1. Mgt 610 Strategic Perspectives on Project Management
(c) 2013, Thomas Lechler. All rights reserved.For academic use only. 1
MGT610
Lecture 6
Project Stakeholder Management
Dr. Thomas Lechler Phone: (201) 216-8174
Morton Room 636 FAX: (201) 216-5385
email: tlechler@stevens.edu

2. 22
Project Stakeholders & Roles
• An individual, group, or organization who may affect,
be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by
a decision, activity or outcome of a project (PMBOK,
2013)
• Examples
– Project manager
– Project sponsor: provide resources and support
for the project
– Project owner: initiates a project, finances
it, contracts it out, and benefits from its output(s)
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

3. 33
Project Stakeholders & Roles
– Client/customer: approve and use the project’s
product, service or results
– Vendors: provide components or services
necessary for the project also called contractors
– Functional managers: provide SME or services to
the project
– Organizational groups: internal stakeholders
affected by the activities of the project team
– Other stakeholders: financial institutions,
government regulators, consultants and others
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

4. 44
N=42
• Stakeholder capabilities and dynamics are the most
frequent source of uncertainties!
Stakeholder Uncertainties
Uncertainty Categories Uncertainty Sources Frequencies
Stakeholder uncertainty Inexperience, change, contracts 20
Organizational uncertainty M&A, politics, unknown legacy system 10
Technological uncertainty Tech. issues, tight specs 8
Contextual turbulences Legal, market 6
Project characteristics Unknown complexity 3
Malpractice Self induced uncertainty 2

5. 55
Stakeholders Related Sources of Uncertainties
Uncertainty sources Frequencies
Customer induced changes/Contracts/Diverse
needs
3
Rejection from clients 1
Requirements changed by project owner 1
Opposition from external stakeholders 1
Inability of contractor or vendor 3
Inexperienced project manager 2
Inexperienced subcontractor 1
Contractor-client Relations 2
Change of key stakeholders 2
Unknown project ownership 1
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

6. 66
Project Owner Goals: Defined by Project
Contract
Fixed Price (without incentives and penalties): 21%
Fixed Price (with Incentives and penalties): 18%
Cost reimbursement (with and without incentives): 13 %
In House Work Order or Budget Allocation: 45%
Other: 3%
N=242 projects

7. 77
Managing Project Owner Perspective: Project
Mission
Project Mission:
Represents the project owner expectations and is expressed in the
business need and the project justification.
Business Need:
Expressed as a goal or as a problem derived from the corporate
strategy.
Project Justification:
States the reason for undertaking the project.
Explains why business need should be solved.
The justification should influence future decisions about what to do
in the project.
Problem:
Need and justification are often ill defined. The ultimate goal is to
maximize wealth.

8. 8
Explaining Project Success with Client
Expectation Alignment: An Empirical Study
Thomas Lechler Ting Gao
Stevens Institute of Technology

9. 99
Agenda
• Motivation
• Literature Review
• Model Development and Hypotheses
• Methodology
• Results
• Implications and Outlook
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

10. 1010
Motivation
• Challenge for project managers to satisfy their clients
• Not unusual for clients to change their expectations
during project implementation
• Gap: Managing client expectations is recognized by
practitioners, but research lags behind practice
• Research Question: What are the effects
of managing client expectations?
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

11. 1111
Literature Review
• Reasons for Dynamic Client Expectations
– Information asymmetry
• Creating potential mistrust (Turner &
Müller, 2004)
– Motivation to maximize value
• Self-perception theory (Bem,1972)
• Dissatisfaction with past choices (Huber,
1997)
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

12. 1212
Literature Review
• Influence of Dynamic Client Expectations
– Project changes, especially goal changes
(Kreiner, 1995)
– Loss of client support
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

13. 1313
Literature Review
• Client Expectation Alignment
– The processes to align client expectations
with project objectives
• Following relationship marketing literature
(Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Buttle, 2001)
– The processes reducing goal changes
– The processes increasing client support
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

14. 1414
Model Development and
Hypotheses
• Conceptual Framework
Client
Competence
Team
Competence
Project
Manager
Authority
Client
Expectation
Alignment
Client
Support
Goal
Changes
Project
Success
H5a (+)
H5b(+)
H5c (+)
H3a (-)
H3b (+)
H3c (+)
H1 (-)
H2 (+)
H4a
H4b
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

15. 1515
Methodology
• Data Collection
– From project manager, two project team members,
and one senior manager
– 600 surveys from 249 projects in the USA
• Research Sample
– 39% NPD
– 34% IT/IS projects
– 8% Construction projects
– 11% Others
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

