DESIGN THINKING

PROJECT REPORT ON

“Analysis of the impact of global warming on the global economy”

SUBMITTED BY: - SAHIL LOHIA

ADMIN NO.: - 23242000

ENROLLMENT NO.: 230060401049

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF SALONI MA’AM

DESIGNATION

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE VALUE-

ADDED COURSE (DESIGN THINKING)

IN BALLB PROGRAME

SCHOOL OF LAW

GD GOENKA UNIVERSITY, GURUGRAM

122103 (HARYANA) NOVEMBER, 2023

 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that this project report entitled “Analysis of the impact of global

warming on the global economy” submitted to “GD Goenka University,

Gurugram” is a bonafide record of work done by “SAHIL LOHIA” under my

supervision from _______________to ________________.

PLACE: SOHNA
DATE: 11.11.2023
 CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION

2. EFFECT

3. REGNAL EFFECT

4. POLICIES

5. REFERENCR
 INTRODUCTION
The process of evaluating the effects of climate change is a very difficult
task because it is unclear how much future global warming will occur and
how that will affect human activity worldwide. As the earth warms, there
are undoubtedly some benefits as well as costs. Additionally, it's unclear
how technological advancements will react and whether they will change
the course of global warming. Any evaluation must also adopt an
extremely long-term perspective, one that is far longer than what
participants in the financial market typically do. But as the issue becomes
more widely known, there is a growing need for the opinions of
shareholders who are either worried about the effects of climate change
or about how their companies affect the environment.

Developing economies likely to be most impacted by global warming

1. The effect on growth and inflation
The overall aggregate effect of climate change on economic growth will
most likely be negative in the long run. Although there will be winners
and losers from climate change at varying levels of warming, the impact
of rising temperatures will be widespread, in part due to the fi nancial,
political and economic integration of the world’s economies. Global
warming will primarily infl uence economic growth through damage to
property and infrastructure, lost productivity, mass migration and
security threats. The balance between winners and losers turns
increasingly negative as temperatures rise

Inflation is likely to rise as shortages emerge, particularly in agriculture

The above supply and demand diagram not only shows a reduction in
output, but an increase in the general price level as a result of global
warming. This leads us onto the possible inflationary effects of global
warming on the world economy
Energy costs to increase in the transition to renewables Higher energy
costs are also likely to boost infl ation. As our climate becomes more
extreme we are likely to demand greater energy to both cool our
working and living environments during the summer, and heat them
when we experience harsher winters. Not only will energy demand
change, but supply may shrink as the effi ciency of existing power
stations is compromised due to higher temperatures. Policy actions by
governments to encourage a transition to green energy may further
contribute to energy infl ation in the short- to medium-term whereby
taxes are placed on fossil fuel-derived electricity. Given that energy
forms the basis of most of the world’s production, the secondary effects
of higher energy prices on infl ation will be felt throughout the global
economy. Conversely, depending on the pace of change, the greater
prominence of renewable energy could limit the cost of energy increases
going forward
Climate change risks are already pushing insurance costs higher the
insurance industry recognizes that it is likely to bear much of the risk of
global warming. Companies have already felt the force of extreme
weather events on profits; from unseasonal floods in the UK to Hurricane
Katrina in the US, extreme weather-related damage to properties has
seen insurance companies pay out to cover these costs. It is believed
that 2011 was the most expensive year on record for natural disasters,
with insured losses costing the industry more than $126 billion. The
Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, commenting on the
research the Bank has conducted recently, stated that climate change is
one of the top risks faced by the insurance industry
2. Climate damage functions: quantifying the impact on activity
Early estimates of the cost of global warming on world GDP emerged in
the early 1990s and since then there have been a number of studies that
have both agreed with and contradicted the initial assessments.

