Manage the 'inner' stakeholders

Stakeholder management, like most things in popular literature, is often reduced to a set of rules of thumb. Often good as far as it goes, but there are some stakeholders that need extra care.

I call them the inner stakeholders.

Who are they, and how do you find them?

Easy.

First, find the project sponsor. That's probably easy, but not always. The real sponsor.

Next find who the sponsor has dependency or supply relationships with.

That's them, then. These are the 'inner' stakeholders.

Because of their relationship with the sponsor, they have a stake in the project in some way. Maybe even a way they don't see or fully appreciate.

It's your job as the PM to find out what their stake is and how they conceive it.

You need to meet them and ask about the links to the project, and the links to the things and people, functions and customers, the project is linked to. The relationship of the 'stake' to the 'holder' can be a second or third-order relationship, and those relationships might then have similar links to other inner stakeholders. They all need to be found, named, and analyzed.

This is the group you need to get in a room and identify the interconnections and how their influence can be useful to the project (and therefore to them). A 'rich picture' can help do this.

Then keep them updated. Maybe weekly sometimes, maybe monthly or quarterly at others.

But keep them updated somehow, and keep your sponsor in the loop as an ally, a facilitator and a power and information broker.

No matter what. Do it.

Projects are for people

Thirty years ago I was involved in a resort project north of Sydney, overlooking a vast expanse of water. It was about 200 rooms, offered mooring for about 100 boats, included a couple of restaurants on the top level of the main building, one large enough for large functions, an 'oyster bar' to the north and a more family orientated 'Brooklyn Room' restaurant at water level.

It didn't get approval. The claim was it represented 'over-development. It was at the edge of about 20 square kilometres of bay, hundreds of hectares of virtually untouched bushland, probably hundreds of kilometres of undeveloped bush water-front. Over development?

It would have provided jobs for as many of the Brooklyn township as wanted them, provided professional opportunities in hospitality and catering, facilities management and marina services. But, forget the people who might get jobs, the people who would enjoy the resort - ranging from families to young couples to the wealthy. Forget the economic multiplier for the local economy, forget the supplier businesses in the locale. No, forget all that.

It was 'over' development, according to some planner and a local government that just liked the word 'over', I guess.

It didn't get built.

Recently a small restaurant opened on the site. It provides a small number of jobs, caters for a modest number of patrons, has a small economic footprint. Nearby is a yard for all to look down on containing uncapped waste bins, scavenger birds, waste on the ground (no paving), and tired very pedestrian outdoor areas.

Access is by a road with crumbling pavement edges and dusty shoulders (muddy in wet weather).

It could have been great, but I guess the locals put their own selfish objectives ('just leave us alone') ahead of the enjoyment and jobs for the northern outskirts of Sydney.

Development is about people. It only works if it provides value for people. Every development frustrated by bureaucratic obstruction is a blow against people, because the developer only makes a dollar if he or she meets the needs of people.

Resort site today