A little bit of context

Given that projects have limited time and resources, we cannot realistically expect to service and satisfy every stakeholder (even if that is what they want).

We therefore need to prioritise our stakeholders in a way that will meaningfully guide us on how to manage them. 

Many project managers use a simple classification model that groups stakeholders by their level of real or potential authority or power over the project and their corresponding level of interest in it.

Put simplistically, each stakeholder can be said to have a high or low level of power over a project; in the same way, they could be said to have a high or low level of interest in the project, its outputs, and its outcomes.

Importantly, these values are independent of each other.

Just because a person has a high level of power over a project doesn’t mean they have a low or high level of interest in it – in fact, their interest could be at any level.

Similarly, high or low interest says nothing about a person’s level of influence or authority.

After all, just because I am interested in the Football World Cup doesn’t mean I get a say in its delivery!

As another example, I might not be aware that the government is planning on building a nuclear waste dump next to my house, but you can guarantee that if I did discover this fact, I would be very, very interested!

Similarly, even though your boss might not know what you are planning, they still retain the power to completely change things when they find out.

Therefore, when analyzing a person’s power and interest, we should act as if they are aware, even if they do not know about our project just yet (and even if we do not plan on informing them, which comes with its own risks).

---

Power

Stakeholder power refers to their level of authority or influence over a project.

Stakeholders with ‘high’ power can direct significant changes to your project’s time, cost, or scope, whereas stakeholders with ‘low’ power have minimal influence.

The following table defines power across five dimensions, from very high to very low.

As a rule, we prioritize the needs of high-power stakeholders over those of their low-power peers. 

Definitions like these are usually mandated in an organization’s methodology to facilitate a common understanding across projects, programs, and portfolios of work.

Although you are free to use these definitions in your own organization, they are not doctrine – you should modify them if appropriate to align with the unique contingencies of your project and organizational environments.

---

Interest

Stakeholders can have high or low interest in a project, but that interest can also be positive or negative.

Positively interested stakeholders generally feel good about the project, its potential outcomes, and its impact on their person or community. 

Negatively interested stakeholders are opposed to the project.

This negative interest is rooted in their belief that the potential outcomes and the impacts they will have will ultimately harm them or their community.

Assuming someone is fully informed and aware of the project if they genuinely have no interest in the project or its outcomes then they are not a stakeholder. 

Stakeholders are prioritized by their level of interest in a project, regardless of whether that interest is positive or negative. 

For example, a stakeholder with a very high positive interest will be prioritised over a stakeholder with only a moderate, negative interest.

Similarly, the stakeholder with the moderate negative interest will be prioritized over a stakeholder with a low, positive interest.

The state of positive or negative interest is only used to signal what the project manager can expect from their interactions with stakeholders.

Once again, adopt definitions such as these in your methodology at the organizational level, modifying them as appropriate to realize optimal value. 

---

Power x interest

Because power and interest are independent stakeholder attributes, we can combine their classifications to give an overall priority rating.

We do this by multiplying their ‘power’ by their ‘interest’.

In the previous topic, you may have noted that the definition tables each had a score assigned to them from +1 to +5 for power and -5 to +5 for interest.

Let’s look at how multiplying these scores gives us new insight into stakeholder priority.

STAKEHOLDER 1

We have identified a concerned local resident as a stakeholder in our project.

We have not yet made them aware of the project; however, we expect they will be opposed to it, given their record of hostility toward similar projects in the past.

That said, as an individual, there is not a lot they can do about our project one way or another.

Using the definition tables, we therefore agree on the following power and interest ratings:

As you can see in the matrix below, multiplying these independent scores of +1 and -4 gives us an overall stakeholder rating of -4.

STAKEHOLDER 2

Our next stakeholder is a supplier of project essential materials.

If this supplier proves difficult or fails to deliver on time, they would have a minor impact on the project’s schedule or budget (especially if we had to use another supplier at the last minute or we were paying our team to stand around waiting).

That said, our supplier does want our project to succeed because that means they get paid!

Using our matrix once more, multiplying these independent scores of +3 and +3 gives us a stakeholder rating of +9. 

STAKEHOLDER 3

Finally, let’s assess the priority of a project team member.

For better or worse, their work performance will have a major impact on project delivery, but they are quite passionate about the project (and not just because it means a paycheque).

Our definitions, therefore, direct us to the following power and interest scores:

Multiplying these independent scores of +4 and +5 gives us a stakeholder rating of +20.

---

Priority ranking

So which stakeholder deserves the highest priority?

Our assessment reveals the following stakeholder hierarchy. 

Priority #1

Project team member (+20)

Priority #2

Supplier (+9)

Priority #3

Concerned resident (-4)

Importantly, a stakeholder’s positive/negative interest in our project does not influence the priority we place on them. 

After all, should we devote the same amount of time and energy to our low-power resident – even though they might be making a lot of noise – as we do to our project team?

The answer is no; however, this does not give us license to ignore the resident. As we shall see, it just means we take a different approach.

Positive/negative indicators are a valuable third dimension to our matrix, telling us at a glance what we can expect from each relationship.

So what if all our stakeholders come back with a high score?

• Have we overstated their power and/or interest? It is easy (and often wrong) to assume that because something is very close to us, it matters just as much to everyone else. 
• Have we missed some less obvious stakeholders? When identifying stakeholders, it is usually the highly powerful and interested that immediately come to mind. Don’t forget to spend extra time identifying and prioritizing the rest. 
• Is more detailed categorization required? When classifying stakeholder groups, we often assign a ‘worst case’ rating. In reality, only a small percentage may be highly powerful and/or interested, while the rest are more neutral.
• Will we need extra time and resources to manage our stakeholders? Some projects – especially those with a prominent community and media profile – will inevitably attract more highly powerful and interested stakeholders. Be sure to allow for this in all stages of the project’s life.

Some of you may recognize this prioritization approach: what we have done here is a risk assessment of each using stakeholder-specific criteria.

And in the same way risk prioritization points to a treatment strategy, our stakeholder ranking will lead us to a preferred method of engagement.