Managing Project Stakeholder
PAPERS
Communication: The Qstock Festival
Case
Virpi Turkulainen, College of Business, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Kirsi Aaltonen, Industrial Engineering and Management, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
Päivi Lohikoski, Industrial Engineering and Management, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
ABSTRACT
This research develops the understanding
of project stakeholder management through
examining how stakeholder communication
is facilitated and managed during the dif-
ferent phases of the project’s life cycle. By
building on the information processing view
and the stakeholder salience framework, our
study shows how stakeholder communica-
tion practices vary among the impersonal,
personal, and group modes of communi-
cation. We also show how these practices
depend on stakeholders’ salience and proj-
ect life cycle phase. The results indicate that
a dynamic approach is required to under-
standing stakeholder management; differ-
ent communication practices are required
over the project’s life cycle, which can be
explained by the varying degrees of stake-
holder salience.
KEYWORDS: project stakeholder
management; project communication;
information-processing view; stakeholder
salience
Project Management Journal,
Journal Vol. 46, No. 6, 74–91
© 2015 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21547
74 December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
INTRODUCTION ■
P
roject stakeholder management is one of the focal parts of project
management. Aligning the different objectives, interests, and
expectations of stakeholders directly contributes to the success of
the project (Aaltonen, 2011; Cleland, 1986; Jepsen & Eskerod, 2009).
Previous research on project stakeholder management has mainly focused
on the conceptual development of stakeholder management tools and
frameworks to improve the management of stakeholders (e.g., Bourne
& Walker, 2005; Olander & Landin, 2005). The majority of research on
stakeholder management has built tools and frameworks consistent with a
static perspective on projects, yet they have paid less attention to how the
relationship between the focal project organization and its stakeholders
changes over the project’s life cycle (e.g., Brøde Jepsen, 2013; Eskerod &
Vaagaasar, 2014; Yang, Shen, & Ho, 2009). A project, however, moves through
different distinctive phases over its life cycle (e.g., Morris, 1982; Turner,
1999), thereby creating a dynamic context for the management of project
stakeholders (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010). This gap in the literature calls for
research on stakeholder management that takes into account the project’s
life cycle.
In this research, we address project stakeholder management by studying
the modes of communication with project stakeholders. Stakeholder com-
munication ensures the effective engagement of different stakeholders and
hence plays a fundamental role in project stakeholder management (Crane
& Livesey, 2003; Welch & Jackson, 2007). Because the role of communication
in projects is crucial, the various communication needs in different phases
of the project should be acknowledged and planned (Lohikoski, Kujala,
Härkönen, Haapasalo, & Muhos, 2015). Furthermore, even though stake-
holder communication is an integral part of actual stakeholder management
processes, little empirical research exists on project stakeholder communi-
cation practices and their relation to the attributes of these stakeholders;
therefore, the research question of the study can be formulated as follows:
“How and why is stakeholder communication managed over a project ’s life
cycle?”
In order to address the research question, we build on the information
processing model (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Galbraith, 1973), which is the most
established model that addresses communication both within and across
organizations. We develop a generic framework of stakeholder communica-
tion in the project context, which draws on the theoretical argument about
how context shapes the use of communication modes. In order to illustrate
and elaborate on the framework, we
use observations from a festival project
and utilize the concept of stakeholder
salience (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997)
to assess the characteristics of the differ-
ent stakeholders. The empirical context
chosen for this study is the Qstock proj-
ect, which is the largest music festival
in Northern Finland. Festival projects
are typically very complex and highly
cooperative projects that involve many
stakeholder groups, including the audi-
ence, municipality, media, suppliers,
sponsors, allied festivals, public, festival
organization, artists, restaurants, mar-
ket vendors, and voluntary associations
(Larson, 2009). Consequently, the com-
plex stakeholder network with diverse
communication needs makes a festival
project, like Qstock, a particularly suit-
able context for observing project stake-
holder communication over the project
life cycle.
Focal Concepts
and Theoretical Background
Project Communication
A critical part of project management is
communication (Crane & Livesey, 2003;
Welch & Jackson, 2007). In this research,
communication refers to the patterns of
exchanging information and knowledge
between team members (Greenberg,
1999; Johns & Gratton, 2013). The goal
of communication is, for example, to
generate action or change or to create
common understanding and goal align-
ment (Faraj, Jarvenpaa, & Majchrzak,
2011; March & Simon, 1958; Mayfield,
2014).
In this study, the information pro-
cessing view is used to study communi-
cation (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Galbraith,
1973). The information processing view
is considered appropriate because it
is the theoretical view that is used the
most often to assess information and
knowledge sharing within and across
organizations. It is also widely used
to understand communication in the
project context (e.g., Adler, 1995; Turku-
lainen, Kujala, Artto, & Levitt, 2013;
Turkulainen, Ruuska, Brady, & Artto,
2015 ). The information processing
view builds on the bounded rationality
argument (March & Simon, 1958), sug-
gesting that because of the cognitive
limitations of individuals, organizations
develop idiosyncratic bases of informa-
tion, thus creating information process-
ing needs (Galbraith, 1973; Lawrence &
Lorsch, 1967).
Organizations manage the informa-
tion processing needs by using various
managerial tools. Van de Ven, Delbecq,
and Koenig (1976) classified such prac-
tices into the impersonal, personal, and
group modes. The impersonal mode
refers to programming (March & Simon,
1958 ); communication is facilitated
with the use of preestablished plans,
schedules, and formalized procedures
as well as standardized communication
systems (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Galbraith,
1973). The main characteristic of these
activities is that a codified blueprint is
specified, which requires minimal ver-
bal communication (Galbraith, 1973;
March & Simon, 1958). Examples of
communication practices in the imper-
sonal mode include project plans,
descriptions of jobs and roles for the
project, standard project procedures,
and project newsletters.
The personal and group modes both
relate to mutual adjustment and coor-
dination according to feedback (March
& Simon, 1958; Thompson, 1967). In
the personal mode, the organization’s
members serve as mechanisms for com-
munication (Hage, Aiken, & Marrett,
1971). Personal communication, either
face-to-face or through messaging, has
been suggested as one of the most use-
ful tools for breaking down individ-
ual and organizational barriers (e.g.,
Brown, Huettner, & James-Tanny, 2007).
In the group mode, the mechanism for
mutual adjustment is used to bring
together a group of people; for example,
communication is facilitated through
scheduled and unscheduled meetings
and teamwork (Adler, 1995; Van de Ven
et al., 1976). Today, social media, such as
Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp, pro-
vide various modes of communication
December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
depending on whether they are used
to distribute information (impersonal
mode) or promote mutual discussions
(personal and group modes) (Hudson &
Hudson, 2013; Waters, Burnett, Lamm,
& Lucas, 2009).
Project Stakeholder Management
Although the notion of stakeholders was
originally introduced in general man-
agement discussion (Freeman, 1984),
Cleland ( 1986 ) brought stakeholder
thinking into the project context. Stake-
holder management is a focal area of
project management, as even the con-
cept of “project management” is defined
as the process through which stakehold-
ers adapt the specifications, plans, and
approaches according to their differ-
ent concerns and expectations (Eskerod
& Jepsen, 2013; Project Management
Institute, 2013).
The role of the project stakeholder
has been constantly debated (Aaltonen,
2010), which has led to several defini-
tions in the project management lit-
erature. In wide definitions of the term,
stakeholders are any organizations or
individuals that affect or are affected by
the project. Narrower definitions tend
to focus on the nature of the interest or
stake that a particular stakeholder has
with regard to the project. These defi-
nitions focus on stakeholders, such as
those who are participants in exchange
relationships (e.g., Hill & Jones, 1992) or
have a legitimate claim (Cleland, 1986).
A broadly acknowledged definition sees
stakeholders as “[i]ndividuals and orga-
nizations that are actively involved in
the project or whose interests may be
affected as a result of project execution
or project completion” (Project Man-
agement Institute, 2013). Furthermore,
in a widely rooted dichotomy, stake-
