective because they were an “opportunity to see what others
[network members] are doing” (Interview, 20 April 2010). A respondent
from WBB Political suggested that network meetings were sufficient
“because you have got everyone in the room it [decision making] works
a lot better” (Interview, 16 April 2010).
While the RRG Constitution provided an administrative framework for
the conduct of network activities such as formal meetings, there was
some evidence of stakeholder engagement through coalition building
within the RRG. Coalition building activities were mainly focused on
fully expending the collective “pool” of TIDS funding allocated to WBB
RRG each year (Interviews, 16 December 2009 and 26 May 2010). Six
(6) respondents (Interviews, 24 March, 16 April, 22 April a, b and c and
26 May 2010) indicated that full expenditure of funds was a driving
force for the RRG to ensure future funding allocations were not
jeopardised. Summing up the situation, a respondent from WBB
Political forcefully stated that the RRG was “not going to sit back and
lose money” (Interview, 26 May 2011).
An engineering respondent commented that “the five councils need to
work together as a group; to make sure our funding doesn’t get
reduced” (Interview, 23 March 2010). This objective was largely
achieved by member councils mutually cooperating in the transfer of
project funding between councils. An engineering respondent described
the process,
-196-
“where there has been under expenditure on jobs, we
[RRG] transfer money to other jobs … and funding
reallocated to other projects” (Interview 23 March 2010).
Five (5) respondents confirmed that member councils worked
collectively in this way to ensure that funding levels were maintained
from year to year (Interviews, 23 March, 24 March a and b and 22 April
a and b 2010). Thus the WBB RRG governance network members
coalesced around the collective need to maintain resource flows.
Furthermore, six (6) respondents identified that relationships shaped
interactions and a deeper engagement between Definitive stakeholders
(Interviews, 24 March a and b, 20 April, 22 April a and b and 26 May
2010). A managerial respondent explained that relationships facilitated
network processes indicating that that they were “crucial” to network
direction setting (Interview, 05 February 2010). An engineering
respondent suggested that relationships affected network participation
because “everyone [in the RRG] has an opportunity to participate” and
that such interactions were facilitated by established relationships within
the network (Interview, 29 June 2010).
However, four (4) respondents (Interviews, 23 March a and b, 24 and
25 March 2010) suggested that the frequency of interactions between
RRG members was related to accessibility of resources. The impact of
resources on frequency of engagement was noted as a particular issue
in situations where core network members had severe resource
constraints (Interviews, 24 March a and b, and 25 March 2010). A
network manager summed up the situation in this way,
“I adjust the amount of time I spend with them [Councils], I
spend more time with the ones that are struggling
because of their lack of resources … so I spend less time
-197-
with the guys who have got things sorted or have the
resources” (Interview, 24 March 2010).
Another respondent from a smaller Council also highlighted the
importance of accessing and leveraging resourcing as a factor in
stakeholder engagement indicating that “we rely on the big fellas a lot
to help us out” (Interview, 25 March 2010). This statement suggested
that a less well-resourced network member was able to tap into the
resources of their more well-resourced counterparts within the network.
A mayoral respondent confirmed that technical assistance was provided
from within the RRG to “smaller Councils” with fewer resources
(Interview 24 March 2010).
While there was no evidence of new stakeholders or their resources
being brought into the RRG during the period this research was
undertaken there was some evidence that levels of member
participation were checked. Such monitoring was particularly focused
on levels of expenditure by RRG members in respect of the Regional
Works Program as required by the Roads Alliance Operating
Guidelines (Local Government Association of Queensland Ltd and
Queensland Government, 2011). An engineering respondent explained
the purpose of the monitoring process in this way,
“where there has been under expenditure on jobs, we
transfer money to other jobs so funding is reallocated”
(Interview, 23 March 2010).
From an examination of three (3) sets of WBB Technical Meeting
Minutes (Meetings, 17 September, 29 October and 10 December 2009)
it could be seen that the designated network managers undertook
ongoing monitoring of individual council’s expenditure levels. For
example, each set of Minutes included a detailed report on the
expenditure of each member council in respect of the 2009/10 Works
Program. An engineering respondent indicated the purpose of
-198-
monitoring in this way, “there has been under expenditure on jobs, we
transfer money to other jobs so there has been a case of getting
funding reallocated to other projects” (Interview, 24 March 2010). By
monitoring the levels of project expenditure, the designated network
managers were also able to indirectly monitor levels of participation in
this critical network task.
Achievement of network objectives was also a pivotal issue for
stakeholder engagement within the network. In particular, network
members coalesced around two (2) joint projects designed to deliver
benefits through the implementation of joint purchasing and resource
sharing arrangements (Wide Bay Burnett Regional Roads Group, 2008).
Regional co-ordination of tendering for road resealing and termite
inspections on bridges was undertaken collectively by the RRG (Minutes of
Meetings, 17 September, 29 October and 10 December 2009 and 18
March 2010). Two respondents (Interviews, 23 March and 26 May
2010) in particular commented on the benefits of leveraging regional
resources.
A respondent from WBB Political indicated that there were ‘”cost
reductions and enhanced financial gains for councils” from the joint
tendering program (Interview, 26 May 2010). A respondent from WBB
Technical indicated that there had been another benefit from the
program, “it made us looks at our processes and how they could
improve” (Interview, 23 March 2010). Thus the RRG leveraged its
collective resources to achieve cost savings and enhanced tendering
processes.
In the case of two (2) other Definitive Type stakeholders, QPS and
QAS, engagement primarily focused on facilitating access of
emergency service vehicles to regional locations where accidents had
occurred. As this was not a common occurrence (Interview, 25 March
2010) engagement was low frequency undertaken through either one-
way communication (issue of permits) or two-way exchanges
-199-
(emergency meetings). Thus engagement was episodic rather than
planned and occurred as emergency situations arose. Given that
engagement was undertaken by only one (1) member council
(Interview, 25 March 2010) and not raised as an issue at network level,
the RRG did not collectively engage with this stakeholder. Accordingly
there was a separation of stakeholder relationships at governance
network and member council level.
Deliberative Type Stakeholders
Similar to Definitive stakeholders, the five (5) member councils,
Deliberative stakeholders, TMRWBB, RAPT and WBBROC were
primarily engaged by the RRG through multi-way processes, formal
network meetings, which occurred at low frequency intervals. As a
network member, TMRWBB was also involved in monitoring levels of
project expenditure. An engineering respondent described the role in
this way, TMRWBB “monitor the [expenditure] situation and encourage
[councils]…to spend the money in time” (Interview, 22 April 2010).
However, this role of checking levels of participation did not extend to
stakeholders beyond the network.
Engagement with TMRWBB, was seen by seven (7) political and
engineering respondents as being driven by relationships that were
“good” (Interviews, 23 March a and b, 24 March and 22 April 2010),
“close” (Interview, 23 March 2010) or “mature” (Interview, 25 March
2010). These comments allude to the existence of positive
relationships between TMRWBB and member councils all of whom
were core network members. Furthermore, indicating that the nature of
the relationship with TMRWBB was open and transparent, a WBB
Political respondent identified the relationship as “an open book”
(Interview, 22 April 2010). Thus the relationships between network
members had some characteristics of a “network-based, relational”
approach to stakeholder engagement involving trust, mutuality and
transparency (Andriof & Waddock, 2002, p.19).
Salience Attributes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
-200-
Two (2) other Deliberative Type stakeholders, RAPT and WBBROC
also participated in governance networks meetings and activities.
However, the RRG’s institutional arrangements, in particular its
Constitution (Wide Bay Burnett Regional Roads Group, 2008) impacted
on the extent to which RAPT and WBBROC participated in the network.
RAPT and WBBROC were deemed to be network observers without the
right to participate in decision making (Wide Bay Burnett Regional
Roads Group, 2008). Illustrating this difference between RAPT and
core network members, a managerial respondent described RAPT as
being “on the outside...not in the inner circle [of the RRG]” (Interview,
16 April 2010).
However, despite being distanced from network decision making, a
senior engineer suggested that RAPT was engaged by the RRG
because they “have a major influence on the RRG as they are the
controlling body” (Interview, 22 April 2010). Engagement with RAPT
was pragmatically focused and undertaken primarily to maintain access
to resource flows. For example, an engineering respondent indicated
that a relationship was RAPT was cultivated because they were seen to
be supportive of RRG applications for “state wide capability funding”
(Interview, 24 March 2010).
Taking this a step further, another engineering respondent suggested
that the RRG complied with RAPT’s requirements “to get their hands on
the money” (Interview, 29 June 2010). Taken together these comments
indicate that the RRG leveraged the resources of RAPT for the benefit
of the network. For example, by leveraging its relationship with RAPT,
in 2010 the WBB RRG received additional funding to extend its joint
purchasing arrangements. From the data it was not apparent that the
governance network extended its coalition building activities to
WBBROC or RAPT nor did the RRG check levels of participation by
these two (2) stakeholders in network activities.
-201-
Therefore, while WBBROC and RAPT were engaged though network
activities, the depth of engagement was limited because they were
excluded from decision making processes. To sum up, although all
Deliberative Type stakeholders were all involved in multi-way dialogue
processes, there was a distinction between the depth of engagement
undertaken with network members and that undertaken with network
observers. While the RRG undertook engagement as a means of
accessing the resources of RAPT, institutional arrangements restricted
the role of that stakeholder and consequently the depth of engagement
undertaken.
Dangerous Type Stakeholders
Engagement with AGFORCE, the sole Dangerous Type stakeholder,
was undertaken by an RRG member council in response to
AGFORCE’s specific claim for an expansion of heavy vehicle access to
rural roads. Engagement with AGFORCE about this issue was
conflictual in nature and occurred over several months during 2010
(Interview, 10 March 2011). During this period the member council
targeted by AGFORCE convened meetings to seek a resolution to the
conflict. Such meetings were infrequent. However, as a result of the
severe floods in the region in early 2011, the nature of the engagement
with AGFORCE changed following a decision made by the regional
council to allow the community greater discretion in determining the
priorities for heavy vehicle permits. (Interview, 10 March 2011).
Following the floods, a key engineering respondent described the new
approach as “letting the community more or less dictate its’ own
priorities [for road permit access]” (Interview, 10 March 2011). As a
result, the Council involved established a Road Users Group to obtain
ongoing direct feedback about road related issues from a wider group
of road users (Interview, 26 May 2011). AGFORCE subsequently
become one of many group members and an engineering respondent
reported that the conflict with AGFORCE dissipated to the extent
because the organisation was pushed into the “background” (Interview,
Salience Attributes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
-202-
10 March 2011). The impact of this community focused approach was
described by a council respondent in this way, “there has been a
general acceptance that this [road users group] is probably a better
forum than AGFORCE [to raise road issues with Council]” (Interview, 10
March 2011). To some extent the establishment of the Road Users
Group limited AGFORCE’s power, as its claims were not seen to be
legitimate.
Despite being a council matter, the permits issue was raised to RRG
level on two (2) occasions (Meetings, 26 November 2009 and 05
February 2010) by engineering and political respondents seeking to
inform other RRG members of difficulties it was facing with AGFORCE.
The crossover of this issue from member council to RRG level indicated
the willingness of a member council to seek support of the RRG in
managing an “antagonistic [stakeholder]” (Interview, 25 March 2010).
However, the RRG chose to distance itself from the problem situation.
Maintaining this distance, the RRG obtained occasional informal
updates from the member council involved (Interview, 24 March 2010).
To reiterate, engagement with AGFORCE evolved from individual
meetings to a more sophisticated process involving direct community
input. As a result of participating in this engagement process,
AGFORCE’s power dissipated as they became one actor among many
within the Road Users Group. Engagement with AGFORCE was
undertaken by a member council and only occasionally raised as an
issue at network level. As such, engagement with AGFORCE was a
specifically a member council issue and was clearly separated from the
governance network level.
To sum up, the WBB RRG did not engage with peripheral stakeholders
whose claims related to a member organisation and not the network as
a whole. Additionally, no evidence was found to support A Friedman
and Miles’ (2006) contention that a power based ladder of stakeholder
engagement would be in place. Although power was an issue for core
-203-
network stakeholders, the uniform nature of stakeholder engagement
activity suggested that other factors were likely to influence stakeholder
engagement.
Levels of Contact with Stakeholders
Drawing together the analysis presented thus far, three (3) levels of
contact with stakeholders could be identified: continuing, sporadic and
none. Figure 6.2 shows stakeholders assigned to each of the three (3)
levels. At the first level there was continuing contact between eight (8)
stakeholders and in particular core network participants as a result of
their RRG responsibilities. Furthermore, all stakeholders in this group
were engaged with low frequency as part of the same multi-way
dialogue process. The level of involvement had been continuous since
the inception of the RRG in 2002. Therefore there was high degree of
homogeneity among stakeholders who had continuing engagement in
network processes.
-204-
Figure 6.2 WBB RRG Governance Network Stakeholders and Levels of Contact
In the second level of Figure 6.2 were stakeholders: AGFORCE, QPS
and QAS who lacked a formal role in the RRG but with whom there was
episodic contact. However, engagement with these stakeholders was
the responsibility of member councils rather than the RRG as a whole
because in every case, the issue raised by the stakeholders was
specific to a member council rather than regional in nature. Thus all
stakeholders at Level 2 of diagram 6.2 were engaged outside of the
network boundary and this engagement was episodic in nature being
dependent on the issue.
At the third level of Figure 6.2, neither the WBB RRG nor its member
organisations had contact with twenty one (21) stakeholders from the
following groupings: economic and regional development,
environmental management, tourism promotion and elected
representatives. This number represented 67% of the entire
-205-
stakeholder group identified by respondents. Therefore decisions made
by the WBB RRG were made in isolation not having direct input
regarding economic, environmental and tourism issues of relevance to
the region.
To sum up, it can be seen from Figure 6.2 that there was limited or no
interaction between core network participants and the outer levels of
stakeholders, the WBB RRG having not included those stakeholders in
RRG processes. This segregation of stakeholders by an inner group
comprised primarily of engineers and local politicians indicated the
extent to which the network was closed to outside influences. The risk
of this extent of closure was that valid alternative viewpoints held by
informed stakeholders were not taken into account. The next section
discusses the role of network managers in stakeholder engagement by
the WBB RRG.
Role of Network Managers in Stakeholder Engagement
From the data analysis, it was identified that two (2) individuals in the
WBB RRG had a management competent to their role and this
sometimes involved stakeholder engagement. The role of the network
managers was highlighted by sixteen (16) respondents during
interviews. Two (2) respondents described the role the network
managers as “pivotal” (Interviews, 22 April 2010 and 26 May 2011). Yet
another respondent described a network manager as the “heartbeat” of
WBB Technical ensuring that the group functioned effectively on a
continuing basis (Interview, 24 March 2010). Taken together these
comments indicate the centrality of the Network Managers’ roles in the
RRG.
The major focus of the engagement undertaken by the Network
Managers was the co-ordination of activities associated with the
development and implementation of the Regional Works Program for
the RRG. Five (5) respondents confirmed the Network manager
undertook such a co-ordination role (Interviews, 23 March, 24 March a
-206-
and b, 22 April 2010 and 26 May 2010). Focusing specifically on the
Regional Works Program, the primary network manager was seen to
“co-ordinate all the information” provided by member councils (Interview
26 May 2010). Confirming this co-ordination role, a network manager
was described as “as a little cattle dog nipping at their heels and
annoying them [network members]” to provide information for the Works
Program (Interview, 24 March 2010).
From the analysis, it was identified that engagement was focused
entirely within WBB Technical and focused on drawing together inputs
from RRG member councils and TMRWBB. Thus network participants
RAPT and WBBROC were not included in stakeholder engagement
activities co-ordinated by Network Managers. To summarise, internal
stakeholder engagement was task specific and exclusive to WBB
Technical members indicating that there were restrictions about which
stakeholders were permitted to be involved in network activities.
FACTORS IMPACTING ON STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
From the data analysis, a number of factors were identified as having
an impact of stakeholder engagement. Table 6.6 contains a summary of
the processes of engagement, the frequency of their occurrence and
the factors which impacted on stakeholder engagement. For ease of
understanding, the table is structured around stakeholders and
stakeholder Types.
-207-
Table 6.6 WBB RRG Frequency and Processes of Engagement and Factors Impacting on Stakeholder Engagement
Legend: * symbol = issue found to exist, Grey shaded cell = issue not found to exist.
Stakeholder Details Factors which Impacted on Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder Stakeholder type
Core/ peripheral role
Network established terms of engagement
Coalition building by network
Stakeholders brought into network
Network monitored changes in participation
Network leveraged stakeholders resources
Network Manager involved in engagement
Role of Network Manager in engagement
CO
RE
NE
TW
OR
KS
TA
KE
HO
LDE
RS
Bundaberg Regional Council
Definitive Core
* * * * * Co-ordination
Gympie Regional Council
Definitive Core
* * * * * Co-ordination
Fraser Coast Regional Council
Definitive Core
* * * * * Co-ordination
North Burnett Regional Council
Definitive Core
* * * * * Co-ordination
South Burnett Regional Council
Definitive Core
* * * * * Co-ordination
Roads Alliance Project Team
Deliberative Core
* *
* * Co-ordination
Transport and Main Roads Wide Bay Burnett
Deliberative Core
* * * * * Co-ordination
Wide Bay Burnett Regional Organisation of Councils
Deliberative Core
*
*
PE
RIP
HE
RA
L
ST
AK
EH
OLD
ER
S Queensland Police
Service Definitive Periphery
Queensland Ambulance Service
Definitive Periphery
AGFORCE Dangerous Periphery
-208-
As can be seen from Table 6.6 there is a high degree of consistency
among core network participants in the way they were engaged and
processes that the network used with these stakeholders. Furthermore
all network participants were either Definitive or Deliberative Type
stakeholders, suggesting that these stakeholder types were more likely
to participate in internal network engagement processes. From Table
6.6, it is evident that for the remaining peripheral stakeholders,
irrespective of stakeholder type, engagement activities were not
managed through the network. This evidence indicates that peripheral
stakeholders were not engaged by the network, this role having been
left to network member organisations. The next section extends the
analysis and identifies the links between stakeholder salience and
engagement.
LINKS BETWEEN STAKEHOLDER SALIENCE AND STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
The theoretical Framework for Stakeholder Salience and Engagement
postulated that there would be a number of links between stakeholder
Type and the frequency and processes of engagement undertaken.
Developed from the data analysis, Figure 6.3 provides an overview of
the proposed links and the empirical data for WBB RRG. The red cells
indicate an overlap between the theoretical prediction and the empirical
data generated by this research
-209-
Legend: C in red shaded cell=Core network stakeholder, P= Peripheral stakeholder; Grey shaded cell=no stakeholders identified
Figure 6.3 WBB RRG Links between Stakeholder Salience and Engagement
As can be seen from Figure 6.3, there was little support for the
existence of a range of linkages between stakeholder salience and
engagement as proposed in the theoretical Framework for Stakeholder
Salience and Engagement. Furthermore, the link between stakeholder
salience and engagement was most pronounced in the case of core
network stakeholders (Definitive and Deliberative Type) who were
Multi-way C. Definitive (5)
C. Deliberative (3)
Two-way P. Dangerous (1)
One-Way P. Definitive (2)
Low Moderate High
Multi-way Definitive
Deliberative Dominant
Two-way Demanding
Dependent2
Influential1
Dependent
Dominant1
Dominant2
Dependent1
Dangerous
One-Way
Dormant
Discretionary
Discetuonary2
Discretionary3
Low Moderate High
Frequency of engagement
Frequency of engagement
WBB RRG Results T
ype o
f P
rocess
T
ype o
f P
rocess
Linkages theorised in proposed framework for Stakeholder Salience and Engagement
-210-
engaged infrequently through network meetings. From this result, it
could suggested that at network level, engagement with internal
stakeholders was a routine activity that was context specific i.e.
occurring within the Regional Works Program development cycle.
Furthermore, such engagement occurred within a stable regional
context and an institutional framework that had been in place for close
to a decade. Accordingly, stakeholder needs were addressed through a
well-established negotiation framework which incorporated a mix of
political, technical and relational factors.
However, the analysis of case data showed that the network adopted a
distinctly different approach to engagement of peripheral stakeholders.
There was evidence that stakeholder engagement was undertaken by
network member organisations with individual stakeholders in response
to specific organisational issues. An example was the engagement
between North Burnett RC and AGFORCE about obtaining permits for
heavy vehicles to travel on gravel roads. As such, engagement with
peripheral stakeholders was not a collective activity by WBB RRG and
did not spill over into the network context. The next section summarises
and draws conclusion about the findings of this case study.
CASE SUMMARY AND PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
From the qualitative and quantitative analysis of data collected for this
case, a number of insights have emerged. A substantial number of
stakeholders who had a potential or actual role in road service delivery
in the Wide Bay Burnett region were identified as being of relevance to
the WBB RRG. However this grouping did not include the broader
community. Particularly noteworthy among the omissions were road
users, citizens and property owners as stakeholders who could have
been affected by or affect the outcomes of RRG projects.
Four (4) stakeholder Types were identified within the case: Definitive,
Deliberative, Dangerous, and Non-stakeholders. Leaving aside Non-
stakeholders who do not impact directly on the study, the majority
-211-
(73%) of stakeholders were either Definitive or Deliberative Types.
Furthermore, the core network participants, all of whom were either
Definitive or Deliberative stakeholder Types, were considered by
respondents to have three (3) sources of power: coercive, utilitarian and
normative. As such, power was equally balanced between core
network stakeholders within the governance network. However there
was no evidence of this power having been used within the network
and thus power remained latent.
The claims of all Definitive Type network stakeholders were identified
as having moral legitimacy and thus their acceptance by the RRG was
influenced by the social norm of “doing the right thing” (Suchman,
1995). Furthermore, the claims of the three (3) Deliberative Type
stakeholders were also considered to have pragmatic legitimacy, based
on self-interest and cognitive legitimacy because they were understood
or taken from granted by the RRG (Suchman, 1995). Having three (3)
types of legitimacy suggested that Deliberative Type stakeholders had
the potential for a broader range of claims to be accepted by the RRG.
Claims made by all stakeholders in the network were perceived to be
critical but only Definitive Type stakeholders had temporal claims. Thus
there was a high level of salience within the WBB RRG governance
network, with participants connected by perceptions of power and
legitimacy.
Stakeholders with a peripheral role in the network were found to be one
(1) of two (2) stakeholder Types: Definitive and Dangerous. In contrast
with the core network stakeholders, peripheral stakeholders had only
one source of power: normative. Accordingly, peripheral stakeholders
had fewer types of power at their disposal to achieve their objectives.
Unlike the majority of network stakeholders, the claims of peripheral
stakeholders were seen to have three (3) types of legitimacy:
pragmatic, moral and cognitive. As a consequence, peripheral
stakeholders may have a broader range of claims accepted by the
RRG.
-212-
The WBB RRG approach to the task of stakeholder engagement
focused on the core network members and occurred under the
provisions of the RRG Constitution. As such there was a formal process
through which core network stakeholders were engaged. However,
there was no agreed strategy for engagement of peripheral
stakeholders nor was there evidence of engagement with this group
had occurred. Thus the development of strategically important
relationships with key stakeholders outside of the network was not
addressed collectively by the RRG. In the longer term, this lack of
engagement could leave the RRG vulnerable to shifts in power among
peripheral stakeholders which could consequently have impact on
achievement of RRG outcomes.
DOMAINS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
From the analysis of data, three (3) distinct Domains of stakeholder
engagement were identified: Network level, Representative
organisation level and Potential stakeholders as depicted in Figure 6.4.
-213-
Domain1
Network Level
Scope: Ongoing engagement of
core network stakeholders within
network
Low frequency of engagement
Multi-way dialogue processes
Domain 2
Representative Organisation
Level
Scope: Sporadic engagement with
peripheral stakeholders by network
representative organisations
Low-moderate frequency of
engagement
Predominant process used:
two-way exchanges
Domain 3
Potential stakeholder Level
Scope: No contact or engagement
by network or representative
organisations
No engagement by Network
Engagement by Network collectively
Figure 6.4 WBB RRG Domains of Stakeholder Engagement
In Domain 1 were core network participants who were either Definitive
or Deliberative Type, possessing power, legitimacy and criticality.
These stakeholders were engaged through on going low frequency
multi-way dialogue processes: network meetings, in which
representatives from seven (7) organisations participated. Two (2)
factors impacted on how stakeholder engagement occurred in the
network: access to resources and institutional arrangements. There
was evidence of coalition building to achieve network outcomes among
those network members who had decision making capacity. However
such coalition building did not extend to other network participants or
other stakeholders outside of the core network. Additionally, the
designated managers of the network co-ordinated ongoing internal
stakeholder engagement, however, this engagement was confined to
-214-
the technical arm of the governance network, and did not cross over
into the political group of the RRG.
To sum up, although there were different salience Types within the
network, there was a high degree of uniformity in the frequency and
type of engagement in use and the factors which impacted on
stakeholder engagement. Although the network managers played a role
in engagement in the technical arm of the RRG, this role did not extend
to the political group, indicating that there were two separate
approaches to stakeholder engagement with the core network. In
Domain 2, stakeholders fell into two stakeholder Types both of which
had power and temporal and critical claims. Some stakeholders in
Domain 2 were perceived to lack legitimate claims.
This configuration of salience variables suggested that power and the
possession of temporal and critical claims was a common factor among
Domain 2 stakeholders. While a variety of engagement processes were
used, two-way exchanges were the most common and occurred
sporadically and at low to moderate frequency. Engagement of
stakeholders in Domain 2 was undertaken at network representative
organisation level and there was no direct connection with the network.
To sum up, Domain 2 stakeholders were not engaged by the network,
their issues having being consigned to network member organisation
level and thus beyond the scope of the network. Having none of the
salience attributes, the Potential stakeholders in Domain 3 were not
connected with either the governance network or member
organisations. These stakeholders were effectively excluded from
participation in regional road activities which could have impacted on
them.
CONCLUSION
This chapter examined described and analysed how the WBB RRG
governance network engaged with its stakeholders. This case study
-215-
has confirmed that a range of stakeholders were of relevance to the
WBB RRG, however a substantial number of these stakeholders were
not engaged in any capacity by the network. Three (3) Domains of
stakeholder engagement were identified: one (1) within the network and
two (2) outside of the network. Within Domain 1, the core network
stakeholders were all Definitive or Deliberative Type. Thus for core
network stakeholders there appeared to be a relationship between
stakeholder Types that incorporated power, and legitimacy and critical
claims and the type and frequency of engagement undertaken.
Peripheral stakeholders in Domain 2, were not engaged by the network,
rather engagement occurred at member organisation level. Among the
stakeholders in Domain 2, two (2) stakeholder Types were present:
Definitive and Dangerous both of which were highly salient because of
their combination of power, and critical and temporal claims. However
despite having high salience, there was variability in the frequency and
type of engagement processes in use. Therefore for Domain 2
stakeholders, there did not appear to be a relationship between the
level of stakeholder salience and type and frequency of engagement.
Non stakeholders who were in Domain 3 were not engaged at either
network or member organisation level and thus relationships remained
inactive.
A number of factors associated with the WBB RRG governance
network were identified as impacting on stakeholder salience and
engagement and in particular institutional arrangements and access to
resources. Furthermore, core network stakeholders were particularly
impacted by management processes undertaken within the network.
This chapter has discussed the range of stakeholders that were
relevant at both the network and member organisation levels of this
case of an infrastructure governance network in the Wide Bay Burnett
regional setting. Moreover the various stakeholder types attributed to
these stakeholders were ascertained and the links between stakeholder
salience and engagement examined. The following chapter analyses
-216-
how stakeholder relationships present in another road governance
network in the northern area of South-East Queensland.
-217-
CHAPTER 7- CASE 3: NORTHERN SOUTH-EAST
QUEENSLAND REGIONAL ROAD GROUP
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents analysis and findings about the function and
operation of the Northern South-East Queensland (NSEQ) RRG
infrastructure governance network. Divided into four (4) sections, the
first section positions the case within its contextual background and
discusses the institutional arrangements under which the NSEQ RRG
operates. The second section presents an analysis of the NSEQ RRG
governance network, focusing in particular on stakeholder identification
and salience and engagement. The third section discusses the
network’s approach to stakeholder engagement and the processes and
frequency with which stakeholder engagement was undertaken. Finally,
the chapter summarises the insights drawn from the case analysis and
also outlines several preliminary conclusions about the characteristics
and drivers of stakeholder engagement undertaken by the NSEQ RRG
governance network.
BACKGROUND TO THE NSEQ RRG GOVERNANCE NETWORK
The NSEQ RRG was established in 2010 and in its current form brings
together four (4) organisations: Sunshine Coast RC, Moreton Bay RC,
Somerset RC and Transport and Main Roads North Coast Region
(TMRNC) as joint managers of a relatively small but significant regional
road network within their collective boundaries. Funding for RRG
activities is obtained from a number of local, state and federal
government sources, with the state government controlled TIDs
program the major source of income.
As depicted in Figure 7.1, the geographic coverage of the NSEQ RRG
is over 10,000sqkm stretching northerly from the outer northern suburbs
of Brisbane, east to the Sunshine Coast area and west to the rural
areas of the Brisbane Valley. This area includes important link roads
-218-
that connect Brisbane with Gympie to the north and west to
Toowoomba. Furthermore, roads in the coastal areas of the region are
important infrastructures for tourism because they are a corridor to
popular beaches.
