3 Analyzing Stakeholders
Learn how to assess stakeholders, select tools for comparing them, and keep judgments evidence-based, validated, and current.
Purpose and scope
helps decision-makers understand who can affect an initiative, who may be affected by it, what matters to those people or groups, and how to engage them. It supports better decisions and communication, but it is a working assessment rather than a definitive ranking of people. Revisit it as the initiative and its context change.
Assess stakeholders separately
Assess the following dimensions separately for each stakeholder or stakeholder group:
: Identify outcomes, benefits, costs, responsibilities, and values that matter to them. Consider stated priorities as well as plausible competing , and distinguish evidence from inference.
: Assess their ability to enable, shape, delay, or block decisions and delivery. may come from formal authority, expertise, resources, relationships, or public standing.
: Consider how significantly the initiative might affect them, such as through changed services, workload, access, costs, rights, or risks. Assess this from their perspective rather than only in terms of project success.
Expectations: Record what they expect to happen, when it should happen, and to what standard. Include expectations about being consulted, informed, or involved in decisions.
Likely concerns: Consider what they could reasonably fear or question, including disruption, unfair distribution of benefits, privacy, safety, or an unclear decision process. Where possible, confirm concerns directly rather than treating guesses as facts.
and are distinct. A regulator may have high but little direct , while service users may be greatly affected but have limited formal . Both groups warrant attention, though for different reasons.
Choose an analysis tool
Choose a tool according to the question being considered. No single tool captures every relevant dimension, and stakeholder positions may change.
: Compares who has high or low and interest. It offers a simple way to prioritize contact: manage closely, keep satisfied, keep informed, or monitor. A limitation is that it can obscure groups that are highly affected but have little formal power.
: Compares who can shape the initiative with who will feel its effects. It makes affected groups visible alongside powerful actors, though and expectations may still need to be recorded separately.
: Helps determine whose claims need attention based on power, legitimacy, and urgency, particularly when requests compete or concerns are time-sensitive. Legitimacy and urgency judgments can be subjective, so record the evidence and rationale.
: Records detailed information about stakeholders and what should happen next, including , expectations, concerns, evidence, risks, and communication actions. It complements a visual map but requires upkeep.
: Shows which stakeholders , depend on, or communicate with one another. It can reveal potential partners, intermediaries, and conflict pathways that a simple grid misses. It is more complex and is useful when relationships affect outcomes.
A power–interest grid gives a quick overview, while registers and relationship maps add detail. Matrices help compare and prioritize; registers and network maps help capture evidence and relationships.
Apply the tools to an example
A clinic assessing a new online appointment service might identify several different stakeholder positions:
Patients with reliable internet: They may have high interest, moderate , and potentially positive , and may expect convenience and clear instructions.
Patients with limited internet access: They may experience high despite having low formal . They may be concerned about losing access to phone or in-person booking.
Clinic staff: They may have high interest and practical , with concerns about workload, training, and duplicate bookings.
Health regulator: It may have high and lower day-to-day interest, with expectations about privacy and compliance.
A could guide contact with the regulator and staff. An – view could help ensure that patients facing access barriers are not overlooked. The team should check initial judgments with stakeholders and relevant evidence.
Record and revisit judgments
For each important judgment, record enough information to make the analysis useful and auditable:
Assessment: State the judgment, such as “limited-internet patients may have high and low .”
Basis: Note whether it comes from an interview, policy, operational data, expert judgment, or inference.
Assumption and confidence: Explain what is being presumed and how certain the team is.
Risk if wrong: Record a possible consequence, such as unintentionally reducing access to the service.
Validation action and owner: Specify how the judgment will be checked and who is responsible. One example is testing the booking process with affected patients before launch.
Review point: Identify when, or what change, should trigger reassessment.
Use labels such as confirmed, inferred, and unknown so an assumption is not presented as fact. Analysis is iterative: new evidence may change estimates of , , or likely response. Validate judgments with stakeholders and update the assessment as circumstances change.