holders are divided into internal and
external stakeholders. Internal stake-
holders are formal members of the proj-
ect coalition and hence usually support
the project (Beringer, Jonas, & Gemün-
den, 2012; Winch, 2004). External stake-
holders are not formal members of the
project coalition, but they may affect or
75
 The Qstock Festival Case
PAPERS
be affected by the project. Such groups
are often referred to as nonbusiness
stakeholders or secondary stakehold-
ers (Cova & Salle, 2005). Hence, the
purpose of project stakeholder manage-
ment is to enhance the project man-
agement team’s understanding of the
diverse stakeholders and their ability to
make informed decisions about how to
engage them in order to maintain their
support and align their objectives (Aal-
tonen, 2010; Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010;
Yang, Wang, & Jin, 2014).
Stakeholder Salience
In order to assess the characteristics
of stakeholders, we build on the stake-
holder salience framework proposed by
Mitchell et  al. (1997), which is one of
the most established theoretical models
used to analyze and categorize project
stakeholders. The framework explains
the process of managerial decision
making with regard to stakeholders, and
it provides a solid basis for identifying
and categorizing them and understand-
ing how to manage them (Aaltonen,
Kujala, & Oijala, 2008). Mitchell et  al.
(1997) classified stakeholders accord-
ing to their claims on the dimensions
of power, legitimacy, and urgency. The
stakeholder salience framework sug-
gests that these three attributes deter-
mine how much attention and what
type of attention stakeholders receive
from management.
In the salience framework, power
relates to stakeholders’ requests as per-
ceived by management. Stakeholder
power is defined classically as a rela-
tionship among social actors in which
one social actor, A, can get another
social actor, B, to do something that
B would not otherwise have done.
The bases of power are considered to
reside in the types of resources used to
exercise power to provide material or
financial resources, symbolic resources,
force, and violence. Legitimacy refers to
“a generalized perception or assump-
tion that the actions of an entity are
desirable, proper or appropriate within
some socially constructed system of
76 December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal
norms, values, beliefs and definitions”
(Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 865). The more
legitimate the stakeholders’ claims are,
the more likely they are to receive posi-
tive responses from firms. Finally, the
urgency of the stakeholders is defined as
“the degree to which stakeholder claims
call for immediate attention” (Mitch-
ell et  al., 1997, p. 867) and is based on
two attributes: (1) time sensitivity (i.e.,
the degree to which managerial delay
in attending to the claim or relation-
ship is unacceptable to the stakeholder;
and (2) criticality, which is the impor-
tance of the claim to the stakeholder
(Mitchell et al., 1997). By combining the
three attributes of power, legitimacy,
and urgency, a typology of stakeholders
can be formed and its importance to
management and its decision-making
can be evaluated.
Project Phases and Communication
A project creates a dynamic context
for stakeholder management because
it moves through different phases dur-
ing its life cycle (Morris, 1982; Turner,
1999 ). Projects can be divided into
distinctive stages that connect the
beginning of a project to its end and
partly depend on the project type and
organization (Project Management
Institute, 2013). A well-established clas-
sification is to divide projects into (1)
Project stakeholder communication
Stakeholders
Project
Conceptualization
Execution
and planning
Figure 1: Conceptual framework.
■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
project conceptualization and plan-
ning, (2) project execution, and (3) the
post-project phase, each of which has
significantly different characteristics
(Morris, 1982, p. 156). The first two
phases are sometimes separated (e.g.,
Slevin & Pinto, 1987).
In the project ’s conceptualization
and planning phases, including strate-
gic feasibility assessment, planning, and
design (Hunsaker & Hunsaker, 2008;
Morris, 1982), communication focuses
on the project’s content and plan, in
addition to establishing the rules of
behavior and clarifying the team’s pur-
pose (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). In
the project ’s execution phase , com-
munication focuses on explaining the
goals and objectives and on ensuring
and enhancing motivation (Mukherjee,
Lahiri, Mukherjee, & Billing, 2012). In
the post-project phase, communication
focuses on ensuring that information
exchange is related to documenting the
project activities and results and gather-
ing and storing the lessons learned for
future projects.
Summary: Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 summarizes the theoretical
concepts discussed in the introduction,
thus providing the conceptual frame-
work that guides our research. In this
study, we investigate how and why
Stakeholder
communication
Stakeholder • Impersonal mode
salience • Personal mode
• Power • Group mode
• Legitimacy
• Urgency
Post
project
stakeholder communication is man-
aged in a project. We elaborate on the
information processing model (Daft &
Lengel, 1986; Galbraith, 1973) in the
project context by illustrating how
stakeholder communication is man-
aged over the project’s life cycle. We
assess communication practices based
on the classification into impersonal,
personal, and group modes of com-
munication (Van de Ven et  al., 1976),
and based on the stakeholder salience
framework, we assess the stakeholder
characteristics (Mitchell et al., 1997).
Research Method and Data
Research Strategy
Because of the lack of theories on stake-
holder communication that take into
account the dynamic context of projects,
this research started without precise
hypotheses or propositions. Instead, the
research follows an approach that can
best be described as theory elaboration
(Ketokivi & Choi, 2014; Layder, 1993;
Vaughan, 1992). Compared to testing a
theory or developing a theory, in theory
elaboration the empirical data serve to
illustrate an existing general conceptual
or theoretical framework (Ketokivi &
Choi, 2014; Layder, 1993). In the the-
ory elaboration research approach, the
emphasis is on the empirical context in
which a general theory is elaborated.
Our research builds on and elaborates
on the generic ideas of the information
processing model (Daft & Lengel, 1986;
Galbraith, 1973) in the context of project
stakeholder communication. In doing
so, we illustrate how stakeholder com-
munication is managed over the project
life cycle of a music festival, and provide
explanations for the observed commu-
nication modes based on the salience
of the various stakeholders. The out-
come of this study can be considered
as middle-range theory (Merton, 1968),
which is different from a generic theory
and defined as theory that generalizes
beyond a particular case but within a
particular context.
Our theory elaboration is based on
the interplay between theory and the
examination of the data collected with
a case study. The case study approach
to the data collection was chosen for
the following reasons. First, a case
study is particularly suitable for theory
elaboration research (Ketokivi & Choi,
2014); second, a case study is benefi-
cial because it facilitates the investiga-
tion of a phenomenon in its real-life
context (Rowley, 2004); and third, case
studies are considered suitable for
research questions that ask “how” and
“why,” as in this study (Yin, 2009). We
focus on a single project because it pro-
vides unusually revelatory information
(Yin,  2009).
The Empirical Context: Qstock Music
Festival
The source of our empirical data is
the music festival project Qstock,
which takes place in Northern Finland.
We decided to use a festival for our
empirical project because its complex
stakeholder networks and communica-
tion needs make it particularly suit-
able for illuminating and elaborating
on the relationships and logic among
information processing modes, stake-
holder salience, and project life cycle
phases. In addition, cultural projects,
such as music festivals, provide an
interesting context in which to study
project stakeholder management. The
economic importance of cultural indus-
tries in general is increasing (European
Commission [EC], 2014; Lampel, Lant,
& Shamsie, 2000; Larson, 2009). The
cultural industries have widened and
broadened in scope (O’Connor, 2003;
Radbourne & Fraser, 1996), and they not
only continuously generate an increas-
ing number of jobs but also contrib-
ute to innovations in other sectors (EC,
2014). The organizations in the cultural
industries exist to promote a particular
form of art or group of artists or to run
venues and festivals, all of which are
typically organized in the form of proj-
ects (Pick & Anderton, 1999). Managing
such cultural projects is challenging for
several reasons. They are high in ambi-
guity and unpredictable with regard
December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
to the experiential goods that are pro-
duced (Pan & Huan, 2013). Moreover,
they are inherently dynamic multi-
organizational set ups (Lampel et  al.,
2000). Thus, they affect and are affected
by a large number of different voluntary
and involuntary stakeholders, ranging
from local people to agents and city offi-
cials (Larson, 2011). Determining how
to engage different stakeholders that
also have diverse, mutual dependencies
for the joint good of the project is cru-
cial for the success of cultural projects
(Andersson & Getz, 2010; Larson, 2009).
The Qstock music festival, the cultural
project selected as our case study, has
grown rapidly from its beginning in