The “N-damages” climate damage function, named after its originator

Nordhaus (2013), is widely used by economists and is the least
concerning of the three climate damage functions. Climate damage
under this function would be progressive whereby no tipping point is
reached and the world’s population has the greatest amount of time to
offset any negative effects of global warming. It can be seen that by the
year in which the world is 4°C warmer, annual economic output will be
just 4% lower than a base case with no warming
The “W-damages” function was produced by Weitzman (2012) and
estimates that by the time 4°C of warming is reached, 9% of annual
economic output will be lost relative to the base with no warming effect.
Under this scenario, those industries that are largely predisposed to
climate change risk globally are likely to be affected, for example
insurance, agriculture and forestry. However, Pearce et al (1996) believe
that only a fraction of the market economy is vulnerable to global
warming, namely agriculture, coastal resources, energy, forestry,
tourism, and water. These sectors contribute just 5% of global GDP to
which their share is expected to shrink overtime
Estimates of economic losses from climate change
Warming Impact (% on Comment
GDP)
2.0° by A cumulative Assuming 2°C of warming is reached
2060 effect of a loss by 2060, most damages will come
of 0.3% of GDP from agriculture. OECD economies will
in 2060 gain from warming while the rest of
the world will lose. Damages to
individual countries do not always
follow continental averages. The
Ricardian model predicts much
smaller losses and gains than the
reduced-form model, predicting a
0.04% net gain to 2060 GDP levels
from 2.0°C warming.
2.5°C by Cumulative The market impact costs will vary
2100 market from country to country across
impact costs the globe. Highlatitude countries
do not are
 exceed 0.1% expected to gain and low latitude
of GDP in countries are forecast to be harmed
2100 by warming. However, temperature
effects beyond 2°C are expected to
reduce benefits and increase
damages
Baseline An average Estimates are based on no action.
scenario loss of 5% of Costs increase to 20% of GDP or
of global GDP more if a wider range of risks and
between per annum impacts are considered. Based on
2.4°C over the next simple extrapolations, costs of
and two centuries extreme weather alone could reach
5.8° by 0.5-1% of world GDP per annum by
2100 the middle of the century
Approxi A loss of 0.2%- There are large differences between
ma tely 2.0% of GDP countries when damage estimates
2.0°C per annum accelerate beyond 3°C of warming.
Delaying mitigation efforts beyond
those currently in place to 2030 is
estimates to substantially increase the
difficulty of transitioning to low long
term emission levels

3. Regional effects
The burden of climate change will be felt most by the developing world
The effects of climate change will not be uniformly distributed across the
globe and there are likely to be winners and losers as the planet warms.
Applying a broad brush to climate effects, developing countries are more
likely to disproportionately experience the negative effects of global
warming. Not only do many developing countries have naturally warmer
climates than those in the developed world, they also rely more heavily
on climate sensitive sectors such as agriculture, forestry
and tourism. As temperatures rise further, regions such as Africa will
face declining crop yields and will struggle to produce suffi cient food for
domestic consumption, while their major exports will likely fall in
volume. This effect will be made worse for these regions if developed
countries are able to offset the fall in agricultural output with new
sources, potentially from their own domestic economies as their land
becomes more suitable for growing crops. Developing countries may
also be less likely to create drought resistant harvests given the lack of
research funding.
The effects on the developing world are two-fold. Firstly, as developed
countries face an increasing strain on domestic budgets, fewer resources
in the form of aid and economic development funds will fl ow to
developing countries. Secondly, the governments of these nations will be
forced to channel resources away from productive and growth enhancing
projects towards countering the costs of extreme weather.

4. Policy
responses Climate change calls for a collective effort from
governments, fi rms, shareholders and individuals to both adapt and
implement measures to mitigate its effects. As carbon dioxide
emissions are the main culprit for global warming, any policy response
must effectively target reduced emissions. Since free markets fail to
incorporate and price the negative externality2 of global warming,
government intervention is required to realign resource allocation.
Without public policy looking to change private sector behavior,
economies run the risk of continuing to pollute to a point where it is too
late and the economic costs are catastrophic. Intergovernmental
agreements that encompass all major economies will be the most
effective in tackling climate change. Without a collective policy
response, the efforts of only a handful of countries looking to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions will fall short of what is needed to make a
material impact on a global level. We touch upon some popular policy
responses below.
Decarbonizing the world’s energy supply through a rapid energy
transition will reduce the risks of climate change. The use of biofuels,
hydrogen and clean energy can speed up decarbonization alongside
reducing demand through energy effi ciency measures. Governments
may offer subsidies to green energy providers to promote innovation
and reduce the cost of energy from these sectors.
 DESIGN THINKING

PROJECT REPORT ON

“UNIT-6 IMPLEMENTATION AND COMMUNICATION”

SUBMITTED BY: - SAHIL LOHIA

ADMIN NO.: - 23242000

ENROLLMENT NO.: - 230060401049

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF SALONI MA’AM

DESIGNATION

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE VALUE-

ADDED COURSE (DESIGN THINKING)

IN BALLB PROGRAME

SCHOOL OF LAW

GD GOENKA UNIVERSITY, GURUGRAM

122103 (HARYANA)