Figure 7.1 Map showing the Geographic Coverage of NSEQ RRG.
Adapted from “The Roads Alliance Addendum to the Roads Implementation Program
2009-10 to 2013-14” by Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2009.
As a result DTMR and Regional Councils invest significant resources in
building, maintaining and upgrading roads in the area. For example the
Sunshine Coast RC expended more than $35,000,000 on road
infrastructure in 2010-2011 (Sunshine Coast Council, 2010). The
Sunshine Coast and Moreton Bay regions are very large urban areas
and the Sunshine Coast RC and Moreton Bay RC have been
described as “Super Councils” because their large geographic size,
residential rate base and access to resources. In contrast, the
Somerset Regional Council area is restricted, comprising many small
rural settlements, generating a very low rate base and thus substantially
fewer accessible funds.
-219-
In early 2011, serious flooding was experienced across the Northern
South-East Queensland area. As an example of the impact of those
floods, the Somerset RC area was severely flood affected, accruing
$45,000,000 damage to 349 road assets owned by the Somerset RC
(Somerset Regional Council, 2011). The Somerset RC was able to
access Commonwealth Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery
Arrangements funding for road repairs. More broadly though, the
flooding impacted on the delivery of 2010-11 NSEQ RRG Works
Program because of the need to undertake significant “ flood damage
restoration works”(Queensland Government & Local Government
Association of Queensland, 2011, p. 21). Thus the NSEQ RRG had
experienced a degree of upheaval during its short lifespan. The
institutional arrangements governing the network are discussed next.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
There have been two iterations of the NSEQ RRG over a period of eight
(8) years. In its first iteration, beginning in 2002, the SUNROC/
COOLOOLA RRG had a membership of five (5) organisations: four (4)
city and shire councils, Caloundra City Council, Cooloola, Maroochy,
Noosa Shire Councils, and TMRNC. The SUNROC/ COOLOOLA RRG
operated for six (6) years before being dissolved in 2008, following local
government amalgamations which substantially reduced the number of
local councils across Queensland. Following the local government
elections in 2009, the SUNROC/ COOLOOLA RRG was re-established
as NSEQ RRG with a membership of four (4) organisations: Moreton
Bay RC, Sunshine Coast RC, Somerset RC and TMRNC. Each of
these councils had undergone significant restructuring. Moreton Bay
RC and Sunshine Coast RC each absorbed three (3) smaller councils
and Somerset RC absorbed two (2).
The change of structure had a significant impact on the RRG, including
the need to redefine its local road network and to develop a new Works
Program that catered for new and in two (2) cases, much larger
councils. The restructured NSEQ RRG first met in its new formation in
-220-
2010 following a one (1) year hiatus. As a result of the break in its
operations and significant structural changes, relationships within the
network were disrupted. The rebuilding was made more difficult
because the newly formed councils, in particular Sunshine Coast RC
had inherited disparate financial and managerial systems which meant
that Council representatives had severe limitations on the time they
could spend on RRG matters (Interviews, 20 April and 19 May 2010).
In accordance with the requirements of the Roads Alliance (Local
Government Association of Queensland Ltd and Queensland
Government, 2011) the reconstituted NSEQ RRG is structured as two
(2) interrelated groups: the political committee, NSEQ Political and the
technical group, NSEQ Technical. Table 7.1 shows the structure of the
RRG and the two (2) committees through which it operates and the
number and roles of RRG members.
As can be seen from Table 7.1, the core membership of NSEQ
governance network was eight (8), with membership balanced between
the two (2) groups. The decision making group which is dominated by
elected officials is referred to
from herein as NSEQ
Political. The second group,
which is comprised entirely of
engineers, is referred to from
herein as NSEQ Technical.
This composition reflects the
roles: political and technical
as established in the Roads
Alliance Operational Guidelines (Local Government Association of
Queensland Ltd and Queensland Government, 2011). This separation
of technical and political responsibilities follows a similar segregation of
the elected and administrative arms of Regional Councils in accordance
with the provisions of the Local Government Act (2009). Consequently
Table 7.1 NSEQ RRG Governance Network
Structure, Membership and Roles
GROUPS MEMBERS ROLES
NSEQ
Political
4 Mayor (2)
Local Government
Councillor (1)
Engineer (1)
NSEQ
Technical
4 Engineers (4)
NSEQ
Governance
Network
collectively
8 Elected
representatives (3)
Engineers (5)
-221-
there is a clear separation of roles within the RRG. While NSEQ
Political focuses on managerial decision making, RRG Technical
concentrates on the technical aspects of road delivery. As a result of
this segregation of responsibilities, there was little evidence of
interaction between the political and engineering members of the RRG.
Respondent Demographics
The respondent group for this case study was six (6), comprising
engineers (68%) and elected representatives (32%). Two (2) levels of
government were represented on the RRG: the majority (66%) were
from Local government and the remainder came from state
government. This high level of representation of local government
organisations is unsurprising given that the RRG was specifically
focused on local roads in the region. Two (2) professional orientations
with differing foci were evident within the RRG: engineering and
political. While the engineers focused on maintaining technical
standards, political representatives focused on meeting the needs of
their electorates. While these two (2) orientations could have come into
conflict, there was no evidence of this having occurred.
Participation in the Governance Network
As discussed previously, the NSEQ RRG comprises two (2) committees
which met three (3) times following re-establishment of the RRG in
2010. The average duration of participation in the network was ten (10)
months over its fourteen (14) month life. As a result of the ongoing
structural changes, particularly within two (2) of the larger councils,
there was a perceived a lack of continuity of RRG membership
(Interviews, 20 April and 19 May 2010). A senior engineering
respondent indicated that there had been problems in stabilising the
membership of NSEQ Technical because larger councils were not
“putting people in the seat that are going to be there permanently”
(Interview, 19 May 2010). Another engineering respondent suggested
that the changing membership was the result of the group’s “infancy”
-222-
(Interview, 20 April 2010) meaning that it was at early stage of
development. As such, relationships were relatively short term and
lacked the accumulated knowledge and shared experiences that
accumulate over time.
However, another engineering respondent suggested that relationships
within the RRG were “dysfunctional” because members focused more
on their own organisation rather than the collective good of the RRG
(Interview 18, January 2010). This position was not confirmed by other
respondents. Having described the NSEQ RRG and its membership,
the next section addresses stakeholder identification by the NSEQ
RRG.
STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION
From the data collected during with six (6) key informants, a set of
thirteen (13) stakeholders were identified as relevant to the NSEQ
RRG. These stakeholders were groups or individuals who could affect
or be affected by the achievement of outcomes, and were drawn from
the Federal, State and Local governments and the industry sector as
shown in Table 7.2. The identified stakeholders had a variety of roles
including transportation management, lobbying, environmental
management and political representation, with transport management
being most dominant.
Table 7.2 NSEQ RRG Stakeholders Sector Represented, Roles and Interactions
Stakeholder Sector Represented
Role RRG Interacts with this stakeholder
Queensland Emergency
Services
State government Emergency services
Department of Environment
and Resource Management
State government Environmental management
AGFORCE Industry peak body Industry group
Roads Alliance Project Team State and Local
government
Transport management
Queensland Police Service State government Police services
Member of Queensland
Parliament 2
State government Political representation
Mining Industry Industry Industry group
Sunshine Coast RC Local government Transport management
-223-
Stakeholder Sector Represented
Role RRG Interacts with this stakeholder
Moreton Bay RC Local government Transport management
Somerset RC Local government Transport management
Federal Department of
Infrastructure and Transport
Federal government Transport management
Transport and Main Roads
Sunshine Coast
State government Transport management
Heavy Transport Operators Industry Industry group
From Table 7.2 it can also be seen that the RRG had differing levels of
contact with various stakeholder groupings. As indicated by the shaded
areas in Table 7.2, the NSEQ RRG had no reported contact with the
majority (62%) of the stakeholder group. This analysis indicated that a
number of relationships were inactive. A respondent in a leadership
position explained that the lack of contact with the broader range of
stakeholders was due to the short life of the RRG and the immediate
focus on developing internal relationships (Interview, 20 May 2010).
Given the limited opportunities for interactions within the network,
engagement with external stakeholders appeared to be given a lower
priority.
From the data presented in Table 7.2 it can also be seen that that the
majority (77%) of stakeholders represented one (1) of the three (3) tiers
of government. Apart from AGFORCE, the Heavy Transport Operators
and the Mining Industry, there was little non-government input into the
activities of the RRG. From the breakdown in Table 7.2 it can be seen
the extent to which government and representative bodies were
Deliberative in decision making, to the exclusion of other stakeholders.
As a result of this imbalance, inputs about important issues such as
environmental impacts were not taken into account. The various
stakeholder groupings identified in Table 7.2 are discussed next
beginning with transport management groups.
Transport Management Stakeholders
-224-
The majority (54%) of stakeholders identified by the governance
network had a role in transport management and included TMRNC,
RAPT, three (3) RRG member councils and FDIT. Several (4)
respondents (Interviews, 16 April, 19 May, 20 May a and b) identified
the role of TMRNC as the funding body for the RRG and thus its
significance as a stakeholder. Confirming the importance of TIDS
funding to the RRG, an engineering respondent indicated that “the key
focus [of the RRG] is on the money that is available from the TIDS
program managed by DTMR” (Interview, 29 June 2010).
At the local government level, RRG member councils were also
identified as stakeholders (Interviews, 16 April, 19 May and 20 May
2010 a and b). Their stakeholder status stemmed from the RRG
institutional arrangements (LGAQ) which established member councils
as RRG decision maker members. As key decision makers alongside
TMRNC, member councils also contributed to the resource flows within
the RRG. As confirmed in the Operating Guidelines for RRG’s (Local
Government Association of Queensland Ltd and Queensland
Government, 2011) Regional Councils were expected to match State
Government TIDS funding allocations on a dollar for dollar basis.
Therefore, Regional Councils had both legitimate authority and access
to funds in their role as a stakeholder.
Unlike other transport management stakeholders, RAPT did not have a
direct funding role within the RRG. As network observers, their role was
to co-ordinate information flows between the Roads Alliance Board and
the NSEQ RRG. Thus RAPT’s identification as a stakeholder was
linked to their role as an information broker (Interviews, 20 April and 29
June 2010). The importance of this role was summed up by a council
respondent who indicated that RAPT was the “driving force” behind the
establishment of the RRG, (Interview, 20 April 2010), However, it was
interesting to note that in the case of FDIT, another transportation
management stakeholder, the majority of respondents (5) (Interviews,
16 April, 19 May, 20 May a and b and 31 May 2010) reported having no
-225-
contact with this stakeholder. Thus there was an element of selectivity
in determining which transportation management stakeholders had a
role in the network.
Industry Groups
Respondents identified three (3) stakeholders representing industry
groups: AGFORCE, the mining industry and the Heavy Transport
Operators. However, both political and engineering respondents
(Interviews, 16 April, 19 May, 20 May a and b and 31 May 2010) noted
that the RRG members had no contact with any of the industry
stakeholders. An engineering respondent summed up the situation
indicating that “they [AGFORCE, the mining industry and the Heavy
Transport Operators] have not had any involvement [with the RRG] at
this stage” (Interview, 16 April 2010). This comment implied that there
was the possibility for future contact with the Heavy Transport
Operators. However this position was not confirmed by other
respondents. Providing a reason for the lack of contact with the three
(3) industry group stakeholders an engineering respondent indicated
that there were “no issues on local roads of regional significance that
required stakeholder engagement” (Interview, 20 May 2010).
Accordingly, relationships with industry group stakeholders were
inactive at the time of the study.
Queensland Government
Three (3) stakeholders with roles in the Queensland government:
DERM, QPS and MQP2 were identified by respondents. Furthermore,
four (4) respondents (Interviews, 16 April, 19 May, 20 May a and b and
31 May 2010) indicated that there was no current relationship with
these stakeholders at network level. Two (2) respondents (Interviews,
19 May and 20 May 2010) elaborated further, indicating that
interactions with DERM and QPS were project specific and thus a RRG
member organisation responsibility. For example, a respondent
suggested that DERM would be engaged where council projects
-226-
required environmental permits, for example “bridge works and
upgrades” (Interview, 19 May 2010).
Similarly, an engineering respondent explained that QPS was engaged
at the project rather than network level. Providing an example, a
respondent indicated that one RRG member council, in the context of a
large road safety project, had been had “been talking to Queensland
Police Service but it is the one council talking rather than the RRG”
(Interview, 20 May 2010). Accordingly, engagement of stakeholders
beyond the transport management cluster was not undertaken
collectively by the RRG.
To sum up, respondents identified a number of stakeholders who were
relevant to the NSEQ RRG, suggesting that there was an awareness of
internal network stakeholders as well as stakeholders beyond the
network boundary. However the RRG identified a narrowly focused
group of stakeholders who were drawn primarily from state and local
government. As a result of this narrow focus, the diverse perspectives
and contributions of the wider business and community groups,
contractors, property owners, road users and citizens were not taken
into account. These omissions could be explained, in part, by the
network’s primary function which was to manage a funding program
rather than undertaking projects. The next section examines the
salience of the NSEQ RRG’s stakeholders, to obtain insights about by
drilling down into the salience of the emergent stakeholder types
identified.
SALIENCE OF STAKEHOLDERS
As discussed in the literature review, the salience of stakeholders is
derived from combinations of power, legitimacy, temporality and
criticality. Accordingly, respondents rated the following stakeholders for
salience: member councils, TMRNC and RAPT. Based on the ratings
of the respondent group overall, these stakeholders were included in
two (2) of a possible sixteen (16) stakeholder types: Deliberative and
-227-
Dominant as proposed in the literature review. All respondents declined
to rate the salience of the remaining eight (8) stakeholders, citing that
there was no contact with these stakeholders as was discussed in
previous sections. Table 7.3 contains a tabular summary of the
combinations of power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality attributed
to the thirteen (13) RRG stakeholders and the stakeholder types these
represented.
Table 7.3 NSEQ RRG Stakeholders Classified by Salience Variables and Resultant Stakeholder Types
Legend: * symbol=attribute present. Grey shaded cell=attribute not present.
From Table 7.3 (excluding Non-stakeholders, i.e. those stakeholders
with whom the RRG reported having no contact) it can be seen that,
that power and legitimacy were the dominant salience attributes, being
ascribed to all stakeholders. It is noteworthy that all NSEQ RRG
stakeholders form the core of the governance network. Furthermore,
80% of those stakeholders were perceived by respondents to make
critical and relevant claims while none were considered to make
immediate and temporal claims. The next sections explain in detail the
different stakeholder Types that were identified from various
combinations of power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality and the
Del
iber
ativ
e
Del
iber
ativ
e
Del
iber
ativ
e
Del
iber
ativ
e
-228-
factors which influenced these attributions. The next section begins by
discussing Deliberative Type stakeholders.
Deliberative Type Stakeholders
As Deliberative Type stakeholders, TMRNC and the three (3) Regional
Councils were identified by the respondent group to have power, make
legitimate claims and convey the critical-nature of these claims to the
RRG. However, TMRNC and the three (3) member councils were not
considered by respondents to make time-dependent claims. Meaning
that although they made legitimate claims and were able to articulate
the importance of their positions, they did not insist on having their
claims met urgently by other network members. Furthermore, all
Deliberative Type stakeholders were network members who
participated in RRG decision making processes indicating the extent to
which decisions were internally controlled. The next sections examine
how stakeholder salience was constructed by respondents in the case
of Deliberative Type stakeholders beginning with the attribute of power.
Power
From the data collected, it was identified that all stakeholders of the
Deliberative Type had three (3) sources of power: coercive, utilitarian
and normative, indicating that power was balanced within the network.
Reflecting on the power of TMRNC, three (3) respondents indicated
that TMRNC had political power which could ultimately be used to
damage the RRG through the withdrawal of TIDS funding for the Works
Program (Interviews, 20 April, 19 May and 20 May 2010). An
engineering respondent noted that development of the Works Program
“is a bit of a political process” (Interview, 19 May 2010) combining both
technical requirements and political input via NSEQ Political.
Despite having differing professional approaches, there was no
reported conflict between the technical and political RRG members.
Another respondent, elaborating on the development of the Works
Program, identified that TMRNC had the power to threaten the RRG
Salience Attributes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
-229-
about “money issues and distributing funding” (Interview, 20 April
2010). Overall the respondent group indicated that network members
did not use coercion to achieve outcomes and thus their power
remained latent. This situation is indicative of a network which operates
in the shadow of the hierarchy, in that power exists in the network but it
is not enacted because objectives can be achieved through
relationships rather than coercion (Scharpf, 1994).
The three (3) member councils were also seen by respondents to have
utilitarian power and, with this, the ability to interrupt the flow of TIDS
funding into the RRG. However, the size of threat represented by the
potential loss of TIDS funding varied between Regional Councils
because of the relative proportion of their budget it represented. To
explain, the NSEQ RRG TIDS allocation for 2009/2010 was $13 million
(Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2009a). This sum
represented approximately 2% of the budgets of Sunshine Coast RC
(Sunshine Coast Council, 2010, p. 8), and Moreton Bay RC (Moreton
Bay Regional Council, 2009).
For Somerset RC the NSEQ RRG TIDS allocation represented almost
25% of its annual budget (Somerset Regional Council, 2011) and could
cause a severe disruption if access to TIDS funding ceased. Within this
budgetary context, a council respondent reported that TIDS funding
was “very important for this small council” (Interview, 31 May 2010).
Discussing the larger councils, two (2) respondents had an alternative
view, describing the TIDS allocation as “chicken feed” (Interview, 29
June 2010) and “a drop in the bucket” (Interview, 31 May 2010).
Showing a shift in the power balance, the relative importance of the
TIDS funding to member councils was summed up by a political
respondent who indicated that “Somerset [Regional Council] relies on
the TIDS money, although it’s only a pittance to the big councils”
(Interview, 31 May 2010). However, despite the relative insignificance
of the TIDS allocation to the two larger councils, there was a shared
-230-
concern among respondents that DTMR may reduce future TIDS
funding if the current allocation was not fully expended (Interviews, 20
April, 19 May and 20 May 2010). A council respondent noted identified
that this threat could be realised if “we [member councils] don’t take the
TIDS expenditure seriously we could lose it” (Interview, 20 April 2010).
From the data, there was no evidence of DTMR having reduced TIDS
funding to the NSEQ RRG. Cognisant of the potential threat however, a
respondent in a leadership position indicated that “I have never actually
seen it [reduction of funds] happen” (Interview, 20 May 2010).
It can be seen from the preceding discussion that continued access to
resources and, in particular funds, was a prominent issue in attributing
power to Deliberative Type stakeholders. As such, interactions between
Deliberative stakeholders, all of whom were network members, were
focused on utilitarian power and the potential to lose TIDS funding.
Although the application of coercive power through the potential
withdrawal of resources was raised as an issue for the network,
resource flows were not interrupted during the short life of the RRG,
suggesting that the threat was more symbolic than actual. However the
high level of awareness of a potential threat to resources within the
network indicates that it remains an importance governance issue.
Legitimacy
The claims of all stakeholders in this group were understood by
respondents to have moral legitimacy in that claims were put forward
within a framework of norms such as fairness and turn taking. For
example, there was evidence of co-operation between Regional
Councils such that each organisation took turns in obtaining what was
seen by respondents as “a fair share [of the available TIDS funding]”
(Interview 18, January 2010). Commenting on the legitimacy of claims
made by TMRNC a key respondent identified that “I don’t think we’ve
ever been asked to do anything that is not in our [RRG] interests”
(Interview, 20 April 2010). Elaborating on the legitimacy TMRNC’s
claims, another respondent noted that, “we have only been asked to do
-231-
things that are to the [RRG] timetable” (Interview, 20 April 2010).
Another respondent reported that TMRNC “only ask us to do what is
reasonable” (Interview, 19 May 2010. Taken collectively, these
comments suggested that the legitimacy of TMRNC claims was linked
to the extent to which they accommodated the needs of Regional
Councils rather than enforced bureaucratic operating procedures.
However, for the majority of Deliberative stakeholders: the three (3)
member councils, there was a different approach to determining the
legitimacy of claims. An engineering respondent suggesting that that
the claims of member councils were legitimated through an “open and
transparent justification process [for the Regional Works Program]”
(Interview, 20 April 2010) in which all RRG members participated. Yet
another respondent identified that legitimacy was conferred by network
members within a structured process incorporating predetermined
timeframes (Interview, 24 March 2010).
Therefore for the majority of Deliberative stakeholders, legitimacy was
linked to the institutional processes pertaining to the development of the
Regional Works Program. In the case of one stakeholder, the co-
operative nature of their approach was seen to legitimise their claims
rather than the transparency of decision making processes (Interview,
31 May 2010). This view, however, was rare among respondents.
Temporality and Criticality
In considering the temporality of stakeholders’ claims, several
respondents highlighted the importance of timeframes. Discussing the
perceived absence of temporal claims by TMRNC, an engineering
respondent identified that “we rarely meet their timeframes because we
are generally slack” (Interview, 16 April 2010). The issue of timeframes
also arose in considerations of temporality by member councils and a
respondent in a leadership role acknowledged that “I try to give people
a reasonable amount of time [to complete activities]” (Interview, 20 April
-232-
2010). Thus time pressure created by unrealistic deadlines was not
apparent within the network’s operation.
Another engineering respondent speculated that time sensitive claims
were absent “because we appreciate each other’s resources”
(Interview, 19 May 2010). This comment suggested that network
members understood each other’s resource and time limitations and
co-operated by adjusting their expectations of achieving objectives
within tight timeframes. Despite indicating that TMRNC and member
councils made the critical nature of the claims known within the
network, none of the respondents proffered an explanation suggesting
that the importance of claims was implicitly accepted rather than
negotiated within the RRG.
Dominant Type Stakeholders
RAPT, the sole Dominant Type stakeholder identified by respondents,
was considered to have both power and make legitimate claims in
respect of RRG activities, particular the Works Program. However, the
respondent group did not observe that RAPT insisted on having its
claims acted upon immediately or to press the importance of such
claims. Beginning with the attribute of power, the next section discusses
the construction of stakeholder salience by respondents in the case of
Dominant Type stakeholder.
Power
Like other stakeholders in the network, respondents indicated that
RAPT had utilitarian and normative power. However they were
differentiated from the rest of the network because they were not
considered to have coercive power. From the data, it could be identified
that RAPT had utilitarian power which may have been linked to the
group’s ability to bring external resources into the RRG. Demonstrating
this link, an engineering respondent stated that “without their [RAPT’s]
resources a lot of the RRG stuff would fall over” (Interview, 20 April
2010).
Salience Attributes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
-233-
The authoritative role accorded to RAPT by the network was
emphasised by an engineering respondent in a leadership position who
described RAPT as “the driving force” behind the NSEQ RRG
(Interview, 31 May 2010). Taken together these comments indicate that
RAPT’s driving role was linked to the resources it brought into the RRG.
However another respondent from NSEQ Political identified that they
were not aware of RAPT’s role in the RRG (Interview, 29 June 2010).
As a result, RAPT’s power was more evident within NSEQ Technical
domain because they brought resources to that arm of the RRG and
were less Deliberative in the NSEQ Political domain.
Legitimacy
A number of respondents (4) indicated that the legitimacy of RAPT’s
claims was linked to their role of providing information that could be
used to improve the road network managed by the RRG (Interviews, 16
May 2010, 19 May 2010 and 20 May 2010 a and b). A respondent in a
leadership position described the role of RAPT in this way,
“they are across what is happening across the entire local
government area and they seemed to be trying to bring it
altogether for the purposes of getting funding for our road
network ” (Interview, 20 April 2010).
Thus being able to share expert information acquired from their wider
co-ordination role in the Roads Alliance provided a legitimate basis for
the acceptance of RAPT’s claims. As such, RAPT brought important
resources to the network, particularly managerial and policy information
designed to assist the RRG in developing its Works Program.
Therefore, it appeared that such claims were accepted because they
had pragmatic legitimacy which was motivated by the desire of the
network to maintain access to the resources RAPT was able to provide.
-234-
Temporality and Criticality
Three (3) respondents indicated that within the context of developing
the Regional Works Program, the claims made by RAPT lacked
temporality (Interviews, 16 April and 19 May 2010 a and b), that is they
were not considered to be immediate or pressing. This absence of
temporality and criticality may be due to the role and approach of RAPT
to RRG decision making. Explaining this role, an engineering
respondent indicated that RRG members had full responsibility and
control of their TIDS funding allocation (Interview, 19 February 2010),
and RAPT was excluded from this process by formal institutional
arrangements. Partially explaining their lack of temporal claims, RAPT
had limited input into the development of the Regional Works Program
and little opportunity to impose timeframes beyond those established by
the Roads Alliance Board.
Acting as a conduit between the NSEQ RRG and the Roads Alliance
Board, RAPT undertook an intermediary role assisting the RRG with
information and advice about managing the development and acquittal
of its Works Program. Commenting on the extent to which RAPT
insisted that the RRG meet specified deadlines, an engineering
respondent indicated that,
“they [RAPT] are quite reasonable, in fact the push
sometimes comes the other way. I’ve got to follow them
[RAPT] up” (Interview, 19 May 2010).
A respondent in a leadership position also indicated that RAPT were
“reasonable” (Interview, 20 May 2010) about meeting deadlines. Only
one respondent indicated that RAPT made the importance of its claims
known commenting that “they [RAPT] write fairly firm letters at times”
reportedly to remind the RRG to fully expend its TIDS allocation
(Interview, 19 May 2010). However this position was not supported by
-235-
other respondents who indicated that RAPT did not press the
importance of its requests.
Non-Stakeholders
As noted previously, none of the respondents rated the following group
of eight (8) stakeholders: FDIT, AGFORCE, DERM, QES, QPS, MQP2,
the Mining and Heavy Transport Operators as having the attributes of
power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality of claims. The following
comments typified the reasons respondents gave for not rating this
group of stakeholders, “I don’t deal with them” (Interview, 15 December
2009) and “We don’t have any specific stuff we have done” (Interview,
03 December 2009). As such it could be inferred that FDIT, AGFORCE,
DERM, QES, QPS, MQP2, the Mining and Heavy Transport Operators
were therefore non-stakeholders in accordance with Mitchell et al.
(1997). However the RRG had no articulated strategy for bringing such
peripheral stakeholders into the network.
However two (2) respondents suggested that in the future there may be
relationships with individual member councils rather than at RRG level.
A council respondent identified that the NSEQ RRG had a potential
interest in this group of stakeholders, commenting that “as time goes on
we will probably get them more involved with the RRG” (Interview, 20
April 2010). However another council respondent expressed a view
that QPS and QES “fit into a [council level] road safety advisory
committee” (Interview, 19 May 2010) and were thus unlikely to come
into direct contact with the RRG in the future.
FACTORS IMPACTING ON POWER, LEGITIMACY, TEMPORALITY AND
CRITICALITY
Drawing together analyses undertaken for the NSEQ RRG case, three
(3) major factors were found to impact on attributions of power,
legitimacy, temporality and criticality: access to resources, institutional
arrangements and specific issues. Table 7.4 shows the occurrence of
these factors by stakeholder type and for each salience factor.
Salience Atrtributes
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
-236-
Table 7.4 NSEQ RRG Summary of Factors which Impacted on Attributions of Power, Legitimacy, Temporality and Criticality
Stakeholders Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
Stakeholder Stakeholder
type
Resources Institutional
arrangements
Resources Institutional
arrangements
Institutional
arrangements
Issue based Issue based
CO
RE
NE
TW
OR
KS
TA
KE
HO
LDE
RS
Transport and Main
Roads Region North
Coast
Deliberative * * * * * *
Sunshine Coast
Regional Council
Deliberative * * * * * *
Moreton Bay
Regional Council
Deliberative * * * * * *
Somerset Regional
Council
Deliberative * * * * * *
Roads Alliance
Project Team
Dominant * * * * * * *
Legend: * symbol = issue found to exist, Grey shaded cell = issue not found to exist.
-237-
From Table 7.4, it can be seen that across the case, access to
resources was an important factor in attributions of power and
legitimacy for core network stakeholders. In particular, when individual
network members were negotiating to obtain a share of the TIDS
funding, power and legitimacy came to the fore. The institutional
arrangements under which the NSEQ RRG governance network
operated also impacted on attributions of power, legitimacy and
temporality.
As established by the institutional arrangements set down by the Roads
Alliance Board, core and peripheral roles were attributed to different
stakeholder groupings. Furthermore the institutional arrangements
provided a framework for determining which stakeholders (network
members) had a legitimate role in network decision making.
Determinations of temporality and criticality also had a contingent
element having been made in the context of a specific issue: the
Regional Works Program. To sum up, development, implementation
and acquittal of the Regional Works Program was a key driver of the
NSEQ RRG governance network and as such, salience of stakeholders
was influenced by this context.
The NSEQ RRG did not identify that it engaged with any external
stakeholders and thus interactions were confined to network members.
Having a strong internal focus meant that decisions about road
programming and implementation were confined to State and Local
Government bodies. As a result, the perspectives of important
stakeholder groups including environmental management
organisations, road users and community groups were filtered out. The
next section elaborates on how stakeholders were engaged by the
NSEQ RRG beginning with a description of the approach taken.