2003, with a few hundred attendees to
30,000 attendees in 2013. It is currently
the largest music festival in Northern
Finland with a turnover of US$2,673,000
(2013). Qstock ’s stakeholder network
has grown steadily each year; at present,
it is broad and stable. From the perspec-
tives of the stakeholder network and
communication, the Qstock project is
considered to represent a typical festival
project.
The case study focused on stake-
holder communication in the Qstock
festival, which took place in July 2014,
starting from project conceptualization
and planning in September 2013, and
ending with the post-project phase in
August 2014. The Qstock project can
be divided into roughly four phases:
(1) conceptualization and planning; (2)
execution; (3) festival; and (4) post-
project. The conceptualization and
planning phase took place from Sep-
tember to April, and followed by the
execution phase. The festival took place
at the end of July, and the project ended
in August with the post-project phase.
The project organization of
the Qstock project is as follows. The
management group consists of four
members: two managers, a festival
coordinator, and a marketing coordina-
tor, all of whom are located in Oulu. The
management group works full time, and
they meet at the office on a daily basis.
The internal stakeholders include the
77
 The Qstock Festival Case
PAPERS
artist coordinator and the communica-
tion coordinator. The festival event is
organized with the assistance of vol-
unteers from local sports teams and
individuals who work in catering, trans-
portation, and security. In addition,
several other stakeholders are involved,
including agents and city and munici-
pality officials.
Data Collection and Analysis
Following the logic of theory elaboration
research, the conceptual framework dic-
tates the form of data required (Layder,
1993). The data were gathered in
September 2014 through semistructured
interviews. We interviewed the entire
management team (i.e., the managing
director, director, marketing manager,
and festival coordinator) and most inter-
nal stakeholders (the artist coordinator,
communication coordinator, restaurant
manager, festival area manager, accredi-
tation manager, and safety manager).
They coordinate the external stake-
holder groups. There were 10 interview-
ees in total. The interviews, which lasted
1 to 2 hours focused on communica-
tion practices with different stakeholders
during the different phases of the proj-
ect’s life cycle. Particular focuses were to
identify the most important stakeholders
and their characteristics in the different
phases of the project and to discuss how,
through what kinds of modes, how often,
and by whom communication occurred.
In addition, we gathered data on the his-
tory, organization, planning practices,
and project life cycle characteristics of
the festival. The interview data were
complemented by secondary data that
consisted of the written materials about
the festival, such as presentation materi-
als, organizational charts, stakeholder
maps, webpage information, and other
documentation provided by the festival
organization.
In order to ensure the high reli-
ability of the data collection, we imple-
mented the following procedures.
First, we developed a general research
protocol to ensure a systematic data
collection, and we sent out an interview
78 December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal
outline before each interview (Yin,
2009). Second, each interview was con-
ducted by two members of the research
team (Eisenhardt, 1989 ). Th ird, the
interviews were recorded in order to
enhance the quality and reliability of
the data and were then transcribed by
the research team into text. Fourth, we
analyzed the aforementioned primary
and archival data to facilitate triangula-
tion (Yin, 2009).
We started our analysis by develop-
ing a brief description of the Qstock
project and its key features, and we
mapped the key stakeholders. We then
continued with the data analysis by
identifying the key stakeholders in the
different phases of the project, identify-
ing communication practices with the
different stakeholders during the proj-
ect life cycle, and analyzing the char-
acterizations and attributes related to
each stakeholder in the different phases
of the project. Based on this analysis,
we compiled a table of raw data on
the stakeholders, the ways in which
communication was managed, and the
characterizations of the stakeholders
in different phases of the project. Next,
we continued the analysis by catego-
rizing the stakeholder communication
practices into impersonal mode, per-
sonal mode, and group mode (Van de
Ven et  al., 1976) and by analyzing the
salience attributes of each stakeholder
(Mitchell et  al., 1997 ). The analysis
was carried out separately during each
project phase. This analysis enabled
us to begin to elaborate and explain
how the observed communication prac-
tices were related to the stakeholder ’s
salience in each phase of the project.
Empirical Findings and Theory
Elaboration
We illustrate how the communication
practices were used by different stake-
holders (Table 1). The analysis is carried
out across the major phases of the proj-
ect, thus allowing us to reveal the poten-
tial differences among them. We then
use the stakeholder salience framework
to explain the observed patterns of
■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
stakeholder communications, and we
conclude by stating propositions.
Empirical Findings
Conceptualization and planning phase
The festival’s conceptualization and
planning phase took place from Sep-
tember until the end of December
2014. This phase included the concept
renewal and the development of major
ideas for the coming festival. Decisions
concerning the festival’s design, theme,
and artists were made during this phase.
The primary aim of festival planning
was to create new and unexpected expe-
riences for the customers, book popular
artists, and generate ideas for discus-
sion. The communication modes and
practices, as well as the communication
intensity, varied significantly among the
different stakeholders.
Agents
These stakeholders represented the art-
ists and were perceived as a particularly
significant stakeholder group during
the festival’s conceptualization and
planning phase. Negotiations with the
agents to book the desired artists were
extremely intensive, starting in Septem-
ber through the end of the year. Com-
munication with the agents was carried
out intensively in both impersonal
and personal modes. Email was used
to exchange standard quotes through
a standardized protocol. Other venues
and informal meetings, such as Musa-
media in Tampere (a forum for agents,
festival organizers, and artists), were
considered to contribute to the build-
ing of personal and embedded rela-
tionships with the agents, gaining new
information about the artists, or getting
feedback related to the festival, which
ensured continuity and helped refine
the concept. This phase was seen as the
most significant because it defined the
level of attractiveness of the entire festi-
val. Uncertainty and pressure concern-
ing the agents were particularly high
during the festival’s planning stage, and
communication took place via multiple
channels:
 Communication
Conceptualization and Planning/External Stakeholders
Agents Impersonal mode: Email quotes and exchanging artist offers (Most attractive
artists are booked one and half years in advance.) September to December (final
opportunity to book artists).
Personal mode: Intense phone call negotiations with agents to discuss the festival
bookings: artist offers, contracts; Musamedia seminar: various informal discussions
and meetings with the agents for relationship building, learning, and exchanging
rich information. “Friends with a lot of agents, but with others interaction is formal”;
Finnish rock festivals registered association meetings.
Group mode: Musamedia seminar and meetings; Finnish rock festival registered
association meetings.
Sponsors Impersonal mode: Email quotes and information exchange.
Personal mode: Occasional private phone calls.
Group mode: Occasional informal and formal face-to-face meetings to achieve
highest possible mutual benefit.
Customers Impersonal mode: Facebook updates to enhance a sense of community to promote
feelings of the last festivals and to share information. Qtv in Youtube, advertising,
Qstock magazine, Instagram, Twitter.
Personal mode: N/A.
Group mode: N/A.
December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
79
Salience
Salience: High
Power: Highly powerful, since they are in charge of the “calendar” and booking
of the artists that are a crucial resource for the festival.
Legitimacy: Legitimate actors in the scene—representatives of the artists.
Urgency: Booking the artists is time-critical for the agents during the autumn.
Urgency decreases significantly during spring, in April almost all of the most
popular artists are booked.
Salience: Medium
Power: Sponsors have monetary resources and brand value that enforce the
attractiveness of the festival; however, they are not critical for the festival
planning phase.
Legitimacy: Sponsors are selected in a manner that they are legitimate in the
eyes of the festival audience.
Urgency: Sponsors make sponsoring decisions related to summer events typically
during the autumn in order to be able to market them at the maximum intensity
during spring.
Salience: Low
Power: Customers are not perceived to possess much resources or information
that could be used by the management during the planning phase.
Legitimacy: A highly relevant group for the existence of the festival but their
input is not perceived by the management as important during the planning phase.
Urgency: Customers are not experienced to have urgent or critical claims during
the planning phase.
 PAPERS