NOVEMBER, 2023
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that this project report entitled “UNIT-6 IMPLEMENTATION

AND COMMUNICATION” submitted to “GD Goenka University, Gurugram” is

a bonafide record of work done by “SAHIL LOHIA” under my supervision from

_______________to ________________.

PLACE: SOHNA
DATE: 11.11.2023
 TABLE OF CONTENT

S. No. Title
1. ABSTRACT
2. INTRODUCTION
3. RISK
4. COMPLEXITY
5. POWER AND COMMUNICATION COSTS
6. COMMUNICATION COSTS
7. LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT INDUCED
8. EFFECT OF RISK AND COMPLEXITY
9. CONCLUSION
10. CREATE FINAL CONCEPTUAL PROTOTYPE OF
A PRODUCT OR SERVICE THAT
INCORPORATES FEEDBACK FROM USER
TESTING

11. CREATE COMMUNICATION APPROACHES TO

PRESENT THE IDEA TO VARIOUS
STAKEHOLDERS
 ABSTRACT

A decision unit's ability to drive innovation implementation inside an adoption unit is critical to
organisational success. The features of risk and complexity in innovations might lead to resistance
within organisational adoption units. Communication costs, power types, and communication
channels are structural qualities that a decision unit can utilise to overcome resistance. The
combination of these factors can affect the degree to which organisations successfully implement
innovation.

INTRODUCTION

Modern organizations must constantly adapt to survive in today's rapidly changing environment.
As a result the implementation of innovations is crucial to organizational success in terms of both
the redirection and the integration of the organization as a
system (Wager, 1962) and for-organizational effectiveness generally (Rogers & Agarwala-Rogers,
1976).A number of factors can potentially mediate the success of implementation, including the
interdependence of components of the system, their diversity, goal agreement, the nature of the
formal management system, external conditions (Galbraith, 1973), and the general organizational
cultural norms towards innovation (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Although all of these factors can
impact on innovation implementation, the acceptance of an innovation often rests on the extent to
which communication can act to reduce uncertainty by meliorating
such factors as risk and complexity and thus permitting the assimilation of the new practice or
technology into the constraints of the ongoing organizational system, which these mediating
factors reflect. Indeed, more generally, some view the primary purpose of organizing as the
reduction of variability through the overcoming of uncertainty (Weick,
1969). Because this reduction of uncertainty occurs primarily through communication, there can
be little separation between processes of communication and change within organizations. An
organization that cannot change, adopting innovation to meet changing environmental conditions
while matching intraorganizational constraints, eventually will find
itself no longer competitive in an increasingly complex and technologically sophisticated
economy. Because of its central role, an increased understanding of the part communication plays
in innovation implementation has important pragmatic implications for management and potential
heuristic value for future research in this area. The nature of information transmitted concerning
an innovation can be grouped into three general categories: (1) information concerning the
innovation; (2) influence and power information related to innovation; and (3) information
concerning the operationalizing of the innovation (Schramm & Roberts, 1971). This paper is an
attempt to specify the manner in which characteristics of the innovation transmitted in
communication messages and structural aspects of organizations
related to communication determine the ultimate implementation of innovations in organizations.

RISK

The perceived consequences of engaging in the new behaviour advocated in the communication
message from the decision unit are the key element in an organisational adoption unit's response to
an innovation, because implementation of an innovation implies action and attendant
consequences (Kivlin & Fliegel, 1967). The presence of risk in an invention might lead to more
resistance than in regular organisational operations; the novelty of the innovation entails more risk
for the adopting unit as well as the organisation as a whole (Rogers & Adhikayra, 1979). In fact,
the more the uncertainty of an innovation's outcome, the larger the perceived risk of implementing
the innovation. Innovations create novel scenarios in which the odds of loss are formally
unpredictable (Strassman, 1959), and advocated changes pose a potential threat to organisational
members that grows in proportion to the degree of advocated change (Huse, 1975; Zaltman &
Duncan, 1977). The more a decision unit's success in lowering the adoption unit's perception of
risk, the lower the opposition to innovation implementation.
Pl: The higher the perceived risk in an advocated innovation, the lower the possibility of effective
implementation by an adoption unit.
COMPLEXITY
Complexity refers to the number of dimensions along which a potential recipient can evaluate an
innovation; consequently, it is an inherent quality of messages about an innovation. As Bohlen
observed, "Other factors notwithstanding, the more complex an idea is, the slower it tends to be
adopted" (1971, p. 807). The more the complexity associated with implementing an innovation or
even comprehending the idea cognitively, the greater the organisational resistance to an
innovation (Zaltman & Duncan, 1977).
Accordingly:
P2: In general, the more the complexity of an invention supported by an organisational decision
unit, the less likely it will be implemented successfully.
The complexity of an innovation is connected to its uncertainty since higher complexity
necessitates the consideration of additional dimensions (or alternatives). As a result, there are
more aspects to examine, and with more dimensions to consider, fewer can be known with
certainty. As a result, complexity raises the perceived risks associated with an advocated
innovation, and these two elements might interact to raise resistance to an innovation.