-238-
ENGAGEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS
Approach
From analysis of the data collected for this case, the NSEQ RRG’s
approach to stakeholder engagement was found to be mostly focused
on the core stakeholders within the network. All respondents
(Interviews, 16 April, 19 May, 20 May a and b and 31 May 2010)
reported that the principal network participation strategy was formally
convened network meetings as required by the Roads Alliance
Operating Guidelines (Local Government Association of Queensland
Ltd and Queensland Government, 2011). These meetings were
effectively closed to external stakeholder influences.
Furthermore from analysis of case data, it was apparent that
interactions between network stakeholders rarely extended beyond
these formal network meetings. Network decision making occurred
through a series of negotiations between technical and political
representatives of the RRG. As such, decisions were primarily based
on recommendations made by technical experts, to the exclusion of
broader representative groups and individuals who may have been
affected by the roads in the region.
The NSEQ RRG did not have a designated Technical Co-ordinator, and
unsurprisingly there was little evidence of co-ordinated activities or
engagement being undertaken within the network. In the main,
responsibility for activities was divided between network members
rather than being jointly undertaken. A key engineering respondent
suggested that responsibility for stakeholder engagement was “divvied
up” among network members (Interview, 20 May 2010). For example,
Moreton Bay RC took responsibility for engagement with stakeholders
for a large regional Road Safety Partnership Project (Interview, 20 April
2010).
-239-
To sum up, the collective development of external stakeholder
relationships was not seen to be an activity of the NSEQ RRG.
Therefore, the NSEQ RRG governance network did not incorporate the
perspectives or resources of external stakeholders into its decisions as
a means of improving road service delivery in the region. The next
section looks more specifically at stakeholder engagement beginning
with frequency and type of stakeholder engagement processes
implemented.
Frequency and Type of Stakeholder Engagement Processes
The most striking result to emerge from the data is that all stakeholders
of NSEQ RRG, regardless of type, were engaged in the same way and
with the same frequency. From the data summarised in Table 7.5 it can
be seen that irrespective of stakeholder Type, all stakeholders of NSEQ
RRG were engaged multi-way dialogue processes, specifically network
meetings which occurred infrequently.
Table 7.5 NSEQ RRG Snapshot of Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder Stakeholder Type
Combinations of Engagement: Engagement Frequency and Process
Transport and Main Roads Sunshine
Coast
Deliberative Low frequency, Multi-way stakeholder
processes
Sunshine Coast Regional Council Deliberative Low frequency, Multi-way stakeholder
processes
Moreton Bay Regional Council Deliberative Low frequency, Multi-way stakeholder
processes
Somerset Regional Council Deliberative Low frequency, Multi-way stakeholder
processes
Roads Alliance Project Team Dominant Low frequency, Multi-way stakeholder
processes
As a result of their membership role, Deliberative Type stakeholders,
TMRSC and member councils had an formal agreement to participate
in network meetings and a substantive involvement in network decision
making processes (Local Government Association of Queensland Ltd
and Queensland Government, 2011). Thus institutional arrangements
influenced network activities by placing boundaries around membership
-240-
categories and the format of network meetings and therefore
engagement.
Despite having committed to participate in network activities, two (2)
respondents indicated that time pressures limited such participation
(Interviews, 19 May and 20 May 2010). Expanding on their level of
participation, a respondent in a leadership position indicated that
involvement in the RRG was a low priority because they were focused
on
“trying to set up a new organisation from the ruins of a
number of councils which were amalgamated [in 2008]”
(Interview, 20 May 2010).
As a result, energy was focused on undertaking engagement within a
particular Regional Council rather than on focusing on network matters.
Along similar lines, an engineering respondent ventured that network
members had a "low level of interest [in the RRG]” (Interview, 29 June
2010) and that this impacted on their engagement within the network.
However this view was not supported by other respondents.
The sole Dominant Type stakeholder, RAPT, was seen by three (3)
respondents to have an advisory role in the RRG (Interviews, 19 May,
20 May and 29 June 2010). A respondent form NSEQ Technical
described the involvement of RAPT in the NSEQ RRG in this way:
“over the last twelve months there have been a couple of
Technical Committee Meetings where [RAPT] people
have come and given us support to get things moving, to
explain processes” (Interview, 19 May 2010).
Also confirming that RAPT had an advisory role, another respondent
suggested that RAPT was responsible for “providing advice and
opportunities; letting us [RRG members] know what is going on
elsewhere” (Interview, 29 June 2010). An engineer in a leadership
-241-
position summed up the role of RAPT in this way, “without the push
[from RAPT], the RRG doesn’t get on our radar” (Interview, 20 May
2010). Beyond the resources that RAPT brought to the RRG, there was
no other evidence of external inputs coming into the network
suggesting again that it was largely disconnected from the external
environment. As such RAPT provided “connective capacity”
(Edelenbos, Van Buuren, & Klijn, Forthcoming) to the RRG.
From the data analysis, the Chair of the Technical Group was identified
as performing some traditional committee management tasks such as
formally conducting NSEQ Technical meetings and providing
administrative support at meetings (Meeting Minutes, 28 January 2010).
However, it was not apparent that this role or that of others in the
network extended to additional or relational stakeholder engagement
activities such as checking the levels of member participation or
bringing new stakeholders into the RRG. As such, management of the
RRG was task rather than process oriented and lacking the necessary
“groupware” i.e. “social capital, shared learning and a culture of
problem-solving “ to achieve collective outcomes (Agranoff, 2012, p.
17).
All respondents agreed that maintaining access to TIDS funds was a
major driver of participation in the RRG (Interviews, 16 April, 19 May,
20 May a and b, 31 May and 29 June 2010). However there was little
evidence of collective activity being undertaken to achieve this
objective. For example, the development of the 2010/2011 Regional
Works Program was undertaken by an external consultant rather than
collectively developed by the network. A senior engineer described the
development of the 2010/2011 Regional Works Program in this way,
“We told him [external consultant] the projects we
wanted. He told us what information he wanted, and we
provided the information. He strung it [the Works
-242-
Program] altogether for the three councils” (Interview,
20 May 2010).
Having the Regional Works Program effectively provided by a third-
party, rather than collectively developed reinforces the lack of a mutual
perspective within the network. As a result of receiving a completed
product, there was little necessity for the RRG to co-ordinate activities
or check levels of engagement by network members. Furthermore
rather than developing a Regional Works Program based on regional
priorities, network members chose to retain historical levels of funding
to each council (Meeting Minutes, 29 January 2010 and Interview, 29
June 2010). Thus, the Regional Works Program was based on the
individual interests of Regional Councils rather than the region as a
whole, again indicating the absence of a collective approach to regional
road delivery.
To restate, stakeholder engagement by the NSEQ RRG was
undertaken entirely within the network at network meetings. There was
little extra mural activity and engagement was mostly functional or task
oriented. Furthermore, the RRG did not discriminate between
stakeholder Types in making choices about stakeholder engagement,
as all stakeholders participated in the same processes at the same
level. Other than the information and ideas brought in by RAPT, the
RRG was largely closed to external perspectives and new ideas. Thus,
there were no apparent mechanisms through which new connections
could be formed. As such the NSEQ RRG was unaware of
environmental or organisational shifts that could impact on the
relevance of the regional works program it delivered and the need to be
open to new or emergent stakeholders.
Levels of Contact with Stakeholders
Drawing together the analysis presented thus far, two (2) levels of
contact with stakeholders could be identified: continuing and none.
Figure 7.2 shows stakeholders assigned to each level. At the first level,
-243-
there was continuing contact between five (5) stakeholders, particularly
network members as a result of their RRG responsibilities. These
stakeholders included the three (3) member councils and TMRNC who
were the core of the network, having decision making responsibilities
within the RRG (Local Government Association of Queensland and
Department of Main Roads, n/d) and RAPT. Continuing contact was
demonstrated through attendance at two (2) meetings of NSEQ Political
and three (3) meetings of NSEQ Technical since the reformation of the
RRG in 2010.
Figure 7.2 NSEQ RRG Governance Network Stakeholders and Levels of Contact
As indicated in Figure 7.2 level 3, neither the NSEQ RRG nor its
member organisations had contact with eight (8) of its identified
stakeholders: FDIT, AGFORCE, MQP2, DERM, QES, QPS, the Mining
Industry and Heavy Transport Operators. This represented 62% of the
-244-
entire stakeholder group identified by respondents. As such, there was
no network level process of connecting core network participants and
Non-stakeholders who may have been able to offer alternative
viewpoints which could improve delivery or roads in the region.
Consequently, decisions by the NSEQ RRG were made in isolation
without it having direct input about economic development,
environmental management, emergency management or state political
issues of importance to the region. In 2011, a member of the NSEQ
RRG, Sunshine Coast RC, described roads in the region as “an
important part of delivering a sustainable economy and creating jobs”
(Sunshine Coast Daily, 2011, p. 15). However the lack of external input
into decision making about RRG controlled roads seems to run counter
to this statement. To sum up, the small inner group of stakeholders
within the network core effectively bypassed external influences,
allowing the NSEQ RRG to tightly control decisions and actions in the
delivery of local regional roads. The next section takes the analysis
further and identifies the links between stakeholder salience and
engagement.
LINKS BETWEEN STAKEHOLDER SALIENCE AND STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
The theoretical Framework for Stakeholder Salience and Engagement
postulated that there would be a number of links between stakeholder
Type and the frequency and processes of engagement undertaken.
Figure 7.3 provides an overview of the empirical data for NSEQ and the
links proposed in the proposed links Framework for Stakeholder
Salience and Engagement. The red cell indicates an overlap between a
theoretical prediction and the empirical data.
- 245-
Legend: C in red shaded cell=Core network stakeholder, P= Peripheral stakeholder; Grey shaded cell=no stakeholders identified
Figure 7.3 NSEQ RRG Links Between Stakeholder Salience and Engagement
As can be seen from Figure 7.3, there was very limited support for the
existence of a range of linkages between stakeholder salience and
engagement as proposed in the theoretical Framework for Stakeholder
Salience and Engagement. Having no peripheral stakeholders, the link
between stakeholder salience and engagement could only be seen in
the case of core network stakeholders (Deliberative and Dominant
Type) who were engaged infrequently through network meetings. From
this result, it could suggested that engagement with internal
Multi-way C. Deliberative (4)
C. Dominant (1)
Two-way
One-Way
Low Moderate High
Multi-way Definitive
Deliberative Dominant
Two-way Demanding
Dependent2
Influential1
Dependent
Dominant1
Dominant2
Dependent1
Dangerous
One-Way
Dormant
Discretionary
Discetuonary2
Discretionary3
Low
Moderate High
Frequency of engagement
Frequency of engagement
NSEQ RRG Results
Type o
f P
rocess
T
ype o
f P
rocess
Linkages theorised in proposed framework for Stakeholder Salience and Engagement
- 246-
stakeholders was a routine activity that was context specific i.e.
occurring within the Regional Works Program development cycle. Such
engagement occurred within a pre-determined institutional framework
which incorporated a mix of political, technical and regional issues. The
next section takes the analysis further and identifies the links between
stakeholder salience and engagement. The next section summarises
and draws conclusion about the findings of this case study.
CASE SUMMARY AND PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
From the qualitative and quantitative analysis of data collected for this
case, a number of insights have emerged. The NSEQ RRG is in an
early stage of its development having only reformed in 2010, following a
fairly ineffectual earlier iteration. As a relatively new group, the RRG
nominated a sizable number of stakeholders who were considered to
be of relevance to its operations. There was however, no evidence of
the broader community being included among this stakeholder group,
with the group dominated by State and Local Government
organisations. Especially noteworthy omissions were road users,
citizens and property owners who could have been affected by or affect
the outcomes of RRG projects.
Three (3) stakeholder Types were identified within the case:
Deliberative, Dominant and Non-stakeholders. Aside from Non-
stakeholders, the majority (80%) were Deliberative Type stakeholders,
with 20% being Dominant stakeholders. Core network participants, all
of whom were either Deliberative or Dominant stakeholder Types,
shared two (2) sources of power: utilitarian and normative, suggesting
that power was reasonably well balanced within the governance
network. The claims of all NSEQ RRG stakeholders in this group had
moral legitimacy suggesting that their acceptance was taken for granted
within by RRG members. Furthermore, no stakeholder claims had a
temporal element suggesting that they were negotiated within network
processes rather than made as demands on other network members.
All stakeholders other than RAPT were seen to have critical claims
- 247-
which they pressed to have attended to. Thus criticality was the only
factor that differentiated the salience of the entire group of
stakeholders.
The NSEQ RRG’s approach to the task of stakeholder engagement
was focused internally on the core network participants and was
undertaken within operating guidelines established by the Roads
Alliance, formalised and task oriented. As such there was a formal
process through which core network stakeholders were engaged. There
was little emphasis on joint activities or relationship building. The NSEQ
RRG did not nominate any peripheral stakeholders with whom it had
interactions and furthermore, there was no evidence of a strategy for
engagement of peripheral stakeholders.
Lacking an external focus, the collective and individual development of
strategically important relationships with key stakeholders outside of the
network was not addressed by the RRG. By taking such a narrow
inward focus, the NSEQ RRG risked becoming irrelevant because it
shut out and therefore could not adapt to changes in the external
environment. Furthermore, this insularity may have had a flow on effect
resulting in poor planning and decision making, reducing the efficacy of
its road delivery program.
DOMAINS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
From the analysis of case data, two (2) distinct Domains of stakeholder
engagement were distilled: Network level and Potential stakeholder
level as shown in Figure 7.4. In Domain 1 were core network
stakeholders who were either Deliberative or Dominant Types,
possessing power and legitimacy. These stakeholders were engaged
through ongoing low frequency multi-way network processes: network
meetings, in which representatives from five (5) government
organisations participated.
- 248-
Domain1 Network level
Scope: Ongoing engagement of core
network stakeholders within
network
Low frequency of engagement
Multi-way stakeholder processes
Domain 2Potential Stakeholder Level
Scope: No contact or engagement
by network or representative
organisations
No engagement by NetworkEngagement by Network collectively
Figure 7.4 NSEQ RRG Governance Network Domains of Stakeholder
Engagement
Two (2) factors impacted on how stakeholder engagement occurred in
the RRG: access to resources and institutional arrangements. However,
there was no evidence of engagement focused network management
functions, such as coalition building to achieve network outcomes or
checking levels of engagement in network activities, being undertaken.
The lack of a designated RRG network manager, with the responsibility
for driving internal engagement activities, may have been partially
responsible for this gap in processes. In Domain 2, relationships
between the RRG and Potential stakeholders who had none of the
salience attributes were inactive. These stakeholders were therefore
effectively excluded from participation in regional road activities which
could have impacted on them.
CONCLUSION
This case study has confirmed that a range of stakeholders were of
relevance to the NSEQ RRG and that engagement of such
stakeholders fell under two (2) different Domains: one within the
network and one outside of the network. Within Domain 1, the core
network stakeholders were all Deliberative or Dominant Type
stakeholders and participated in multi-way network processes that
occurred infrequently. Thus in Domain 1, there appeared to be a
relationship between stakeholder Types which incorporated power and
- 249-
legitimacy and the process and frequency of engagement undertaken
with such stakeholders. However, as the RRG operated as a closed
entity, not engaging with stakeholders outside of the core network, a
number of its stakeholder relationships were inactive and fell into
Domain 2 which comprised Non-stakeholders. As such, in Domain 2,
engagement was not undertaken with stakeholders who had none of
the salience variables: power and legitimacy, temporality or criticality of
claims.
A number of factors associated with the NSEQ RRG governance
network were identified as impacting on stakeholder salience and
engagement, in particular institutional arrangements and access to
resources. Demonstrated by its closure to the external environment,
stakeholder engagement was inwardly focused around the
development of the Regional Works Program. As such, engagement of
external stakeholders was not identified as a priority for the NSEQ
RRG.
This chapter presented the last of three (3) case studies which
analysed how stakeholder salience was constructed and subsequent
engagement was undertaken by infrastructure governance networks in
various Queensland regional settings. In addition to identifying the
factors which impacted on attributions of salience, those factors which
related to engagement processes implemented by the network were
identified. It was also suggested that in this particular case, stakeholder
engagement operated within two different Domains. The following
chapter analyses and compares findings from across the three case
studies, highlighting similarities and differences and identifying patterns
across the cases.
- 250-
CHAPTER 8 - CROSS CASE ANALYSIS AND
DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
Chapters 5, 6, and 7 presented and analysed three (3) case studies of
governance networks: FNQ RRG, WBB RRG and NSEQ RRG and how
they engaged with stakeholders. These analyses identified the
stakeholders for each network, the salience of such stakeholders,
connections between particular stakeholder Types and network
management factors which impacted stakeholder salience and
stakeholder engagement. Each case provided critical insights into how
stakeholder salience was constructed and then enacted through
stakeholder engagement activities within the road governance network
context.
This chapter brings together the findings from across these three (3)
cases, forming a knowledge base for addressing the Research
Questions posed. In the course of this study, a voluminous amount of
data and many insights were generated about how the three (3)
governance networks engaged with their stakeholders. However,
addressing all of the issues raised in each of the three (3) cases was
beyond the scope of this thesis. Therefore to maintain analytical focus,
this cross case analysis has been delimited in that it will address the
major findings that cut cross the three (3) cases. To achieve this
objective, the chapter highlights similarities and differences between
the cases and puts forwards arguments which explain these findings.
This chapter is divided into four (4) sections; the first section focuses on
stakeholders identified across the three (3) cases, and the associated
stakeholder Types that emerged from attributions of the four (4)
salience factors: power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality. This
section also identifies the issues which impacted on these salience
- 251-
attributes to understand the reasons that particular stakeholder Types
emerged.
Section two primarily addresses the relationships between stakeholder
Type and engagement strategies enacted with various stakeholder
Types. In doing so, this section examines the combinations of
engagement frequency and processes as they relate to stakeholder
Type. The third section focuses on factors, in particular network
management activities which impacted on stakeholder salience and
engagement. The chapter concludes by drawing together the
similarities and differences in how and why the three (3) networks
constructed the salience of stakeholders in particular ways, the flow on
to stakeholder engagement and the extent to which network
management activities were enacted in the identification, prioritisation
and engagement of stakeholders.
STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION AND SALIENCE
The three (3) case studies set about identifying the different
combinations of power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality attributed
to stakeholders of each governance network: FNQ RRG, WBB RRG
and NSEQ RRG. A preliminary step in ascertaining such combinations
was the identification of each network’s stakeholders. The following
discussion therefore provides a picture of each network’s stakeholders
and the implications of identification or exclusion of particular
stakeholder groupings.
Stakeholder Identification
Across the three (3) cases, a substantial number of stakeholders with
varying roles were identified by the networks: Twenty (20) for FNQ
RRG, thirty two (32) for WBB RRG and thirteen (13) for NSEQ RRG.
From triangulation of the data analysis, it was identified that
respondents considered the extent of contact with stakeholders as a
starting point for stakeholder identification. As such respondents used
- 252-
the following two (2) criteria: the relationship with a stakeholder was
active or inactive. Table 8.1 presents the stakeholders with whom each
network had active relationships, while Table 8.2 shows the
stakeholders with whom relationships were inactive. Tables 8.1 and 8.2
also indicate the focus of each stakeholder as it pertains to Regional
Works Program management and road service delivery activities
undertaken by each network.
- 253-
Table 8.1 Active Stakeholder Relationships Identified by the Three Governance Networks
Table 8.2 Inactive Stakeholder Relationships Identified by the Three Governance Networks
Network Stakeholder Focus of Stakeholder
Network Stakeholder Focus of Stakeholder
Far
Nor
th Q
ueen
slan
d R
RG
Transport and Main Roads, Far North Transport Management
Far
Nor
th
Que
ensl
and
RR
G
Member of Australian Parliament 3 Political Representation
Cairns Regional Council Transport Management
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation
Environmental Management
Cook Shire Council Transport Management Queensland Emergency Services Emergency Services
Cassowary Coast Regional Council Transport Management Queensland Ambulance Service Ambulance Services
Tablelands Regional Council Transport Management Queensland Police Service Police Services
Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire Council Transport Management
Wid
e B
ay B
urne
tt R
RG
Fraser Coast South Burnett Regional Tourism Board Tourism Promotion
Roads Alliance Project Team Transport Management Bundaberg Region Ltd Tourism Promotion
Federal Department of Infrastructure and Transport Transport Management Gympie Cooloola Tourism Tourism Promotion
Heavy Transport Operators Transport Management Queensland Forest Products Industry Group
Member of Queensland Parliament 21 Political Representation Mining Industry Industry Group
Wet Tropics Management Authority Environmental Management Primary Producers Industry Group
Department of Environment and Resource Management Environmental Management Member of Australian Parliament 3 Political Representation
Advance Cairns Economic Development Members of Queensland Parliament 2, 6, 7, 8,9,10 Political Representation
Wid
e B
ay B
urne
tt R
RG
Transport and Main Roads Wide Bay Burnett Transport Management Queensland Dairy Association Industry Groups
Bundaberg Regional Council Transport Management
Burnett Mary Region Group Environmental
Management
Gympie Regional Council Transport Management
Wide Bay Burnett Conservation Council Environmental
Management
Fraser Coast Regional Council Transport Management
Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee Environmental
Management
North Burnett Regional Council Transport Management Bundaberg Futures Board and North Burnett Futures Board Economic Development
South Burnett Regional Council Transport Management
Regional Chambers of Commerce: Maryborough and Bundaberg
Business Development
Roads Alliance Project Team Transport Management Heavy Transport Operators Industry Group
Wide Bay Burnett Regional Organisation of Councils Regional Co-ordination
Nor
ther
n S
outh
-Eas
t
Que
ensl
and
RR
G
Federal Department of Infrastructure and Transport Transport Management
Queensland Police Service Police Services Mining Industry Industry Group
Heavy Transport Operators Industry Group Queensland Police Service Police Services
AGFORCE Industry Group Members of Queensland Parliament 2 Political Representation
Department of Environment and Resource Management Environmental Management Heavy Transport Operators Industry Group
Queensland Ambulance Service Ambulance Services AGFORCE Industry Groups
Nor
ther
n S
outh
-E
ast Q
ld R
RG
Transport and Main Roads Region North Coast Transport Management
Department of Environment and Resource Management Environmental
Management
Sunshine Coast Regional Council Transport Management Queensland Emergency Services Emergency Services
Moreton Bay Regional Council Transport Management
Somerset Regional Council Transport Management
Roads Alliance Project Team Transport Management
- 254-
From the analysis presented in Table 8.1, it can be seen each of the
three (3) networks collectively nominated a narrow range stakeholders
with whom they had active relationships. Across the three (3) cases,
stakeholders with a Transport Management focus were most frequently
nominated, suggesting a reliance on a relatively narrow cross section of
stakeholders. As such, the networks demonstrated a degree of
insularity in determining who might broadly contribute to or be impacted
by selection and implementation of regional road projects.
Through triangulation of the data analysis, it was identified that network
membership was dominated by State and Local government transport
management organisations: Regional Councils, a DTMR Region and
RAPT. This emphasis on Transport Management could be linked to the
overall objective of each network: management of a government
funded Regional Works Program by technical experts and elected local
Government representatives. While there was no explicit institutional
requirement for the networks to include external stakeholder inputs into
the development and execution of their Regional Works Programs,
inclusion of broader inputs from external stakeholders may have
resulted in more effective and locally acceptable solutions to regional
road problems.
Among the Transport Management stakeholder group, RAPT was the
only stakeholder common to all networks. With this overlapping role
RAPT represented the only active connection between the three
networks. It was explained by respondents (Interviews, 27 November
2009, 20 June 2010 and 08 March 2011) that RAPT acted as a conduit
to the information and decisions made by the Roads Alliance Board. As
such, this study found that RAPT functioned as an important
communication channel though which the networks obtained external
feedback from the Road Alliance Board. Thus RAPT was a key
connector who provided “new ideas and approaches” to the networks
(Provan & Lemaire, 2012, p. 644). However the information exchange
- 255-
role played by RAPT was limited in scope in that it focused on road
related issues rather than broader regional issues.
Further supporting the finding of this study that stakeholders were
narrowly construed, in the case of NSEQ RRG, perspectives other than
Transport Management were completely excluded from network
activities. As such, the NSEQ RRG governance network was closed off
to external inputs from stakeholders. The extent to which NSEQ RRG
excluded non transport related views meant that the network was
“opaque to outsiders” (Fotel & Hanssen, 2009, p. 558) such that its
decisions were not open to wider scrutiny. This finding resonates the
outcomes of a study of local government networks in Denmark (Aars &
Fimreite, 2005) which found that the strongest actors may be located at
the centre of networks while those with less influence might be
excluded from those networks.
From the data presented in Table 8.2 it can be seen that the networks
nominated a much broader range of stakeholders in the inactive
relationships category. Having “no involvement whatsoever” (Hallahan,
2001) with the networks, and vice versa, these stakeholders remain
firmly beyond the network boundary. In effect these stakeholders are
treated as non-stakeholders (Mitchell et al., 1997) in that they receive
no attention from the networks.
To sum up, in this section, it was found that across the networks, there
was a strong, and in one (1) case, an exclusive focus on Transport
Management intergovernmental stakeholders. Not having an active
relationship with the networks, a broader range of stakeholders was
excluded from involvement in decisions regarding road programming
and project execution which may have affected them. From the
triangulation of analyses, it was apparent that technical and
bureaucratic considerations shaped road delivery decisions made by
the networks to the exclusion of the broader “public opinion and
- 256-
advocacy positions of stakeholders” (Kulkarni, Miller, Ingram, Wong, &
Lorenz, 2004). Framed around the concepts active and inactive
stakeholders, this study identified a similar role structure in operation
across the networks. This role structure and its implications are
discussed in the next section.
NETWORK ROLES AND STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION
From triangulation of the case data and analyses, it was found that that
identification of stakeholders through inactive or inactive relationships
formed the basis for a role structure exhibited by the networks.
Developed from the data analysis, Figure 8.1 demonstrates the
components of this role structure which is discussed in detail below.
Active
Core network
stakeholders
Network members
Network observer
Peripheral
stakeholders
Stakeholder roles
Inactive
Stakeholder relationships
Internal network stakeholders
External stakeholders
Figure 8.1 Structure of Stakeholder Roles
It has been previously established in this analysis that the networks
separated their stakeholders into two (2) groups; those with whom they
had an active or inactive relationship as shown in Figure 8.1. Having
made this decision, the networks then focused on active stakeholder
- 257-
relationships. There was little evidence to suggest that any of the
networks paid attention to stakeholders with whom they had inactive
relationships. Thus inactive stakeholders were not involved in network
activities. This approach followed the premise identified by (Derry,
2012) that “those who do not count can be ignored”. As such, the
networks had no mechanism for scanning changes in the behaviour of
inactive stakeholders effectively overlooking the fact that such
stakeholders could change their status and become more visible in
regional road issues.
At the second level of the structure depicted in Figure 8.1, the active
relationships category of stakeholders was partitioned into two (2)
groups: stakeholders who were linked together in the network core and
stakeholders who were connected to core network members in their
roles as RRG members. This separation suggested that a some
elements of a core/periphery role structure were in place across the
networks with external stakeholders being situated as “hangers-on”
(White, Boorman, & Breiger, 1976, p. 742) rather than contributors to
the networks.
However there was evidence that networks differed in the extent to
which they acknowledged the existence of peripheral stakeholders.
While WBB RRG and FNQ RRG demonstrated the implementation of a
core/peripheral structure, NSEQ RRG identified no peripheral
stakeholders indicating that it was entirely internally focused. As such,
NSEQ RRG operated more like a “closed” club beyond public scrutiny
(Sorensen & Torfing, 2005). The extent of closure of the NSEQ RRG
governance network may be due in part to the short the length of time
(less than one (1) year) that network had been operating in the region.
As such, the network was not well embedded in the surrounding webs
of stakeholder relationships operating in the region.
- 258-
From synthesising the data analysis for FNQ RRG and WBB RRG, it
was ascertained that peripheral stakeholders were located outside of
the networks because the issues they raised were not relevant to the
core functions of the networks, for example activities associated with
the Regional Works Program and therefore not important. Furthermore,
the claims of peripheral stakeholders were generally considered to be
project oriented. Thus peripheral stakeholders were treated as the
responsibility of an individual RRG member organisation rather than the
RRG collectively. Thus it could be inferred in general, that the networks
did not interact with peripheral stakeholders because their issues were
seen to be beyond the scope of the networks’ activities reinforcing the
division between insiders and outsiders
Moreover, the study also found that the role structure adopted by the
networks was influenced by the governance arrangements established
by the Roads Alliance Board (Local Government Association of
Queensland and Department of Main Roads, n/d). As indicated by the
thick red line in Figure 8.1, these institutional arrangements further
partitioned core network stakeholders into two (2) categories: network
members and observers. The data analysis confirmed that the three (3)
networks followed this categorisation with the core of each network
comprising an inner group of Regional Councils, DTMR Regions in local
proximity and RAPT in a network observer role.
The finding in the previous section that the governance networks relied
primarily on a core/peripheral structure contradicts Rowley’s (1997)
contention that stakeholders would be enmeshed in a broader network
of relationships. As such, the separation of roles into a core/periphery
arrangement was more in keeping with the traditional path expounded
by Freeman (1984) in which peripheral stakeholders rotated around a
core group. However the absence of connections between the core and
the periphery meant that the two (2) groups functioned separately and
further, that none of the governance networks was able to tap into the
- 259-
resources of its external stakeholders. The next section focuses on
stakeholder classification and prioritisation and details the combinations
of power, legitimacy, criticality and temporality and subsequent
stakeholder Types found to occur across the three (3) networks.
