How to do Stakeholder Analysis
•Transferir como PPT, PDF•
21 gostaram•21,653 visualizações
Overview of stakeholder analysis methods
![Why stakeholder analysis? ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a How to do Stakeholder Analysis
Semelhante a How to do Stakeholder Analysis (20)
Mais de Aberdeen CES
Mais de Aberdeen CES (20)
Último
Último (20)
How to do Stakeholder Analysis
- 1. www.see.leeds.ac.uk/sustainableuplands Stakeholder Analysis ustainable Uplands Learning to manage future change Mark Reed
- 10. Focus Groups Semi-structured interviews Snowball sampling Interest-influence matrices Radical transactive-ness Stakeholder-led stakeholder categorisation Q methodology Social Network Analysis Knowledge Mapping Identifying stakeholders Differentiating between and categorising stakeholders Investigating relationships between stakeholders Analytical categorisation (top-down) Reconstructive categorisation (bottom-up) Normative Instrumental Methods Typology Rationale
- 11. Interest/Influence Matrices High Low Influence Context setters - highly influential, but have little interest. Try and work closely as they could have a significant impact Key players – must work closely with these to affect change Crowd – little interest or influence so may not be worth prioritising, but be aware their interest or influence may change with time Subjects – may be affected but lack power. Can become influential by forming alliances with others. Often includes marginalised groups you may wish to empower Level of Interest High
- 14. Name/ Organisation/ Group Nature of stake Interest H/M/L (comm-ents?) Influence H/M/L (comm-ents?) What would incentivise their involvement? Things we should know (issues, conflicts etc) Appropriate people (contact details)
- 15. ...adapt to your own needs Stakeholder Group /organisation /individual Area of concern Represented Sector Represented Perceived Interest in issue Perceived Influence on issue Comments arising during discussion
- 18. Despite apparently polarised views on burning, upland stakeholders in the Peak District are highly connected… And despite the fact that certain groups have little contact with each other… The majority of individuals perceive considerable overlap between their views on upland management and the views of those they know from other groups Water Recreation Agriculture Conservation Grouse
- 20. Summary
Notas do Editor
- In order to explore these views and relationships in more depth, we conducted a Social Network Analysis. This first network diagram shows communication ties between people from five of the main stakeholder groups in the Peak District, and shows they are highly connected: Each dot (or “node”) represents an individual stakeholder Arrows connecting stakeholders show those who communicated with others in the network And two-way arrows indicate when this relationship was reciprocated Stakeholders depicted by large dots interact with a large number of other people in the network These people are likely to be able to act as bridges between different parts of the network By involving these individuals in our process, they may spread ideas, knowledge and attitudes to others in their wider social network The next figure shows communication ties between people who communicated on a monthly or more frequent basis, and you can see immediately that the network begins to break down: Three cliques emerge Recreation forms its own clique, water and conservation another, grouse moor managers and agriculture form a third And there is infrequent communication between the cliques This suggests there is a danger that recreation groups may get marginalised in our dialogue, so their engagement needs to be actively sought This final diagram shows people who shared views about upland management. You can see that despite infrequent contact between cliques, and apparently polarised views on burning (that we heard in interviews), there was considerable overlap between people’s views on upland management (in general) and the views of those they knew from other groups: This suggests to us that there is enough common ground for different stakeholder groups to participate in meaningful dialogue over areas of mutual concern in our future research