Talk:Stakeholder analysis/Archives/2012

Copyright infringement?

Looks like text copied from the book "Construction Stakeholder Management" see excerpt here http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P076_CSM_Ch_7_Mapping_Stakeholders.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cembra (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed your message and I compared this source with the text. And you are right. Most text is just copied here. I removed all of this text from the article.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I took a second look and undone the removal again. There seems to be the same author here:

• This Wikipedia text is mostly written by User:Patrick Weaver 10:37, 29 December 2007, and
• the book chapter is written by Lynda Bourne and Patrick Weaver.

Now I trust those two Patrick Weavers are the same. If somebody doesn't agree I am prepared to email the Patrick Weaver and ask him to explain.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The reference #1 is 404 and no replacement is to be found. Truekonrads (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC).

Types of Stakeholders

The four types of stakeholders are primary, secondary, facilitator, and indirect. The primary stakeholder is the user of the design. The secondary stakeholder supplies input or receives output from the design. The facilitator maintains or develops the design. The indirect stakeholder is affected by the use of the design, but has no contact with it.

I found that in my textbook on usability, and I feel that it has some impact on the types of stakeholders mentioned in this article. Sure, it specifically refers to the usability aspect (with "design"), but I think it might be compatible with organizations as well. ThomasOwens (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Other Forms of Stakeholder Analysis

This text "feels" like it's copied from somewhere else, e.g. a paper: "We would suggest..." etc. --Manscher (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Update: Same source as quoted in the first comment above --Manscher (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Addition of section on stakeholder identification deleted why?

Mr Ollie,

I can't see how to start a new talk with you so I am having to put a comment on this page. I hope this is correct.

I am completely confused about why you removed my last changes. Stakeholder Identification is the first step in stakeholder management see Managing Successful Programmes, TSO page 51. The site I referenced is written by a qualified Project Manager. How is referencing this site any diferent from referencing Lucidus and Circle?

Also why did you remove the further reading suggestion? Managing Successful Programmes was written by Office of Government Commerce and contains a very strong chapter on Stakeholder Management.

This seems rather contradictory.

Decker2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decker2 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed your changes because they strike me as promotion of a specific external site which is not a reliable source as wikipedia defines it. If you believe other references in this article do not meet with guidelines, feel free to remove them, but that is not a reason to add additional noncompliant links. See here. - MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I was following the lead of existing content and assumed that the link to an educational site would be compliant on the basis that Lucidus and Circle were included. Based on the information you directed me to I think the following should also be deleted from this article:

"Two of the more sophisticated tools available are the three dimensional stakeholder matrix proposed by Lucidus Consulting Limited (2005)[1] and the The Stakeholder Circle developed by Dr Bourne[2]"

Both Lucidus and Circle are businesses. The Stakeholder Circle link takes you to the homepage of site selling stakeholder analysis software. It doesn't direct you to a specific page or article.

Grateful for your advice.

Thanks Decker2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.198.223 (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

---

September and October 2010 edits

Hi various editors over the last month,

LJS made a lot of improvements to this page, the last of which was: (cur | prev) 12:32, 12 September 2010 LJS84 (talk | contribs) (25,442 bytes) (undo)

Then they were undone with the following comment: (cur | prev) 10:49, 16 September 2010 Pm master (talk | contribs) (10,359 bytes) (rv to Mr. Ollie - better version) (undo)

To my mind the judgment "Mr. Ollie - better version" is a mistake. Before I make any changes to address this, I'd like someone to comment on the reasoning here so we can discuss it. The current version of the article is flagged with the following weaknesses:

1. "The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. Please help improve the article with a good introductory style. (October 2009)"

2. "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2010)"

LSJ's edits did a superb job of addressing concern 2. I also think LSJ's introductory text was clearer - addressing stakeholder analysis in more general terms than the previous intro. And overall I think LSJ's text provided a much better overview of stakeholder analysis.

So presumably other editors disagree with me? Could we discuss that please?

Greg Walkerden (talk) 2nd Nov 2010.

Unsourced "Swedish" method

The following unsourced material is moved here in the hope that someone may find sources for it: Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"In Sweden, there is a data collected about stakeholders as maps – tabular, graphical or pictorial has been adopted by researchers and consultants from the earliest studies. The key element of an effective mapping process is as far as possible to replace subjectivity with objective measures and to make the assessment process transparent. This transparency will allow the basis of any assessment to be clearly understood by others and will facilitate review and updating as appropriate.

We would suggest there are three basic approaches used to help visualize, map and understand stakeholders.

The approach with the highest profile in general business is the ‘customer relationship management’ or CRM approach. This approach requires substantial data sets to be gathered about a key segment of the business’ stakeholder community (typically customers) followed by the use of data mining techniques allow trends and opportunities to be identified, graphed and communicated. These reports inform management decision making and help the business prosper. CRM works effectively in situations where the business is relatively stable and there are a large class of stakeholders interacting with the business in a reasonably common way.

A second approach that cannot be ignored is the extensive body of work focusing on influence networks. This research focuses on the importance of relationships through the study of ‘influence networks’, ‘social networks’, ‘social capital’, viewing projects as ‘temporary knowledge organizations’ (TKOs) and more recently the idea of CRPR (Complex Responsive Processes of Relating)(Weaver 2007). All of these theories emphasize the critical importance of the relationships between different stakeholders both within and around the project team. The strength and effectiveness of the internal relationships enable the project team to function effectively and allows the team (or the project) to interact and influence its surrounding stakeholder community. The difficulty in using these strands of research lies in building the influence/relationship maps; the work is difficult, time consuming and invasive requiring extensive interviews with the stakeholders. Consequently whilst an appreciation of these ideas is critical for effective stakeholder management, the opportunities to undertake a detailed analysis of a particular stakeholder community are very limited and typically only occur as part of an academic research assignment.

The need for a practical, usable approach to visualizing many different stakeholder communities has led to the development of a range of listing and mapping techniques by academics, consultants and businesses over the years. These approaches trade the richness of data available under the CRM approach for a holistic view of the whole stakeholder community and largely ignore the complex network of relationships considered in CRPR and the other network theories outlined above for a simpler consideration of ‘importance’ in some form. Obviously the ‘importance’ of a stakeholder is directly associated with his or her ability to influence the project through their network of relationships; the difference in the analysis is in the way this is assessed. All of the mapping techniques discussed above use a qualitative perception of a stakeholder’s ‘importance’ rather than a quantitative analysis of the influence networks and relationships surrounding the stakeholder to determine an absolute value for that person’s ‘importance’."

BTW I know there's a citation for Weaver in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

---