SALIENCE OF STAKEHOLDERS: COMBINATIONS OF POWER, LEGITIMACY, TEMPORALITY AND CRITICALITY
The theoretical framework for this study proposed that sixteen (16)
stakeholder Types, including eight (8) new and additional categories to
those identified by Mitchell et al. (1997), were likely to be present
across the three (3) governance networks. In testing this proposition,
stakeholders with whom FNQ RRG, WBB RRG and NSEQ RRG had
active relationships were rated by respondents using the attributes of
power and legitimacy, temporality and criticality. Created from the
empirical data of this study, Table 8.3 contains a tabular comparison of
each network’s stakeholders by role and stakeholder Type. Further, the
combinations of power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality attributed
to stakeholders are able to be compared across the networks.
- 260-
Table 8.3 Stakeholder Salience Combinations and Corresponding Stakeholder Types Identified Across the Three Governance Networks
Labels: P (power), L (legitimacy), T (temporality), C (criticality), * symbol=attribute present, Grey shaded cell=attribute not present, Dark
hatched cell=no stakeholder
FNQ RRG WBB RRG NSEQ RRG Stakeholder
Type
Salience
Attributes
Stakeholder Role Stakeholder Role Stakeholder Role Type P L T C
Bundaberg Regional Council Core Definitive * * * *
Gympie Regional Council Core Definitive * * * *
Fraser Coast Regional Council Core Definitive * * * *
North Burnett Regional Council Core Definitive * * * *
South Burnett Regional Council Core Definitive * * * *
Queensland Ambulance Service Peripheral Definitive * * * *
Queensland Police Service Peripheral Definitive * * * *
Cairns Regional Council Core Roads Alliance Project Team Core Moreton Bay Regional Council Core Deliberative * * *
Cassowary Coast Regional Council Core Transport and Main Roads Wide Bay
Burnett Core Somerset Regional Council Core Deliberative * * *
Cook Shire Council Core Wide Bay Burnett Regional
Organisation of Councils Core Sunshine Coast Regional Council Core Deliberative * * *
Roads Alliance Project Team Core
Transport and Main Roads Region
North Coast Core Deliberative * * *
Tablelands Regional Council Core Deliberative * * *
Transport and Main Roads, Far North Core Deliberative * * *
Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire Council Core Deliberative * * *
Member of Queensland Parliament 21 Peripheral Deliberative * * *
Wet Tropics Management Authority Peripheral Roads Alliance Project Team Core Dominant * * Department of Environment and Resource
Management
Peripheral AGFORCE Peripheral Dangerous * * *
Heavy Transport Operators Peripheral Demanding * *
Advance Cairns Peripheral Dormant * Federal Department of Infrastructure and
Transport
Peripheral Dormant *
Various organisations and individuals (5) None Various organisations and individuals
(19) None
Various organisations and
individuals (8) None Non-stakeholder
- 261-
Overall, the data analysis presented in Table 8.3 shows that a limited
number of stakeholder Types were identified across the three (3)
networks: only seven (7) of the sixteen (16) potential stakeholder
Types. These stakeholder Types were: Definitive, Deliberative,
Dominant, Dangerous, Demanding, Dormant and Non-stakeholders. Six
(6) of these stakeholder Types corresponded to categories found by to
exist by Agle et al. (1999) while the remaining stakeholder Type,
Deliberative, was a new category theorised in this study. It can also be
seen from Table 8.3 that there was a level of commonality of
stakeholder Types identified across the three networks. As indicated in
Table 8.3, Definitive and Deliberative stakeholder Types occurred most
frequently among core network stakeholders.
The finding of this current study that limited stakeholder Types were
found to be present, corroborated previous empirical research by
Parent and Deephouse (2007) which found that categories of
stakeholders were more limited than theorised by Mitchell et al. (1997).
However, neither the current study nor the study by Parent and
Deephouse (2007) identified the presence of Dependent or
Discretionary stakeholders indicating that these two stakeholder
categories were less likely to occur in practice. As such, none of the
case study networks reported having to contend with Dependent Type
stakeholders who achieved their objectives by leveraging the power of
other stakeholders. Neither did the networks encounter discretionary
stakeholders who relied on the goodwill of the network to achieve their
objectives.
However the current study also found that that a Demanding
stakeholder and a substantial number of Non-stakeholders were
present across the governance networks suggesting that stakeholder
categories were not as restricted as previously suggested by Parent
and Deephouse (2007). Therefore in the network situation Non-
- 262-
stakeholders are likely to be encountered as they can exert indirect
influence through proxies such as representative groups (Phillips,
2003b). Alpaslan, Green and Mitroff (2009) also argue that Non-
stakeholders may warrant attention because they can convert into
stakeholders in times of crisis.
A further finding was that the temporality and criticality variables of
urgency occurred separately in only one (1) category, Deliberative Type
stakeholders rather than the eight (8) categories suggested by the
proposed theoretical framework. This finding showed that the
segregation of urgency into temporality and criticality was not
widespread across the networks indicating that the networks did not
always take such a fine grained view of stakeholder classification.
Therefore the expansive view of stakeholder salience as proposed in
the theoretical framework for this study was not generally confirmed.
However, the concept of a Deliberative category of stakeholders who
lacked a temporal element to their claims was confirmed and is
discussed in detail in the next section.
STAKEHOLDER TYPES
Focusing now on stakeholders in the active relationships category, the
data analysis presented in Figure 8.2 shows the distribution of
stakeholders Types for each network. As indicated by the thick red
border in Figure 8.2 it can be seen that only the Deliberative
stakeholder Type was common to all three (3) networks. These
stakeholders were considered to have power and legitimate claims
which were understood to be critical in nature but lacked a temporal
element.
- 263-
Figure 8.2 Distribution of Stakeholder Types in the Active Relationships Category Identified for each Network
Three (3) stakeholder Types: Definitive, Deliberative and Demanding
were represented across the core networks. Deliberative Type
stakeholders were strongly represented within FNQ RRG (62% of
stakeholder group) and NSEQ RRG (80% of stakeholder group). A
lower proportion of Deliberative Type stakeholders was found within the
WBB RRG (27%). From triangulation of the data analysis it was also
found that Deliberative Type stakeholders dominated the core network
groups of FNQ RRG and NSEQ RRG and to a lesser extent WBB RRG.
Unlike the core network groups, peripheral stakeholders were allocated
to six (6) stakeholder Types: Definitive, Deliberative, Dominant,
Dangerous, Demanding and Dormant and occurred in low numbers i.e.
one (1) or two (2) stakeholders in each category.
Confirmed by the QCA, this study also found that Deliberative Type
stakeholders represented within each of the core networks all
possessed three (3) types of power: coercive (use of force), utilitarian
(use of financial or material resources) and normative (use of symbolic
resources). The table of analysis in Appendix 8.1 provides more detail.
The finding that multiple sources of power can exist within governance
Deliberative
- 264-
networks is supported by Metcalfe and Lapenta (Forthcoming) who
found that partnership networks combined four (4) types of power in
striving to achieve objectives.
However this current study went further in finding that power was
symmetrical within each of the networks. While this finding contradicted
Agranoff and McGuire’s (2001) finding that power distribution in
networks was likely to be asymmetrical, it supported the idea of Provan
and Kenis (2008, p. 235) that power is likely to be symmetrical with
respect to “network-level decisions”. As a result of the symmetry, the
power structure of each network was equalised and power dependence
relationships were not observed among core network stakeholder
groups. Therefore it is suggested that power operated as a network
enabler rather than a barrier, creating an environment in which more
relational approaches were used to achieve objectives. Further
supporting this argument, there was little indication that any core
stakeholder across the networks overtly applied their power during the
development, implementation or acquittal of their Regional Works
Program implying that power was latent rather than actual.
From the triangulation of the data analyses, it was found that
irrespective of stakeholder Type, all core network stakeholders were
seen to possess legitimate claims. Moral legitimacy (Suchman, 1995)
was most frequently identified category of legitimacy. As such positive
normative assessments of network behaviour and activities were
commonly sought within the networks. The claims of all FNQ RRG and
WBB RRG network stakeholders were identified as possessing moral
legitimacy as were the claims of 80% of NSEQ RRG stakeholders. As
such, this finding about the importance of moral legitimacy corroborates
Neville, Bell and Whitwell’s (2011) idea that moral legitimacy is likely to
be the most significant type of legitimacy in stakeholder salience.
- 265-
There are alternative explanations for the finding that claims made by a
substantial number of core network stakeholders were imbued with
moral legitimacy. Suchman’s (1995) proposition that moral legitimacy
can be demonstrated through the acceptance of claims so as to
achieve collective rather than individual objectives, aligns with the
networks’ focus on joint management of the regional road network, an
important objective of each RRG. Therefore moral legitimacy was more
likely to be a trigger for acceptance of stakeholder claims within the
networks because as Jones, Phelps and Begley put it, there was a
“genuine concern for stakeholder interests” (TM Jones et al., 2007, p.
152).
To sum up, the Deliberative stakeholder Type was a new theoretical
category identified from this study and was the only stakeholder Type
that was observed in all three (3) networks. Furthermore, the
Deliberative stakeholder Type was identified across the networks in
moderate to substantial numbers. In contrast, no dominant stakeholder
Type was identified among peripheral stakeholders. This difference
may be due to the collective and ongoing focus of interactions within
the core networks as opposed to the sporadic and issue specific
interactions between network member organisations and peripheral
stakeholders. The next part of the analysis discusses, in depth, the
factors issues that were found to be related to attributions power,
legitimacy, temporality and criticality.
FACTORS RELATED TO ATTRIBUTIONS OF POWER, LEGITIMACY, TEMPORALITY AND CRITICALITY
From analysis of the case data, several factors could be linked to
attributions of power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality across the
three networks. These factors were: resource access, institutional
arrangements, relationships, political influence, due process, specific
issues, and negotiation. Table 8.4 provides a comprehensive summary
of these factors showing their occurrence across each network.
- 266-
Table 8.4 Factors Relating to Attributions of Power, Legitimacy, Temporality and Criticality to Stakeholders
Network Stakeholders Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
Stakeholder Role Stakeholder type
Res InstArr Rel PolInf Res InstArr Rel DueP InstArr Rel Res SpecIs InstArr Rel Negot SpecIs
Far
Nor
th Q
ueen
slan
d R
RG
Cairns Regional Council Core Deliberative * * *
Cassowary Coast Regional Council Core Deliberative * * *
Cook Shire Council Core Deliberative * * *
Tablelands Regional Council Core Deliberative * * *
Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire Council Core Deliberative * * *
Roads Alliance Project Team Core Deliberative * * * * *
Transport and Main Roads, Far North Core Deliberative * * * * * * *
Member of Queensland Parliament 21 Peripheral Deliberative * * * *
Wet Tropics Management Authority Peripheral Dominant * * * * *
Department of Environment and Resource Management
Peripheral Dangerous * * * *
Heavy Transport Operators Peripheral Demanding * * * *
Advance Cairns Peripheral Dormant *
Federal Department of Infrastructure and Transport
Peripheral Dormant *
W
ide
Bay
Bur
nett
RR
G
Bundaberg Regional Council Core Definitive * * *
* * *
Fraser Coast Regional Council Core Definitive * * *
* * *
Gympie Regional Council Core Definitive * * * * * *
North Burnett Regional Council Core Definitive * * * * * *
- 267-
Network Stakeholders Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
Stakeholder Role Stakeholder type
Res InstArr Rel PolInf Res InstArr Rel DueP InstArr Rel Res SpecIs InstArr Rel Negot SpecIs
South Burnett Regional Council Core Definitive * *
*
*
*
*
Transport and Main Roads Wide Bay Burnett Core Deliberative * *
* *
*
Roads Alliance Project Team Core Deliberative * *
* *
*
*
Wide Bay Burnett Regional Organisation of Councils
Core Deliberative *
* *
Queensland Ambulance Service Peripheral Definitive *
*
*
*
Queensland Police Service Peripheral Definitive *
*
*
*
AGFORCE Peripheral Dangerous *
*
*
*
Nor
ther
n S
outh
-Eas
t
Que
ensl
and
RR
G
Somerset Regional Council Core Dangerous * *
* *
*
*
Transport and Main Roads Region North Coast
Core Deliberative * *
* *
*
*
Moreton Bay Regional Council Core Deliberative * *
* *
*
*
Sunshine Coast Regional Council Core Deliberative * *
* *
*
*
Roads Alliance Project Team Peripheral Dominant * * * * * * *
Legend: Res (Resources); InstArr (Institutional Arrangements); Rel (Relationships); PolInf (Political Influence); DueP (Due Process),
SpecIs (Specific Issue); Negot (Negotiation), * symbol = issue found to exist, Grey shaded cell = issue not found to exist. The darker
grey hatched cells indicate that a particular attribute was not present.
- 268-
The data presented in Table 8.4 indicates the complex array of issues
that were found to be related to attributions of power, legitimacy,
temporality and criticality. The major issues distilled from Table 8.4 are
discussed in the following sections beginning with power.
Power
From the data in Table 8.4, it can be seen that attributions of power
were likely to be related to access to resources and the institutional
arrangements established by the Roads Alliance. The link between
resources and power was evident for substantial number (77%) of FNQ
RRG stakeholders and all WBB RRG and NSEQ RRG stakeholders.
This relative uniformity across networks suggested that that the role of
power in the acquisition and retention of resources of stakeholders was
a pivotal issue for all three networks. The finding that power is relevant
to garnering resources confirms Eesley and Lenox’s (2006) empirical
finding that stakeholder power was linked to resource access in their
study of stakeholder salience relating to firm responses to secondary
stakeholder action.
However for core network stakeholders, an additional factor: the
institutional arrangements established by the Roads Alliance Board
embedded in the operating arrangements of each network were also
found to be related to power. Put another way, the power of core
network stakeholders was linked back to the context in which the
networks functioned: each coalesced around a source of funds and
operated under externally imposed institutional arrangements. As such,
power was determined within predictable routines, such as the
development of the Regional Works Program, established by the
institutional arrangements of the Roads Alliance and followed by the
three governance networks.
However, continuing to follow such “well-worn” institutional paths
(Peters, 2011, p. 86) may have impeded the effectiveness of the
- 269-
networks because they lacked the external impetus to adapt to
changing political, social and environmental considerations that impact
on road service delivery. To sum up, the study found a strong linkage
between institutional arrangements and power in the core networks.
However, the symmetrical distribution of power among core network
stakeholders and the internal focus created by the Roads Alliance
institutional arrangements may begin to explain the networks’ lack of
connectivity with peripheral stakeholders.
Focusing now on peripheral stakeholders, there was some evidence
from the analysis that access to resources played a role in attributions
of power, particularly in WBB RRG. However, peripheral stakeholders
were treated as a network member responsibility, application of power
tended to relate to project specific resources such as environmental
permits allowing road construction to proceed. In contrast with core
network stakeholders, there was little indication that institutional
arrangements governing RRGs contributed to attributions of power to
peripheral stakeholders.
This finding may be explained by the internal emphasis of the
institutional arrangements which applied exclusively to activities
undertaken inside of the networks. As such, the impact of the
institutional framework governing the RRG governance networks did
not spill over into the peripheral stakeholder domain. To sum up, the
impact of institutional arrangements was a differentiating factor in
attributions of power to core network stakeholders and peripheral
stakeholders. This finding reflects the role of institutional arrangements
in creating a well-functioning internal environment (Peters, 2011) in
which power is collectively managed as opposed to the peripheral
stakeholder domain in which institutional arrangements are not
relevant.
- 270-
Legitimacy
Turning now to attributions of legitimacy, the data in Table 8.4 show
that across the three (3) networks, attributions of legitimacy were also
related to institutional arrangements for all core network stakeholders of
FNQ RRG and NSEQ RRG and to a lesser extent WBB RRG. The
finding that there was a connection between institutional arrangements
and legitimacy implied that claims of core network stakeholders were
likely to be legitimised within the institutional framework imposed by the
Roads Alliance Board. As was found with power, institutional
arrangements framed the way in which stakeholder claims were
legitimised. Also in line with findings about power, there was little
indication that these institutional arrangements contributed to
attributions of legitimacy of the claims of peripheral stakeholders
identified by the FNQ RRG and WBB RRG governance networks.
In summary, institutional arrangements were also found to have been a
factor in the legitimisation of stakeholder claims made within the RRG
governance networks. This finding indicates the importance of
institutional arrangements in determining the legitimacy component of
stakeholder salience. Like the attribute of power, institutional
arrangements did not flow on to the legitimisation peripheral
stakeholders claims because they were managed outside of the
network environment.
Temporality and Criticality
It can be seen from the analysis presented in Table 8.4, that across the
three (3) networks, temporality and criticality of claims were likely to be
determined in the context of a specific issue or situation rather than
institutional arrangements or resources. This issues directed approach
(Roloff, 2008) to determining the temporality and criticality of
stakeholder claims was found to be particularly prominent with
peripheral stakeholders and irrespective of stakeholder Type. Thus
context appeared to play a role in determinations of temporality and
criticality of claims of peripheral stakeholders.
- 271-
However in one of the three (3) networks, NSEQ RRG, an issues
directed approach to determining temporality and criticality of claims
was also found to be of relevance. This finding is difficult to explain but
it might be related to the relative youth (less than one (1) year) of the
NSEQ RRG network. As such, relationships may not have developed
beyond an instrumental level in which network members were more
focused on fixing their individual problems rather than determining
temporality and criticality of claims from a collective perspective. To
recap, the evidence from this study suggests that attributions of
criticality and temporality were likely to be issue specific which is in
keeping with Neville, Menguc and Bell’s (2003, p. 1888) suggestion that
“stakeholder relationships are highly contextual” which is also argued in
this thesis.
Summary
Although establishing RRGs as “regional decision-making bodies”
(Local Government Association of Queensland Ltd and Queensland
Government, 2011, p. 6) with discretion to collaboratively manage their
TIDS funding, centrally developed institutional arrangements strongly
influenced the operations of all three networks. As argued in previous
sections, these arrangements were found to have impacted on the
construction of stakeholder power and legitimacy within the network
environment. This finding resonates with the suggestion of the Rhodes
and Visser (2011) and later Meyer (2012) that hierarchical modes of
operating are buried just below the surface of more relational and
networked approaches. Accordingly, the three (3) RRG governance
networks complied with the rules and procedures set down by
government through the Roads Alliance Board, in part because of the
implied threat of losing TIDS funding. As a result, hierarchical
governance arrangements were prominent in the establishment of two
aspects of stakeholder salience: power and legitimacy, but not in
determining temporality and criticality.
- 272-
Furthermore, this study found that power and legitimacy was conferred
upon core network stakeholders within the shadow of hierarchical
authority (Jessop, 2004; Scharpf, 1994). As such, the State government
through DTMR indirectly influenced RRG outcomes by establishing
rules that influenced network power dynamics and legitimacy
structures. However, in the current study, the Roads Alliance
institutional arrangements did not apply to peripheral stakeholders and
thus had little impact on how stakeholder salience was constructed for
peripheral stakeholders. The next section focuses on how stakeholder
salience was operationalised through stakeholder engagement.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
By dividing stakeholder engagement into frequency of engagement and
process of engagement the theoretical framework of this study
suggested that nine (9) combinations of engagement would result.
More details of the various engagement combinations used by the
networks are incorporated in Appendix 8.2. As indicated by the data
presented in Figure 8.3, it can be seen that only seven (7) engagement
combinations were found to be in use across the three (3) networks and
with peripheral stakeholders. As such, two (2) combinations: High
frequency, multi-way processes and High frequency, one-way
processes were not observed as being in use.
- 273-
Figure 8.3 Combinations of Engagement in use by Networks
To confirm, this study found that the three RRG networks and their
member organisations undertook or participated in a more limited range
of engagement activities than suggested in Framework for Stakeholder
Salience and Engagement. Thus the theoretical proposition that nine
(9) combinations of stakeholder engagement would be used by the
networks was not found to occur in practice. Furthermore it was found
that high frequency engagement was rarely undertaken.
When the extent to which each network used the seven (7)
engagement combinations was examined, a surprising picture
emerged. As indicated by the thick red border in Figure 8.3, the
majority of stakeholders within each of the core networks: 54% in FNQ
RRG, 72% in WBB RRG and all stakeholders of NSEQ RRG were
engaged using Low frequency, multi-way processes. Furthermore, the
Low frequency, multi-way process combination was the only theoretical
category observed to have occurred in all three (3) networks. As such,
for all three (3) networks, all core network stakeholders: Regional
Councils, local DTMR Regions and RAPT were engaged through
8% 8% 8% 8%
54%
14%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
72%
9% 19%
0% 0% 0% 0%
100%
0% 0%
High
frequency,
two-way
process
Moderate
frequency,
multi-way
process
Moderate
frequency,
two-way
process
Moderate
frequency,
one-way
process
Low
frequency,
multi-way
process
Low
frequency,
two-way
process.
Low
frequency,
one-way
process.
Per
cen
tag
e o
f st
ak
eho
dle
rs
Combinations of Engagement
FNQ RRG n=13 WBB RRG n=11 NSEQ RRG n=5
Thick red outline = core network stakeholders, Thick black outline = peripheral stakeholders of FNQ RRG and WBB
RRG
- 274-
network specific RRG meetings which were conducted on a regular but
infrequent basis.
There was a high level of uniformity in the way that core network
stakeholders were engaged implying that the networks had similar
drivers for engagement. Each RRG governance network adhered to a
set of centrally developed guidelines which required regular network
meetings but allowed the networks the flexibility to determine the
“frequency, process and administrative arrangements” (Local
Government Association of Queensland Ltd and Queensland
Government, 2011, p. 6). Furthermore, the guidelines implied the
frequency of meetings in advocating that network meetings be
structured around milestones embedded in the Regional Works
Program development and implementation cycle.
From the case study data, it was found that peripheral stakeholders did
not participate in network meetings conducted by FNQ RRG or NSEQ
RRG. Rather, as indicated by the thick black border in Figure 8.3
peripheral stakeholders were more likely to be engaged through Low
frequency one-way and two-way processes. Significantly though, such
engagement occurs almost exclusively without network involvement.
This finding further supports the concept that the networks prioritised
and catered to the interests of institutionally legitimate stakeholders
while overlooking peripheral stakeholders whose roles were not seen to
be a legitimate network matter.
To sum up, the data analysis indicated that the choice of engagement
process and frequency of engagement for core network stakeholders
were linked to the Roads Alliance institutional arrangements with
relational processes being a secondary influence. As such, network
meetings represented “exclusive circles of limited participation” (Meyer,
2012, p. 22) in which peripheral stakeholders were excluded from
network decision making processes. There was little evidence that the
- 275-
core and peripheral stakeholders were integrated. Core network
stakeholders had “a seat at the table”(Hart & Sharma, 2004, p. 9) by
virtue of the their position in the network whereas stakeholders at the
networks fringes were below the networks’ radar screens and thus
disconnected. The next section draws together findings about
stakeholder salience and engagement combinations and discusses in
detail the linkages between stakeholder Type and engagement
activities undertaken with each Type.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STAKEHOLDER SALIENCE AND
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Framework for Stakeholder Salience and Engagement presented
in the literature review, incorporated a number of proposals about the
theoretical relationship between stakeholder Type and corresponding
engagement combinations. Based on the triangulation of data and
analyses, Figure 8.4 summarises the relationships found for each
network. For comparison purposes, the Framework for Stakeholder
Salience and Engagement was modified by the removal of stakeholder
Types that were not observed among the three (3) cases.
- 276-
Figure 8.4 Relationship between Combinations of Power, Legitimacy, Temporality and Criticality (Stakeholder Type) and Combinations of Frequency and Process of Stakeholder Engagement by Network and Theoretical Framework
Far North Queensland RRG Wide Bay Burnett RRG
Ty
pe o
f P
rocess
Multi-way C. Deliberative (7) P. Dormant (1)
Typ
e o
f P
roce
ss
Multi-way C. Definitive (5)
C. Deliberative (3)
Two-way P. Deliberative (1)
P. Dominant (1) P. Demanding (1) P. Dangerous (1)
Two-way P. Dangerous (1)
One-Way P. Dormant (1)
One-Way P. Definitive (2)
Low Moderate High Low Moderate High
Northern South-East Queensland RRG
Linkages theorised in proposed framework for
Stakeholder Salience and Engagement
Ty
pe o
f P
rocess
Multi-way C. Deliberative (4)
C. Dominant (1)
Typ
e o
f P
roce
ss
Multi-way Definitive
Deliberative Dominant
Two-way
Two-way Demanding
Dependent2
Influential1
Dependent
Dominant1
Dominant2
Dependent1
Dangerous
One-Way
One-Way
Dormant
Discretionary
Discretionary2
Discretionary3
Low Moderate High Low Moderate High
Frequency of Engagement
Frequency of Engagement
Legend: C in red shaded cell=Core network stakeholder, P= Peripheral stakeholder; Grey shaded cell=no stakeholders identified
- 277-
For comparison purposes, Figure 8.4 also shows the predicted pattern
of stakeholder Type and engagement combinations as proposed in the
Model of Stakeholder Salience and Engagement. The red shaded cells
in Figure 8.4 indicate that there was a match between the theoretical
prediction Model of Stakeholder Salience and Engagement and the
empirical data from the current study.
The results presented in Figure 8.4 are significant in several ways.
With one (1) significant exception, there was limited empirical support
for the relationships between stakeholder salience and engagement
theorised by the Framework for Stakeholder Salience and Engagement.
First and foremost, from Figure 8.4 it can be seen that Deliberative and
Definitive Type stakeholders were engaged through Low frequency,
multi-way processes in keeping with the prediction of the Framework for
Stakeholder Salience and Engagement. Significantly, this finding
applied to all core network stakeholders of FNQ RRG and WBB RRG
and the majority (80%) of such stakeholders of NSEQ RRG. It is
therefore likely that a connection exists between stakeholder salience
and engagement at the network level, particularly in the case of
Definitive and Deliberative stakeholders.
However a different picture emerged in respect to peripheral
stakeholders of FNQ RRG and WBB RRG. The data presented in Table
8.3 indicates that among these peripheral stakeholders, the predictions
of the Framework for Stakeholder Salience and Engagement were only
supported once, for a Dangerous Type stakeholder in the FNQ RRG
case. This finding was not corroborated by other empirical evidence
collected during the study.
In the literature review it was theorised that pre-existing relationships
based on trust (Andriof & Waddock, 2002) would enable the
implementation of a Low frequency, multi-way engagement processes
with Deliberative and Definitive Type stakeholders. The empirical
- 278-
evidence of this study, however, suggested that the institutional
arrangements underpinning relationships within the networks played a
significant role in both determinations of salience and choices of
engagement activities in the case of Deliberative and Definitive Type
stakeholders. Given that each of the networks focused their attention
on highly salient stakeholders whose role was legitimised within a
centrally imposed institutional framework, it could be inferred that those
institutional arrangements enabled the engagement of core network
stakeholders. However, there was little evidence to suggest that any of
the networks sought to “cast a wider more inclusive net” (Hart &
Sharma, 2004, p. 17) in an effort to bring peripheral stakeholders into
network activities.
To recap, the empirical evidence showed that the Framework for
Stakeholder Salience and Engagement had some applicability for core
networks but little relevance to stakeholders at the fringes of networks.
Furthermore, a power based continuum of stakeholder engagement
activities beginning with one-way communication processes and ending
with multi-party stakeholder processes (A. Friedman & Miles, 2006) was
not found to be in place. Seemingly, the relationship between
stakeholder salience and engagement in network situations resists
reduction into a neat typology as suggested by the theoretical Model for
Stakeholder Salience and Engagement. This finding may be in part due
to the dynamic nature of stakeholder salience (Mitchell et al., 1997) and
the potential for stakeholder engagement to be messy and iterative like
other processes undertaken in a network environment. The next
section takes the analysis a step further in exploring the linkages
between network management and stakeholder engagement.
NETWORK MANAGEMENT AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Network management has come to be synonymous with the range of
non-traditional management activities relevant to managing interactions
with actors within and beyond network boundaries (Agranoff & McGuire,
- 279-
2001b, 2003; Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004; Mandell, 2001). Building on the
network management literature, this research argued that network
management activities could underpin the management and
engagement of stakeholders undertaken in the network context. As
such network management was used in this study as an additional
theoretical lens to further explain how network activities impacted on
stakeholder and management and engagement. Created from the
triangulation of analyses, Table 8.5 shows the network management
tasks undertaken with stakeholders by the three (3) networks.
