Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

How to do Stakeholder Analysis

14,096

Published on

Overview of stakeholder analysis methods

Overview of stakeholder analysis methods

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
2 Comments
6 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Thanks Susan - hadn't come across this before, but looks very interesting/relevant!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Stephen Lukes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Lukes#The_Three_Dimensions_of_Power) has done an interesting analysis of what constitutes power which is particularly relevant to group relations and process. I prefer to analyse who has agency both formally, as part of a role and informally, maybe because they have personal qualities which enable them to wield more influence.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
14,096
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
413
Comments
2
Likes
6
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • In order to explore these views and relationships in more depth, we conducted a Social Network Analysis. This first network diagram shows communication ties between people from five of the main stakeholder groups in the Peak District, and shows they are highly connected: Each dot (or “node”) represents an individual stakeholder Arrows connecting stakeholders show those who communicated with others in the network And two-way arrows indicate when this relationship was reciprocated Stakeholders depicted by large dots interact with a large number of other people in the network These people are likely to be able to act as bridges between different parts of the network By involving these individuals in our process, they may spread ideas, knowledge and attitudes to others in their wider social network The next figure shows communication ties between people who communicated on a monthly or more frequent basis, and you can see immediately that the network begins to break down: Three cliques emerge Recreation forms its own clique, water and conservation another, grouse moor managers and agriculture form a third And there is infrequent communication between the cliques This suggests there is a danger that recreation groups may get marginalised in our dialogue, so their engagement needs to be actively sought This final diagram shows people who shared views about upland management. You can see that despite infrequent contact between cliques, and apparently polarised views on burning (that we heard in interviews), there was considerable overlap between people’s views on upland management (in general) and the views of those they knew from other groups: This suggests to us that there is enough common ground for different stakeholder groups to participate in meaningful dialogue over areas of mutual concern in our future research
  • Transcript

    • 1. www.see.leeds.ac.uk/sustainableuplands Stakeholder Analysis ustainable Uplands Learning to manage future change Mark Reed
    • 2. Why stakeholder analysis? <ul><li>We all have interests </li></ul><ul><li>We have a stake in the things that interest us e.g. what happens to a landscape you walk in </li></ul><ul><li>By holding an interest, we hold a stake: we are stakeholders </li></ul>
    • 3. Why stakeholder analysis? <ul><li>But without power… </li></ul><ul><li>We can never drive our points/stakes home and we will never influence the decisions that affect us </li></ul>
    • 4. <ul><li>To affect change, we need interest and power </li></ul>
    • 5. <ul><li>Answers key questions relevant to all spatial planning: </li></ul><ul><li>Who are the interested parties? Who has the power to influence what happens? How do these parties interact? How could they work more effectively together? </li></ul>
    • 6. What is stakeholder analysis? <ul><li>“ A process that: </li></ul><ul><li>i) defines aspects of a social and natural phenomenon affected by a decision or action </li></ul><ul><li>ii) identifies individuals, groups and organisations who are affected by or can affect those parts of the phenomenon </li></ul><ul><li>iii) prioritises these individuals and groups for involvement in the decision-making process” </li></ul><ul><li>Reed et al. (2009) </li></ul>
    • 7. Development of SA <ul><li>Business management roots </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Stakeholders affect business </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SA to mobilise, neutralise or defeat stakeholders, to meet strategic objectives </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Development studies and natural resource management </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Projects that didn’t understand stakeholders were often hijacked or failed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Empowering marginal stakeholders to influence decision-making processes transparently </li></ul></ul>
    • 8. Development of SA <ul><li>Major contributions from development studies and natural resource management: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recognises that stakeholders and the issues that interest them change over time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advocates ongoing and evolving involvement of stakeholders to meet needs and priorities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Capturing diversity of potentially conflicting views </li></ul></ul>
    • 9. Typology <ul><li>Three types of methods for stakeholder analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Methods for: </li></ul><ul><li>Identifying stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Differentiating between and categorising stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Investigating relationships between stakeholders </li></ul>
    • 10. Focus Groups Semi-structured interviews Snowball sampling Interest-influence matrices Radical transactive-ness Stakeholder-led stakeholder categorisation Q methodology Social Network Analysis Knowledge Mapping Identifying stakeholders Differentiating between and categorising stakeholders Investigating relationships between stakeholders Analytical categorisation (top-down) Reconstructive categorisation (bottom-up) Normative Instrumental Methods Typology Rationale
    • 11. Interest/Influence Matrices High Low Influence Context setters - highly influential, but have little interest. Try and work closely as they could have a significant impact Key players – must work closely with these to affect change Crowd – little interest or influence so may not be worth prioritising, but be aware their interest or influence may change with time Subjects – may be affected but lack power. Can become influential by forming alliances with others. Often includes marginalised groups you may wish to empower Level of Interest High
    • 12. More complex matrices <ul><li>Identify and evaluate stakeholders in turn: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the nature of their stake? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level of interest – H/M/L &amp; explanatory text if needed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Level of influence – as above </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The most effective ways to gain their active involvement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Anything else we should know? Conflicts, likely issues etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>If many stakeholders, categorise in relation to the nature of their stake &amp; select representatives </li></ul>
    • 13. Categorising <ul><li>Stakeholder categories from Sustainable Uplands project: </li></ul><ul><li>Water companies </li></ul><ul><li>Recreational groups </li></ul><ul><li>Agriculture </li></ul><ul><li>Conservationists </li></ul><ul><li>Grouse moor interests (owners/managers and gamekeepers) </li></ul><ul><li>Tourism-related enterprises </li></ul><ul><li>Foresters </li></ul><ul><li>Statutory bodies </li></ul>
    • 14. Name/ Organisation/ Group Nature of stake Interest H/M/L (comm-ents?) Influence H/M/L (comm-ents?) What would incentivise their involvement? Things we should know (issues, conflicts etc) Appropriate people (contact details)
    • 15. ...adapt to your own needs Stakeholder Group /organisation /individual Area of concern Represented Sector Represented Perceived Interest in issue Perceived Influence on issue Comments arising during discussion
    • 16. Exploring relationships <ul><li>Social Network Analysis with 80-strong Moors for the Future Partnership </li></ul><ul><li>Communication ties between individuals and groups </li></ul>
    • 17. &nbsp;
    • 18. Despite apparently polarised views on burning, upland stakeholders in the Peak District are highly connected… And despite the fact that certain groups have little contact with each other… The majority of individuals perceive considerable overlap between their views on upland management and the views of those they know from other groups Water Recreation Agriculture Conservation Grouse
    • 19. Exploring relationships <ul><li>Showed roles of individuals played and identified more peripheral stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>These groups were targeted for inclusion to reduce bias, strengthen the legitimacy of the sample group, and include a variety of knowledges relevant to the research process </li></ul>
    • 20. Summary
    • 21. Find out more… <ul><li>Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? Stakeholder analysis as a prerequisite for sustainable natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 1933–1949 </li></ul><ul><li>Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141: 2417–2431 </li></ul>

    ×