CH 4

Identifying and Analyzing Stakeholders

• The PM and project team should identify stakeholders. After identifying the stakeholders, a
stakeholder register should be created to maintain key information about them, including contact
information, their requirements and expectations, and what stage in the project they have the most
interest in.

• In addition, a stakeholder issue log should be maintained to catalog issues that arise and how they
were resolved.

• Once the stakeholders have been identified, a number of tools can be used to analyze them to gain
insight into how to manage the relationship with them.

Power-Interest Grid. this tool analyzes stakeholders on two dimensions:

(1) Their interest

(2) Their power in the organization.

• Based on these two dimensions, the model suggests the appropriate relationship between the PM and
the stakeholder group from monitoring to keeping informed, to keeping satisfied, to closely managing.

• Referring to Figure 4.1, we observe that the PM should closely manage the cardiologists and hospital
administrators given their high interest in the project and their power in the organization.

• Likewise, the radiologists should be kept satisfied.

• Finally, the patients/ familiesshould be monitored and the test technicians kept informed on the status
of the project.

• Figure 4.2 provides an example Commitment Assessment Matrix for the stress test process
improvement project.

• We observe that the cardiologists are more committed than desired, indicating the risk that they will
interfere in unproductive ways with the project.

• On the other hand, greater commitment is needed from the test technicians and especially the
radiologists.

• Thus, the PM and project team need to develop an appropriate communication plan to reduce the
cardiologists’ commitment to the project and substantially increase the commitment of the test
technicians and radiologists
Five strategies people use to deal with conflict:
1. “competing” strategy - the person is viewing the situation as though someone must lose in order for
the other to win, or, in this case, I win and you lose (win–lose)  may be appropriate in situations where
the decision must be made quickly.

2. “avoiding” strategy: When the position is not asserted aggressively but the person is still unwilling to
cooperate – (lose–lose)  applied when the issue is not that important to you or the conflict outweigh
the benefits of resolving the issue in a desirable way

3. “collaborating” strategy: When you assertively state your position but your focus is on achieving your
goals with best solution and benefits both parties. (win-win)  This is the preferred strategy in most
situations where the needs of both parties are important.

4. “accommodating” strategy- the focus is on resolving the issue from the other person’s point of view
– (lose–win)  may be appropriate in situations where the decision must be made quickly.

5. “compromising”: when you take a middle-ground position on both dimensions – (nobody wins and
nobody loses)  applied when have solution that you and the other party can live with but are not
happy.

Partnering
• External suppliers, increasingly, are delivering parts of projects, including tangible products and
services as well as intangible knowledge and skills

• Traditionally, relations between the organization carrying out a project and a subcontractor working
on the project are best characterized as adversarial.

• The parent organization’s objective is to get the deliverable at the lowest possible cost, as soon as
possible.

• The subcontractor’s objective is to produce the deliverable at the highest possible profit with the least
effort

• These conflicting interests tend to lead both parties to work in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion

 Scope Change 
There are three basic causes for change in projects.
1. Planners erred in their initial assessment of how to achieve a given end or erred in their choice of the
proper goal for the project. Technological uncertainty is the fundamental causal factor for either error.
An R&D project must be altered because metallurgical test results indicate another approach should be
adopted.

2. An increase in user knowledge or sophistication is the primary factor leading to change. A computer
program must be extended or rewritten because the user thinks of new uses for the software.

3. A third source of change is the mandate. This is a change in the environment in which the project is
being conducted. A new law is passed. A government regulatory unit articulates a new policy. • The
conflicting stakeholders in a project are not enemies or competitors, but rather allies—members of an
alliance with strong common interests. • It is a requirement of all conflicting parties to seek solutions to
the conflict that not only satisfy their own individual needs but also satisfy the needs of other parties to
the conflict, as well as the needs of the parent organization. (a win-win solution). • Negotiating a win–
win solution is the key to conflict resolution in project management

Fisher method “principled negotiation,” that is, win–win; it is defined by four points: -
1. Separate the people from the problem: The conflicting parties are often highly emotional. They
perceive things differently and feel strongly about the differences. To minimize the likelihood that the
conflict will become strictly interpersonal, the substantive problem should be carefully defined. Then
everyone can work on it rather than each other.

2. Focus on interests, not positions: Positional bargaining occurs when the PM says to a functional
manager: “I need this subassembly by November 15.” The functional manager responds: “My group
can’t possibly start on it this year. We might be able to deliver it by February 1.” These are the opening
lines in a dialogue that may lead to conflict. A simple “Let’s talk about the schedule for this
subassembly” would be sufficient to open the discussion

3. Mutual gain: The parties in conflict usually enter negotiations knowing the outcome they would like.
As a result, they are blind to other outcomes and are not particularly creative. Nonetheless, some effort
should be devoted to finding a wide variety of possible solutions that advance the mutual interests of
the conflicting parties.

4. Insist on using objective criteria: Rather than bargaining on positions, attention should be given to
finding standards (e.g., market value, expert opinion, law, company policy) that can be used to
determine the quality of an outcome.