- 280-
Table 8.5 Implementation of Network Management Tasks with Stakeholders
Net
wor
k
Stakeholders
Network Management Phases and Tasks
1. Activating 2. Framing 3. Mobilising 4. Synthesising
Stakeholders identified
Priorities assigned to stakeholders
Roles established
Terms of engagement established
Coalition building processes undertaken
Stakeholders brought into network
Changes in participation monitored
Stakeholders resources leveraged
Far
Nor
th Q
ueen
slan
d R
RG
Cairns Regional Council * Deliberative Core * Low freq, multi- way * * * Cassowary Coast Regional Council * Deliberative Core * Low freq, multi- way * * * Cook Shire Council * Deliberative Core * Low freq, multi- way * * * Roads Alliance Project Team * Deliberative Core * Low freq, multi- way * * * Tablelands Regional Council * Deliberative Core * Low freq, multi- way * * * Transport and Main Roads, Far North * Deliberative Core * Low freq, multi- way * * * Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire Council * Deliberative Core * Low freq, multi- way * * *
Member of Queensland Parliament 21 * Deliberative Periphery Wet Tropics Management Authority * Dominant Periphery * Low freq, two way * * Department of Environment and Resource Management * Dangerous Periphery
Advance Cairns * Dormant Periphery Federal Department of Infrastructure and Transport * Dormant Periphery
Wid
e B
ay B
urne
tt R
RG
Bundaberg Regional Council * Definitive Core * Low freq, multi- way * * Fraser Coast Regional Council * Definitive Core * Low freq, multi- way * * Gympie Regional Council * Definitive Core * Low freq, multi- way * * North Burnett Regional Council * Definitive Core * Low freq, multi- way * * South Burnett Regional Council * Definitive Core * Low freq, multi- way * * Roads Alliance Project Team * Deliberative Core * Low freq, multi- way
*
Transport and Main Roads Wide Bay Burnett * Deliberative Core * Low freq, multi- way * * Wide Bay Burnett Regional Organisation of Councils * Deliberative Core
* Low freq, multi- way *
Queensland Ambulance Service * Definitive Periphery
Queensland Police Service * Definitive Periphery
- 281-
Net
wor
k
Stakeholders
Network Management Phases and Tasks
1. Activating 2. Framing 3. Mobilising 4. Synthesising
Stakeholders identified
Priorities assigned to stakeholders
Roles established
Terms of engagement established
Coalition building processes undertaken
Stakeholders brought into network
Changes in participation monitored
Stakeholders resources leveraged
AGFORCE *
Dangerous Periphery
Nor
ther
n S
outh
Eas
t-Q
ueen
slan
d R
RG
Moreton Bay Regional Council * Deliberative Core * Low freq, multi- way Somerset Regional Council * Deliberative Core * Low freq, multi- way Sunshine Coast Regional Council * Deliberative Core * Low freq, multi- way Transport and Main Roads Region North Coast * Deliberative Core * Low freq, multi- way Roads Alliance Project Team * Dominant Core * Low freq, multi- way
Legend: Stakeholder priority=stakeholder Type, Coalition building processes=engagement combination used by network;
Low freq= low frequency, * symbol=issue identified, Grey shaded cell=issue not identified.
- 282-
The major focus of Table 8.5 was to provide a comparison of the extent
to which FNQ RRG, WBB RRG and NSEQ RRG undertook the
following network management activities:
Activating: recruiting members and resources
Framing: establishing network vision and rules
Mobilising: creating joint commitment
Synthesising: building and maintaining relationships (Agranoff
and McGuire, 2001a and 2001b).
The next sections examine the scope and extent of implementation of
these network management activities, by the three (3) networks
beginning with activating.
Activating
Activating involves the identification of networks members, and, as
argued in the literature review, stakeholders beyond network
boundaries to as to tap into their skills, knowledge and resources
(McGuire, 2006). The literature review further argued that activation of
internal and external stakeholders would incorporate stakeholder
identification and prioritisation. As such, stakeholder activation would be
a selective process designed to identify the right participants and
resources needed for the network (Scharpf, 1978).
As summarised in table 8.5, each of the three (3) networks identified
and subsequently prioritised a number of stakeholders. However, the
emphasis on government focused transport related stakeholders by
each network indicated a high level of selectivity in activating
stakeholder relationships. As a result of this selectivity, all three (3)
networks omitted to nominate road users and in particular motorists,
important users of regional roads, as a stakeholder group in either an
active or inactive capacity. This strong focus on transport related
government bodies as stakeholders was a departure from the
conceptualisation of Chinyio and Olomolaiye (2010) who emphasised
- 283-
the importance of having broader community involvement, including
groups such as citizens, property owners, contactors and project
owners, in infrastructure projects.
The omission of road users and other community based stakeholders
may be explained, in part, by the networks’ primary function of
managing a funding program rather than undertaking projects. However
by excluding the perspectives of road users in developing Regional
Works Programs, such stakeholders had no means of contributing to
informed debate (Elliman & Taylor, 2008) about projects planned by
any of the networks. In practical terms using an primarily transport
focused rationale in road planning could result in a backlash by
marginalised stakeholders such as occurred with the Bloomfield Track
roadworks in Far North Queensland the 1980’s (Niemeyer & Blamey,
2005).
To recap, from a network activation perspective, each network was
selective about which stakeholders it recruited and excluded. However,
the networks primarily chose to activate a restricted group of
stakeholders, the majority of whom were governmental transport
management organisations with technical expertise and political
influence in a particular geographic location. This exclusivity resonated
with Heclo’s (1978, p. 102) notion of an “iron triangle” through which a
small group with particular expertise control network decision making
effectively blocking external influences (Dredge, 2006). As a result,
each of the case study networks’ effectively bypassed external
stakeholder inputs calling into question the ability of the networks to
deliver a Regional Works Program that could be seen to meet the
needs of a range of stakeholders in their region.
Framing
Network framing involves the negotiation of roles both within the
network and beyond into bordering networks of relationships including
- 284-
those with stakeholders. As such, this thesis argued that establishment
of stakeholder roles and terms of engagement represented important
network framing tasks. As demonstrated in Figure 8.2 and reiterated in
Table 8.5, a core/peripheral (internal/external) stakeholder role
structure was in place for the FNQ RRG and WBB RRG. However
NSEQ RRG only recognised internal stakeholders.
The data analysis suggested that network managers and leaders,
operating within the largely bureaucratic arrangements mandated by
the Roads Alliance were constantly framing and reframing issues to
achieve network objects and in particular the development and acquittal
of the Regional Works Programs. However, network framing was
primarily limited to conventional co-ordination activities such as regular
network meetings, assignment of tasks and active monitoring to gain
agreement about project prioritisation and funding requirements. By
framing network operating rules around program management activities
undertaken by core network stakeholders, the networks’ created a
barrier (Termeer, 2009) to engaging with peripheral stakeholders.
From the analysis, evidence was provided that the terms of
engagement for interactions with peripheral stakeholders were
established in relation to one project for FNQ RRG and not at all for
WBB RRG. In the case of FNQ RRG, three (3) member organisations
were seeking to undertake contiguous road projects on the historically
controversial Bloomfield Track. Therefore negotiations with WTMA to
obtain environmental permits were managed under the auspices of the
FNQ RRG but not within network processes. No other peripheral
stakeholders in any of the networks were managed in such direct
fashion indicating that the network related engagement with peripheral
stakeholders was a rare occurrence.
The data analysis showed that FNQ RRG and WBB RRG operated
under the implicit assumption that engaging with peripheral
- 285-
stakeholders was the domain of individual RRG member organisations
undertaking network endorsed projects. By delegating the responsibility
for stakeholder engagement, the networks’ maintained a solid boundary
between core and peripheral stakeholders. To sum up, framing
activities undertaken by FNQ RRG and WBB RRG did not extend to
both core and peripheral stakeholders as was anticipated; such
activities created a barrier rather than a conduit between the two (2)
groups. By excluding external stakeholders in this way, the networks
effectively created an “us/them” differentiation (Demetrious & Hughes,
2005, p. 9) and with it, the potential for conflict.
Mobilising
The focus of network mobilisation is the development of coalitions and
obtaining agreement on the extent of networks activities (Keast &
Hampson, 2007) “from network participants and external stakeholders”
(McGuire, 2011, p. 445). From the data presented in Table 8.5 it can be
seen that all three (3) networks established internal coalitions through
an ongoing series of network meetings. Furthermore, it can be seen
from Table 8.5, peripheral stakeholders other than WTMA were not
connected to the networks, supporting the finding that coalition building
was primarily internally focused.
Verified through data analysis, the networks built internal support
around the development and implementation of their Regional Works
Program, the conduit for accessing TIDS funding. By leveraging their
relationships over a period of eight (8) years FNQ RRG and WBB RRG
each created a collective commitment to share TIDS funding based on
regional priorities. This relational leveraging was not strongly featured in
NSEQ RRG which was in an early stage of developing relationships.
Although external coalition building was not a deliberate strategy
employed by any of the networks, as part of the Roads Alliance, they
garnered the support of government as evidenced by the continued
- 286-
funding commitment until at least 2013 (The Roads Alliance, 2008).
However ongoing access to funding was negotiated by the Roads
Alliance rather than the networks individually. Thus access to ongoing
funds was a by-product of the RRGs relationship with the Roads
Alliance rather than a deliberative coalition building strategy.
It was evident from the data analyses that core network stakeholders
valued and continued to build internal support. However, coalition
building did not extend to peripheral stakeholders identified by FNQ
RRG and WBB RRG. As a result, the benefits of leveraging stakeholder
relationships were limited with mobilisation restricted to the core
network, rather than flowing through to the wider network of
stakeholders. By limiting mobilisation activities in this way, the networks
overlooked a pool of resources which could have been tapped into to
expand regional road activities beyond that provided for by the TIDS
funding.
Synthesising
The main focus of network synthesis is the development and
maintenance of relationships by checking levels of engagement and
leveraging resources to create value for the network. From the
summary data in in Table 8.5 it can be seen that FNQ RRG and WBB
RRG both monitored changes in participation within the core network.
There was no evidence to show that NSEQ RRG undertook similar
monitoring. However, there was evidence to show that both FNQ RRG
and WBB RRG leveraged the resources of core network stakeholders.
Nonetheless there was a much stronger focus on achieving
instrumental outcomes; implementation of the Regional Works
Program, than managing interactions with stakeholders to build
relationships. For example, FNQ RRG and WBB RRG put considerable
effort into creating value for Regional Council members through the
implementation of joint cost saving initiatives. NSEQ RRG, however,
- 287-
was not found to have undertaken such value creation activities. Other
than in the case of WTMA, there was little evidence to indicate that the
networks leveraged the resources of external stakeholders or actively
monitored their levels of participation. This finding strengthens previous
findings which suggested that there was a disconnect between the
networks and external stakeholders.
The data analysis provided some evidence that monitoring levels of
engagement was linked to the role of network manager in the case of
FNQ RRG and WBB RRG but not for NSEQ RRG which did not have a
designated network manager. Demonstrating this connection,
respondents from FNQ RRG and WBB RRG indicated that the
designated network managers regularly monitored the activities of
Regional Councils to ensure they were able to meet their commitments
under the Regional Works Program and provided practical assistance
where necessary. Lacking a designated network manager, NSEQ RRG
did not have the impetus to drive network processes such as monitoring
levels of stakeholder participation.
To sum up, FNQ RRG, WBB RRG and NSEQ undertook a limited
range of network management activities which were primarily focused
on core network stakeholders and with one (1) exception did not extend
to stakeholders at the network fringes. As can be seen from Table 8.5,
FNQ RRG and WBB RRG undertook a relatively broad range of
network management tasks with the NSEQ RRG undertaking a narrow
range. A possible explanation for this result might be that NSEQ RRG
has been operating for a much shorter length of time than the other two
(2) networks and was at an earlier stage of development.
As a result, NSEQ RRG may have been more focused on stabilising the
network through activating and framing activities rather than using
mobilisation and synthesis activities to build support and create an
environment conducive to achieving network objectives. As such,
relationships within the NSEQ RRG may not have developed beyond
- 288-
an instrumental level in which network members were focused on
solving the problems of their representative organisations in favour of
the collective network approach. The next section draws together the
key findings of this thesis showing that stakeholder engagement by
governance networks occurs primarily within the network core.
DOMAINS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
From the synthesis of analysis and findings across the three (3)
governance network cases, three (3) Domains of stakeholder
engagement could be identified. These Domains were Network level,
Representative organisation level and Potential stakeholder level.
Figure 8.5 provides a summary of the three (3) domains identifying the
scope of engagement, and the frequency and type of engagement
processes undertaken in each Domain.
Domain1 Network Level
Scope: Ongoing engagement of core
network stakeholders within network
Low frequency of engagement
Multi-way stakeholder processes
Domain 2Representative Organisation
Level
Scope: Sporadic engagement with
peripheral stakeholders by network
representative organisations
Low, moderate and high frequency
of engagement
Predominant process used:
two-way exchanges
Domain 3Potential Stakeholder Level
Scope: No contact or engagement by
network or representative
organisations
No engagement
by network
Engagement by Network
Figure 8.5 Domains of Stakeholder Engagement by Governance Networks
- 289-
From the analysis presented in Figure 8.5 it can be seen that there was
only one (1) consistent domain of stakeholder engagement; Network
Level. There was little evidence to suggest that any of the governance
networks collectively engaged stakeholders in Domains 2 and 3
because such stakeholders were not salient in the network
environment. Thus, with the exception of one (1) stakeholder across the
three (3) cases, salience did not did not transfer between
representative organisation and network levels.
From triangulation of data analyses, it could be seen that Domain 1
stakeholders were linked in a number of ways. Within Domain 1, a
nexus was identified between stakeholder power, in its three (3) forms,
the moral legitimacy of claims, and engagement through low frequency,
multi-way network meetings. Three (3) stakeholder Types: Definitive,
Deliberative and Dominant were present across the networks. Definitive
and Dominant stakeholder Types were found in only one (1) network
indicating that those combinations of salience were not widely spread.
Thus core network stakeholders were more likely to be Deliberative
Type with power, legitimate and critical claims which lacked a temporal
element.
For each network, stakeholder salience and engagement were
influenced in particular by two (2) closely related factors: institutional
arrangements and access to resources. As such, the Roads Alliance
institutional arrangements governing the RRGs specified network
membership and set down the rules for accessing TIDS funding
supplied to RRGs through the Roads Alliance. These operating rules
were implemented by each RRG and formed a framework for the
networks’ power and legitimacy structures.
All three networks were found to be closed off to their external
environments to varying degrees. The extent of closure was
demonstrated in several ways:
- 290-
domination of Transport Management related governmental
stakeholders within the core networks
peripheral stakeholders only identified by two (2) of the three (3)
networks
lack of emphasis on stakeholder groups such as road users and
property owners who could have been affected by decisions
about regional road priorities
peripheral stakeholders were not brought into governance
processes such as Regional Works Program plans or decision
making and
the limited network management activities undertaken by the
networks were internally focused, not being designed to build
external relationships or obtain access to external resources.
CONCLUSION
Although the governance networks sought to implement more
collaborative and network like behaviours, this relational focus was
diluted by the bureaucratic governance mode embedded in network
governance arrangements. Bureaucratic operating procedures created
a barrier between internal and external stakeholders rather than
operating as a mechanism for balancing the inputs of the range of
stakeholders relevant to road service delivery in regions. As such,
stakeholder engagement was inwardly skewed and rarely undertaken
beyond network boundaries.
Chapter 8 has integrated findings from across the three (3) governance
networks cases. The synthesis of analysis and findings has revealed
that institutional arrangements are a significant issue in the networks’
stakeholder engagement activities. Furthermore the new stakeholder
Type, Deliberative, theorised in this study was found to be widespread
across the cases. Chapter 9 draws together the findings of this
research to explicitly answer the research questions posed in this thesis
and further outlines the implications for practice and future research
- 291-
directions. The final chapter concludes with a discussion of the
limitations of this study and elaborates on the theoretical and practical
contributions to the literature on stakeholder salience and engagement
and governance networks and suggests future research directions.
292
CHAPTER 9 – DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
INTRODUCTION
Positively engaging a range of stakeholders in the planning, design and
construction of roads can decisively impact on project success (Beach
et al., 2012). Over the past two decades, roads have been more
commonly delivered through interconnected networks of interaction and
decision making and where there is a focus on engaging with
stakeholders. There is, however, a lack of understanding about how
such networks engage with differing groups of stakeholders who have
with competing interests and requirements in the planning and situation
of roads.
This knowledge gap is problematic for two reasons. First,
mismanagement of stakeholders can have a profoundly negative
impact on road projects potentially resulting in project failure and
subsequent financial losses and reputational damage. To avoid such
negative consequences, more needs to be done to understand how
governance networks can optimally engage stakeholders. Second,
although engaging with stakeholders can be an effective mechanism for
minimising the social and environmental impacts of roads and reducing
the risk of road projects becoming embroiled in conflict, little is known
about how governance networks go about realising these benefits.
Therefore further work is required understand how governance
networks can tap in the benefits of building relationships with
stakeholders to produce better regional road outcomes.
Many studies have offered theoretical and empirical insights into which
stakeholder groups have the highest priority (Aaltonen, Jaacko,
Lehtonen, & Ruuska, 2010; Agle et al., 1999; Parent & Deephouse,
2007) because these groups “drive the allocations, decisions,
293
products, and priorities of organizations” (Derry, 2012, p. 256). Mitchell
et al.’s (1997) model of Stakeholder Identification and Salience has
been widely portrayed as a mechanism for prioritising stakeholders
(Neville et al., 2011). Similarly, stakeholder engagement has been
widely studied at both an empirical and practical level to understand the
use, effectiveness and outcomes of the myriad of stakeholder
engagement processes (A. Friedman & Miles, 2006). However there
are few models which show the connections between stakeholder
salience and engagement.
This thesis therefore, makes an original contribution by addressing this
gap in knowledge and improving understanding of how governance
networks can more effectively engage with their stakeholders. It has
achieved this through the innovative use of a stakeholder salience lens
to explore how stakeholders were engaged by road delivery
governance networks. This thesis also developed a more fine grained
understanding of how underlying network operating rules and
processes impact on stakeholder engagement. This new knowledge
was obtained by innovatively using the network management functions
of activating, framing, mobilising and synthesising as a framework for
understanding how the relational tasks associated with stakeholder
engagement are used by governance networks.
To emphasise the significance of the findings of this study and the
original contribution to knowledge made by this thesis, this chapter
reflects upon and integrates these findings and draws conclusions
about each of the five (5) research question posed in this thesis:
How are stakeholders engaged by governance networks?
1. What is the focus of stakeholder identification?
2. What different combinations of stakeholder power,
legitimacy, temporality and criticality are attributed to
stakeholders and why?
294
3. How do these combinations of power, legitimacy,
temporality and criticality relate to the combinations
frequency and processes of stakeholder engagement
undertaken?
4. To what extent are network management activities used
by governance networks in managing relationships with
stakeholders?
Following a discussion of the original contribution thesis makes to
knowledge; the limitations of this research are examined. The chapter
closes by identifying the implications for future research. The next
sections summarise the key findings and contributions from this
research.
RESPONSES TO THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THIS STUDY
Clearly flowing from the analysis and findings previously presented in
Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8, this section addresses the Research Questions
of the study. In this section, Research Questions 1-4 are addressed
sequentially providing the foundation for addressing the primary
Research Question posed in this study, “How are stakeholders
engaged by governance networks?”.
Research Question 1: What is the focus of stakeholder identification?
Fundamental to understanding how governance networks engage with
stakeholders are the interlinked questions of how stakeholders are
defined and subsequently identified (Freeman, 1984). Answering these
questions this thesis contributes a new theoretical perspective to the
long standing and much debated issue in the literature about who really
counts as a stakeholder (Derry, 2012; Freeman, 1984; Mitchell et al.,
1997).
295
Stakeholder Identification
In general, the literature identifies three approaches to stakeholder
definition and subsequent identification: descriptive, normative and
instrumental (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). Descriptive stakeholder
approaches are wide and inclusive and identify stakeholders based on
their perceived organisational impact or conversely, the extent to which
they are impacted by an organisation (Freeman, 1984). From a
normative viewpoint, stakeholders are narrowly defined as those with
whom the organisation has a contractual or moral obligation
(Donaldson & Preston, 1995). Occupying the middle ground,
instrumental approaches are more pragmatic, narrowing the field to
those stakeholders whose input it required to achieve specific
organisational objectives (Mitchell et al., 1997).
Together, the research case studies provided empirical evidence that
road delivery governance networks generally followed an instrumental
approach because of the need to deliver roads within a specific
timeframe and budget. As such, stakeholder identification primarily
focused on specific group of organisations which were significant
because their inputs were required to achieve milestones which
ensured continuing access to State government funds. Essentially,
governance network stakeholders were the network members who
coalesced around a source of funding for road delivery and constituted
the internal network core.
However, this research also found evidence of two groups of peripheral
stakeholders. The first group was deemed to be beyond the network
boundaries as they were the responsibility of network member
organisations rather than a collective network responsibility. The
second group were potential stakeholders with whom neither the
networks nor network member organisations had contact. These
stakeholders were not network members and as such were not
perceived by network members to contribute to the achievement of
network outcomes. By taking such an inward view, the networks
296
effectively excluded a range of important stakeholder groups including
road users, property owners, business operators and other government
agencies that may have been affected by decisions made by the
networks about regional road priorities.
Taken together, these findings show that the case study governance
networks took an instrumental approach to stakeholder identification
which resulted in an “inner” and “outer” stakeholder structure. This
result adds weight to Cleland and Ireland’s (2006) on project
management finding that stakeholders may be effectively divided into
internal and external categories. A major difference between Cleland
and Ireland’s (2006) study and this current study is that external
stakeholders of governance networks were not seen to contribute to
network outcomes and therefore did not “really count” as stakeholders
(Freeman, 1984; Mitchell et al., 1997). Unlike Cleland and Ireland’s
(2006) study this thesis showed that the inputs of internal stakeholders
were weighted more highly than those of external stakeholders. Taking
such a limited view of stakeholders could lead to future problems where
the networks need to gain broad support for regional road priorities
determined internally.
Answer to Research Question 1
Road delivery governance networks take an instrumental view of
stakeholder identification which results in an “in” and “out” group
classification of stakeholders based on network membership.
Consequently, governance network members represent the dominant
stakeholder group because they contribute to network outcomes.
However, peripheral stakeholders beyond the network boundary are
effectively excluded from involvement in network activities and
decisions that might affected them. From a practical perspective, road
delivery governance networks need to be aware that ignoring
stakeholders “who do not count” (Derry, 2012) may contribute to
negative outcomes such as those which occurred in the failed Route 20
and Pacific Motorway projects discussed in Chapter 2.
297
Research Question 2: What different combinations of stakeholder power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality are attributed to stakeholders and why?
The next step in understanding how governance networks engage with
stakeholders is the way in which such stakeholders are prioritised which
this thesis contends is a critical step in determining the nature and form
of subsequent engagement. This study, therefore proposed that
governance networks would prioritise stakeholders using a four (4)
attribute model of stakeholder salience in which different combinations
of power and legitimacy, temporality and criticality of stakeholder claims
formed different stakeholder Types. This second step is significant from
a practical perspective because it shows the logic governance networks
use to determine which stakeholders have the most “clout” (Derry,
2012) and will consequently receive the most consideration by
governance networks. By understanding this logic, governance
networks will be able to reflect how stakeholder engagement can be
improved.
Limited Stakeholder Salience Categories and a New Stakeholder Type
In much of the stakeholder literature, the salience of stakeholders
(Mitchell et al., 1997) has been empirically tested following the original
conceptualisation of power, legitimacy and urgency (Neville et al.,
2011). However the new theoretical framework for Stakeholder
Salience and Engagement developed for this study proposed that the
two (2) dimensions of urgency: temporality and criticality, as originally
conceived by Mitchell et al., (1997) could stand alone in determinations
of salience. This innovative approach to determining stakeholder
salience challenges the traditional approach in which urgency rather
than its components: temporality and criticality determines salience. By
treating stakeholder salience as a combination of four (4) variables:
power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality of claims, the current study
extended Mitchell et al.’s (1997) stakeholder Model of Stakeholder
Identification and Salience. Taking this new approach to urgency, the
298
original seven (7) salience categories (Mitchell, et al, 2007) were
expanded to sixteen (16) stakeholders Types.
However, empirically testing temporality and criticality as individual
variables in the research case studies evidenced only seven (7) of the
sixteen (16) stakeholders Types. Further, the evidence showed that
there were two (2) fewer categories in use (Dependent or Discretionary)
than those originally suggested by Mitchell et al. (1997) and found by
Agle et al. (1999). However, the absence of Dependent or Discretionary
stakeholders in the current study corroborated the results of the study
by Parent and Deephouse (2007) which found that Mitchell et al.’s
(1997) stakeholder salience categories were more limited than
previously suggested in the literature. Figure 9.1 shows the stakeholder
Types found in this study.
Figure 9.1 Road Governance Networks Stakeholder Types
The finding of a discrepancy between the theoretical prediction of this
study (existence of 16 stakeholder Types) and the empirical results (7
299
stakeholder Types found) indicated that there was little empirical
support for the expansion of Mitchell et al.’s (1997) stakeholder salience
as per the proposed framework for Stakeholder Salience and
Engagement. However, a new stakeholder category, the Deliberative
stakeholder Type, was found to occur within the case study networks.
As shown in Figure 9.1, Deliberative Type stakeholders have three (3)
salience attributes: power, legitimacy and criticality but lack temporality.
This finding is significant for several reasons.
Evidence of this new Deliberative stakeholder Type indicates that
governance networks can and do differentiate between temporality and
criticality in determining salience. This finding suggests that temporality
and criticality may have a more complex role in stakeholder
prioritisation than previously assumed in the stakeholder salience
literature. As such, this study is the first to provide evidence that
managers may have a more nuanced view of stakeholder salience, an
issue not raised in previous studies (Aaltonen et al., 2010; Agle et al.,
1999; Parent & Deephouse, 2007).
The Deliberative stakeholder Type and was found extensively across all
three (3) case study networks and was the dominant stakeholder Type
in two (2) of these networks. The dominance of the Deliberative
stakeholder Type suggests that in the context of governance networks
responsible for road delivery, the salience of stakeholders is likely to be
relatively uniform, an issue not raised previously in the literature. A
number of findings support this contention.
First, the power of network stakeholders was found to be symmetrical
and as such power operated as a network enabler rather than a barrier.
Although this finding contradicts Agranoff and McGuire’s (2001) finding
that power distribution in networks is likely to be asymmetrical, it
supports Provan and Kenis’ (2008, p. 235) finding that power may be
symmetrical with respect to “network-level decisions”. Second the
criticality of claims was negotiated as a collective outcome in the
300
context of delivering a Regional Road Program. As such negotiation of
stakeholder claims was more integrative and focused on achieving joint
outcomes rather than organisational self-interest, pointing to the role of
interest based negotiation (Senger, 2002) in stakeholder salience.
Furthermore network operating “rules” which specified the timeframes
for the development and implementation of the Regional Road Program
seem to negate the temporal element of claims. As the timelines for
Program development were explicit and agreed among network
stakeholders, making temporal demands served little purpose.
Stakeholder Salience in Context
This study found that two (2) closely related contextual factors,
institutional arrangements and access to resources, impacted on the
attribution of power and legitimacy to stakeholders inside the case
study networks. Furthermore, this research showed that at network
level and irrespective of stakeholder Type, stakeholder power and
legitimacy were influenced by externally imposed “rules” embedded in
the institutional arrangements governing the networks. As such,
stakeholder power and legitimacy were determined within an
institutional framework of “rules” covering network structure, network
membership and decision making processes. Although there was
some evidence that relationships played a role in attributions of power
and legitimacy, these relationships were negotiated within the confines
of the external institutional framework.
The current study also found that decisions about stakeholder power
and legitimacy were linked to the networks’ need to maintain continuing
access to resources available from government. As such, the networks
were reliant on external funding and this dependency created a
powerful incentive for the networks to follow institutional “rules” which in
turn influenced salience attributions. Thus the original suggestion by
Mitchell et al. (1997) that attributions of power were related to resource
access was corroborated by this research. One implication of this
301
finding is that governance networks may become locked into power and
legitimacy structures which meet institutional “rules” but stifle inputs
from external stakeholders which could improve road planning and
delivery outcomes.
This study also found that while attributions of temporality and criticality
were negotiated within institutional “rules”, situational and context
related issues were also taken into account. Therefore, attributions of
temporality and criticality are more likely to fluctuate as a result of
external influences. As such, governance networks need to be attuned
to changes in their external environment which can cause changes in
temporality and criticality and lead to disruptions in the routines for
development and implementation of their Regional Works Program.
To sum up, the findings of this study suggest that attributions of power
and legitimacy to network level stakeholders are more likely to be
affected by the network’s rules of engagement rather than by their
temporality and criticality. Therefore governance networks need to be
aware that external environmental conditions can change the priority of
internal network stakeholders. As such, the challenge for road delivery
governance networks is to move beyond a taken-for-granted focus on
technical excellence and incorporate external stakeholder viewpoints
into road planning decisions.
Evidence from the study also showed that network boundary is an
important marker for whether or not stakeholders are salient to
governance networks. Having insufficient salience at network level,
stakeholders beyond the network boundary were effectively excluded
from participating in important road planning decisions. While excluding
peripheral stakeholders may have created efficiencies in development
of Regional Works Programs, the networks also ran the risk of conflict
erupting because such stakeholders were ignored. This is an important
finding because prior literature has not considered network boundary as
a factor in stakeholder salience. This contribution to knowledge extends
302
the literature on stakeholder salience and governance networks by
showing that network structure is a factor in determining whether or not
peripheral stakeholders are sufficiently salient to warrant inclusion in
network decision making. From a practical perspective, road delivery
governance networks need to be aware of the extent to which network
boundary determines which stakeholders “have a seat at the table”
(Grossman, Kushner, & November, 2008, p. 3) to ensure that their
interests are represented.
