This document discusses stakeholder analysis and management for service delivery changes. It defines stakeholders as individuals or groups with an interest in an organization's activities. Stakeholders are important because they can positively or negatively impact outcomes. The document provides a framework for identifying stakeholders' interests, values, and influence on a service or organization. It also outlines different strategies for interacting with stakeholders based on their level of importance, support, and power. These strategies range from going it alone to merging with a stakeholder.

1. Stakeholder Analysis Managing Service Delivery change

2. Who Are Stakeholders? Stakeholders are those individuals/groups/agencies who have an interest in your activities

3. Why Are They Important? They can have a positive or negative impact on the outcome of your activities Stakeholders can affect you whether you know it or not!

4. A Stakeholder Analysis Framework Cut in funding or higher health levy Two-tier medicine More expensive VHI Having to take more responsibility for own health Avoidance of illness Cheaper/more comprehensive health care More customer-friendly health services Value for money Efficient and fast service Customer-focused service No waiting lists for hospital services Good service for all Affordable health service User-friendly health service No cuts in service Your Major Stakeholder(s) (E.g. Customers) Service will not be funded as well as it is now Effects of new technology on staff Skill mix evaluation will lead to fewer staff Greater co-operation with other service providers More direct control and discretion over budget and staff resourcing Quality, equity and acountability Customer care Making best use of resources available to me Implementing national strategy Generation of additional funding Getting an extra staff member YOU (E.g. Health Service Manager) FEARS/ CONCERNS FOR FUTURE HOPES/ ASPIRATIONS FOR FUTURE WHAT IS CONSIDERED VALUABLE? AREAS OF INTEREST

5. A Stakeholder Analysis Framework NATURE OF INFLUENCE For, against, neutral THEIR VALUES AND INTERESTS e.g. value for money, bigger market share YOUR VALUE AND INTERESTS e.g. quality of service, product development DIRECTION OF INFLUENCE e.g. you on them/ them on you COLLABORATORS RIVALS FOR RESOURCES MAJOR SUPPLIERS/ DISTRIBUTORS CUSTOMERS/ CLIENTS

6. Mapping Stakeholder Interests Strength of Influence Direction of Influence Positive Negative Strong Weak

7. Stakeholder Importance/Disposition Matrix Ask the following questions: Where are they? Where do I want them to be? How supportive/opposed are they? Are they all alike? What are the prospects for coalition?

8. Tactics for Dealing with Each Category For potentially antagonistic: check those in problematic and low-priority aligned to antagonistic Surprise/develop counter-arguments/bargain/block coalitions between antagonistic and problematic Prevent antagonistic from undermining supporters

9. Tactics for Advocates Provide information to reinforce their beliefs Co-opt into discussion or decision-making Ask them to sell to indifferent If balanced perspective needed, ask those nearly neutral to react to strategy after supporters and antagonistic have stated their positions

10. Problematic/Low Priority Coalition of problematic stakeholders emerges and takes position opposing Target the uncommitted for education Low-Priority Bring tem closer to importance boundary Educate those near importance boundary Promote involvement with advocates

11. Interacting With Key Stakeholders Colder - Autonomous Go It Alone Cooperate On A Limited Basis Cooperate Implicitly Co-Opt/ Absorb Coalesce Merge/Acquire Warmer- Common

12. Interacting With Stakeholders If aiming to minimise dependence on stakeholders you will work as far as possible at the top of this continuum (go it alone or implicit cooperation) If your stakeholders have so much power that your room to manoeuvre is limited, you have to find a degree of commonality with them, however costly that is to you in terms of your autonomy (limited cooperation or co-option) Third way of looking at the relationship is interdependence (coalition or merger), both explicitly agree to join forces because there are mutual benefits

13. Go It Alone Aim is to minimise scope of influence of stakeholder Very effective if you can simultaneously increase your influence over them or over a third party who is common to both of you e.g. trough use of public relations Not appropriate when you are dependent on your stakeholder or vice versa, or in conditions of change or uncertainty

14. Implicit Cooperation May be neither feasible nor politic to distance yourself from a key stakeholder May still wish to limit their sphere of influence as much as possible Therefore accept degree of informal cooperation Usually fine when you can easily keep tabs on your stakeholder and when the environment is relatively stable

15. Limited Cooperation Conditions may create need to formally negotiate a basis for cooperation Likely to be limited in scope (specific tasks or time period) E.g. where one stakeholder might agree to contract out aspects of his/her functioning to another stakeholder

16. Co-Opting/Absorbing If both have a strong mutual objective – possible to co-opt elements of one into the other E.g. liasion between two departments improved by having representatives one involved at other’s meetings E.g. boards of public service organisations use co-opting to build alliances and schieve greater information-seeking

17. Coalition Each stakeholder remains a separate entity Agree to act jointly with respect to some set of issues for a period of time Includes an agreement on joint decision-making as well as action Prevalent where stakeholders have mutual objectives but neither has enough power on their own Habit of breaking down if the power, demands or support of one partner significantly outweighs the other Often formed to stabilise conditions of uncertainty or to destabilise environments that are sluggish

18. Merger/Acquisition Differs from coalition in that one stakeholder has usually been out-manoeuvred by the other I.e. allowed more powerful to take over the less powerful of the two Often used in order to reduce uncertainty in their environment by increasing their control over certain actors in that environment