80
Communication Salience
Marketing Impersonal mode: Email exchange concerning the marketing material. Salience: Medium
agency Personal mode: Meetings to plan advertising and design hand. Power: Capabilities and knowledge to plan and design an effective marketing
Telephone calls to the representatives. campaign and visual image of the festival. However, the marketing agency is
Group mode: Occasional meetings for cooperation and marketing, which go hand easily changeable and the management group has expertise in planning the
in hand. campaigns themselves.
Legitimacy: A capable and widely known agency within the marketing scene.
Urgency: It is critical to start planning the visual image and campaign during the
planning phase so that for example, the visual image can be released in liaison
The Qstock Festival Case

with the Christmas campaign.

City officials Impersonal mode: N/A. Salience: Low
Power: During the planning phase, the city officials do not have claims related to
Personal mode: N/A. the next year’s festival.
Group mode: N/A. Legitimacy: City officials’ input into certain planning solutions could be asked for
at this point, but no permit application processes need to be executed during this
stage.

December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal

Urgency: Permit application processes are not time-critical at this point of the
year.
Conceptualization and Planning/Internal Stakeholders
Artist Impersonal mode: Occasional phone and email quotes to gather data for planning Salience: Medium
coordinator; and concept development. Power: Coordinators are in charge of the operative functions of the festival
restaurant LinkedIn group discussions to discover good practices (Artist Coordinator). Planning

■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
services, orchestrate the external operative stakeholder network, and are in
manager; and applying permits; mainly just exchanging contracts (Festival Area Manager). a position to influence the concept and direction of the project based on their
festival area Personal mode: Phone calls to gather information for planning and to make experience. Rich information about organizing the event is in the form of tacit
manager; appointments. Social media (private) to stay up to date and to enhance commitment knowledge of internal stakeholders.
safety NHS give the opportunity “to be part of the Qfamily.”
manager; area Group mode: Pre-Christmas party and other team building events to generate ideas Legitimacy: Permanent and accepted position as part of the Qfamily due to many
coordinator; to develop festival concept. Facebook group for information sharing (restaurant years working relationship with the festival.
communication team, safety team). Urgency: Low in planning phase from the perspective of the organizing of Qstock
coordinator and coordinating the external stakeholders.
Execution Phase/External Stakeholders
Agents Impersonal mode: Email quotes as needed. Salience: Medium
Power: All the artists have been booked so power of agents is medium.
Personal mode: Phone calls to ask questions and to book additional artists during
the early spring. Legitimacy: Legitimate actors in the scene—representatives of the artists.

Group mode: Informal meetings at other festivals. Urgency: Urgency is low since all the bookings have been made.

(Continued)
 Communication Salience
Sponsors Impersonal mode: Email quotes as needed. Salience: Medium
Personal mode: Phone calls to ask questions. Power: Sponsors have monetary resources and brand value that enforce the
Group mode: Meetings as needed. attractiveness of the festival.
Legitimacy: Sponsors are selected in a manner that they are legitimate in the
eyes of the festival audience.
Urgency: During the project execution phase, the urgency of the sponsors
increases particularly when their promotion campaigns and visibility at the festival
site is planned.
Customers Impersonal mode: Active information sharing in Qtv in Youtube, advertising, Salience: Medium
Qstock magazine, Facebook to enhance sense of community to promote feelings Power: Customers are not perceived to possess much resources or information
of the last festivals and to share information, Twitter, Instagram for information that could be used by the management during the execution phase.
sharing.
Personal mode: Collecting feedback from randomly selected festival participants. Legitimacy: A relevant and legitimate group particularly during the actual festival
Group mode: N/A. weekend.
Urgency: Customers urgency is at its highest during the project execution phase
particularly during the actual festival when communication requirements come up.
Marketing Impersonal mode: Occasional emails. Salience: Low
agency Personal mode: Occasional phone calls. Power: Not much power in terms of the festival image during the execution
Group mode: N/A. phase.
Legitimacy: A capable and widely known agency within the marketing scene.
Urgency: During the project execution phase, the urgency and time-criticality is at
a low level as the marketing campaign has already been planned.
City officials Impersonal mode: Email to apply for a permit to organize a festival and to set up Salience: High
a date for area inspections. Festival permits set high importance and pressure on a Power: Formal authority in relation to the festival, power to prevent the
festival, as there are not alternative plans. organizing.
Personal mode: Phone calls to make appointments and discuss permit application, Legitimacy: High legitimacy based on formal authority, authority to grant the
procedures, and unexpected events. permits.
Group mode: Relationship building meeting with the authorities. Meeting at the Urgency: During the project execution phase, the urgency and time-criticality is
festival site to inspect the festival area’s condition. on a high level due to the permit application process.

December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

81
 PAPERS

82
Communication Salience
Execution Phase/Internal Stakeholders
Artist Impersonal mode: Email quotes and phone calls to external stakeholders. Most Salience: High
coordinator; communication to volunteers is in email (restaurant manager). Emails for recruiting and Legitimacy: High urgency (Highly urgent and critical from the perspective of
restaurant selecting employees and volunteers for the festival. Mass emails to internal and external organizing Qstock and coordinating external stakeholders).
manager; stakeholders and to Qtv to make marketing material, editing Qstock magazine, information Power: Highly powerful group, since they have rich information about organizing the
festival area letters to media and to local businesses (Communication coordinator). Guidelines and event, the contacts, and the information is mainly in the form of tacit knowledge.
manager; information are stored on memory sticks. Web page is established for sharing information Legitimacy: High.
safety and guidelines. Facebook advertising for recruiting volunteers start in April. Urgency: (Highly urgent and critical from the perspective of organizing Qstock and
The Qstock Festival Case

manager; area Personal mode: Face-to-face discussions with hotels, artists, stage production coordinating external stakeholders).
coordinator; companies, agencies, stage managers, backstage hosts, and other volunteers to Replacing internal stakeholders in this group in execution phase would be highly
communication share information (artist coordinator). Meetings with the artists and bands to make challenging.
coordinator interviews and meetings with media (Communication coordinator).
Phone calls to security team, door attendants, area manager, first aid (Akuutti apu)
(Safety manager).

December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal

Group mode: Management group organizes a spring break party and kick off
meeting to enhance team spirit and motivation.
Weekly status meetings at the office (formal 1 hr min and informal part 1 hr
optional). Informal meetings in other festivals (Provissirock, Rotuaari Piknik, Sziget in
Hungary) for benchmarking, networking, and team building. Meetings with external
stakeholders at the office. Recruitment meetings.

■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Internet conversation groups. Private Facebook groups (safety and restaurant teams
separately). Facebook group discussions for planning and sharing tasks with external
stakeholders.
Training sessions for the security volunteers (Safety manager).
Post-Project Phase/External Stakeholders
Agents Impersonal mode: Emails as needed. Salience: Medium
Personal mode: Phone calls as needed. Power: Powerful because they are in charge of the “calendar” and booking of the
artists. At this point, all the popular artists have been booked and festival artist
Group mode: N/A. portfolio is supplemented with more low-profile artists.
Legitimacy: Legitimate actors in the scene—representatives of the artists.
Urgency: Urgency decreases significantly during spring, in April almost all of the
most popular artists are booked.

(Continued)
 Communication Salience
Sponsors Impersonal mode: N/A. Salience: Medium
Personal mode: Discussion about feedback, which is based on sponsor’s Power: Sponsors with monetary resources may be used in next year’s festivals
experience and feeling of the benefit rather than something measurable. and their knowledge and experience on this year’s festival is discussed.
Group mode: Meeting about the feedback. Legitimacy: Sponsors are selected in a manner that they are legitimate in the
eyes of the festival audience.
Urgency: In the post-project phase, the urgency of sponsors is low.
Customers Impersonal mode: Feedback collected from the festival audience and processed by Salience: Medium
the college students. Analysis is made by the management team. Email responses Power: Customers are perceived to possess knowledge related to the festival
to customer feedback. experience.
Internet-based conversation groups. Legitimacy: Legitimacy of customers is low.
Personal mode: N/A. Urgency: As the festival has ended, there are no urgent customer claims.
Group mode: N/A.
Marketing Impersonal mode: Emails as needed. Salience: Medium
agency Personal mode: Phone calls as needed. Power: Power of the agency is low.
Group mode: Meeting as needed. Legitimacy: A capable and widely known agency within the marketing scene.
Urgency: During the post-project phase, occasional feedback from the marketing
agency may be required.
City officials Impersonal mode: Email to set up a date for inspections and to discuss about the Salience: Medium
feedback.
Personal mode: Phone calls. Power: Formal authority in relation to the festival site inspections.
Group mode: Meeting at the festival site to inspect the festival area after event. Legitimacy: High legitimacy based on formal authority.
Urgency: During the post-project phase discussions and solving possible conflicts
of interests about the feedback is crucial for the event next year.
Post-Project Phase/Internal Stakeholder
Artist Impersonal mode: Lessons-learned document is created and stored in network Salience: Low
coordinator; drive. Power, legitimacy, and urgency: Low because the festival is finished.
restaurant Personal mode: Phone calls as needed.
manager;
festival area Group mode: Meeting with the management group and internal stakeholders to
manager; discuss about the feedback and to generate ideas for the next festival.
safety Informal sauna event. Analysis from the audience’s feedback after lessons-learned
manager; area event.
coordinator;
communication
coordinator
Table 1: Communication in the festival project Qstock over its life cycle.