POWER AND COMMUNICATIONS COSTS

The many sorts of power utilised to overcome opposition on the side of the adoption unit become
critical in determining innovation implementation; implementation of an invention behaviorally
within an organisation can be hampered by both passive and active resistance (Zaltman et al.,
1973). The sorts of power employed by the decision unit to persuade the adoption unit to
incorporate an invention have significant implications for the communication costs paid in
innovation implementation. These different sorts of power also result in varying levels of
involvement with the innovation, which is usually critical to the effective acceptance of any
innovation.
COMMUNICATION COSTS

The decision unit can generally employ three sorts of power, or the capacity or potential to
determine the activities of the adoption unit: sanction, authority, and influence. The capacity to
influence the adoption unit's activity by active manipulation of resources under the decision unit's
control is referred to as sanction.

Coercion and reward are two distinct

forms of sanction authority (French & Raven, 1959). Both are based on the adoption unit's view
that the decision unit has control over material and psychological resources that are significant to
it. Although both sources of power can be beneficial, their utilisation comes at a high cost to the
decision unit. For starters, they necessitate a constant expenditure of resources, some of which
may result in satiation or the satisfaction of related needs, such that rewards no longer motivate.
Second, both require continuous monitoring of the adoption unit to ensure that it is responding in
accordance with the continual reward or punishment. As a result, the decision unit incurs
significant communication costs (see Figure 1) in terms of both determining what may reward or
punish the adoption unit at any given time and also reviewing the adoption unit's operations.

In French and Raven's (1959) taxonomy, authority, or legitimate power, is based on the adopting
unit's view (coming from an internalised norm or value) that the decision unit has the right to
demand innovations. The use of this type of power has several advantages over the use of
sanctions: (1) it does not necessitate constant monitoring; (2) legitimate power stems from
previous rewards and punishments associated with socialisation and thus does not necessitate
specific sanctions for every innovation; (3) satiation is less of a problem because satisfaction of
specific needs is not the motivating force; and (4) communication costs are associated primarily
with transmission of information.
P3: Using legitimate power to secure eventual innovation implementation leads in lower
communication costs to the decision unit than using sanctions.
Influence is based on the decision unit's ability to modify the behaviour of the adopting unit
through more subtle, informal, and typically cognitively oriented ways than those associated with
sanction or authority. As a result of these cognitive processes, the adoption unit actively chooses
to commit to the innovation. Influence can be classified into three types: referent, expert, and
persuasion. The adoption unit's association with the decision unit confers referent power (French
& Raven 1959). Indeed, the prestige of the decision unit is more likely to affect the acceptance of
an invention (Huse, 1975). In the case of referent power, the adopting unit implements an
innovation simply because the decision unit has done so; the decision unit may have no impact at
all. The communication costs connected with this type of power nearly entirely relate to the
transmission of information about the nature of innovation and are borne primarily by the adoption
unit. The use of expert power, or the adoption unit's belief that the decision unit has superior
knowledge in the salient area of the innovation, and thus its judgement of the utility of the
innovation should be accepted, is more fundamental to the topic addressed here. The
communications costs associated with the use of this form of power will vary depending on the
complexity of the innovation. For a basic innovation, the costs may be very low, nearing the level
of authorised power consumption. However, when it comes to sophisticated innovations, using
this type of power can result in enormous communication costs connected with the mere transfer
of information about the innovation's implementation.
Using persuasion, the decision unit presents evidence, arguments, and a rationale in support of the
adoption unit's deployment of the innovation. Pervasive attempts, in essence, try to persuade the
adopting unit that it should modify its behaviour willingly. The communication costs connected
with the employment of this form of power are substantial at first, and they may be ongoing, at
least in the case of counter-persuasion attempts.
P4: Communication expenses 1o The use of influence in achieving eventual innovation
implementation will be highest for persuasion, followed by expert power, with referent power
requiring the least amount of communication to the organisational decision unit.

LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT INDUCED

Each of the preceding sources of power can cause behavioural changes, and in some cases, they
can be utilised concurrently to even greater effect, but they each create distinct levels of
participation in the adopting unit. High degrees of involvement are frequently critical in the final
implementation of ideas. Figure I depicts the relationship between the five categories of power
outlined in the preceding section and their position on the communication costs and involvement
dimensions.
The use of penalty authority usually leads in a low level of involvement. When it comes to
rewards, the ensuing participation might be classified as calculative and low intensity (Etzioni,
1961). In this case, adoption units will function to the bare minimum as long as the reward is
provided. In contrast, the use of coercive authority results in an alternate connection with highly
negative attitudinal orientations (Etzioni, 1961). Because they are not active participants in the
decision-making process, the exercise of legitimate power frequently dampens workers'
inventiveness and hampers their desire to offer changes. When legal power is exercised, the
adoption unit will typically participate in regular, mechanical operationalization of an innovation
identified with the decision unit. However, in practise, successful innovation implementation
necessitates some tweaking based on user feedback.
Influence power leads to more active participation on the part of the adoption unit because these
strategies usually imply a positive attitude change towards the needed behavioural change
(Kelman, 1961). There is referent voluntary acceptance of the innovation deriving from perceived
characteristics of the decision unit in both expert and power. Effective persuasion usually leads in
reduced resistance to technical change since it results in greater engagement in the implementation
of innovations (Kelman, 1961). Because of the voluntary spontaneous acceptance associated with
successful persuasion, this sort of power is most obviously related with assuring the active
participation required for innovation adoption (Bennis, 1965).
P5: As a result of the active involvement it induces, generally the use of influence will be more
effective organizational innovation implementation than either sanction or legitimate power.

EFFECTS OF RISK AND COMPLEXITY

The communication costs associated with the deployment of specific innovations are determined
by the interaction of the complexity and perceived risk inherent in innovations with the forms of
power. Indeed, perception risk is frequently caused by a lack of knowledge about the
repercussions of an innovation (Strassman, 1959), necessitating further information transfer to
lessen ambiguity. The riskier the adoption of an invention, the more likely the adoption unit will
be resistant, requiring more rewards or influence attempts before agreeing to apply an innovation
(Zaltman & Duncan, 1977).
P6: Generally, the greater the perceived risk, the greater the exercise of power by the
organizational decision unit needed to implement an innovation.
The sorts of power that will be employed to encourage innovation implementation are similarly
affected by complexity. For example, the more sides there are to an idea, the more activities that
must be rewarded, and, in certain ways, the higher the volume of information connected to
persuasion. Thus, the communication costs of persuasion and sanction--and, in this case, expert
power--increase almost exponentially with greater complexity; however, the communication costs
of other types of power, legitimate and referent, increase more linearly because the invocation of
these types of power is inherent in messages about innovation.
P7: In effective implementation an innovation, there is a linear increase in the communication
costs of legitimate or referent power with increasing complexity.
P8: In effectively implementing an innovation, there is a multiplicative increase in communication
costs associated with persuasion., sanction, and expert power with increasing complexity.
According to these assumptions, the efficiency of various types of power in overcoming resistance
is restricted due to uncertainties caused by rising risk and complexity. For example, when there is
a large degree of uncertainty, the application of expert power is typically insufficient (Zaltman &
Duncan, 1977); it explains the innovation at a cognitive level, but the fear of risk may not be
mediated. The decision unit's use of legitimate power is constrained as danger and complexity
increase; it may need to use authority beyond approved bounds. When authority is used
excessively, the decision unit's authority over the adoption unit may actually weaken (French &
Raven, 1959). Persuasive strategics have generally been shown to be the most effective means of
guaranteeing the successful adoption of a highly risky and complicated innovation within
organisations (Bennis, 1965; Zaltman & Duncan, 1977). Effective persuasion overcomes
resistance due to a lack of understanding as well as fear; additionally, its application leads in a
higher level of involvement (Bennis, 1965). When persuasion fails, a decision unit may still use
censure and legitimate power as final resorts. Although persuasion is often the most effective
approach, it is also the most expensive. It is so expensive, in fact, that the organization's utility in
implementing highly risky and sophisticated innovations may be shrinking.