Answer to Research Question 2
Stakeholders are attributed to seven (7) stakeholder Types composed
of different combinations of the salience attributes: power and
legitimacy, temporality and criticality of claims. This thesis evidences
the existence of a new salience category, the Deliberative stakeholder
Type. This new category of salience was identified because network
members did not consider that temporality and criticality needed to co-
exist to determine the salience of stakeholders, making an important
contribution to Mitchell et al.’s (1997) Model of Stakeholder
Identification and Salience. The widespread incidence of the
Deliberative stakeholder Type across the networks showed that
temporality and criticality can play a multifaceted role in stakeholder
prioritisation, and that network members have a more nuanced view of
stakeholder salience than previously identified in the stakeholder
salience literature.
This study also shows that differing factors influence attributions of
salience to network level stakeholders and those beyond network
boundaries. Within the network, stakeholder power and legitimacy are
shaped by centrally imposed institutional arrangements which underpin
network structure, network membership and funding arrangements.
Furthermore, this study also showed that network boundary is an
important indicator of whether or not stakeholders are salient to
governance networks. Therefore, organisations establishing
governance networks need to be aware of the extent to which centrally
303
imposed institutional arrangements and specification of network
boundaries can create rigidities in the way that networks prioritise
stakeholders.
Research Question 3: How do these combinations of power, legitimacy, temporality and criticality relate to the combinations of frequency and processes of stakeholder engagement undertaken? A further step in understanding how governance networks engage with
stakeholders was to identify the links between stakeholder salience and
engagement. This study therefore proposed that various combinations
of the stakeholder salience attributes were linked to combinations of
stakeholder engagement comprising the frequency with which networks
undertook stakeholder engagement and the type of engagement
process implemented. As a result of empirically testing this link between
stakeholder salience and engagement, this thesis contributes a new
salience based perspective on stakeholder engagement by governance
networks to the literature.
Stakeholder Engagement Combinations
To understand how stakeholder salience and engagement were
related, this study empirically tested the proposition that networks would
use nine (9) combinations of stakeholder engagement to communicate
with and involve stakeholders into network activities and cultivate
enduring relationships. The empirical evidence showed that seven (7)
combinations were in use. Significantly, however, this study found that
one engagement combination was used with all internal network
stakeholders: network meetings undertaken at low frequency intervals,
in each of the three (3) governance networks studied.
As such, stakeholder engagement in road delivery networks
represented “exclusive circles of limited participation” (Meyer, 2012, p.
22). The extent to which stakeholder engagement was so singularly
focused contradicted previous studies which found that stakeholder
engagement activities were more broad based (Leach et al., 2005;
304
O'Higgins & Morgan, 2006) and in some circumstances followed a
continuum from informing stakeholders about decisions to participating
in decision making (A. Friedman & Miles, 2006).
Conversely, stakeholders beyond the network boundary were engaged
outside of the networks using a range of six (6) engagement
combinations excluding network meetings. In general therefore network
boundary is also a key marker of the type of engagement undertaken
by governance networks. Accordingly, stakeholder engagement by
governance networks follows an “inner” and “outer” group pattern
differentiated by network membership. This extent of solidification of
network boundaries represents a potential problem for road delivery
governance networks because it buffers the network from external
stakeholders (A. Friedman & Miles, 2006). As such, these networks
have no mechanism for detecting changes in the stakeholder
environment that may be important in road project prioritisation.
This study also evidences that externally imposed “rules” embedded in
the institutional arrangements effectively prescribed the focus,
frequency and processes of stakeholder engagement undertaken by
the networks. Although pre-existing relationships within the networks
facilitated stakeholder engagement in some instances, institutional
“rules” were found to be more influential. These results suggest that
stakeholder engagement within governance networks is likely to be
stable and routinised as a result of following practices embedded in the
institutional framework. However, this stability provides little incentive
for the networks to extend engagement beyond network boundaries
and build mutually beneficial relationships with external stakeholders
(Svendsen & Laberge, 2005).
Links between Stakeholder Salience and Engagement
This study proposed a theoretical Framework for Stakeholder Salience
and Engagement in which each of sixteen (16) stakeholder Types
would be related to one of nine (9) differing stakeholder engagement
305
combinations. The empirical evidence showed that with a single
exception, stakeholder salience and engagement were not related as
proposed in the theoretical framework. The sole connection found
across the case study networks, was between the Deliberative
stakeholder Type and the engagement combination: network meetings
undertaken on an infrequent basis. Further, the evidence from this
study showed that this connection between stakeholder salience and
engagement only operated in the context of internal network
stakeholders.
To sum up, this thesis found that stakeholder engagement by road
delivery governance networks was narrowly focused on an exclusive
group of highly salient internal stakeholders. One possible explanation
for this outcome is that salience assignments and resultant stakeholder
engagement were influenced by contextual factors. O’Higgins and
Morgan (2006), made room for such a possibility in their study of
stakeholder salience and engagement in political organisations.
In particular the networks’ primary focus on developing and managing a
Regional Roads Program may have contributed to the narrowness and
exclusivity in the way that the stakeholders were engaged. A key aspect
of a Regional Roads Program is the determination of project funding
priorities. However, external stakeholders had little ability to influence
decision making in the case study networks, and therefore, technical
and political inputs were the sole determinants of project priorities. As
such external stakeholders had no ability to trigger a threshold of
concern (Holmes & Moir, 2007) and force the governance networks to
engage more broadly. Although this program management focus
currently allows road delivery governance networks to operate as non-
transparent “clubs” (Klijn & Skelcher, 2007), it is unclear whether or not
stakeholders would tolerate such marginalisation in other contexts such
as road construction.
306
Response to Research Question 3
With one notable exception, salience assignments and subsequent
engagement were not connected as proposed in the theoretical
framework for Stakeholder Salience and Engagement. In the case of
network level Deliberative Type stakeholders who possessed power
and legitimate and critical claims, stakeholder engagement was
standardised: network meetings conducted at regular but low frequency
intervals. This finding is important because it shows that stakeholder
engagement is a routinised activity rather than being responsive to
stakeholder needs. While this approach may have utility in the road
program management environment, it may be problematic in more
dynamic and complex environments such as road construction.
Furthermore, stakeholder engagement by road governance networks
follows an “inner” and “outer” group pattern differentiated by network
membership. As such, external stakeholders are effectively
marginalised from meaningful involvement in network decision making,
allowing technical and political perspectives to dominate important
regional decisions. While relationships are of importance in internal
stakeholder engagement, external institutional arrangements which in
effect determine the focus and structure of stakeholder engagement
activities by the governance networks, have greater impact. As a result,
there is little incentive for governance networks to engage stakeholders
outside of network boundaries.
Research Question 4: To what extent are network management activities used by governance networks in managing relationships with stakeholders?
The final step in explicating how governance networks engage with
stakeholders is clarifying the extent to which network management
activities contributed to engagement of stakeholders within and beyond
network boundaries. Using Agranoff and McGuire’s (2001a and 2001b)
network management framework which is structured around the non-
traditional network management tasks of activating, framing, mobilising
307
and synthesising, this thesis generated a number of key insights about
the use of network management to facilitate stakeholder engagement.
Use of Network Management to Engage Stakeholders
Network activating refers to the identification of new network members
and securing their ‘buy in’ to achieve network success (Agranoff and
McGuire (2003). However, the high degree of closure of the case study
networks suggested that network activation was poorly implemented by
the networks. The recruitment phase of network activation stopped
largely at the network boundary such that a small internal group of
stakeholders controlled network decisions and minimised external
influences. As such, it is unlikely that the case study networks
activated “the right players with the right resources” (Agranoff &
McGuire, 2001a, p. 14) to achieve broad based agreement about
regional road priorities.
Network framing activities essentially involve negotiation of roles both
within the network and beyond into bordering networks of relationships
(Agranoff & McGuire, 2001a, 2001b) including those with stakeholders.
However, the case study networks used conventional co-ordination
strategies to frame the roles of internal network stakeholders as part of
managing their Regional Works Program. However, framing activities
were not used by the networks to negotiate terms of engagement with
external stakeholders. As such, framing represented a barrier (Termeer,
2009) rather than an enabler of stakeholder engagement. The danger
in such an approach that substitutes technical and political judgments
for direct public input is the distortion of outcomes such as inappropriate
road location.
Two important objectives of mobilisation are to build support within and
beyond networks and establish new coalitions to undertake specific
activities (Keast & Hampson, 2007). There was evidence from the
research case studies that network members valued and continued to
build internal support. However, this inwardly focused approach to
308
stakeholder engagement largely substituted for stakeholder
mobilisation activities. The absence of external coalition building meant
that the benefits of mobilisation were unable to be leveraged to achieve
network outcomes potentially leading to incorrect prioritisation of road
projects.
The main focus of network synthesising is to check levels of
engagement and creating value through leveraging resources
(McGuire, 2006). While there was evidence that the networks checked
internal levels of engagement, this monitoring was primarily focused on
managing funding rather than checking participation levels more
generally. Further, external stakeholder participation was not actively
monitored. Any value that was created for external stakeholders was
incidental to the main objective of the networks to improve regional road
access. As a result, the networks were unable to tap into external
stakeholder relationships to obtain access to additional resources that
might be available for road delivery in the region.
To sum up, this thesis makes important theoretical and practical
contributions to knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement by
introducing and applying the network management functions of
activating, framing, mobilising and synthesising as a framework for
managing stakeholders. First, this thesis built on the Agranoff and
McGuire’s (2001a and 2001b) network management framework by
showing that the relational tasks associated with stakeholder
engagement are embedded within the network management functions
of activating, framing, mobilising and synthesising. As a result,
stakeholder engagement is able to be positioned in the field as an
important aspect of network management.
From a practical perspective this thesis has identified potential gaps in
the way that governance networks manage and engage with
stakeholders. In essence, road governance networks used network
management to maintain relationships within internal network
309
stakeholder groups and not as a platform to build external relationships
or obtain access to external resources. As a result, critical external
stakeholders were not brought into network activities. Therefore,
technical and political judgments dominated regional road priorities
rather than needs of road users and regional communities. Therefore
more work needs to be done to ensure that network management is
used in a deliberative fashion to build and maintain relationships with
both internal and external stakeholders to develop better outcomes for
road service delivery in regional communities.
Response to Research Question 4
Governance networks are limited in their use of network management
activities as tools for managing stakeholder relationships. Rather than
using network management tasks to build external relationships or
obtain access to external resources they are selectively applied to
maintain relationships within the networks. As a result, network
management activities in road governance networks are derivatives of
network operating procedures rather than deliberate strategies
implemented by the networks to build relationships with stakeholders
inside the networks and beyond network boundaries. By changing to a
more strategic, inclusive and relationship based approach to
stakeholder management and engagement, road delivery governance
will be better able to develop better outcomes for road service delivery
in regional communities.
Primary Research Question: How are stakeholders engaged by governance networks? Integrating the findings and answers to Research Questions 1-4, this
section addresses the primary Research Question of this thesis, “How
stakeholders are engaged by governance networks. This discussion is
framed around Figure 9.2 which encapsulates the overall findings of
this thesis. The purpose of Figure 9.2 is to show that stakeholder
engagement by road governance can be situated in one of three
310
domains: 1. Network level, 2. Network representative organisational
level and 3. Potential stakeholder level. Each Domain can be
considered a microcosm of stakeholder salience and engagement.
Figure 9.2 Domains of Stakeholder engagement
Within Domain 1, stakeholders are internal to the network, almost
exclusively of the Deliberative Type and are engaged in a routinised
way through one activity, network meetings conducted infrequently.
In contrast, stakeholders in Domain 2 are external to the network being
the responsibility of network member organisations rather than the
network collectively. Domain 2 stakeholders are attributed to a variety
of salience types and configurations of engagement. Domain 3
comprises Non-stakeholders who are not engaged at either network or
network representative organisational level. Domain 1 internal
stakeholders formed the network core and were clearly differentiated
from the external stakeholders (Domains 2 and 3), unable to cross the
network boundary because they lacked salience at network level.
311
Across the three (3) Domains, there was a relatively consistent link
between the Deliberative stakeholder Type, and frequency and type of
engagement process in use. However, no consistent link was found
between the salience and engagement of external stakeholders
irrespective of stakeholder Type. Therefore, this thesis evidences a link
between stakeholder salience and engagement some circumstances, in
particular, Deliberative Type stakeholders who are internal to the
network and participate in network meetings held infrequently.
A number of factors contribute to these findings. First, the propensity for
road delivery governance networks to identify stakeholders in a narrow
instrumental way results in an internal/external division of stakeholders
based on network membership. Governance network stakeholders
therefore, are effectively network members who constitute the internal
network core. Second, while networks members differentiate between
criticality and temporality in assigning salience to stakeholders, the
biggest impact of this differentiation occurs at network level where the
vast majority of stakeholders are assigned to the Deliberative Type and
then subsequently engaged through network meetings. Irrespective of
stakeholder Type however, external stakeholders are relegated to the
network margins, not considered to be salient at network level.
Finally this insular approach is exacerbated by the networks’ tendency
to rely on external institutional arrangements in framing decisions about
stakeholder salience and engagement. The application of network
management activities does little to expose the networks to external
influences because their use is so limited. However the results of this
research provide governance networks with the empirical evidence and
practical knowledge about how incorporate a broader range of
stakeholders into their activities. In taking such a step, regional road
delivery would become more inclusive and extend beyond the technical
and political arenas.
312
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE
This research offers significant empirical, theoretical and practice-
oriented contributions to the knowledge of stakeholder salience and
engagement, governance networks and network management. These
contributions are discussed in the following sections beginning with
theoretical contributions.
Theoretical Contributions
From a theoretical perspective, this current study makes important
contributions to the literatures on stakeholders, stakeholder salience,
stakeholder engagement, governance networks and network
management. Table 9.1 maps the gaps found in the various literatures,
theoretical propositions tested in this research and resultant theoretical
contributions.
313
Table 9.1 Summary of the Theoretical Contributions of this Study
Gap in Existing Literature Theoretical Propositions Tested in this Research Study
Theoretical Contribution of this Research Study
Lack of empirical evidence to indicate whether a broad or narrow view (Derry, 2012; Freeman, 1984; Mitchell et al., 1997) of stakeholder identification would be taken by governance networks
Governance networks would take broad rather than narrow view of stakeholder identification.
Extended stakeholder and governance network literatures by showing that governance networks take a narrow view of stakeholder identification which impacts on stakeholder engagement such that engagement becomes almost exclusively internally focused on network stakeholders.
Studies into the operation of Mitchell et al.’s (1997) Stakeholder Identification and Salience Model (Agle et al., 1999; M. Friedman & Mason, 2004, 2005; Parent & Deephouse, 2007) treated the construct of urgency as a single variable. Call by Neville et al. (2011) for more research about how urgency contributes to stakeholder salience.
By separating urgency into its component variables: temporality and criticality, stakeholder salience would comprise combinations of four (4) variables: power and legitimacy, temporality and criticality of claims. As such, Mitchell et al.’s (1997) seven (7) salience categories would be expanded to sixteen (16) stakeholders Types.
Further developed the stakeholder salience literature by showing the existence of seven (7) of the sixteen (16) proposed stakeholder Types. A new salience category, additional to the original categorisations proposed by Mitchell et al. (1997), emerged: the Deliberative stakeholder Type in which the individual elements of the urgency salience attribute: temporality and criticality occurred separately. Thus both temporality and criticality are not necessarily required to be present in determining the salience of stakeholders.
Theoretical proposition that a power based continuum of stakeholder engagement would exist (A. Friedman and Miles, 2006) not empirically tested. Conceptualisation of stakeholder engagement as a combination of frequency of engagement (Leach et al., 2005)and process of engagement not theoretically tested
By treating stakeholder engagement as a combination of frequency of engagement and process of engagement, nine (9) combinations of stakeholder engagement would result. These combinations would be part of a power based continuum of engagement
Extended stakeholder engagement literature by showing that there were linkages between frequency of engagement and process of engagement. However a power based continuum of stakeholder engagement (A. Friedman and Miles, 2006) was not found to be in place.
Absence of theoretical conceptualisation empirical evidence about the potential linkages between stakeholder salience (Mitchell et al., 1997) and engagement (Leach et al., 2005).
Stakeholder salience end engagement would be linked as suggested in proposed theoretical Framework for Stakeholder Salience and Engagement.
Broadened stakeholder salience and engagement literatures by showing that at network level, stakeholder salience and engagement may be linked in some circumstances. Beyond this application, the theoretical Framework for Stakeholder Salience and Engagement had limited utility.
The link between network management (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001b, 2003; Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004; Mandell, 2001) and stakeholder engagement not previously explored at a conceptual or empirical level.
Network management activities focused on building and maintaining relationships with actors within and beyond network boundaries would facilitate stakeholder engagement.
Further developed network management theory by showing that network management activities were limited and selectively applied to maintain relationships with stakeholders inside the governance networks. Such activities were not used to facilitate engagement with external stakeholders.
314
As summarised in Table 9.1, the empirical findings of this thesis add
substantially to our understanding of how governance networks engage
with stakeholders. In showing that governance networks take a narrow
instrumental view of stakeholder identification, stakeholder theory and
governance network are extended in two ways. First this research
contributes to stakeholder theory by providing a new perspective on
who really counts as a stakeholder (Freeman, 1984; Mitchell & Agle,
1997) within the governance network environment. Second the
empirical findings in this study provide a new understanding of the
fundamental importance of decisions governance networks make about
stakeholder identification because such decisions ripple through
network activities and impact on stakeholder engagement.
By reconfiguring the role of urgency in determinations of salience, this
study provides a new understanding of how stakeholder salience
operates as a stakeholder prioritisation mechanism. This study
contributes evidence to stakeholder salience theory that the two (2)
individual components of the urgency salience attribute: temporality and
criticality can occur separately under some circumstances. The new
stakeholder salience category (Deliberative Type) was in widespread
use indicating that governance networks differentiated between
temporality and criticality in assessing stakeholder salience. Further,
this study responds to Neville et al.’s (2011) recent call for more
research about how urgency contributes to stakeholder salience.
This thesis contributes additional evidence to stakeholder engagement
theory by showing that there is a linkage between frequency of
engagement (Leach et al., 2005) and type of engagement undertaken.
However this linkage did not suggest that a power based continuum of
stakeholder engagement (A. Friedman & Miles, 2006) was in place.
Instead, institutional arrangements are more likely to influence
decisions about the frequency of engagement and process of
engagement undertaken. Taken these findings extend our
315
understanding of how stakeholder engagement functions in the
governance network context.
The study has also gone some way to understanding how network
management activities are used by governance networks to facilitate
stakeholder engagement. Showing that relational tasks associated with
stakeholder engagement are embedded within network management
activities, this thesis positions stakeholder management is an important
aspect of network management.
In synthesising the previously unconnected theories of stakeholder
salience (Mitchell et al., 1997) and engagement (A. Friedman & Miles,
2006), this thesis has improved understanding of how the concepts of
stakeholder salience and stakeholder engagement are related and
contributes to both literatures. It shows how the practical activities used
by governance networks in communicating and involving stakeholders
in network activities (Chinyio & Akintoye, 2008; Harrison & Mort, 1998)
may be linked to stakeholder priority assessed through their salience.
As such, this study also makes a contribution to understanding how
network members prioritise and engage their stakeholders.
Practice-oriented Contributions
The practical contributions of this research focus on three (3) main
groups: governance networks, stakeholders external to the network
environment and organisations establishing networks. Given that
inappropriate prioritisation of stakeholders has the potential to create
financial and reputational damage, governance networks would benefit
from more fully assessing the salience of potential external
stakeholders using the attributes of power and legitimacy, temporality
and criticality of claims. By extending such analysis beyond network
boundaries, governance networks would be better equipped to identify
changes in the salience of stakeholders and adjust engagement
strategies accordingly. Taking a more strategic approach to assessing
the salience of stakeholders outside the network environment would
316
assist governance networks to identify and prioritise stakeholders who
may in future become important. By extending who may participate in
network activities, technical and political inputs which determine project
priority could be supplemented with the views of those stakeholders
who are likely to be affected by project priorities.
The research also suggests a second practical application for
stakeholders who are outside the network environment. Although
external stakeholders were excluded from participating in network
activities, pressure from stakeholders to become more involved in
regional road delivery may increase over time. Therefore, external
stakeholders could use the knowledge created in this study to
understand how to change their salience to achieve greater leverage
within the network environment.
Finally, this research has shown the significant impact that external
institutional arrangements can have on the way in which governance
networks engage with stakeholders. In this research, the tightly
structured bureaucratic arrangements which governed network
activities created an internal focus and impeded broader stakeholder
engagement. Therefore the results of this research could assist
organisations developing networks to understand how to structure
institutional arrangements which encourage more networked ways of
operating which promote rather than obstruct external stakeholder
engagement. By extending network boundaries outwards in this way,
governance networks are more likely to be able to garner the benefits
of engaging with a broader group of stakeholders.
LIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH
Although this research was carefully designed and implemented, there
were some unavoidable limitations due to access difficulties, time
limitations and natural disasters. An ambitious sampling strategy was
set for the research, to secure the participation of all members in each
of the three networks. However, the actual participation rate of
317
respondents for each of the networks was lower than anticipated: 63%,
85% and 78%, resulting in an incomplete set of perspectives. To
ensure that the lower than expected response rates did not overly limit
consideration of a wider set of viewpoints, an additional strategy was
put in place. Accordingly, additional documentary evidence was closely
scrutinised throughout the course of the study to identify differing
viewpoints and issues that may have been otherwise obscured.
Supplementing the data collection in this way, the research was
strengthened by capturing a fuller account of how stakeholders were
managed and engaged by the case study networks.
Additionally, in January 2011, Queensland experienced two natural
disasters: widespread flooding and a severe cyclone. These events
interrupted the operation of all three case study networks to varying
degrees. As such, a number of respondents were not available for
interview as they were involved in the reconstruction of severely
damaged roads and infrastructure. Therefore, the researcher was
unable to obtain the necessary access to undertake face-to-face
interviews with these network members. As a result, some second
round interviews and follow up discussions with respondents were
unable to be completed. An alternative data collection strategy was
implemented and the remaining data collection was undertaken by
telephone rather than in situ. Having earlier established a rapport with
research participants during the first round of interviewing and by
attendance at network meetings, the negative impact of replacing face
to face interviews with telephone interviews was minimal. By
overcoming the limitation in this way, all proposed interviews were
completed.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
The findings of this thesis provide several insights into future research.
This study established that in the context of road delivery networks,
there is a link between stakeholder salience and engagement at
network level. However, further research is needed to identify the extent
318
to which these findings apply in situations beyond the road delivery
governance network context. Undertaking similar studies within the
road project implementation environment and the broader infrastructure
realm where there is a more direct influence on stakeholders and
greater demand for involvement may result in more varied stakeholder
salience and engagement outcomes. Broadening the research agenda
in this way would provide an opportunity to compare how stakeholder
salience and engagement are linked at network and project level and in
other types of infrastructure.
As stakeholder salience is a dynamic concept which can change over
time, longitudinal research could be undertaken to understand how the
connections between stakeholder salience and engagement evolve.
Undertaking such research would provide a more in depth and robust
understanding of how changes in salience impact on choices of
engagement activities over extended time frames.
This research also raised questions about how networks which actively
engage both internal and external stakeholders use network
management tools within their stakeholder engagement strategies.
Therefore, further research could be undertaken to show how network
management could be used to engage external stakeholders. Such
research would provide a more in-depth understanding of how network
management strategies are used to facilitate stakeholder engagement
both within and beyond network boundaries.
319
APPENDICES
-320-
APPENDIX 4.1 SCHEDULE OF INTERVIEWS
2Interviews undertaken to obtain background information for Chapter 2 Case Context
Participant Structured
Interview
Semi-structured
Interview
Follow up 2Context
Interviews
P01C1 27/11/2009 18/02/2010 27/05/2010
15/03/2011
P02C1 10/12/2009 18/02/2010 25/05/2010
P03C1 04/12/2009
P04C1 27/11/2009 04/06/2010
P05C1 03/12/2009 25/05/2010
P06C1 10/12/2009 24/03/2010 8/03/2011
09/01/2012
P07C1 11/12/2009 21/05/2010
P08C1 16/03/2010 15/04/2010
P09C1 24/03/2010 15/12/2010 10/03/2011
P10C1 19/02/2010
P01C2 3/12/2009 20/04/2010 Email 24/02/2011
P02C2 15/12/2009 23/03/2010
P03C2 10/12/2009 23/03/2010
P04C2 04/12/2009 24/03/2010 Email 23/05/2011
P05C2 03/12/2009 24/03/2010
P06C2 17/12/2009 26/05/2010
P07C2 16/12/2009 26/05/2010
P08C2 14/12/2009 16/04/2010
P09C2 15/12/2009 22/04/2010
P10C2 04/12/2009 22/04/2010
P11C2 15/12/2009 22/04/2010
P12C2 14/12/2009 24/03/2010 14/03/2011
9/01/2012
P13C2 25/03/2010 10/03/2011
P14C2 23/04/2010 23/04/2010
P15C2 05/02/2010
P16C2 29/06/2010
P17C2 17/11/2009
P01C3 20/05/2010 20/05/2010
P02C3 20/05/2010 20/05/2010
P03C3 19/05/2010 19/05/2010
P04C3 16/04/2010 16/04/2010
P05C3 31/05/2010 31/05/2010
P06C3 29/06/2010 31/08/2010
P01C3P1 08/02/2010 04/05/2010 16/11/2010
Email 05/12/2011
P01Context2 17/08/2010
P02 Context2 06/09/2010
P03 Context2 03/09/2010
321
APPENDIX 4.2 INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR STRUCTURED
INTERVIEWS
Purpose of Interview
The purpose of this interview is to understand how Regional Road
Groups (RRG) members rate stakeholders. This interview will ask you
to rate RRG stakeholders to understand how RRGs classify their
stakeholders. I will ask you a series of questions about each
stakeholder.
Consent Form
Discussion and signature of Consent Form
Types of Information to be gathered
Standard Demographics
Experiences
Your opinions
Interview Details
Interview Date: …………………………………………………..…………..
Interview Time: ……………………………………..……………………….
Location: ………………………………………………………………………
Interviewee Details
Interviewee: ……………………………………………………………………
Organisation: …………………………………………………………………..
Position: ………………………………………………………………………..
Definition: For the purposes of this interview, a stakeholder is defined
as a Group or individual who can affect or be affected by the
achievement of RRG outcomes.
322
Section 1
How long have you been a member of the XXX RRG?
Please describe your involvement in the XXX RRG?
From reviewing documentation and discussions with YYY, the following
list of key stakeholders has been identified for your RRG
Do you think there are any key stakeholders missing from the list?
Now I would like to ask you a series of questions about each
stakeholder identified.
323
Section 2
The following questions relate to ZZZ who is a stakeholder associated
with XXX RRG. I will ask you the same questions about each
stakeholder.
324
What factors influenced the way you interacted with this stakeholder?
Why were these factors important?
Interview Close
Thank you for your time. I will be conducting interviews with a number
of RRG and Technical Committee members. Once these interviews are
complete, I will be undertaking an analysis of the data to understand
how XXX RRG rates its stakeholders.
The next stage of the research will be to undertake a second round of
interviews to understand the engagement techniques used with the
different types of stakeholders identified. I look forward to your
participation in these interviews.
325
APPENDIX 4.3 INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR SEMI-STRUCTURED
INTERVIEWS
Purpose of Interview
The purpose of this interview is to obtain a better understanding of how
XXX RRG engages with its stakeholders. I will ask you a series of
questions relating to the stakeholders of the RRG
Consent Form
Discussion and signature of Consent Form
Interview Details
Interview Date: …………………………………………………..…………..
Interview Time: ……………………………………..……………………….
Location: ……… ………………………………………………………………
Interviewee Details
Interviewee: ……………………………………………………………………
Organization: ………………………………………………………………….
326
Section 1
Section 2
What is the fundamental thing that drives the XXX RRG?
What are some of the factors that contribute to how the RRG currently
operates?
How would you describe ZZZ role in the RRG?
Each RRG member also represents an organisation e.g. Council or
DTMR. Have people been able to put aside their representative roles
and take a whole of RRG approach?
What issues have arisen as a result of two levels of government
operating in the RRG?
What has been your experience of how stakeholders are included in the
operation of the RRG?
Is anyone in the RRG particularly responsible for stakeholder
engagement?
DTMR have been identified as a stakeholder and are also a member of
the RRG? Have any issues arisen because of this dual role?
RAPT have been identified as a stakeholder and are also observers at
RRG meetings. Have any issues arisen because of this dual role?
327
I understand that the RRG has an interest in AAA project. Could you
tell me how the RRG is connected with this project?
Interview Close
Thank you for your time. From this interview I will be able to establish a
model of stakeholder classification by understanding engagement
categories used for the various types of stakeholders identified
328
APPENDIX 4.4 STEPS: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER
SALIENCE DATA
To illustrate the steps undertaken in analysing stakeholder salience
data, the following tables contain data from respondents of one network
in respect of one stakeholder (S01a).
1. Table shows coded demographic data collected about respondents
of one network
Respondents of one Network
Responses to Demographic Questions
Demographics
QD01 QD02 QD03 QD04 QD05
P01C1 3 4 1 3 7
P02C1 3 3 1 5 7
P03C1 11 3 1 4 3
P04C1 13 3 1 4 4
P05C1 12 3 1 4 2
P06C1 10 1 1 1 2
P07C1 12 1 1 3 2
P08C1 13 3 1 3 9
P09C1 10 3 1 4 4
2. Table shows coded responses to questions by nine respondents
from one network relating to the attributes of stakeholder salience for
stakeholder S01a.