December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

83
 The Qstock Festival Case
PAPERS
Well the agents are really challeng-
ing to deal with and communication
with them is intensive in the planning
phase: emails, phone calls, and meet-
ings in an informal setting. Many of
them are my friends. (Manager A)
In the project conceptualization and
planning phase, communication among
the project management group and
the festival sponsors and the market-
ing agency took place primarily through
impersonal modes, such as emails;
however, occasionally, personal phone
calls and face-to-face meetings were
organized in order to share ideas about
the marketing concept and the ideas
that the sponsors could take forward.
Customers and city officials
Communications with these stakehold-
ers were almost nonexistent during the
festival’s conceptualization and plan-
ning phase. The impersonal mode was
used with customers, including Face-
book updates and advertising, which
increased particularly during the first
phase of the ticket sales in December.
Internal stakeholders
The internal stakeholders, such as the art-
ist coordinator and the festival area man-
ager, did not work full time for the project
and hence were not always available for
communication during this phase of
the project. Communication among the
management group and internal stake-
holders during the conceptualization and
planning phase was occasional and took
place via face-to-face meetings or tele-
phone calls. The main purpose of using
the personal mode and group mode was
to maintain and enhance commitment
and to develop ideas further. Their role
primarily included networking and eval-
uating the practices and services in other
festivals. Thus, generating ideas was also
part of the conceptualization and plan-
ning phase, which partly overlapped the
execution phase.
Execution phase
During the execution phase, commu-
nication with external stakeholders was
84 December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal
initiated and took place mainly in the
impersonal mode. This was crucial in
order to start the implementation of
plans and to recruit and coordinate
volunteer workers from local colleges
and sports clubs. The festival’s webpage
opened with the final list of perform-
ing artists, which indicated an imper-
sonal mode of communication with
customers.
Communication with the city offi-
cials was also important in the project
execution phase because of the need to
apply for different permits. We observed
a combination of impersonal, personal,
and group modes of communication
with the city officials. Although written
applications were sent via email and
regular mail, the project’s management
also organized an informal meeting
with the city officials in order to discuss
ongoing concerns.
In the execution phase, we observed
the extensive use of impersonal, per-
sonal, and group modes by the internal
stakeholders. The start of the ticket sales
was particularly important. During this
phase, face-to-face meetings with inter-
nal stakeholders were held weekly. Typ-
ically, the first hour of these meetings
was allotted to organizing the event;
during the second hour, time was avail-
able for free discussion. The main pur-
pose of the personal and group modes
of communication was to enhance team
spirit, focus on implementation, share
tasks, ask questions, and network with
other festival organizers. The security
team and the catering team also used
Facebook and Qstock’s Facebook page
to share information. The festival coor-
dinator described the communication
with internal stakeholders during the
execution phase as follows:
Our core is small, efficient, and agile.
Our communication works really well.
Other festivals have heavy organiza-
tions with 20 people or so and that
challenges decision-making.
Festival phase. Communication
with the agents and city officials was
observed to be only occasional during
■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
the festival phase and was primarily
related to unexpected situations that
needed to be dealt with immediately.
For example, the flight of one of the
artist groups was delayed, which meant
that the hours-of-noise permit obtained
for the festival needed to be extended.
Late on a Friday evening, one of the
managers telephoned a city official who
gave permission to extend the hours.
During the actual festival phase,
which was part of the project execution
phase, the major focus of communica-
tion was on coordinating the activi-
ties between the internal and external
stakeholders . According to the inter-
viewees, the main challenge was to be
able to contact the key people and know
who was needed and who specialized
in which topic in case of an emergency
or if something unexpected happened.
During the festival phase, there were
clear guidelines instructing whom to
contact and in which situations. The
communication followed a strict hierar-
chy, and the formal lines of communi-
cation used mainly the personal mode
but only if escalations were needed. For
example, the bar employees would first
contact their line manager, who would
then contact the restaurant manager
if necessary. The restaurant manager
then would decide whether support
by the festival manager or the external
stakeholders was needed. The back-
stage coordinator and hygiene coor-
dinator were the only ones instructed
to contact the festival coordinator or
managers directly. In the case of a major
unexpected event that could potentially
affect the whole festival, the festival
managers would be contacted directly.
In the case of serious security issues, the
festival managers would follow the sug-
gestions given by the safety manager. In
the case of severe weather conditions,
the marketing manager would have the
required external contacts at the local
airport, and decisions would be made
based on these experts’ views. Com-
munication in the personal mode was
managed through radiophones, and
the festival coordinator mediated and
transmitted messages across the festi-
val organization; therefore, keeping the
festival coordinator up to date during
the festival was crucial for its operation.
The week before the festival and
during the festival were the most hec-
tic periods. Many telephone conversa-
tions and instant messages took place
among different stakeholders; however,
communication stopped soon after the
festival ended, as the artist coordinator
described:
Communication with some of the
stage managers is really hectic dur-
ing the festival, but after the festival
they barely answer the phone any-
more, because they have other jobs
and interests then. That’s ok, and we
think that everyone can be in touch
as much as they like outside of the
festival. (Artist coordinator)
During the festival, project man-
agement and the internal stakeholders
were mainly present at the festival to
answer questions and coordinate activi-
ties among stakeholders as required.
The management team and internal
stakeholders communicated actively
with each other and guided others in
the case of an emergency. They were
also present to communicate personally
in order to build contacts and enhance
relationships with the artists and other
stakeholders. The restaurant manager
described that by the time of the festi-
val, the tasks and guidelines had been
shared and were clear to everyone. Vol-
unteer workers, security, and the bar
staff usually knew their tasks and rou-
tinely did what was expected of them:
That moment feels really rewarding
when you are listening to the bands and
you see how the audience is enjoying
the show. You just get these feelings of
success when you see how everything
works and how employees just take
over knowing what to do and things are
running smoothly. (Restaurant man-
ager and festival coordinator)
Post-project phase. In the post-
project phase, a meeting with all the
internal stakeholders was organized
to gather feedback about the festival.
On the Sunday after the festival, the
internal stakeholders and management
team met face-to-face to participate in
a team sauna event. The next day they
discussed the feedback related to the
festival. A festival coordinator described
this meeting as follows:
Everyone thinks how everything went
on his or her side in his or her opinion.
Every internal stakeholder member
talks about his or her experiences and
then we discuss. Others make docu-
ments and lists and others just talk,
each individual does this in his or her
own style. Then we store the informa-
tion to the network drive. (Festival
coordinator)
The feedback was collected, ana-
lyzed, discussed, and stored on a net-
work drive; some members created
documents and lists, whereas others
preferred informal discussions. In the
post-project phase, the communication
mainly facilitated the lessons learned
from the project in order to enhance the
festival:
Lessons learned meeting is orga-
nized because we want to know how
to make the festival work nicer and
easier. We discuss what we could we
do better, what haven’t we noticed
and how could we enhance their job
satisfaction as a whole? (Manager A)
The communication with the festival
visitors focused on collecting feedback
which was done with the assistance of
local college students. In the previous
year, the college students organized a
project to conduct an electronic sur-
vey using a mobile application; they
received over 500 responses from the
audience. The students synthesized the
feedback, which was analyzed by the
festival coordinator. Feedback was also
collected during the festival in paper
form; this feedback, however, was not
available at the lessons-learned meet-
ing, which therefore was organized
mainly to discuss the internal stake-
holders’ and management’s experiences
December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
of the festival. Immediately after the
lessons-learned session, a team sauna
event was organized to facilitate infor-
mal discussions.
Synthesis of Results
The findings showed that various kinds
of communication practices in imper-
sonal, personal, and group modes were
used to manage the project stakeholder
communication. Moreover, the findings
indicated that the communication with
different stakeholders evolved over the
project’s life cycle.
In the project ’s conceptualization
and planning phase, communication
with internal stakeholders to conceptu-
alize and plan the festival was observed
to be occasional and mainly in the
impersonal and group modes. Commu-
nication with agents utilized the imper-
sonal, personal, and group modes and
was high in frequency. With other exter-
nal stakeholders, communication was
managed in the impersonal mode (cus-
tomers) and a combination of imper-
sonal and occasional personal modes
(sponsors and marketing agency).
In the project ’s execution phase,
the amount and frequency of imper-
sonal, personal, and group modes of
communication with internal stake-
