final focus group workshop: rethink! project stakeholder...
TRANSCRIPT
In cooperation with: Partly sponsored by:
Final Focus Group Workshop:
Rethink! Project Stakeholder Management
Martina Huemann, Pernille Eskerod, Claudia Weninger
WU Vienna, 30.01.2014
Focus Group Workshop: Objectives
Presenting and reflecting the findings of the research
project: Rethink! Project Stakeholder Management
Knowledge co-production of researchers and practitioners
on project stakeholder management in the context of
sustainable development principles
Contribution to the research project: Rethink! Project
Stakeholder Management
Focus Group Workshop: Participants
Researchers:
– Martina Huemann, Pernille Eskerod, Claudia Weninger
Constellation experts:
– Brigitte Sachs-Schaffer, Daniela Andratsch
NETLIPSE representatives:
– Pau Lian Staal-Ong, Marcel Hertogh, Massimo Corradi
Practitioners interested in project stakeholder
management
Focus Group Workshop: Schedule
Starting 8.30: Registration, gathering, coffee
9.00 – 10.30 Welcome & start up
Input: Research project and stakeholder
management
All
Martina & Pernille
10.30-10.45: Coffee break
10.45 -12.00 Coffee House Trip: Reflection of research
propositions
All
12.00- 12.30: Lunch break, Snacks in the room
12.30 -15.15 Input: Demonstration case studies
Experiencing a systemic working form
Reflection: Potentials & limits of systemic
working forms for project stakeholder
management
Pernille & Martina
Constellation expert
All
15.15-15.30 Final reflections, close down All
Research Project: Objectives
Develop a more comprehensive project stakeholder management approach – in the context of sustainable development
– to better support benefit creation for project investors and other project stakeholders
Investigate potentials and limitations of systemic methods for project stakeholder analysis
Co-creation of knowledge – based on theory and in cooperation with practice
– practice case studies, demonstration case studies, focus group workshops
Publications (PMI book 2014, journal articles etc.)
Project: Branding Slagelse Strategy
Project: IT System Implementation
Project: Planning The West Link (Västlänken)
Project: Establishing WU New Campus
?
Slagelse Municipality, Denmark
IT Company, Denmark
Trafikverket, Sweden
WU Vienna,Austria
?
Public (change)
Private (IT )
Public (infrastructure)
Public (construction +)
?
Practice case Practice case
Practice case
?
Demonstration case • Systemic
constellation (Focus: PM)
Demonstration case • Systemic
constellation (Focus PM
Demonstration case • Systemic Board • Systemic
Constellation (Group)
Overview cases
Co
mp
any
Soci
ety
Pro
ject
Values-based
Economic, ecologic, social-
oriented
Short, mid, long term-oriented
Local, regional, global-oriented
Sustainable development principles
(Gareis, Huemann, Martinuzzi 2013)
Project as temporary organization and social system
No project is an island (Engwall 2003)
A social system constitutes itself by differentiating itself from its
context
Internal structures/context
Stakeholders are relevant social environments for a social system
Limited possibility to “manage“ projects and project stakeholder
Trivial System
Social System
• Predictable
• Not depending on the context
• Possible to influence directly
• Result of influence clear
• Applications of standards
• Not predictable
• Depending on the context
• Not possible to influence directly
• Results of influence unclear
• Allowance of contradictions
(based on Kasper 1990)
Project as social system: Limits of managing
Managing internal structures and context
Internal structures
– Scope, schedule, costs, and ...
– Objectives, resources, income, risks
– Organization, culture, personnel
– Infrastructure
Context
– Pre-, post-project phase
– Project stakeholders
– Other projects
– Company strategies, business case
Scope
Schedule Costs
(Gareis, Huemann, Martinuzzi 2013)
Stakeholder theory: Definitions
Those groups without whose support the organization
would cease to exist (Stanford Research Institute 1963)
Individuals or groups which depend on a given
organization to fulfil their personal goals and on whom
the organization is depended (Rhenman 1964)
Any group or individual who can affect or is affected by
the achievement of a organization’s objectives (Freeman
1984)
Stakeholder definitions in PM standards
PMBOK, PMI (2008:246): ”Persons and organizations such as
customers, sponsors, the performing organization, and the public
that are actively involved in the project, or whose interests may
be positively or negatively affected by the execution or completion
of the project.”
