Stakeholder Identification and Analysis
What this domain tests
The exam checks whether you can move from a vague list of names to a defensible, evidence-based view of who affects and is affected by the change - and can justify prioritisation. Expect questions on identification sources, analysis models, and the difference between interest, influence and impact.
Identification before analysis
Analysis is only as good as the input list. Use several sources so you do not inherit one person's bias:
- Organisational charts and role descriptions (formal authority).
- Project documentation: business case, benefits map, risk log, lessons learned from similar change.
- Process and system maps - who touches the process being changed, including upstream and downstream teams.
- Informal networks: gatekeepers, subject-matter experts, staff representatives, unions, regulators, suppliers, customers, partners.
- Snowballing: ask early contacts who else should be involved, and record the referrals.
Record each entry in a stakeholder register: name or organisation, role, contact, relationship owner, interest, influence, attitude, key concerns, engagement level required, last contact, actions.
Analysis models
- Power/interest (Mendelow) grid: high power/high interest (manage closely), high power/low interest (keep satisfied), low power/high interest (keep informed), low power/low interest (monitor). It is a heuristic, not a verdict.
- Influence/impact: separates ability to affect the outcome from exposure to it - useful when a regulator has high influence but little personal impact.
- Salience model: scores power, legitimacy and urgency; all three make a stakeholder definitive, two expectant, one latent. It surfaces urgent, legitimate claimants who lack formal power.
- Attitude mapping: supporter, neutral, sceptic, opponent - plotted over time as an engagement outcome.
Triangulate. Combine at least a power dimension with interest or impact, then add attitude to choose the approach.
Worked example
A payroll system replacement. The finance director has high power and moderate interest - keep satisfied via monthly steering updates. Payroll clerks have low formal power but very high interest and impact - manage closely and involve them in design and testing. A union representative has moderate power, high interest and high legitimacy, so the salience model flags them as expectant or definitive: early consultation is mandatory, not optional. A third-party bureau has high impact but low influence - keep informed of interface changes. The register records all four with an owner and next action.
Traps that cost marks
- Treating the grid as static and not revisiting it after organisational change.
- Confusing interest (cares about) with influence (can affect) - a loud critic without authority is not automatically high power.
- Missing indirect stakeholders such as regulators, works councils and dependent teams.
- Listing names without attitude, concerns or required engagement level, leaving no basis for planning.