holders increased significantly. In this
phase, communication was initiated
with many external stakeholders, such
as sports associations and mainly took
place in the impersonal mode, such as
social media.
In the actual festival phase, commu-
nication was extensive. A wide-ranging
set of clear and structured guidelines
was developed, which facilitated com-
munication in the impersonal mode
with both internal and external stake-
holders. In addition, in operations dur-
ing the festival, the personal and group
modes of communication were used
along with internal and external stake-
holders, such as city officials and volun-
tary organizations.
In the post-project phase, communi-
cation with the internal stakeholders to
discuss festival feedback and to develop
85
 The Qstock Festival Case
PAPERS
project management practices for the
next festival project was in the personal
and group modes. Less emphasis was
placed on communication with cus-
tomers and other external stakeholders,
which was mainly carried out with the
impersonal mode.
The findings clearly indicate that
project stakeholder communication
practices depend on the project phase,
which is evident in two ways: First, the
communication mode within a specific
stakeholder group varied over the proj-
ect ’s life cycle. Second, communica-
tion focused on different stakeholder
groups in the different stages of the
project life cycle. Hence, we conclude
the following:
Proposition 1: Project stakeholder com-
munication is a dynamic process, and it
evolves throughout the project phases as the
overall effort in communication with stake-
holders evolves over the project’s life cycle.
Proposition 2: The emphasis on using
impersonal, personal, and group modes
of communication with each stakeholder
evolves over the project’s life cycle.
We conducted an additional analy-
sis to explain the dynamism observed
to underlie the stakeholder communi-
cation. According to the information
processing model, the communication
modes of impersonal, personal, and
group modes are used to facilitate infor-
mation processing needs (Daft & Len-
gel, 1986; Galbraith, 1973). Moreover,
the impersonal mode can be used to
fit lower information processing needs,
whereas the personal and group modes
are used to facilitate information pro-
cessing to a greater extent and hence to
fit situations with greater information
processing needs.
For example, in the project concep-
tualization and planning phase, com-
munication with agents was extensive
in the impersonal, personal, and group
modes, indicating high information pro-
cessing needs. This can be explained by
the high power and legitimacy of the
agents in terms of negotiating the artists’
86 December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal
deals and high urgency in claims during
the autumn in terms of bookings, which
indicates high stakeholder salience. In
the execution phase, the communication
with the internal stakeholders increased
and was extensive in the impersonal,
personal, and group modes of com-
munication. This finding indicates very
high information processing needs. The
salience of the internal stakeholders in
this phase was very high in terms of
power, legitimacy, and urgency because
they needed to be engaged and commit-
ted to the actual execution processes and
have the high tacit knowledge needed in
project execution. Consequently, replac-
ing them in the execution phase would
have been extremely challenging. In
the festival phase, the communication
with city officials was in the impersonal
and personal modes. The group mode
was used in meetings to inspect the fes-
tival area and to react to unexpected
events; this finding indicates high infor-
mation processing needs, which can be
explained by high stakeholder salience:
City officials have high power and legiti-
macy based on their formal authority to
grant and oversee the festival permits.
Moreover, urgency during the festival
phase is high because of the criticality of
the time specified in the permit applica-
tion process. Finally, in the post-project
phase, the communication with exter-
nal stakeholders was minimal and only
in the impersonal mode, indicating low
information processing needs. This find-
ing can be explained by the low salience
of the external stakeholders in this phase;
all dimensions of power, legitimacy, and
urgency are low. Based on these findings,
we conclude the following:
Proposition 3: The project stakeholder com-
munication mode in a particular project
phase can be explained by the salience
of the stakeholders in that phase; less
salient stakeholders pose low information
processing needs and can be managed
using impersonal communication modes,
whereas highly salient stakeholders pose
high information processing needs and
require more advanced personal and group
communication modes.
■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
According to the results of the
empirical analysis, the differences in the
observed communication modes used
among different stakeholders in differ-
ent project phases can be explained
by stakeholder salience (Mitchell et  al.,
1997 ). When stakeholder salience—
in terms of power, legitimacy, and
urgency—is high, there is a more exten-
sive use of personal and group modes
of communication, indicating higher
information processing needs. In con-
trast, when stakeholder salience is low,
the frequency of communication is low
and mainly in the impersonal mode,
indicating lower information processing
needs. Stakeholder salience in turn is
dependent on the life cycle stage of the
project. Stakeholder salience is associ-
ated with the phase of the project. For
example, stakeholders that are highly
salient during the project planning
phase may have low salience during the
project execution phase.
Our study provides an in-depth
understanding of communication
among stakeholders and shows how
stakeholder communication evolves over
a project’s life cycle because of changes
in the attributes of stakeholder salience.
At a higher level, the results align with
previous research that addresses stake-
holder management in various contexts.
In their seminal study, Mitchell et  al.
(1997) noted that the salience of stake-
holders might vary from one context to
another. To elaborate on this notion,
Jawahar and McLaughlin (1997) adopted
a firm life cycle perspective to examine
stakeholder dynamics and showed how
change in the context (i.e., the stage of
the organizational life cycle) was a key
factor in shaping the salience of orga-
nizational stakeholders. Following this
line of argumentation, in the context
of projects, the results of Aaltonen and
Kujala (2010) and Olander and Landin
(2005) suggested that the salience and
particularly the power of stakeholders
might change as the project proceeds
in its life cycle and as project-related
decisions are made. For example, when
the decision is made to start the project,
the salience of the opposing stakehold-
ers decreases because their potential to
influence the decision-making process
becomes significantly lower (Aaltonen &
Kujala, 2010).
Discussion and Implications
Research Implications
This study contributes to the under-
standing of the management of proj-
ect stakeholder communication over a
project ’s life cycle. The study partic-
ularly contributes to bridging project
stakeholder management and commu-
nications, the knowledge about com-
municating with project stakeholders,
the knowledge about project stake-
holder dynamics, the contingency view
of project management, and the man-
agement of cultural projects.
Bridging project stakeholder management
and communication
The study is one of the few that have
attempted to bridge the research on
project stakeholder management and
communication: by combining the infor-
mation processing perspective (Daft &
Lengel, 1986; Galbraith, 1973) with the
stakeholder salience framework (Mitch-
ell et  al., 1997). This study provides a
novel approach to theorizing project
stakeholder communication. Conse-
quently, by explaining the perceived
stakeholder communication modes
according to the degree of stakeholder
salience, the results provide the initial
understanding of stakeholder attributes
as factors that influence the information
processing needs and hence the stake-
holder communication practices that
are used. Moreover, the results of the
study increase the understanding of the
implications of the stakeholder salience
framework (Mitchell et  al., 1997) for
managerial practice, particularly within
the area of communication practices.
Project stakeholder communication
management
The study particularly contributes to the
understanding of project stakeholder
communication. Even though existing
stakeholder management models take
into account the need to tailor com-
munication processes according to the
importance of the stakeholders, little
empirical research has examined dif-
ferent modes of stakeholder commu-
nication and how they are related to
the stakeholder attributes. The study
furthers the understanding of the use
of multiple uses of the impersonal,
personal, and group modes to manag-
ing stakeholder communication in the
project context. In addition, the study
provides interesting insights into the
dynamics of stakeholder communica-
tion by showing how communication
practices with different stakeholders
evolve and develop over the project’s
life cycle. By addressing communication
in the project context, the study also
complements prior project research on
the integration of various organizational
interfaces, such as project-to-project
(Prencipe & Tell, 2001 ; Turkulainen
et  al., 2015) and functional interfaces
(Adler, 1995; Turkulainen et  al., 2013).
In addition, our study responds to the
call for further empirical research on
stakeholder engagement practices (Aal-
tonen, 2010; Foster & Jonker, 2005).
Project stakeholder dynamics
This article developed a detailed under-
standing of project stakeholder manage-
ment in different phases of the project
life cycle (e.g., Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010;
Eskerod & Vaagaasar, 2014; Olander &
Landin, 2005). Although prior research
has emphasized the lack of detailed
knowledge about how project stake-
holder management is carried out in
practice and how it may vary over the
course of the project (Achterkamp &
Vos, 2008; Eskerod & Jepsen, 2013), it
has primarily focused on the conceptual
development of normative stakeholder
management tools and frameworks that
are inherently static (Yang et  al., 2009).
In particular, this study shows that a
dynamic approach should be adopted
for project stakeholder management
and engagement. As the project moves
through the distinctive phases in its
December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
life cycle (e.g., Morris, 1982; Turner,
1999), different approaches and modes
of communication for managing differ-