CONCLUSION

The propositions developed here suggest specific strategies that can be utilized in successful
innovation implementation within organizations, The introduction of the notion of channel
efficacy, however, also suggests some potential problems, The general techniques involved in
successful innovation implementation have been known in broad detail for a long period of time,
but units within organizations have still proved remarkably resistant to innovation. An
examination of the interaction among the various factors that contribute to successful
implementation can provide an explanation for this state of affairs.
Figure 2 details the interactive effects of risk, complexity, and the communication costs of power
on communication channel load. For simplicity, these factors, which can be presumed to vary in
intensity, are divided into two conditions, either high or low. A cursory examination of the
resulting eight conditions reveals some substantial barriers to innovation implementation in
specific situations. When all of the factors are high, the volume of communication needed to
overcome resistance may be too great, potentially overloading available channels (both
interpersonal and mediated) or making the costs of implementing
the innovation greater than its potential benefits. The remaining seven conditions have more
moderate loads, although still high in some instances. The lowest level at which risk, complexity,
and the communication costs of influence are all low represents the
optimal situation for using mediated channels. There appears to be a direct inverse relationship
between the amount of information load associated with particular conditions and the presumption
of the relative success of implementation. Certainly, with a highly risky and complex innovation
that requires high volumes of communication to effect, the chances of successful implementation
become problematical. An organization in an ideal world could choose to expend the effort to
implement an innovation in these conditions, but, especially for the all-high condition, there may
not be the channel capacity to effect it, especially if the normal operational level of organizational
information load is maintained. Thus these
contingent situations suggest that there is a practical upper bound to implementing innovations

within organizations.

➢ CREATE FINAL CONCEPTUAL PROTOTYPE OF A PRODUCT OR SERVICE

THAT INCORPORATES FEEDBACK FROM USER TESTING

To create a final conceptual prototype of a product or service that incorporates feedback from user
testing, you can follow these steps:
1. Analyze user feedback: Review the feedback collected from user testing and identify the
most common issues and suggestions.
2. Brainstorm solutions: Based on the feedback, brainstorm potential solutions to address
the identified issues and suggestions.
3. Create a prototype: Use the solutions generated in the previous step to create a prototype
of the product or service.
 4. Test the prototype: Test the prototype with users to gather feedback and identify any
remaining issues.
5. Refine the prototype: Use the feedback collected from testing to refine the prototype and
address any remaining issues.
6. Create a final conceptual prototype: Based on the refined prototype, create a final
conceptual prototype of the product or service.

It’s important to keep in mind that user feedback is an iterative process, and it may be necessary to
repeat these steps multiple times to create a final product or service that meets user needs and
expectations.

➢ CREATE COMMUNICATION APPROACHES TO PRESENT THE IDEA TO

VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS

To create communication approaches to present the idea to various stakeholders, you can follow
these steps:
1. Identify your stakeholders: Identify the stakeholders who are interested in your product
or service. This could include customers, investors, employees, and other relevant parties.
 2. Understand your stakeholders’ needs: Understand the needs and expectations of your
stakeholders. This will help you tailor your communication approach to meet their specific
requirements.
3. Develop a communication plan: Develop a communication plan that outlines the key
messages you want to convey to your stakeholders, the channels you will use to
communicate with them, and the frequency of communication.
4. Choose the right communication channels: Choose the right communication channels
based on the preferences of your stakeholders. This could include email, newsletters, social
media, presentations, and more.
5. Create compelling content: Create compelling content that is tailored to the needs of your
stakeholders. This could include product demos, case studies, testimonials, and more.
6. Engage with your stakeholders: Engage with your stakeholders regularly to keep them
informed and updated on your product or service. This will help you build trust and
credibility with your stakeholders.

Here are some examples of effective communication approaches to present the idea to various
stakeholders:
1. Email and Newsletter: Email is one of the most popular tools to use for stakeholder
communication. It has a high open rate and is an effective way to communicate important
updates and news to your stakeholders.
2. Presentations: Presentations are a great way to communicate complex ideas and concepts
to your stakeholders. They allow you to engage with your audience and provide them with
a visual representation of your product or service.
3. Focus Groups: Focus groups are a great way to gather feedback from your
stakeholders. They allow you to get a better understanding of their needs and expectations,
and provide you with valuable insights that can help you improve your product or service.
4. Physical Notice Boards: Physical notice boards are a great way to communicate important
updates and news to your stakeholders. They are particularly effective in office
environments where employees can easily see them.
5. Monthly Progress Reports: Monthly progress reports are a great way to keep your
stakeholders informed and updated on the progress of your product or service. They
provide a snapshot of your progress and help you identify any issues or challenges that
need to be addressed.