Stakeholder Analysis for Meridian Water's Billing Replacement
Meridian Water is replacing its 20-year-old billing system. The programme has a fixed go-live in nine months and a steering committee that wants a stakeholder engagement plan within three weeks. Fourteen stakeholder groups have been identified so far: contact-centre staff (300 people, represented by a union concerned about role changes), field engineers who will use a new mobile app but have not been consulted, the finance director who signs off billing accuracy, and the economic regulator, which requires six months' notice of any change affecting billing calculations. The software vendor's account manager is the only vendor contact and attends the steering committee. The previous programme (a CRM replacement) had a 'go-live surprise' when the head of customer care was missed from the plan. Engagement budget is limited to one full-time coordinator and travel for four workshops.
1. What activities would you perform to identify and analyse stakeholders for the billing programme, and what outputs would you produce within the three-week deadline?
Read the worked answer
Treat this as a lightweight but rigorous stakeholder analysis. In week one, review the programme mandate, process maps, and the value stream to see who is affected at each stage. Use workshops with the programme team, HR, finance, operations, and the vendor to identify stakeholders, including informal influencers such as union representatives and field team leads. In week two, analyse each group for power, interest, attitude (supporter, neutral, blocker), needs and expectations, impact of the change, preferred channel, and current relationship strength. Validate the analysis with the sponsor and a few trusted stakeholders. Outputs by week three: a stakeholder register and map, an engagement plan with named owners, frequency and channels, a communication plan, and a relationship risk log. The previous CRM 'go-live surprise' shows the cost of an incomplete register; add a check against the lessons learned. Do not over-engineer: a one-page map per group and a clear owner are more useful than a 40-page document.
2. How would you prioritise the 14 groups and tailor engagement for the regulator, the union, and the field engineers? Explain your reasoning.
Read the worked answer
Use power, interest, attitude, and impact to prioritise, but do not treat the grid mechanically. The regulator has high power and low day-to-day interest but a formal notice requirement; manage closely through scheduled, formal engagement and evidence of compliance. Missing the six-month notice would be a programme-level failure. The union has high power, high interest, and a potentially negative attitude because of job changes; engage early and consultatively, involving representatives in role-change planning. A blocker with high power must be converted through participation, not managed by email. The field engineers have high interest and high influence on adoption; they have been ignored, so co-design the mobile app and run an early pilot with champions. The finance director has high power and high interest in billing accuracy; keep them in formal sign-off reviews. Reasoning: high power plus high interest needs partnership; high power plus low interest needs formal assurance; high interest plus operational influence needs involvement. Tailor channel and frequency accordingly.
3. How should this stakeholder work connect to the programme's value stream and communication, so the 'go-live surprise' is not repeated?
Read the worked answer
Map the billing change value stream and mark where stakeholder engagement must occur: requirements, design, testing, migration, cutover, and post-live support. At each stage, define which stakeholder groups must be consulted or informed, what evidence is required, and who owns the interaction. Put 'stakeholder readiness' into stage gates alongside technical readiness, so a missed group blocks progress rather than surprising go-live. Create one communication plan with a single source of truth, but use different channels for regulator, union, engineers, and finance. Build a feedback loop so concerns are logged, answered, and visible. This connects to the engage value chain activity and to continual improvement. The previous surprise happened because communication was treated as a workstream separate from delivery; here it should be embedded in the value stream. Assign relationship owners for the regulator and union at senior level, and require sign-off that consultation happened before go-live.