ent stakeholders at different points in
time are required. By empirically dem-
onstrating the changes in stakeholders’
salient attributes and the shifts in the
associated communication practices of
project stakeholders over the project’s
life cycle, the results further support the
notion of projects as dynamic contexts
of stakeholder management (Aaltonen
& Kujala, 2010; Eskerod & Vaagaasar,
2014). In addition, by analyzing stake-
holder communication modes and their
changes with a multitude of internal
and external stakeholders, this study
departs from the majority of prior stud-
ies that tended to address management
practices in only a limited number of
stakeholder relationships, typically in
single focal project-stakeholder dyads
(e.g., Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010).
Contingency analysis of project
management
The results of the study suggest that
communication with stakeholders can
be explained by the salience of the focal
stakeholder in a specific phase of the
project. These results add to the pre-
vious contingency analyses of project
management (e.g., Shenhar & Dvir,
1996; Turkulainen et al., 2013; Turkulai-
nen et  al., 2015) by showing how con-
text shapes the use of communication
practices. Moreover, the results imply
that in studying projects, we need to be
specific about the various stakehold-
ers and their characteristics; different
stakeholders should be managed in dif-
ferent ways.
Managing cultural projects
This study responds to the call for
empirical research on managing cul-
tural project s (Wåhlin & Blomquist,
2014 ). Despite their increased eco-
nomic significance and their complex
and dynamic nature, cultural projects
have drawn only a little attention from
management researchers (Lampel et al.,
2000). Indeed, although it is widely
87
 The Qstock Festival Case
PAPERS
acknowledged that cultural projects
matter to society and their contexts are
considered to be different from those of
traditional projects, understanding how
cultural projects are organized and exe-
cuted remains under studied (Wåhlin
& Blomquist, 2014). By contributing to
the understanding of stakeholder com-
munication modes over the life cycle of
a festival project, a particular form of
cultural project, this study adds to the
emergent knowledge of the manage-
ment of cultural projects. Stakeholder
communication processes play a central
role in managing a cultural project ’s
stakeholder network; however, their
role is not yet well understood (Larson,
2009, 2011). In addition, by identifying
the relevant stakeholders in a festival
project and describing the changes in
their attributes, the study provides a
holistic perspective on understanding
the stakeholder landscapes of cultural
projects and increases the understand-
ing of their stakeholder contexts.
Managerial Implications
The study has clear managerial impli-
cations for stakeholder management
and communication in complex and
uncertain environments. In particular,
the study describes different ways of
managing stakeholder communication
in a project context over the project’s
life cycle. We provide descriptions of
tools for practitioners, and the vari-
ous practices for facilitating stakeholder
communication discussed in the article
can be a basis of analysis in their own
project settings to manage communi-
cation and potentially develop it. The
results of this study could also provide
additional ideas for managers regarding
stakeholder communication in different
project phases.
The results could also be used to
analyze and assess stakeholders and
their salience in other project contexts.
Based on the findings of this study,
the main conclusion is that project
stakeholder communication evolves
over the project ’s life cycle, and the
use of the impersonal, personal, and
88 December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal
group communication modes can be
explained by the perceived salience of
a particular stakeholder in a specific
phase of the project. Managers could
use the conclusions of this study to
assess the salience of their stakeholders
and their links to communication over
the project’s life cycle. Especially in the
cultural project context, the framework
could be used as a basis for enhancing
relationships with the existing custom-
ers and pursuing new audiences. The
framework could also be used to build
commitment to agents and city officials,
which could benefit future projects
(Andersson & Getz, 2010).
Limitations and Future Research
A theory-elaborating case study, such
as the one utilized in this study, does
not lead to a validated theory, but it
does provide empirical insights and
theoretical ideas for future research.
The empirical findings presented in this
article are based on a specific empiri-
cal context. Future research could
engage in collecting large-scale data
from other empirical contexts to test
the presented conclusions. Our case
project has repetitive elements in that
similar festivals have been organized
for several years, and the stakeholder
network could be partly characterized
by close and embedded ties cultivated
among the key participants. It is evident
that the established relationships and
accumulated capability for managing
different stakeholders has implications
for the use of different communication
modes. It could be expected that the use
of the personal communication mode
would be more extensive in one-of-a-
kind novel projects in which the partici-
pants had no prior experience working
with one another. Future research could
thus assess the ways in which the nature
of the project, particularly its repetitive-
ness, affects the communication modes
implemented.
Another fruitful avenue of research
would be to study the relations
among the company strategy, stake-
holder communication strategy, and
■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
communication modes. This would
be especially useful for high salience
stakeholders. Such research could also
assess links to the outcomes of stake-
holder communication as well as the
business effects of stakeholder commu-
nication; moreover, the broader area of
a firm’s efforts to enhance sustainability
and use stakeholder communication to
improve sustainability could be studied.
In the context of our study, utilizing
modern ICT in stakeholder communi-
cations is still in its infancy. Previous
studies on the cultural industry have
presented similar conclusions (e.g.,
Hudson & Hudson, 2013 ). Because
social media, such as Facebook and
LinkedIn, can offer organizations and
their stakeholders with an effective tool
for relationship building and network-
ing, they could be crucial in the suc-
cess of festivals in the future (Hudson
& Hudson, 2013; Waters et  al., 2009).
Further research could systematically
assess the use and implications of such
communication practices.
Conclusion
In this article, we reported a study on
project stakeholder communication
over a project’s life cycle by elaborating
on the information processing model
in the context of project stakeholder
management. Our empirical findings
are based on the case study of the music
festival Qstock and the management of
stakeholder communication during the
festival project’s life cycle. Our study
bridges project stakeholder manage-
ment and communication and also con-
tributes to the contingency approach to
project management, and research on
cultural projects. The main conclusion
drawn from our study is that stake-
holder communication during a project
evolves through the project ’s phases
and can be explained by the perceived
salience of the focal stakeholder in each
phase of the project. In addition, the
mode of communication (i.e., imper-
sonal, personal, and group modes) can
be explained by the perceived salience
of the stakeholder. Communication
with less salient stakeholders can be
managed by using the impersonal
mode, whereas highly salient stakehold-
ers require communication by using the
personal and group modes.
References
Aaltonen, K. (2010). Stakeholder
management in international projects
(Doctoral dissertation, Aalto University
School of Science and Technology,
Department of Industrial Engineering
and Management, Espoo, Finland,
Doctoral dissertation series 2010/13).
Aaltonen, K. (2011). Project stakeholder
analysis as an environmental
interpretation process. International
Journal of Project Management, 29(2),
165–183.
Aaltonen, K., & Kujala, J. (2010).
A project lifecycle perspective on
stakeholder influence strategies in
global projects. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 26(4), 381–397.
Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., & Oijala, T.
(2008). Stakeholder salience in global
projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 26(5), 509–516.
Achterkamp, M. C., & Vos, J. F. (2008).
Investigating the use of stakeholder
influence strategies in global projects.
International Journal of Project
Management, 26(7), 509–516.
Adler, P. S. (1995). Interdepartmental
interdependence and coordination:
The case of the design/manufacturing
interface. Organization Science, 6(2),
147–167.
Andersson, T., & Getz, D. (2010). Festival
stakeholders: Exploring relationships
and dependency through a four-country
comparison. Journal of Hospitality/
Tourism Research, 34(4), 531–556.
Beringer, C., Jonas, D., & Gemünden,
H. G. (2012). Establishing project
portfolio management: An exploratory
analysis of the influence of internal
stakeholders’ interactions. Project
Management Journal, 43(6), 16–32.
Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2005).
Visualizing and mapping stakeholder
influence. Management Decision, 43(5),
649–660.
Brøde Jepsen, L. (2013). Complex new
product development projects: How the
project manager’s information sharing
with core actors changes over time.
Project Management Journal, 44(6),
20–35.
Brown, K. M., Huettner, B., & James-
Tanny, C. (2007). Managing virtual
teams: Getting the most from wikis, blogs,
and other collaborative tools. Plano, TX :
Wordware.
Cleland, D. I. (1986). Project stakeholder
management. Project Management
Journal, 17(4), 36–44.
Cova, B., & Salle, R. (2005). Six key
points to merge project marketing into
project management. International
Journal of Project Management, 23(5),
354–359.
Crane, A., & Livesey, S. (2003).
Are you talking to me? Stakeholder
communication and the risks and
rewards of dialogue. In J. Andriof,
S. Waddock, S. Rahman, & B. Husted
(Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking 2:
Relationships, communication, reporting
and performance (pp. 39–52). Sheffield,
England: Greenleaf.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986).
Organizational information
requirements, media richness and
structural design. Management Science,
32(5), 554–571.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building
theories from case study research.
Academy of Management Review, 14(4),
532–550.