ICB, IPMA (2006:42): “People or groups, who are interested in
the performance and or success of the project, or who are
constrained by the project.”
PRINCE2 (2009:313): “Any individual, group or organization that
can affect, be affected by, or perceives itself to be affected by an
initiative programme, project, activity, risk.”
Stakeholder activities and tools/techniques
Activities Tools/techniques
PRINCE2 Report to customers and suppliers.
Reports.
PMBOK Identify, analyze and communicate.
Stakeholder analysis; stakeholder register; communication plan; project reports; project presentations; feedback from stakeholders.
ICB Identify; analyze; communicate; develop strategies; include interest parties’ interests into project; ensure satisfaction; manage changes; document.
Stakeholder identification; analysis; formal/informal networks and communication; information sharing; list of stakeholder representatives.
Two different approaches in contemporary stakeholder
theory (Freeman, Harrison & Wicks 2007)
1. Management of stakeholders approach • An instrumental approach
• Stakeholders as means to provide resources
• A core mgmt. task: Make stakeholders comply to the
organization’s needs
2. Management for stakeholders approach • A normative or ethical approach
• Stakeholders have legitimate rights regardless of their
power to influence the organization
• A core mgmt. task: To search for win-win situations
Proposition: A societal request for considering sustainable
development as a context for projects places new demands
on project stakeholder management
Request for considering sustainable development principles
makes complexity better visible
Explicit and/or implicit integration od sustainable development
principles, values makes the difference
Need for a more comprehensive project stakeholder
management approach
Need for structural clearness to make it possible to think into
the future
Proposition: Different social systems have different
stakeholders and stakeholder relations, which requires to
organize for transfers
Social systems such as
– investor organization(s)
– project
– social system created by the project/program, e.g. hospital.
Organize for transfer of stakeholder relations of the investor
organization(s) to the project.
Organizing for transfer of stakeholder relations (further)
developed on a project
– to the following project (in a chain of projects)
– or to the investor organization(s)
– or to the new social system created.
Proposition:
The possibility of “managing stakeholders” is limited
The project has to relate itself to many different project
stakeholders.
Normally, there is a high diversity and lacking clarity of
expectations of the project stakeholders towards the
project.
Predictability of “what happens, if” is rather low.
Concrete definition of project success is difficult and
determined from the specific point of view from the
particular project stakeholder.
Proposition: Comprehensive project stakeholder management
represents more a managing FOR stakeholders than a
managing OF stakeholders approach
The OF and FOR approaches are two extreme positions on
a continuum.
For a project a balancing between OF and FOR approach
is adequate.
Different project stakeholders may require different
approaches, not for all stakeholders a FOR approach is
feasibly.
Different phases of a project require different approaches.
A management for stakeholder approach fits to sustainable
developments and reflects values balancing short-medium
and long term-orientation, fairness, transparency, etc.
Proposition: There are differences in project stakeholder
management and stakeholder management in the
permanent organization regarding timing and organization.
Stakeholder engagement may require more time, too late
to start in an implementation project.
Preparation by investor (organization), inclusion in project
initiation or in an distinct project e.g. feasibility study,
planning project.
Cooperation with stakeholder management of investment
organization necessary.
Project stakeholder management is based on the values of
the organization(s) involved in the project.
Proposition: A comprehensive project stakeholder
management approach is reflected in the project structures
The project structures need to allow to deal with the
complexity of environment, for example different and
contradicting stakeholder expectations.
Internalization of external stakeholder interests into the
project objectives, creation of integrated project
organizations to invite representatives of stakeholders on
the projects are possible strategies to deal with
stakeholders which have an essential impact on the project
structures.
Proposition: Adequate stakeholder management methods
are required to build up complexity but also reduce
complexity to the amount adequate for the project.
Systemic methods such as system board and system
constellation are adequate to deal with the complexity of
the project stakeholders in a stakeholder analysis.
Project: Branding Slagelse Strategy
Project: IT System Implementation
Project: Planning The West Link
Slagelse Municipality, Denmark
IT Company, Denmark
Trafikverket, Sweden
Conflict situation Conflict situation Non-conflict situation;
Systemic Constellation Single person view (PM)
Systemic Constellation Single person view (PM)
Systemic Board Group view Systemic Constellation Group view
Participants: Externals
Participants: Project externals, but company internals
Participants: Project team
Application of methods in demonstration cases
Characteristics and context of the case
• Purpose of new branding strategy: To be attractive for current and new citizens and businesses – and thereby enhance increased tax revenues and satisfied stakeholders of municipality.