16. 1616
Methodology
• Research Measures
– Applying multiple items
– 7-point rating scales from “strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree”
– Cronbach’s alpha from 0.83 to 0.95 for the
five constructs
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

17. 1717
Methodology
Scale Alpha Number of items
Project success 0.85 – 0.95 13
Client expectation
alignment
0.89 9
Goal changes 0.85 2
Team competence 0.83 3
Project manager
authority
0.84 4
Client support N/A 1
Client competence N/A 1
• Research Measures
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

18. 1818
Variable Measurements
Scale Measures
Efficiency 1. The project was completed on schedule
2. The project was completed within budget
Effectiveness 1. The project met all technical specifications.
2. The project does what it is supposed to do.
3. The results of this project represent an improvement in client
performance.
4. The project is used by its intended clients.
5. The project has a positive impact on those who make use of it.
6. Important clients, directly affected by the project, make use of it.
7. Clients using this project will experience more effective decision
making and / or improved performance.
Customer
satisfaction
1. The clients were satisfied with the process by which this project was
completed
2. The clients are satisfied with the results of the project
Economic
success
1. The project was an economic success for the organization that
completed it.
2. All things considered, the project is a success.

19. 1919
Variable Measurements
Scale Measures
Client expectation
alignment
1. Potential clients had been contacted about the usefulness of the
project output.
2. The clients had been given the opportunity to provide input early in
the project development stage.
3. The limitations of the project had been discussed with the client.
4. The clients were told whether or not their input was adopted into the
project plan.
5. Clients know whom to contact when problems or questions arose.
6. The clients were kept informed about the project’s progress.
7. Adequate advanced preparation had been done to determine how
best to “sell” the project to the clients.
8. There was adequate documentation of the project to permit easy use
by the clients (instructions, manuals, etc).
9. An adequate presentation of the project had been developed for the
clients.
Client support 1.In case of difficulties, the clients supported the project team.
Goal changes 1. Project goals were often changed.
2. At least one major project goal was changed considerably.

20. 2020
Variable Measurements
Scale Measures
Client competence 1. During the negotiation process, the client appeared knowledgeable
regarding the technical aspects of the project.
Team competence 1. The project team was sufficiently trained.
2. The project team was technically competent.
3. The people implementing the project understood it.
Project manager’s
authority
1. The authority allocated to the position of project manager was
sufficient.
2. The project manager had enough authority to negotiate agreements
with project clients (internal or external) regarding the terms, conditions,
and or deliverables of the project.
3. The project manager had sufficient authority to make all the
necessary decisions to achieve the project goals.
4. The project manager had the authority to change objectives in order
to achieve the project goal.

21. 2121
Methodology
• Data Analysis
– Within unit agreement index (rwg) to justify
aggregation: deleted 43 projects
– Structural Equation Modeling: LISREL
– Stepwise Regression Model
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

22. 2222
Results
• Influence of Client Expectation Alignment (SEM)
Direct Indirect Total
Client expectation alignment +0.24 +0.38 +0.62
Goal changes -0.14 -- -0.14
Client support +0.59 -- +0.59
+0.24
Client
Expectation
Alignment
Client
Support
Goal
Changes
Project
Success
-0.32
+0.56
-0.14
+0.59
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

23. 2323
Model Development and
Hypotheses
• Conceptual Framework
Client
Competence
Team
Competence
Project
Manager
Authority
Client
Expectation
Alignment
Client
Support
Goal
Changes
Project
Success
H5a (+)
H5b(+)
H5c (+)
H3a (-)
H3b (+)
H3c (+)
H1 (-)
H2 (+)
H4a
H4b
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

24. 2424
Results
• Determinants of Client Expectation Alignment
(Stepwise Regression Model)
** p<0.01
• All hypotheses are supported
Variables Final Step
Project team competence 0.43**
Client competence 0.32**
PM authority 0.17**
F value 64.30**
R2 0.50
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

25. 2525
Implications and Outlook
• For Stakeholder Theory
– Significance of stakeholder expectations
– The influence path of changing expectations on
project performance
• For Practice
– Communicating to adjust clients’ expectations
– Managing project changes by managing
stakeholder expectations
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao

26. 2626
Implications and Outlook
• Outlook
– Alternative measurement model for client
expectation alignment
– Internal and external stakeholder expectations
– Project uncertainty as a moderator
– More mediators to explain the effect of client
expectation alignment on project success
Thomas Lechler, Ting Gao