Eskerod, P., & Jepsen, A. L. (2013).
Project stakeholder management
(fundamentals of project management).
Farnham, Surrey, England: Gower.
Eskerod, P., & Vaagaasar, A. L. (2014).
Stakeholder management strategies and
practices during a project course. Project
Management Journal, 45(5), 71–85.
European Commission. (2014). Creative
Europe–Supporting Europe’s cultural and
creative sectors, Culture for growth and
jobs. Retrieved from http://ec.europa
December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
.eu/culture/policy/strategic-framework/
growth-jobs_en.htm
Faraj, S., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak,
A. (2011). Knowledge collaboration
in online communities. Organisation
Science, 22(5), 1124–1239.
Foster, D., & Jonker, J. (2005).
Stakeholder relationships: The dialogue
of engagement. Corporate Governance,
5(5), 51–57.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic
management: A stakeholder approach.
Boston, MA: Pitman.
Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing
complex organizations. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Greenberg, J. (1999). Managing behavior
in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Hage, J., Aiken, M., & Marrett, C. B.
(1971). Organization structure and
communications. American Sociological
Review, 36(5), 860–871.
Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M.
(1992). Stakeholder-agency theory.
Journal of Management Studies, 29(2),
131–154.
Hudson, S., & Hudson, R. (2013).
Engaging with consumers using social
media: A case study of music festivals.
International Journal of Event and
Festival Management, 4(3), 206–223.
Hunsaker, P. L., & Hunsaker, J. S. (2008).
Virtual teams: A leader’s guide. Team
Performance Management, 14(1/2),
86–101.
Jawahar, I. M., & McLaughlin, G. L.
(2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder
theory: An organizational life cycle
approach. The Academy of Management
Review, 26(3), 397–414.
Jepsen, A. L., & Eskerod, P. (2009).
Stakeholder analysis in projects:
Challenges in using current guidelines in
the real world. International Journal of
Project Management, 27(4), 335–343.
Johns, T., & Gratton, L. (2013). Spotlight
on the future of knowledge work: The
third wave of virtual work. Harvard
Business Review, 91(1), 66–73.
89
 The Qstock Festival Case
PAPERS
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K.
(1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard
Business Review. The Best of HBR, 7(8),
162–171.
Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014).
Renaissance of the case research as a
scientific method. Journal of Operations
Management, 32(5), 232–240.
Lampel, J., Lant, T., & Shamsie, J. (2000).
Balancing act: Learning from organizing
practices in cultural industries.
Organization Science, 11(3), 263–269.
Larson, M. (2009). Festival innovation:
Complex and dynamic network
interaction. Scandinavian Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism, Special
Issues: Festival Management, 9(2–3),
288–307.
Larson, M. (2011). Innovation and
creativity in festival organizations.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, 20(34), 287–310.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967).
Differentiation and integration in
complex organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1–47.
Layder, D. (1993). New strategies in
social research. Cambridge, England:
Policy Press.
Lohikoski, P., Kujala, J., Härkönen, J.,
Haapasalo, H., & Muhos, M. (2015).
Enhancing communication practices
in virtual NPD projects. International
Journal of Innovations in the Digital
Economy, 6(4), 16–36.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958).
Organizations. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Mayfield, P. (2014). Engaging with
stakeholders is critical when leading
change. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 46(2), 68–72.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and
social structure (enlarged ed.). New York,
NY: Free Press.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J.
(1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the
principle of who and what really counts.
Academy of Management Review, 22(4),
853–886.
90 December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal
Morris, P. G. W. (1982). Project
organizations: Structures for managing
change. In A. J. Kelley (Ed.), New
dimensions of project management,
Arthur D. Little program (pp. 155–171).
Lexington, MA: Heath.
Mukherjee, D., Lahiri, S., Mukherjee,
D., & Billing, T. K. (2012). Leading
virtual teams: How do social, cognitive,
and behavioral capabilities matter?
Management Decision, 50(2), 273–290.
O’Connor, J. (2003). Public and private
sector in cultural industries. In M.-L.
Niinikoski & K. Sibelius (Eds.),
Kulttuuribusiness (pp. 12–29). Vantaa,
Finland: WSOY.
Olander, S., & Landin, A. (2005).
Evaluation of stakeholder influence in
the implementation of construction
projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 23(4), 321–328.
Pan, B., & Huan, T.-C. (2013). New per-
spectives on festival and events research.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism
and Hospitality Research, 7(2), 115–117.
Pick, J., & Anderton, M. (1999). Arts
administration. London, England: Spon
Press, Taylor & Francis.
Prencipe, A., & Tell, F. (2001). Inter-
project learning: Processes and
outcomes of knowledge codification in
project-based firms. Research Policy, 30,
1373–1394.
Project Management Institute (2013).
A guide to the project management body
of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) (5th ed.).
Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Radbourne, J., & Fraser, M. (1996). Arts
management: A practical guide. (South
Wind Production). Singapore: Allen &
Unwin.
Rowley, J. (2004). Researching people
and organizations. Library Management,
25(4), 208–214.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (1996). Toward a
typological theory of project management.
Research Policy, 25(4), 607–632.
Slevin, D. P., & Pinto, J. K. (1987).
Balancing strategy and tactics in project
implementation. Sloan Management
Review, 29(1), 33–41.
■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations
in action: Social science bases of
administrative theory (transaction ed.).
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Turkulainen, V., Kujala, J., Artto, K., &
Levitt, R. (2013). Organizing in the context
of global project-based firm: The case
of sales-operations interface. Industrial
Marketing Management, 42(2), 223–233.
Turkulainen, V., Ruuska, I., Brady, T.,
& Artto, K. (2015). Managing project-
to-project and project-to-organization
interfaces in programs: Organizational
integration in a global operations
expansion program. International Journal
of Project Management, 33(4), 816–827.
Turner, J. R. (1999). The handbook of
project-based management: Improving
the processes for achieving strategic
objectives (2nd ed.). London, England:
McGraw-Hill.
Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. H., &
Koenig, R. Jr. (1976). Determinants of
coordination modes within organization.
American Sociological Review, 41(2),
322–338.
Vaughan, D. (1992). Theory elaboration:
The heuristics of case analysis. In C. C.
Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.), What is
case? Exploring the foundations of social
inquiry (pp. 173–201). Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Wåhlin, N., & Blomquist, T. (2014).
Organizing cultural projects. Special Issue
Call for Papers. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business.
Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., &
Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders
through social networking: How nonprofit
organisations are using Facebook. Public
Relations Review, 35(09), 102–106.
Welch, M., & Jackson, P. R. (2007).
Rethinking internal communication:
A stakeholder approach. Corporate
Communications: An International
Journal, 12(2), 177–198.
Winch, G. (2004). Managing project
stakeholders. In P. W. G. Morris &
J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide
to managing projects (pp. 321–339).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Yang, J., Shen, Q., & Ho, M. (2009).
An overview of previous studies in
stakeholder management and its
implications for the construction
industry. Journal of Facilities
Management, 7(2), 159–175.
Yang, R., Wang, Y., & Jin, X.-H. (2014).
Stakeholders’ attributes, behaviours,
and decision strategies in construction
projects: Importance and correlations in
practice. Project Management Journal,
45(3), 74–90.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research:
Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dr. Virpi Turkulainen is Lecturer in Management
at University College Dublin, College of Business,
Dublin. Prior to that she worked as Fulbright Scholar
at Stanford University and was an Academy of
Finland post-doctoral fellow at Aalto University in
Finland. Her research interests are in the areas of
organization design, organizational integration, and
operations strategy. She has published her work
in Industrial Marketing Management, International
Journal of Project Management, Journal of Supply
Chain Management, and International Journal of
Operations & Production Management. She can be
contacted at virpi.turkulainen@ucd.ie
Dr. Kirsi Aaltonen is Assistant Professor of Project
Management at Research Group of Industrial
Engineering and Management, University of
Oulu, Finland. Prior to that she worked as Senior
Lecturer at Aalto University in Finland. Her current
research interests are in the areas of stakeholder
and uncertainty management in large and complex
projects. Her publication list includes more than 40
academic papers and book chapters in the area of
project business. She has published for example in
Scandinavian Journal of Management, International
December 2015/January 2016 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Journal of Project Management, and International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business. She can
be contacted at kirsi.aaltonen@oulu.fi
Päivi Lohikoski, MA, is a university teacher in
Information Studies at the Faculty of Humanities
and a doctoral candidate in Industrial Engineering
and Management at the Faculty of Technology
at the University of Oulu. Päivi also works as
a communications freelancer and her research
interests are in knowledge management in virtual
organizations and corporate communications. She
received her MA degree in Information Studies from
the University of Oulu, where she has worked as a
university lecturer and university teacher since 2005.
Her work experience has concentrated on planning
and teaching in e-learning projects and she has
several years of work experience in the ICT industry
in communication and documentation functions
in R&D. She can be contacted at paivilohikoski@
outlook.com
91