W6_Folakemi_Stakeholder Analysis

1.      Problem recognition, definition and evaluation

The Logical Framework achieves four main goals for project teams, which are: 

•  Identify ‘root cause’ problems and needs in an organization and link those needs to the overall organizational strategy
•  Facilitate selecting and setting priorities between multiple possible alternatives or projects, given limited capital or other resources
• Plan and implement an organization’s projects effectively
• Follow-up and evaluate selected projects results versus the original organizational objectives

In order to achieve these goals, the first step in the logical framework process is to identify and delineate the role of stakeholders who can significantly influence or are important in a particular context, e.g. a development problem or a sector. This is called stakeholder analysis. There are various methods for carrying out a stakeholder analysis. The objective of this write up is to identify at least five (5) methods for carrying out stakeholder analysis and evaluate them in order to arrange them in order of preference.

2.      Development of the feasible alternatives

Five broad categories of stakeholder analysis techniques have been identified, depending on the objective of the analysis. (Bryson, 2004). The five categories are

                    i.            organizing participation,

                  ii.            creating ideas for strategic interventions,

                iii.            building a winning coalition around proposal development,

                iv.            review and adoption, and

                  v.            Implementing, monitoring and evaluating strategic interventions.

In the private sector, the main objective of stakeholder analysis for projects is to organize the participation of stakeholders in the project in order to ensure that the project can be effectively and efficiently executed.

I will there evaluate the different techniques for stakeholder analysis under the ‘organizing participation’ category. In this category the main alternatives are:

                    i.            Choosing stakeholder analysis participants (CSAP)

                  ii.            The basic stakeholder analysis technique (BSAT)

                iii.            Power versus interest grids (PIG)

                iv.            Stakeholder influence diagrams (SID)

                  v.            Participation planning matrix (PPM)

3.      Development of the outcomes for each alternative

A review of work done by scholars on stakeholder analysis revealed that the preferred option should have the following attributes:

•  Stakeholders involvement
• Completeness of information generated 
•  Independent of the other methods 
•  Build stakeholders’ acceptance of the project
• Efficient use of time
• A methodology that is easy to follow
• More scientific than subjective evaluation

4.      Selection of criteria

An analysis of the alternatives above produced the following:

Table 1: Analysis of Alternatives

5.      Analysis and comparison of the alternatives

Using the non-compensatory model called Disjunctive Resolution, the acceptable values for the attributes listed above are:

 Table 2: Acceptable Values

Using disjunctive resolution technique, the Power versus Interest grid (PIG) method is disqualified because it does not meet at least one of the acceptable values of the attributes being considered.

Using the compensatory model called the Additive Weighting Technique:

The nondimensional data for the different alternatives is as follows;

Table 3 – The Additive Weighting Technique

 

From this analysis the Choosing stakeholder analysis participants appears to be the most acceptable method.

6.      Selection of the preferred alternative

Based on the analysis and comparison of alternatives, the most preferred alternative in conducting stakeholder analysis is choosing stakeholder analysis participants. This apparently is the alternative that best meets the most important attributes, which are building acceptance and completeness of the information generated during the stakeholder analysis. This method involves five main steps which are:

                    i.        A preliminary stakeholder analysis is conducted by the planning group using any of the other 4 techniques. Inputs are garnered using interviews, questionnaires, focus groups and other information gathering techniques

                  ii.        Brain storming by a larger group of stakeholders

                iii.     Consideration of actual or potential stakeholder power, legitimacy and attention-getting capacity

                iv.     Buy-in sessions and corrections/modifications to stakeholder analysis

                  v.     Finalize the various groups and their roles, e.g. sponsors, champions, coordinating group, planning team, etc.

The top 3 techniques for carrying out stakeholder analysis in order of preference are:

                    i.            Choosing stakeholder analysis participants (CSAP)

                  ii.            Participation planning matrix (PPM)

                iii.            The basic stakeholder analysis technique (BSAT)

7.      Performance Monitoring & Post Evaluation of Result

The top 3 techniques for stakeholder analysis would be reviewed in greater detail, with specific focus on the implications for project timing and cost.

8.      References

•  Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Techniques. Public Management Review. (6.1), 21-53. Retrieved from http://www.hhh.umn.edu/people/jmbryson/pdf/stakeholder_identification_analysis_techniques.pdf

• Giammalvo, P. (2012, October 22). Integrated portfolio (asset), program (operations) and project management methodology course (cost engineering) slides (An AACE methodology course). Day 1, pp 91-94. Lagos, Nigeria: Lonadek

• Thompson, R. (n.d) Stakeholder Analysis: Winning support for your projects. Mind Tools: Essential Skills for an excellent career. Retrieved from: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_07.htm

• Sullivan, W. G., Wicks, E.M., & Koelling, C.P. (2012). Engineering Economy (15^th ed.) (pp 573-589) New Jersey, NJ. Pearson Higher Education, Inc.