• The municipality hired an experienced external consultancy to undertake the branding strategy development.
• Even though an internal project manager and a project owner were appointed, decision concerning the project as well as the project management were outsourced to the consultancy.
• The internal project manager changed twice and the project owner once.
• The City Council had to approve the branding strategy.
The Project Model of Slagelse Municipality
The external consultancy was responsible for the stakeholder
management and did what they found best, so they did not use
this project model.
Stakeholder practices
Stakeholder management practices changed during the project
course. In the beginning, the consultancy organized events to
generate and discuss ideas with stakeholders.
New stakeholders were involved in new events to discuss the
results from the first event (a 30 hours camp).
The external consultancy was solely in charge. Later, it was
realized that the original stakeholders (especially the politicians in
the City Council) felt left out of the process.
Therefore, the consultancy and the internal project manager had
individual meetings with the core stakeholders to make them take
ownership again (as they had in the beginning).
Systemic Constellation: Process
The Project Manager was in charge and she
started to place the participants around the room
so it gives a picture of the comprehension she
has of the stakeholder landscape.
Every participant represented a stakeholder,
and the way they stood in relation to each other
(position and space) symbolized their mutual
relationship as the Project Manager sees it.
At the beginning the participants were placed
far away from each other and some of them
stood back to back.
Following, every participant discussed their
position and they all gave inputs to improve the
constellation.
Constellation:
Initial Picture Middle
Management
Project Team Project
Manager
Project
Project Owner
Consulting
firm (brand)
City Council 1 City Council 2
Communication
Department
Systemic Constellation: End of process
After the discussion with all of the stakeholders,
some of them were replaced so they have better
contact with each other and face to face.
Finally the group placed the ideal stakeholder
landscape where they all had connection.
In the end of the exercise the Project Manager
was surprised how the inputs and comments
gave her new perspectives on the project.
Constellation:
Final Picture
Middle
Management
Project Team
Project
Manager
Project
Consulting
firm (brand)
City Council 1
City Council 2
Communication
Department
Vision
Competitors of
Slagelse Citizen of
Slagelse
Some findings
There are advantages and disadvantages by using an external consultancy to do a process like this:
- The project gets more complicated when politician stakeholders are involved.
- It became clear that all stakeholders had their own ideas and agendas, and that it was impossible to involve all stakeholders and keep the discussions open.
- Furthermore, a close relationship between the external consultant and the project manager seemed important in order for the consultant to create legitimacy and progress.
- Economically it is more expensive to hire an external company rather than use own employees from the organisation. Moreover, it becomes more objective when the consultancy is an external company and not made up of own employees.
The new brand become: ¨Healthy, Smart, Growth¨ and you can associate these 3 words with what Slagelse City wants to be as a Municipality.
Characteristics and context of the case
Long term “project”, 20 billions Swedish Kroner (200 million Euros), large
– Proposal: differentiation investment, chain of projects…Focus on stakeholder analysis/ management for different “projects” in the chain of projects.
Context: other investments
– City development
– West Swedish Package (Infrastructure)
Westlink very visible to public!
– Political issues, car toll for raising funds
– Communication: Part of the city development
Infrastructure only
– Still need for integrating for example, city administration, operator of stations and others…to have design follow service
Stakeholders
City:
– Administration/politicians: decisions
– city development project, provide part of the finance, external project
owner
– politicians expect something different than Västlänken is able to provide
County Government:
– for legal permissions, environmental impact development, external project
owner
Gothenburg community:
– individuals more ore less effected
– car toll for co-financing project; car drivers against toll
– children
Neighbouring communities:
– Access to workforce
Media: Negative reports in local newspaper
Trafikverket:
– “Society” Department as internal project owner
Suppliers:
– red contract and blue contract consultants
– future contractors
Land owners: for example
– Jenrnhusen, Liseberg, etc.
Västtrafik:
– Most probably future operator of stations
Environmental groups:
– Positive; tunnel will reduce car traffic and increase travel capacity to
and from Gothenburg
Project personnel:
– Management team,…very engaged, high identification
Stakeholders - continued