Respondents of one Network
Structured Interviews- Questions and Responses
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
S01.aQ01 S01.aQ02 S01.aQ03 S01.aQ04 S01.aQ05 S01.aQ06 S01.aQ07 S01.aQ08
P01C1 5 5 4 3 4 2 2 4
P02C1 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4
P03C1 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3
P04C1 5 5 4 4 4 2 2 4
P05C1 5 5 3 2 2 4 2 4
P06C1 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3
P07C1 5 5 3 4 4 4 2 4
P08C1 2 3 4 3 4 2 2 4
P09C1 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3
329
3. Table shows the ratings given by nine respondents to questions
about stakeholder salience for stakeholder S01a. The count of
responses >3 showed the number of respondents who indicated that an
attribute e.g. power was present or absent.
Respondents of one
Network
Structured Interviews- Questions and Responses
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
S01.aQ01 S01.aQ02 S01.aQ03 S01.aQ04 S01.aQ05 S01.aQ06 S01.aQ07 S01.aQ08
P01C1 5 5 4 3 4 2 2 4
P02C1 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4
P03C1 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3
P04C1 5 5 4 4 4 2 2 4
P05C1 5 5 3 2 2 4 2 4
P06C1 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3
P07C1 5 5 3 4 4 4 2 4
P08C1 2 3 4 3 4 2 2 4
P09C1 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3
Count responses >3
8 8 7 5 7 3 1 6
4. Calculation of responses >3 to determine whether or not the network
collectively identified that an attribute was present. Scores of 50% or
greater indicated that an attribute was present and scores of less than
50% indicated that an attribute was absent.
Respondents of one
Network
Structured Interviews- Questions and Responses
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality
S01.aQ01 S01.aQ02 S01.aQ03 S01.aQ04 S01.aQ05 S01.aQ06 S01.aQ07 S01.aQ08
Count of responses >3
8 8 7 5 7 3 1 6
% responses >3 92.6% 55.60% 11.10% 66.70%
Presence /Absence of variable Present Present Absent Present
Legend: Red cells indicate presence of an attribute and grey cells indicate absence of an attribute
330
APPENDIX 4.5 STEPS: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT DATA
To illustrate the steps undertaken in analysing stakeholder engagement data, the following tables contain data from
respondents of one network in respect of one stakeholder (S01a).
Respondents of one Network
Stakeholder Engagement
Frequency Process
S01.aQ07 S01.aQ08
P01C1 2 4
P02C1 4 4
P03C1 3 3
P04C1 2 4
P05C1 2 4
P06C1 2 3
P07C1 2 4
P08C1 2 4
P09C1 3 3
Respondents of one Network
Stakeholder Engagement
Frequency Process
S01.aQ07 S01.aQ08
P01C1 2 4
P02C1 4 4
P03C1 3 3
P04C1 2 4
P05C1 2 4
P06C1 2 3
P07C1 2 4
P08C1 2 4
P09C1 3 3
Mode 2 4
Interpretation Infrequently undertaken
Multi-way network meetings
Step 1: Table shows coded responses to questions answered by nine respondents from one network. Questions relate to the frequency of engagement undertaken and type of engagement process used. with stakeholder S01a.
Step 2: Table shows (red cells) the mode of both frequency of engagement undertaken and type of engagement process used with stakeholder S01a. The mode of responses for each variable is used as a proxy for the network view.
331
APPENDIX 4.6 WITHIN CASE ANALYSIS EXCERPT FROM CONCEPTUALLY CLUSTERED MATRIX USED TO
IDENTIFY PATTERNS
Stakeholder details Salience Attributes Stakeholder Engagement Network Management
Stakeholder Network member
Stakeholder type
Power Legitimacy Temporality Criticality Frequency Process Role in network
Terms for interaction
Building coalitions
Accessing resources
S01a Yes Deliberative 3 types 2 types No Yes Low Multi-way Core Explicit Yes Yes
332
APPENDIX 4.7 STEPS: QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
To illustrate the steps undertaken in undertaking the qualitative comparative analysis, the following table contains
partial data set for the stakeholders of one network.
Step 1: Causal variables. The screenshot below shows a partial data set for the stakeholders of one network. The
causal variables are bordered in red in the table and are seven exemplars drawn from the total set of fifty four causal
variables. Data are dichotomised (1=variable present, 0=variable absent) and are presented as a data sheet in the
Tosmana (Tool for Small-N Analysis) software package (Cronqvist, 2011).
Legend: sh: stakeholder, stinf: Deliberative Type stakeholder, stdorm: Dormant Type stakeholder, stdemand: Demanding Type stakeholder, stdefin: Definitive Type
stakeholder, stdang: Dangerous Type stakeholder and fnq- governance network
333
Step 2: Outcome variables. The outcome variables represent the seven combinations of engagement frequency
and engagement process identified in the analysis of case data.
These outcome variables were
1. Low frequency, multi-way processes
2. Low frequency, two-way processes
3. Low frequency, one-way processes
4. Moderate frequency, multi-way processes
5. Moderate frequency, two-way processes
6. Moderate frequency, one-way processes
7. High frequency, two-way processes
Potential combinations of variables:
Using the seven outcomes presented above, the following formula shows that an extremely large number of
combinations (causal and outcome variables) were generated from the data table shown above:
2^91 x 7 = 1.7331161e+28.
334
Step 3: Truth Table analysis identifying the types of legitimacy present for stakeholders of one network who are
engaged through Low frequency, multi-way engagement (Outcome 1). Table below shows the causal combination that
links legitimacy and Low frequency, multi-way engagement (Outcome 1).
v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 Outcome Stakeholders engaged through Low frequency, multi-way processes (Outcome 1)
1 0 0 1 1 0 1 FNTMR,FNCrnsRC,FNCookSC,FNCassRC,FNTabRC,FNWujASC
1 0 0 1 1 1 1 FNRAPT
Legend v1 to v4 = stakeholder Type, v4-v6 = types of legitimacy, 1=variable present, 0=variable absent,
Interpretation
For a particular network, irrespective of stakeholder Type, all stakeholders engaged through Low frequency,
multi-way processes have pragmatic and moral legitimacy. Therefore pragmatic and moral legitimacy are
likely to be present when engaging network stakeholders in network meetings conducted with low
frequency.
335
APPENDIX 8.1 TYPES OF POWER ATTRIBUTED TO STAKEHOLDERS
Types of Power
NETWORK STAKEHOLDER ROLE NO. OF POWER COERCIVE UTILITARIAN NORMATIVE
Far
Nor
th Q
ueen
slan
d R
RG
Transport and Main Roads, Far North Core 3 * * *
Cairns Regional Council Core 3 * * *
Cook Shire Council Core 3 * * *
Cassowary Coast Regional Council Core 3 * * *
Tablelands Regional Council Core 3 * * *
Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire Council Core 3 * * *
Roads Alliance Project Team Core 3 * * *
Federal Department of Infrastructure and Transport Peripheral 1 *
Heavy Transport Operators Peripheral 0
Member of Queensland Parliament 21 Peripheral 3 * * *
Wet Tropics Management Authority Peripheral 1 *
Department of Environment and Resource Management Peripheral 3 * * *
Advance Cairns Peripheral 1 *
Wid
e B
ay B
urne
tt R
RG
Transport and Main Roads Wide Bay Burnett Core 3 * * *
Bundaberg Regional Council Core 3 * * *
Gympie Regional Council Core 3 * * *
Fraser Coast Regional Council Core 3 * * *
North Burnett Regional Council Core 3 * * *
South Burnett Regional Council Core 3 * * *
Roads Alliance Project Team Core 3 * * *
Wide Bay Burnett Regional Organisation of Councils Core 3 * * *
Queensland Police Service Peripheral 1 *
AGFORCE Peripheral 1 *
Queensland Ambulance Service Peripheral 1 *
Nor
ther
n S
outh
-
Eas
t Qld
RR
G Transport and Main Roads Region North Coast Core 3 * * *
Sunshine Coast Regional Council Core 3 * * *
Moreton Bay Regional Council Core 3 * * *
Somerset Regional Council Core 3 * * *
Roads Alliance Project Team Core 3 * * *
336
APPENDIX 8.2 COMBINATIONS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
USED WITH SPECIFIC STAKEHOLDERS, CLASSIFIED BY
STAKEHOLDER TYPE AND ROLE
Network Stakeholder Stakeholder type Role Engagement
Combination
Fa
r N
ort
h Q
uee
nsla
nd R
RG
Cairns Regional Council Deliberative Core Low, multi- way
Cassowary Coast Regional Council Deliberative Core Low, multi- way
Cook Shire Council Deliberative Core Low, multi- way
Roads Alliance Project Team Deliberative Core Low, multi- way
Tablelands Regional Council Deliberative Core Low, multi- way
Transport and Main Roads, Far North Deliberative Core Low, multi- way
Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire Council Deliberative Core Low, multi- way
Member of Queensland Parliament 21 Deliberative Periphery Low, two way
Wet Tropics Management Authority Dominant Periphery Low, two way
Department of Environment and Resource
Management
Dangerous Periphery High, two-way
Heavy Transport Operators Demanding Periphery Moderate, two-way
Advance Cairns Dormant Periphery Moderate, multi-way
Federal Department of Infrastructure and
Transport
Dormant Periphery Moderate, one-way
Wid
e B
ay B
urn
ett R
RG
Bundaberg Regional Council Definitive Core Low, multi- way
Fraser Coast Regional Council Definitive Core Low, multi- way
Gympie Regional Council Definitive Core Low, multi- way
North Burnett Regional Council Definitive Core Low, multi- way
South Burnett Regional Council Definitive Core Low, multi- way
Roads Alliance Project Team Deliberative Core Low, multi- way
Transport and Main Roads Wide Bay
Burnett
Deliberative Core Low, multi- way
Wide Bay Burnett Regional Organisation of
Councils
Deliberative Core Low, multi- way
Queensland Ambulance Service Definitive Periphery Low, one-way
Queensland Police Service Definitive Periphery Low, one-way
AGFORCE Dangerous Periphery Low, two way
Nort
he
rn
South
-East
Que
ensla
nd
RR
G
Moreton Bay Regional Council Deliberative Core Low, multi- way
Somerset Regional Council Deliberative Core Low, multi- way
Sunshine Coast Regional Council Deliberative Core Low, multi- way
Transport and Main Roads Region North
Coast
Deliberative Core Low, multi- way
Roads Alliance Project Team Dominant Core Low, multi- way
337
REFERENCE LIST
Aaltonen, K., Jaacko, K., Lehtonen, P., & Ruuska, I. (2010). A stakeholder network perspective on unexpected events and their management in international projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(4), 564-588.
Aaltonen, K., & Jaakko, K. (2010). A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(4), 381-397. doi: 10.1016/j.scaman.2010.09.001.
Aars, J., & Fimreite, A. (2005). Local government and governance in Norway: stretched accountability in network politics. Scandinavian political studies, 28(3), 239-256. doi: 0.1111/j.1467-9477.2005.00131.x.
Achterkamp, M., & Vos, J. (2007). Critically identifying stakeholders. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 24(1), 3-14. doi: 10.1002/sres.760.
Advance Cairns. (n/d). Business Plan 2009/2010 Retrieved from Advance Cairns website http://www.advancecairns.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/RPT-SAO-090728-Abridged-BP-2009-101.pdf.
AGFORCE Queensland. (n/d). Farm Guide QUEENSLAND 2009-2010 Retrieved from Farm Guides website http://farmguide.realviewtechnologies.com/default.aspx?iid=37054&startpage=page0000131.
Agle, B., Donaldson, T., Freeman, R., Jensen, M., Mitchell, R., & Wood, D. (2008). Dialogue: Toward Superior Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2), 155-190. doi: 10.5840/beq200818214.
Agle, B., Mitchell, R., & Sonnenfeld, J. (1999). Who Matters to CEOs? An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance, and CEO Values. The Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507-525. doi: 10.2307/256973.
Agranoff, R. (2003). A New Look at the Value-Adding Functions of Intergovernmental Networks. Paper presented at the Public Management Research Association Conference Washington, DC.
_____ (2007). Managing Within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
_____ (2012). Collaborating to Manage: A Primer for the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001a). After the network is formed: Processes, power, and performance. In M. Mandell (Ed.), Getting results through collaboration: Networks and network structures for public policy and management (pp. 11–29). Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books.
_____ (2001b). Big Questions in Public Network Management Research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 295-326. doi: 10.1093/jpart/mug027.
338
_____ (2003). Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Alpaslan, C., Green, S., & Mitroff, I. (2009). Corporate governance in the context of crises: Towards a stakeholder theory of crisis management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 17(1), 38-49. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5973.2009.00555.x.
Andriof, J., & Waddock, S. (2002). Unfolding Stakeholder Engagement. In J. Andriof, B. Husted, S. Waddock & S. Sutherland Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking (pp. 19-42). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
Ansell, C. (2003). Community Embeddedness And Collaborative Governance In The San Francisco Bay Area Environmental Movement. In M. Diani & D. McAdam (Eds.), Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective action. New York Oxford University Press.
Arnstein, S. (1968) A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, pp. 216–224
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Australian Social Trends 2008, cat. no. 4102.0. Retrieved from Australian Bureau of Statistices website http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Chapter3002008.
Australian Government. (n/d). Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan ROAD PROJECTS, Retrieved from Department of Transport and Infrastructure website http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/esp/files/ROAD_PROJECTS.pdf.
Australian Koala Foundation (Cartographer). (1994). Koala Habitat Map Edition 2.
Ayres, L., Kavanaugh, K., & Knafl, K. A. (2003). Within-Case and Across-Case Approaches to Qualitative Data Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 13(6), 871-883. doi: 10.1177/1049732303013006008.
Barlow, C. (2010). Interviews. In A. Mills, G. Durepos & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (Vol. 1 & 2, pp. 495-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London Sage Publications Ltd.
Beach, S., Keast, R., & Pickernell, D. (2012). Unpacking the Connections between Network Management and Stakeholder Management and their Application to Road Infrastructure Networks in Queensland Public Management Review, 14(5), 609-629. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2011.642563.
Bell, S., & Park, A. (2006). The Problematic Metagovernance of Networks: Water Reform in New South Wales. Journal of Public Policy, 26(01), 63-83. doi: 10.1017/S0143814X06000432.
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D., & Mead, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS quarterly(September), 369-386. doi: 10.2307/248684.
339
Borgatti, S., & Molina, J. (2005). Towards ethical guidelines for network research in organizations. Social networks, 27, 107-117. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2005.01.004.
Borzel, T. (1998). Organizing Babylon: On the Different Conceptions of Policy Networks. Public Administration, 76(Summer), 23-273. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00100.
Bourne, L., & Walker, D. (2006). Visualising Stakeholder Influence- Two Australian Examples. Project Management Journal, 37(1), 5-21. doi: 10.1108/00251740510597680.
_____ (2008). Project relationship management and the Stakeholder Circle™. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(1), 125-130. doi: 10.1108/17538370810846450.
Bovaird, T. (2005). Public governance: balancing stakeholder power in a network society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 217-228. doi: 10.1177/0020852305053881.
Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Brackertz, N., Zwart, I., Meredyth, D., & Ralston, L. (2005). Community Consultation and the ‘Hard to Reach’ Concepts and Practice in Victorian Local Government (pp. 1-52). Melbourne: Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University of Technology.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, V. (2000). A stakeholder analysis: a review Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 338. doi: 10.1093/heapol/15.3.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
_____ (2006). Paradigm Peace and the Implications for Quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(2), 111-126. doi: 0.1080/13645570600595280.
Bryson, J. (2004). What to do when Stakeholders matter. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21-53. doi: 10.1080/14719030410001675722.
Byrne, M. (2001). The concept of informed consent in qualitative research. AORN Journal, 74(3), 401-403. doi: org/10.1016/S0001-2092(06)61798-5.
Calabrese, D. (2008). Strategic communication for privatization, public-private partnerships, and private participation in infrastructure projects. World Bank Working Paper No. 39, Retreived from World Bank website http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTDEVCOMMENG/Resources/StrategicCommunicationforPrivatizationPublicPrivatePartnershipsandPrivateParticipationinInfrastructureProjects.pdf.
Chinyio, E., & Akintoye, A. (2008). Practical approaches for engaging stakeholders: findings from the UK. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 591-599. doi: 10.1080/01446190802078310.
340
Chinyio, E., & Olomolaiye, P. (2010). Introducing Stakeholder Management. In E. Chinyio & P. Olomolaiye (Eds.), Construction Stakeholder Management Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Citizens Against Route Twenty. (1989). Traffic calming: the solution to Route 20 and a new vision for Brisbane. Ashgrove: CART.
Clarke, T., & Clegg, S. (1998). Changing paradigms: The transformation of management knowledge for the 21st century. London: HarperCollins Business.
Clarkson, M. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92-117. doi: 10.2307/258888.
Cleland, D., & Ireland, L. (2006). Project management: strategic design and implementation (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Collins, K., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Johnson, R. (2012). Securing a Place at the Table: A Review and Extension of Legitimation Criteria for the Conduct of Mixed Research. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 849-865. doi: 10.1177/0002764211433799.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2009). Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan Progress Report 3 February 2009 – 30 June 2009. Barton, ACT Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Retrieved from Economic Stimulus Plan website http://www.economicstimulusplan.gov.au/documents/pdf/ESP_Project_Report_August.pdf.
Considine, M., & Lewis, J. (1999). Governance at Ground Level: The Frontline Bureaucrat in the Age of Markets and Networks. Public Administration Review, 59(6), 467-481.
Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation. (2004). Motorway Alliance Drives Performance Improvement The BRITE Project (pp. 1-11). Brisbane: Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation.
Crane, A., & Livesey, S. (2003). Are You Talking to Me? Stakeholder Communication and the Risks and Rewards of Dialogue. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, S. Rahman & B. Husted (Eds.), Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking: Relationships, communication, reporting and performance (pp. 39-52). Sheffield: Greenleaf.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cronqvist, L. (2011). Tosmana (Version 1.3.2) Retrieved from Tosmana website http://www.tosmana.net/.
Crump, B., & Logan, K. (2008). A Framework for Mixed Stakeholders and Mixed Methods. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(2), 21-28.
341
Currie, R., Seaton, S., & Wesley, F. (2009). Determining stakeholders for feasibility analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(1), 41-63. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2008.10.002.
De Bruijn, H., & Dicke, W. (2006). Strategies for safeguarding public values in liberalized utility sectors. Public Administration, 84(3), 717-735. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00609.x.
De Bruijn, H., & Ten Heuvelhof, E. (2008). Management in Networks: On multi-actor decision making. New York Routledge.
Demetrious, K., & Hughes, P. (2005). 'Publics' or'stakeholders'? Performing social responsibility through stakeholder software. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 5(2), 1-12.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Department of Infrastructure and Planning. (2010a). Draft Wide Bay Burnett Regional Plan Retrieved from Department of Local Government and Planning website http://www.dlgp.qld.gov.au/resources/plan/wide-bay/draft-plan/draft-wbb-regional-plan.pdf.
_____ (2010b). A guide to the Local Government Act 2009 for mayors and councillors Retrieved from Department of Infrastructure and Planning website http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/resources/guideline/local-government/guide-to-act-for-mayors-and-councillors.pdf.
Department of Infrastructure and Transport. (2010). Roads to Recovery QLD Funding Allocations Retrieved from Department of Infrastructure and Transport website http://www.nationbuildingprogram.gov.au/funding/r2r/allocations/r2r_qld_funding_allocations.aspx.
Department of Local Government and Planning. (2011). Queensland Infrastructure Plan Building Tomorrow’s Queensland. Brisbane: Queensland Government Retrieved from Department of Local Government and Planning website http://services.dlgp.qld.gov.au/resources/docs/qip/queensland-infrastructure-plan.pdf.
Department of Main Roads. (2008). The Roads Alliance – A Partnership Between Main Roads and Local Government. Queensland Roads, 6(September), 25-31.
_____ (n/d). From Bulldust to Beef Roads and Beyond: Main Roads - the First Fifty Years. Brisbane.
Department of Main Roads & Local Government Association of Queensland. (2008). Addendum to the Roads Implementation Program 2008-09 to 2012-13. Brisbane, QLD: Retrieved.
Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2008). The Roads Alliance Addendum to the Roads Implementation Program 2008-09 to 2012-13 Retrieved from Department of Transport and Main Roads website http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/6d5c4abc-6e3d-472b-8c1f-98a933fb6ad8/a1%20addendum%20qtrip.pdf.
_____ (2009a). The Roads Alliance Addendum to the Roads Implementation program 2009-10 to 2013-14 Retrieved from Department of Transport and Main Roads website
342
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/About%20us/Corporate%20information/Publications/Roads%20Implementation%20Program/rip.pdf.
_____ (2009b). Roads Implementation Program 2009-10 to 2013-14 Retrieved from Department of Transport and Main Roads website http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/files/home/about-us/corporate-information/publications/roads-implementation-program/rip.pdf.
_____ (2009c). TravelSafe Committee recommendations progress report. Retrieved from Department of Tranport and Main Roads website http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/files/home/about-us/corporate-information/publications/annual-report/travelsafereport.pdf.
_____ (2010). The Roads Alliance Addendum to the Queensland Transport and Roads Investment Program 2010-11 to 2013-14. Retrieved from Department of Transport and Main Roads website http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/6d5c4abc-6e3d-472b-8c1f-98a933fb6ad8/a1%20addendum%20qtrip.pdf.
_____ (2011). Transport and Infrastructure Development Scheme Policy Retrieved from Department of Transport and Main Roads website http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/801673bf-b28c-42ad-80e6-2b1454b162f6/tids%20policy%202011.pdf.
Derry, R. (2012). Reclaiming Marginalized Stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 253-264. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1205-x.
Dick, R. (1990). Community Consultation Paper 18 (pp. 1-160). Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A.
(2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 10(1), 45-53B.
Doherty, B. (1998). Opposition to Road-Building. Parliamentary Affairs, 51(3), 370-383.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91. doi: org/10.2307%2F258887.
Doyle, N. (2008). Civic Engagement in Queensland Australia: Participation in Road System Management - A Case Study of Main Roads Experience, Queensland. In D. Vera (Ed.), Building Trust Through Civic Engagement (pp. 157-198). New York United Nations Publications.
Doyle, N., & Addison, M. (2005). Main Roads — Connecting Communities. Building Community Engagement into Systems and Processes. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engaging Communities, Brisbane, Queensland Retrieved from Department of Communities website http://www.engagingcommunities2005.org/abstracts/Doyle-Neil-final.pdf.
_____ (2006). Civic engagement: Taking a more participatory approach to road system management The Main Roads Experience,
343
Queensland. Brisbane, QLD: Retrieved from UNPAN website http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN022225.pdf.
Dredge, D. (2006). Networks, conflict and collaborative communities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 562. doi: 10.2167/jost567.0.
Edelenbos, J., & Klijn, E. (2006). Managing Stakeholder Involvement in Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Six Interactive Processes in the Netherlands. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 417-446. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mui049.
Edelenbos, J., Van Buuren, A., & Klijn, E. (Forthcoming). Connective Capacities of Network Managers. Public Management Review.
Eesley, C., & Lenox, M. (2006). Firm responses to Secondary Stakeholder Action Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), 765–781. doi: 10.1002/smj.536 .
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. doi: 10.2307/258557.
Eisenhardt, K., & Graebner, M. (2007). Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities and Challenges. The Academy of Management Journal 50(1), 25-32. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24160888.
El-Gohary, N., Osman, H., & El-Diraby, T. (2006). Stakeholder management for public private partnerships. International Journal of Project Management, 24(7), 595-604. doi: org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.07.009.
Elks, S. (2010, 30 March ). Cape York protest crushes Bligh's gravel ban The Australian p. 5. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/cape-york-protest-crushes-blighs-gravel-ban/story-e6frg6nf-1225847173205.
Elliman, T., & Taylor, S. (2008). Stakeholder enfranchisement The need for tools to support stakeholders in traffic assessment activities. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2(2), 119-127. doi: org/10.1108/17506160810876194.
Ellinger, A., Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. (2005). Case Study Research Methods. In R. Swanson & E. Holton (Eds.), Research in Organizations: Foundations and Methods of Inquiry (pp. 327-350). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers
Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern Organisations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Far North Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils. (2011a). FNQ Regional Road Group Minutes Retrieved from FNQROC website http://www.fnqroc.qld.gov.au/images/stories/documents/fnqrrg/LIVE-3462638-v1-FNQRRG_Minutes_No__32_-_12_December_2011_REVISED.pdf.
_____ (2011b). FNQROC Annual Report 2011 Retrieved from FNQROC website http://www.fnqroc.qld.gov.au/images/stories/documents/fnqroc/FNQROC-Annual-Report-2011.pdf.
344
_____ (2012a). Far North Queensland Regional Road Group MINUTES TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING No.61 Retrieved from FNQROC website http://www.fnqroc.qld.gov.au/images/stories/documents/fnqrrg/3543893_-_FNQRRG_TC_Minutes_No._61_-_23_March_2012_Innisfail_-_1_-_LIVE.pdf.
_____ (2012b). FEBRUARY 2012: FNQROC NEWS Retrieved from FNQROC website http://www.fnqroc.qld.gov.au/images/stories/documents/newsletters/2012/FNQROC_Newsletter_February_2012.pdf.
_____ (2011). 2010/11 to 2014/15 Works Program Retrieved from FNQROC website http://www.fnqroc.qld.gov.au/images/stories/documents/fnqrrg/Works-Program-2010-2011-to-2014-2015.pdf.
Fassin, Y. (2008). Imperfections and Shortcomings of the Stakeholder Model’s Graphical Representation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(879-888), 1-10. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9474-5.
Feldman, M. S., & Khademian, A. M. (2002). To Manage Is to Govern. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 541-554. doi: 10.1111/1540-6210.00236.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2008). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92.
FNQROC. (2010). FNQROC Communication Strategy Retrieved from FNQROC website http://www.fnqroc.qld.gov.au/images/stories/documents/fnqroc/FNQROC-Communication-Strategy.pdf.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 695-727). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ford, L. (2009). Roads in the Wilderness Development of the main road network in Far North Queensland The first 100 years Brisbane Queensland Department of Main Roads.
Foster, D., & Jonker, J. (2005). Stakeholder relationships: the dialogue of engagement. Corporate Governance, 5(5), 51-57. doi: 10.1108/14720700510630059.
Fotel, T., & Hanssen, G. (2009). Meta-Governance of Regional Governance Networks in Nordic Countries. Local Government Studies, 35(5), 557-576. doi: org/10.1080/03003930903227386.
Fowler, F. (2002). Survey Research Methods (3 ed. Vol. 1). London: Sage Publications Inc.
Fox, T., Ward, H., & Howard, B. (2002). Public Sector Roles in Strengthening Corporate Social Responsibility: A Baseline Study (pp. 1-35): Corporate Social Responsibility Practice, World Bank.
Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
_____ (2004). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. In T. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical Theory and Business
345
(Vol. 7, pp. 55-64). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.
Freeman, R., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Parmar, B., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. New York: Cambridge Univ Press.
Freeman, R., Wicks, A., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”. Organization Science, 15(3), 364–369. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0066.
Friedman, A., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Friedman, M., & Mason, D. (2004). A Stakeholder approach to Understanding Economic Development Decision Making: Public Subsidies for Professional Sport Facilities. Economic Development Quarterly, 18(3), 236-254. doi: 10.1177/0891242404265795.
_____ (2005). Stakeholder Management and the Public Subsidization of Nashville's Coliseum. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(1), 93-118. doi: 10.1111/j.0735-2166.2005.00226.x.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder Influence Strategies. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191-120. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.1893928.
Frooman, J., & Murrell, A. (2005). Stakeholder Influence Strategies: The Roles of Structural and Demographic Determinants. Business & Society, 44(1), 3. doi: 10.1177/0007650304273434.
Gago, R., & Antolín, M. (2004). Stakeholder salience in corporate environmental strategy. Corporate Governance, 4(3), 65-76. doi: org/10.1108/14720700410547512.
Galaskiewicz, J. (1985). Interorganizational Relations. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 281-304. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.11.080185.001433.
Garland, R. (1991). The Mid-Point on a Rating Scale: Is it Desirable? . [Research Note]. Marketing Bulletin, 2, 66-70.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. New York: Basic Books.
Gleeson, B., & Low, N. (2000). Australian Urban Planning: New Challenges, New Agendas. Crows Nest Allen & Unwin.
Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1), 53-73. doi: 10.2307/3857592.
Google Inc. Port of Brisbane Motorway Route Generated by Sandra Beach November 21, 2012; using Google Earth
Granovetter, M. (1983). The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233. doi: 10.2307/202051.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Greckhamer, T., & Mossholder, K. (2011). Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Strategic Management Research: Current State and Future Prospects. In D. Bergh & D. Ketchen (Eds.), Building Methodological Bridges Research Methodology in Strategy and Management (Vol. 6, pp. 259-288). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
346
Greene, J., & Caracelli, V. (1997). Advances in Mixed Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Greene, J., Caracelli, V., & Graham, W. (1989). Towards a conceptual framework for mixed-method education designs. Education Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274. doi: 10.3102/01623737011003255.
Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder Engagement: Beyond the Myth of Corporate Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315-327. doi: 10.1007/sl0551-007-9509-y.
Grimsey, D., & Lewis, M. (2007). Public private partnerships: the worldwide revolution in infrastructure provision and project finance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Grossman, J., Kushner, K., & November, E. (2008). Creating sustainable local health information exchanges: can barriers to stakeholder participation be overcome? Washington, DC: Center for Studying Health System Change. Retrieved from Center for Studying Health System Change website http://www.hschange.org/CONTENT/970/970.pdf.
Guba, E. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation No. 8. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
Hallahan, K. (2001). Inactive publics: the forgotten publics in public relations. Public Relations Review, 26(4), 499-515. doi: org/10.1016/S0363-8111(00)00061-8.
Harris, J., & Freeman, R. (2008). The impossibility of the separation thesis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(4), 541–548. doi: 10.5840/beq200818437.
Harrison, S., & Mort, M. (1998). Which Champions, Which People? Public and User Involvement in Health Care as a Technology of Legitimation. Social Policy and Administration, 32(1), 60-70. doi: 10.1111/1467-9515.00086.
Hart, S., & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. The Academy of Management Executive 18(1), 7-18. doi: 10.1177/0956247810379946.
Head, B. (2007). Community Engagement: Participation on whose terms? Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 441-454. doi: 10.1080/10361140701513570.
_____ (2011). Australian experience: Civic engagement as symbol and substance. Public Administration and Development, 31(2), 102-112. doi: 10.1002/pad.599.
Heclo, H. (1978). Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The New American Political System (pp. 87-124). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Herranz Jnr., J. (2005). Network Governance Strategies for Public Managers. Paper presented at the Public Management Research Association, Los Angeles, California.
Heywood, L. (2000, February 12). Bypass quick to take shape, The Courier-Mail, p. 19.
347
Hill, C., & Jones, T. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29(2), 131-154. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00657.
Holmes, S., & Moir, L. (2007). Developing a conceptual framework to identify corporate innovations through engagement with non-profit stakeholders. Corporate Governance, 7(4), 414-422. doi: 10.1108/14720700710820498.
Hubacek, K., Prell, C., Quinn, C., & Reed, M. (2007). Stakeholder selection as a precondition for successful participatory processes. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Leipzig, Germany.
Huberman, A., & Miles, M. (2002). The Qualitative Researchers Companion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hutton, D., & Connors, L. (1999). A history of the Australian environment movement. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.
Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2004). Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419-436. doi: 10.1080/1464935042000293170.
Ivankova, N., Creswell, J., & Stick, S. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 1-20. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05282260.
Järvensivu, T., & Möller, K. (2008). Metatheory of Network Management: A Contingency Perspective. Electronic working paper, Retrieved from Helsinki School of Economics website http://hsepubl.lib.hse.fi/pdf/wp/w448.pdf.
Jawahar, I., & McLaughlin, G. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 397-414. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2001.4845803.
Jessop, B. (2004). Multi-level governance and multi-level meta-governance. In I. Bache & F. M (Eds.), Multi-Level Governance (pp. 49-75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602-611.
Johnson-Cramer, M., Berman, S., & Post, J. (2003). Re-examining the concept of ‘stakeholder management’. In J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted & S. Sutherland Rahman (Eds.), Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking (Vol. 2, pp. 145-161). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.
Johnson, B., & Turner, L. (2003). Data Collection Strategies in Mixed Methods Research In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (pp. 297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033007014.
348
Johnston, C., & Buckley, K. (2001). Communities: parochial, passionate, committed and ignored. Historic environment, 15(1-2), 88-96.
Jones, T., Felps, W., & Bigley, G. (2007). Ethical Theory and Stakeholder Related Decisions: The Role of Stakeholder Culture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 137-155. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2007.23463924.
Jones, T., & Wicks, A. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206-221. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.1893929.
Jones, T., Wicks, A., & Freeman, R. (2002). Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. In N. Bowie (Ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Business Ethics (pp. 19-37). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Keast, R. (2004). Integrated Public Services The Role of Networked Arrangements, Unpublished PhD thesis. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Keast, R., Brown, K., & Mandell, M. (2007). Getting the right mix: unpacking integration meanings and strategies. International Public Management Journal, 10(1), 9-33. doi: 10.1080/10967490601185716.
Keast, R., & Hampson, K. (2007). Building Constructive Innovation Networks: The Role of Relational Management. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management May(5), 364-373. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:5(364).
Keast, R., Mandell, M., & Brown, K. (2006). Mixing State, Market And Network Governance Modes: The Role Of Government In “Crowded” Policy Domains. Journal of Organizational Theory and Behaviour, 1(9), 27-50.
Keast, R., Mandell, M., Brown, K., & Woolcock, G. (2004). Network Structures: Working Differently and Changing Expectations. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 363-371. doi: DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00380.x.
Kim, J., & Lee, M. (2004). Networked Government and Network Centrality: The Korean Case of Youngwol Dam Retrieved from UNPAN website http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN019252.pdf.
Kivits, R. (2011). Three component stakeholder analysis. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5(3), 318-333. doi: 10.5172/mra.2011.5.3.318.
Klijn, E., & Koppenjan, J. (2000). Public Management and Policy Networks: Foundations of a network approach to governance. Public Management, 2(2), 135-158. doi: 10.1080/14719030000000007.
Klijn, E., Koppenjan, J., & Termeer, K. (1995). Managing Networks In The Public Sector: A Theoretical Study Of Management Strategies In Policy Networks. Public Administration, 73(3), 437-454. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.1995.tb00837.x.
349
Klijn, E., & Skelcher, C. (2007). Democracy and governance networks: compatible or not? Public Administration, 85(3), 587-608. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00662.x
Kooiman, J. (2005). Governing as Governance. London: Sage Publications.
Koppenjan, J., Charles, M., & Ryan, N. (2008). Editorial: Managing Competing Public Values in Public Infrastructure Projects. Public Money & Management, 28(3), 131-134. doi: abs/10.1111/j.1467-9302.2008.00632.x.
Koppenjan, J., & Klijn, E. (2004). Managing Uncertainties in Networks: A Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making. London: Routledge.
Krosch, A. (2010). PART 2 - HISTORY OF BRISBANE'S MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADS – A MAIN ROADS PERSPECTIVE. QUEENSLAND ROADS 8(March).
Kulkarni, R., Miller, D., Ingram, R., Wong, C., & Lorenz, J. (2004). Need-Based Project Prioritization: Alternative to Cost-Benefit Analysis. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 130(2), 150-158. doi: org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2004)130:2(150)).
Lapadat, J. (2010). Thematic Analysis In A. MILL, G. Durepos & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (Vol. 1, pp. 925-927). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Larson, A. (1992). Network Dyads in Entrepreneurial Settings: A Study of the Governance of Exchange Relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1). doi: org/10.2307/2393534.
Lawrence, A. T. (2002). The Drivers of Stakeholder Engagement: Reflections on the Case of Royal Dutch/Shell. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 6, 71-85.
Leach, S., Lowndes, V., Cowell, R., & Downe, J. (2005). Meta-evaluation of the Local Government Modernisation Agenda: Progress Report on Stakeholder Engagement with Local Government. London, UK ODPM Publications Retrieved from Department for Communities and Local Government website http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/142922.pdf.
LGIS. (2010). Alternative Business Models Review Summary Report (pp. 1-64).
Lim, S., & Yang, J. (2008). Understanding the Need of Project Stakeholders for Improving Sustainability Outcomes in Infrastructure Projects. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Joint CIB Conference: Performance and Knowledge Management, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverley Hill, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Local Government Association of Queensland and Department of Main Roads. (n/d). Operational Guidelines For The Main Roads and Local Government Road Management and Investment Alliance 2002 - 2007.
Local Government Association of Queensland Inc. (2004). Increasing the Community Engagement Capacity of Queensland Local
350
Governments LGAQ’s Commitment A Discussion Paper. Retrieved from LGAQ website http://www.lgaq.asn.au/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=418595&folderId=100961&name=DLFE-3419.pdf.
_____SUBMISSION TO THE REVIEW OF ECONOMIC COSTS OF FREIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE AND EFFICIENT APPROACHES TO TRANSPORT PRICING.
_____ (2002). PUBLIC INQUIRY ON MECHANISMS TO FUND QUEENSLAND’S ROADS AND TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE FINAL REPORT. Retrieved from LGAQ website http://www.lgaq.asn.au/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=38e7ff87fcebeaa5e4ca8a18ad4874cf&groupId=10136.
_____ (2009). Capacity Building Needs of Non-amalgamated Councils 2009 Scoping Study. Retrieved from LGAQ website http://www.acelg.org.au/upload/program5/1280998561_Qld_Non-amalgamated_Councils_Scoping_Study.pdf#search=%22LGAQ%22.
Local Government Association of Queensland Ltd and Queensland Government. (2011). The Roads Alliance Operational Guidelines 2011.
Locke, K. (1996). Rewriting the discovery of grounded theory after 25 years? Journal of Management Inquiry, 5(3), 239-245. doi: 10.1177/105649269653008.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis (3 ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lowndes, V., & Skelcher, C. (1998). The Dynamics of Multi-organizational Partnerships: an Analysis of Changing Modes of Governance. Public Administration, 76(2), 313-333. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00103.
_____ (2002). The dynamics of multi-organisational partnerships An analysis of of changing modes of governance In S. Osborne (Ed.), Public management: critical perspectives (pp. 302-324). London Routledge.
Lowndes, V., & Sullivan, H. (2004). Like a horse and carriage or a fish on a bicycle: how well do local partnerships and public participation go together? Local Government Studies, 30(1), 51-73. doi: org/10.1080/0300393042000230920.
Luck, L., Jackson, D., & Usher, K. (2006). Case study: a bridge across the paradigms. Nursing Inquiry, 13(2), 103-109. doi: org/10.1111/j.1440-1800.20.
Maak, T., & Pless, N. (2006). Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society–A relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 99-115. doi: 10.1007A10551-006-9047-Z.
Main Roads and Local Government Roads Alliance. (2010). Far North Queensland Regional Road Group and Technical Committee Constitution. Retrieved from FNQROC website
351
http://www.fnqroc.qld.gov.au/images/stories/documents/fnqrrg/Constitution_10May2010.pdf.
Mandell, M. (2001). Getting Results Through Collaboration: Networks and Network Structures for Public Policy and Management. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Mandell, M., & Keast, R. (2007). Evaluating network arrangements: Toward revised performance measures. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(4), 574-597.
_____ (2008). Voluntary and Community Sector Partnerships: Current Inter-organizational Relations and Future Challenges. In S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham & P. Smith Ring (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations. (pp. 175-202). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Manley, K., & Blayse, A. (2003). BRITE Report 2003 Report 2001-012-A-07 Case Studies (pp. 1-49). Brisbane Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation.
Marinac, S. (2002). CONNECTIONAL POLITICS IN REGIONAL QUEENSLAND COMMUNITIES Unpublished Thesis. University of Queensland, St Lucia.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Martin, S. (2010). From new public management to networked community governance? Strategic local public service networks in England. In S. Osborne (Ed.), The New Public Governance? Emerging perspectives on theory and practice of public governance (pp. 337-348). Abingdon: Routledge.
Maurer, M. (2007). Corporate stakeholder responsiveness: an evolutionary and learning approach. Bern: Haupt Verlag AG.
McEvoy, P., & Richards, D. (2006). A critical realist rationale for using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Journal of Research in Nursing, 11(1), 66-79. doi: 10.1177/1744987106060192.
McGuire, M. (2002). Managing Networks: Propositions on What Managers Do and Why They Do It. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 599-609. doi: 10.1111/1540-6210.00240.
_____ (2006). Collaborative Public Management: Assessing What We Know and How We Know It. Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 33-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x.
_____ (2011). Network Management. In M. Bevir (Ed.), Sage Handbook of Governance (pp. 436-453). London Sage.
McKee, A. (2002). Textual Analysis. In S. Cunningham & G. Turner (Eds.), Media & Communications in Australia (pp. 52-71). St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
McLennan, A. (2000). Relationship Contracting: The Main Roads Perspective. Paper presented at the Construction Industry Institute Australia Conference Brisbane.
Metcalfe, L., & Lapenta, A. (Forthcoming). Partnerships as strategic choices in public management. Journal of Management and Governance.
352
Meyer, N. (2012). Political Contestation under the Shadow of Hierarchy. LSE ‘Europe in Question’ Discussion Paper Series Retrieved from London School of Economics website http://webfirstlive.lse.ac.uk/europeanInstitute/LEQS/LEQSPaper46.pdf.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Milward, H., & Provan, K. (2003). Managing the hollow state. Public Management Review, 5(1), 1-18. doi: org/10.1080/1461667022000028834.
Mitchell, R., & Agle, B. (1997, March, 1997). Stakeholder Identification and salience: Dialogue and Operationalization. Paper presented at the International Association for Business and Society, Destin Florida,.
Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. doi: org/10.2307%2F259247.
Möller, K., & Halinen, A. (1999). Business Relationships and Networks: Managerial Challenge of Network Era. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(5), 413-427. doi: 10.1108/08858629810213333.
Moreton Bay Regional Council. (2009). Moreton Bay Regional Council Road Safety Strategic Plan 2010-2014 and Action Plan 2010-2011 Retrieved from Moreton Bay Regional Council website http://www.moretonbay.qld.gov.au/uploadedFiles/moretonbay/living/traffic/Road-safety-strategic-plan.pdf.
Morse, J., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2008). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13-22.
Neville, B., Bell, S., & Whitwell, G. (2011). Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3), 357-378. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0818-9.
Neville, B., & Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder Multiplicty: Toward an Understanding of Interactions Between Stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 377-391. doi: 10.1007/sl0551-006-0015-4.
Neville, B., Menguc, B., & Bell, S. (2003). Stakeholder salience reloaded: operationalising corporate social responsibility. Paper presented at the ANZMAC Conference, Adelaide.
Newcombe, R. (2003). From client to project stakeholders: a stakeholder mapping approach. Construction Management and Economics, 21(8), 841-848. doi: 10.1080/0144619032000072137.
Niemeyer, S. (2004). Deliberation in the wilderness: displacing symbolic politics. Environmental Politics, 13(2), 347-372.
Niemeyer, S., & Blamey, R. (2005). DELIBERATION IN THE WILDERNESS THE FAR NORTH QUEENSLAND CITIZEN’S
353
JURY. Canberra Retrieved from The Australian National University website http://cjp.anu.edu.au/docs/FNQCJ.pdf.
Nordin, S., & Svensson, B. (2007). Innovative destination governance: The Swedish ski resort of Are. Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 8(1), 53-66. doi: 10.5367/000000007780007416.
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
O'Higgins, E., & Morgan, J. (2006). Stakeholder salience and engagement in political organisations: Who and what really counts? Society and Business Review, 1(1), 62-76. doi: org/10.1108/17465680610643355.
Olander, S., & Landin, A. (2005). Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(4), 321-328. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.02.002.
Olsen, W. (2002). Dialectical Triangulation and Empirical Research. International Association for Critical Realism Conference Retrieved from University of Manchester website http://www.brad.ac.uk/staff/wkolsen
Orton, J., & Weick, K. (1990). Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203-223. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1990.4308154.
Owen, D., Swift, T., Humphrey, C., & Bowerman, M. (2000). The new social audits: accountability, managerial capture or the agenda of social champions? European Accounting Review, 9(1), 81-98. doi: abs/10.1080/096381800407950.
Parent, M., & Deephouse, D. (2007). A Case Study of Stakeholder Identification and Prioritization by Managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(1), 1-23. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9533-y.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.
Peräkylä, A. (2005). Analyzing talk and text. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 869-886). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Peters, B. (2011). Institutional Theory. In M. Bevir (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Governance (pp. 78-91). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Phillips, R. (1997). Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Business Ethics Quarterly 7(1), 51-66. doi: 10.2307/3857232.
_____ (2003a). Stakeholder legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 25-41. doi: 10.5840/beq20031312.
_____ (2003b). Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Powell, W. (1990). Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Government. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295-336.
Preble, J. (2005). Toward a Comprehensive Model of Stakeholder Management. Business and Society Review, 110(4), 407-431. doi: 10.1111/j.0045-3609.2005.00023.x.
Prell, C., Hubacek, K., Reed, M., Quinn, C., Jin, N., Holden, J., . . . Sendzimir, J. (2007). If you have a hammer everything looks like
354
a nail: traditional versus participatory model building. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32(3), 263-282. doi: 10.1179/030801807X211720.
Productivity Commission. (2006). Road and Rail Freight Infrastructure Pricing, Report no. 41. Canberra: Retrieved from Productivity Commission website http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/47529/freightoverview.pdf.
Provan, K., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-252. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum015.
Provan, K., & Lemaire, R. (2012). Core Concepts and Key Ideas for Understanding Public Sector Organizational Networks: Using Research to Inform Scholarship and Practice. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 638-648. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02595.x.
Queensland Government. (2003). Engaging Queenslanders: Get Involved Brisbane: Retrieved from Queensland Government website http://www.qld.gov.au/web/community-engagement/guides-factsheets/documents/engaging-queenslanders-public-sector.pdf.
_____ (2008). Relational Procurement Options - Alliance and Early Contractor Involvement Contracts Retrieved from Queensland govenment website http://www.qgm.qld.gov.au/02_policy/guides/relational_contracting_guide.pdf.
_____ (2012). State Budget 2012-13 Capital Statement Budget Paper No.3 Retrieved from Budget website http://www.budget.qld.gov.au/budget-papers/2012-13/bp3-2012-13.pdf.
Queensland Government, & Local Government Association of Queensland. (2011). The Roads Alliance Progress Report 2010-2011. Retrieved.
Queensland Parliament. (1990). Record of proceedings (Hansard) Retrieved from http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legislativeAssembly/hansard/documents/1990/900320ha.pdf.
_____ (2002). Record of proceedings (Hansard) Retrieved from http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/tableoffice/documents/HALnks/021030/Adj.pdf.
Ragin, C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: FUZZY SETS and Beyond. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Rankin, D., Dorricott, F., & Henry, K. (2004). Planning For Sustainability: The Bulimba Creek Oxbow Rehabilitation. Sustainable Development, XiX(59), 1-104.
RECS Consulting Engineers. (2011). Cape Tribulation -Bloomfield Road Link Study Discussion Paper (pp. 1-16).
Reed, M., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., . . . Stringer, L. (2009). Who's in and why? A typology of
355
stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933-1949. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001.
Regional Development Australia Wide Bay Burnett. (2011). Wide Bay Burnett - Regional Roadmap V1.1. Retrieved.
Reserve Bank of Australia. (2012). Pre-Decimal Inflation Calculator Retrieved from Reserve Bank of Australia http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualPreDecimal.html.
Rhodes, M., & Visser, J. (2011). Seeking Commitment, Effectiveness and Legitimacy: New Modes of Socio-Economic Governance in Europe. In A. Héritier & M. Rhodes (Eds.), New Modes of Governance in Europe: Governing in the Shadow of Hierarchy (pp. 104-134). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Riley, D. (1993, Wednesday, November 17). South East Qld: The treacle effect, Green Left Weekly. Retrieved from http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/30187.
Rixon, D. (2010). Stakeholder Engagement in Public Sector Agencies: Ascending the Rungs of the Accountability Ladder. International Journal of Public Administration, 33(7), 347-356. doi: 10.1080/01900691003606006.
Rodrigue, J., Comtois, C., & Slack, B. (2006). The Geography of Transport Systems (2 ed.). New York: Routledge.
Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from Multi-Stakeholder Networks: Issue-Focussed Stakeholder Management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 233-250. doi: 10.1007/sl0551-007-9573-3.
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: a research agenda. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29(4), 512-556.
_____ (2005). A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(2), 251-290. doi: 10.1177/0162243904271724
Rowley, T. (1997). Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887-910. doi: 10.2307/259248.
Samaras, S. (2010). The measurement of stakeholder salience: a strategy for the exploration of stakeholder theories. International Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies, 2(3), 285-306. doi: org/10.1504/IJDATS.2010.034060.
Savage, G., Bunn, M., Gray, B., Xiao, Q., Wang, S., Wilson, E., & Williams, E. (2010). Stakeholder Collaboration: Implications for Stakeholder Theory and Practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(Supplement 1), 21-26. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0939-1
Savage, G., Nix, T., Whitehead, C., & Blair, J. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Perspective, 5(2), 61-75.
Scharpf, F. (1978). Interorganizational Policy Studies: Issues, Concepts, and Perspectives. In K. Hanf & F. Scharpf (Eds.), Interorganizational Policy Making (pp. 345-370). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
356
_____ (1994). Games Real Actors Could Play Positive and Negative Coordination in Embedded Negotiations. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6(1), 27-53. doi: 10.1177/0951692894006001002.
Senger, J. (2002). Tales of the Bazaar: Interest-Based Negotiation Across Cultures. Negotiation Journal 18(3), 233-250. doi: 10.1023/A:1016334526459.
Shipley, R., & Utz, S. (2012). Making it count: A review of the value and techniques for public consultation. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(1), 22-42. doi: 10.1177/0885412211413133.
Simmonds, D. (2007). From Gillies to Gateway A History of Surveying in Main Roads Queensland 1920-1988. Brisbane Department of Main Roads.
Skelcher, C., Mathur, N., & Smith, M. (2005). The Public Governance of Collaborative Spaces: Discourse, Design and Democracy. Public Administration, 83(3), 573-596. doi: 10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00463.x
Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3), 257-273. doi: 10.1177/002188638201800303.
Somerset Regional Council. (2011). Somerset Regional Council 2011/2012 Budget presentation - Section 12 of the Local Government Act 2009.: Retrieved.
Sorensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2003). Network Politics, Political Capital, and Democracy. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(6), 609-634. doi: 10.1081/PAD-120019238.
_____ (2005). The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian political studies, 28(3), 195-218. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.2005.00129.x.
_____ (2007). Introduction: Governance Network research: Towards a Second Generation. In E. Sorensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of Democratic Network Governance (pp. 1-21). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
_____ (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Starik, M. (1994). Essay by Mark Starik The Toronto Conference: Reflections on stakeholder theory. Business & Society, 33(1), 82-133.
Steurer, R. (2006). Mapping Stakeholder Theory Anew: From the "Stakeholder Theory of the Firm" to Three Perspectives on Business-Society Relations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 55-69. doi: 10.1002/bse.467.
Stewart, J. (2012). Multiple-case Study Methods in Governance-related Research. Public Management Review, 14(1), 67-82. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2011.589618.
Stirling, A. (2001). Inclusive deliberation and scientific expertise: precaution, diversity and transparency in the governance of risk.
357
PLA Notes no. 40 Deliberative Democracy and Citizen Empowerment, 40, 66-71.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.
Suchman, M. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331.
Sullivan, H. (2008). Meta-evaluation of the Local Government Modernisation Agenda The State of Governance of Places: Community Leadership and Stakeholder Engagement. Executive Summary Retrieved from Department for Communities and Local Government website http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/metaevaluationplaces.
Sunshine Coast Council. (2010). Budget 2010-2011 Retrieved from Sunshine Coast Regional Council website http://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/sitePage.cfm?code=budget-1011.
Sunshine Coast Daily. (2011, 21 May). $14.5m to go to our roads Sunshine Coast Daily, p. 15.
Svendsen, A., & Laberge, M. (2005). Convening stakeholder networks. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 19, 91-104. doi: 10.1080/14719031003633193.
Swallow, V., Newton, J., & Van Lottum, C. (2003). How to manage and display qualitative data using ‘Framework’ and Microsoft® Excel. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12(4), 610-612. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00728.x
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
_____ (2003). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tausch, N., Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J., & Cairns, E. (2007). Individual-level and group-level mediators of contact effects in Northern Ireland: The moderating role of social identification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(3), 541-556. doi: 10.1348/014466606X155150.
Tavares, A., & Camões, P. (2010). New forms of local governance: a theoretical and empirical analysis of the case of Portuguese Municipal Corporations. Public Management Review, 12(5), 587-608.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed Methods Sampling: A Typology With Examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100. doi: 10.1177/2345678906292430.
Teo, M., & Loosemore, M. (2011). Community-based protest against construction projects: a case study of movement continuity. Construction Management and Economics, 29(2), 131-144. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2010.535545.
358
Termeer, C. (2009). Barriers to New Modes of Horizontal Governance A sensemaking perspective. Public Management Review, 11(3), 299-316. doi: 5701. 0 0.
The Roads Alliance. (2008). Memorandum of Agreement Between the Department of Main Roads and the Local Government Association of Queensland Inc. The Roads Alliance Agreement 2008-2013. Retrieved from LGAQ website http://www.lgaq.asn.au/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=23eb898fc3fb71baf230047be81e5004&groupId=10136.
_____ (2008 ). The Roads Alliance Project Report June 2007-June 2008. Brisbane.
_____ (2010a). Asset Management Communique Retrieved from The Local Government & Municipal Knowledge Base wwebsite http://lgam.wdfiles.com/local--files/roads-alliance/LGAQ%20Alliance%20Asset%20Management%20Communique.pdf.
_____ (2010b). The Roads Alliance Progress Report 2009/10 Retrieved from Department of Transport and Main Roads website http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Business-industry/Business-with-us/Alliances/Local-and-state-government-the-Roads-Alliance/Roads-Alliance-progress-report-2009-10.aspx.
Thurstone, L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 529-554. doi: 10.1086/214483.
Tobin, R. (2010). Rival Explanations In A. Mills, G. Durepos & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (Vol. 1 & 2, pp. 833-835). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35-67. doi: 0.2307/2393808.
Van de Ven, A. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. New York Oxford University Press
Van Kersbergen, K., & Van Waarden, F. (2004). 'Governance' as a bridge between disciplines: Cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy. European Journal of Political Research, 43(2), 143-171. doi: 10.1007/s10784-010-9137-3.
Varvasovszky, Z., & Brugha, R. (2000). How to do (or not to do)...A stakeholder analysis. Health Policy and Plannng 15(3), 338-345. doi: 10.1093/heapol/15.3.338.
Vidaver-Cohen, D., & Bronn, P. (2008). Corporate Citizenship and Managerial Motivation: Implications for Business Legitimacy. Business and Society Review, 113(4), 441-475. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8594.2008.00328.x.
Voci, A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup Contact and Prejudice Toward Immigrants in Italy: The Mediational Role of Anxiety and the Moderational Role of Group Salience. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 37-54. doi: 0.1177/1368430203006001011.
Vredenburg, H., & Hall, J. (2005). Managing stakeholder ambiguity. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(1), 11-13.
359
Wason Moore, A. (2005). Facing gridlock down the track; Cruising for a bruising on the M1 The Gold Coast Bulletin.
Waterhouse, J. (2003). Changing the Culture of Technically Oriented Public Sector organisations: Transformation, Sedimentation or Hybridisation Unpublished Thesis. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Waterhouse, J., Brown, K., & Flynn, C. (2001). The Pacific Motorway–A Case Study Examining Public Sector Management Dilemmas. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business And Government 71(1), 21-28. doi: 4828.
Waterhouse, J., & Keast, R. (2007). Behind the Scenes: Uncovering Technocratic to Democratic Adjustments. Paper presented at the British Academy of Management Conference Management Research, Education and Business Success: Is the Future as Clear as the Past? 11-13 September, Warwick University, United Kingdom.
Waterhouse, J., Keast, R., & Brown, K. (2011). Negotiating the Business Environment: Theory, Practice for all Governance Styles. Prahran: Tilde University Press.
Welp, M., & Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2006). Integrative Theory of Reflexive Dialogues In S. Stoll-Kleemann & M. Welp (Eds.), Stakeholder Dialogues in Natural Resources Management: Theory and Practice. Berlin Springer.
Whelan, J. (2001). A Hard Road to Learn: advocacy training through community action. Popular Education: Stretching the Academy, Network for Popular Education: Scotland.
White, H., Boorman, S., & Breiger, R. (1976). Social structure from multiple networks. I. Blockmodels of roles and positions. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4), 730-780. doi: 10.2307/2777596.
Wicks, A., Berman, S., & Jones, T. (1999). The structure of optimal trust: moral and strategic implications. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 99-116. doi: 10.2307/259039.
Wide Bay Burnett Regional Roads Group. (2008). WIDE BAY BURNETT REGIONAL ROADS GROUP and Technical Committee CONSTITUTION. Retrieved.
Witherby, A. (1996). A path out of the wilderness? World Transport Policy and Practice, 2(4), 13-19. doi: org/10.1108/13527619610129494.
Yang, J., & Lim, S. (2008). Reality Check–The Identification of Sustainability Perception & Deliverables for Australian Road Infrastructure Projects. Paper presented at the The New Zealand Society for Sustainability Engineering and Science, Blueprints for Sustainable Infrastructure Conference, Auckland, NZ. Retrieved from http://www.nzsses.auckland.ac.nz/conference/2008/papers/Yang-Lim.pdf .
Yang, J., & Yuan, M. (2009). Managing Knowledge to Promote Sustainability for Infrastructure Development Paper presented at the SASBE2009 Delft, the Netherlands.
360
Yin, R. (1989). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
_____ (2003). Case Study Research:Design and Methods (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Limited.
_____ (2011). Applications of case study research (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Yuan, J., Skibniewski, M., Li, Q., & Shan, J. (2010). The driving factors of China's public private partnership projects in Metropolitian transportation systems: Public sector's viewpoint. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 16(1), 5-18. doi: 10.3846/jcem.2010.01.
