3 Stakeholder Analysis and Prioritization
Learn how to identify stakeholders, assess their influence and needs, prioritize engagement, and keep analysis current as a project changes.
Identify stakeholders
helps a project team understand who can affect the work, who will be affected by it, and how to focus engagement. Treat it as a working view rather than a fixed ranking: interests, , and circumstances can change over time.
List specific people or groups, including internal and external parties. Consider who makes or can decisions, contributes resources or expertise, uses project outputs, represents affected communities, or may experience intended or unintended effects.
Group stakeholders when useful, but avoid overlooking distinct needs within a broad group. A stakeholder may be an individual or a group whose relationship to the work warrants consideration.
Assess stakeholder needs and
Assess each stakeholder against distinct factors rather than treating one rating as a substitute for the others. In particular, and are different: a senior leader may have high but little day-to-day , while an affected user may have high and limited formal authority.
: How much can the stakeholder enable, shape, delay, or block decisions and delivery? Consider formal authority, control of resources, expertise, relationships, and the ability to others.
: How concerned or involved is the stakeholder? Consider how directly the work relates to their responsibilities, goals, or needs.
: Record both what effects the project could have on the stakeholder and how significantly the stakeholder could affect project outcomes. Make clear which direction each assessment describes; someone can be highly affected yet have little power over the project.
Expectations: Record the outcomes, decisions, information, or involvement stakeholders expect, including when they expect them. Ask directly where possible rather than treating assumptions as facts.
Potential concerns: Note what stakeholders could lose, find difficult, distrust, or consider a risk. Record concerns neutrally, including uncertainty and possible disagreement.
A practical register can include the stakeholder, role, , , on them, on the project, expectations, concerns, current position (supportive, neutral, or resistant), evidence or confidence, and next engagement action. Consider interests from the stakeholder’s perspective and note what happens if their needs are or are not met.
Use maps to guide engagement
The rates and as low or high, then places stakeholders in one of four groups. Use it to guide the level of attention, not to replace judgment or direct communication.
High , low — Keep satisfied: Provide relevant updates and reassurance; avoid unnecessary detail.
High , high — Manage closely: Involve stakeholders in decisions, discuss trade-offs, and maintain regular two-way contact.
Low , low — Monitor and keep informed: Provide appropriate updates and watch for changes.
Low , high — Consult and keep informed: Listen to concerns, seek feedback, and explain how input is considered.
Include in prioritization
A power– map can understate people who are strongly affected but have limited . Add an rating to the register or use an – map. Prioritize close listening and accessible engagement for people with high even if their formal power is low. Stakeholder positions can be mapped using and or and , and should be reviewed as they change.
Compare priorities carefully
For more explicit comparisons, rate each factor from (low) to (high). Define what the scale means for the project and record the reason for each rating. One practical, illustrative is:
Urgency reflects how quickly a stakeholder’s need or concern requires a response. The score is a sorting aid, not an objective truth. A low total should not automatically exclude a stakeholder with a legal, ethical, safety, or representation need.
The offers a related lens based on power, legitimacy, and urgency. It can help identify claims that may need attention even if a stakeholder is not prominent on a two-axis map.
Apply and revisit the analysis
For a team introducing a new customer-service portal, the following stakeholders illustrate how ratings can inform engagement:
Executive sponsor: High and high ; expects delivery against agreed outcomes and is concerned about cost and reputation. Prioritize closely by agreeing on decision points and providing concise progress and risk updates.
Customer-service staff: Moderate , high , and high ; expect usable workflows and training and are concerned about workload and disruption. Consult through workflow demonstrations and feedback sessions, then explain what changed.
Customers who use assistive technology: Individually low and high ; expect accessible service and are concerned the portal may be difficult or impossible to use. Include representative users in usability testing and provide an accessible way to report problems.
Finance approver: High and low day-to-day ; expects budget control and is concerned about unapproved costs. Keep satisfied with milestone-based cost and exception updates.
These ratings are provisional. Testing may reveal new concerns, and a decision deadline may increase a stakeholder’s urgency and change their priority.
Turn analysis into action
For each high-priority stakeholder or group, decide what the team needs to learn or communicate, who owns the relationship, which channel and timing fit, and how feedback or concerns will be handled. Tailor engagement to stakeholder needs: a decision-maker may need a short briefing, while affected users may need an accessible workshop or hands-on trial.
Record assumptions and evidence. Review the map at key project stages and after significant changes, and update priorities when , , , or urgency shifts. The analysis is most useful when it informs ongoing engagement rather than remaining a static chart.