Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 335–343

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Stakeholder analysis in projects: Challenges in using current

guidelines in the real world
Anna Lund Jepsen *, Pernille Eskerod 1
University of Southern Denmark, Department of Environmental and Business Economics, Niels Bohrs Vej 9, DK-6700 Esbjerg, Denmark

Received 30 August 2007; received in revised form 31 March 2008; accepted 10 April 2008

Abstract

The authors of this paper investigated the usability of current guidelines regarding stakeholder analysis by letting four project man-
agers apply the guidelines to their renewal projects. The project managers found several challenges in using the guidelines. Especially, the
guidelines lack clarity regarding (a) how to identify stakeholders and determine their importance and (b) how to reveal stakeholders’
expectations. Further, the application revealed that the project manager may not have the skills or the resources required to carry
out the tasks involved in making the necessary inquiries. Therefore, the stakeholder analysis may be based on superficial rather than
deep knowledge. It seems that the current guidelines should be considered as a conceptual framework rather than instructions on
how to do a real world stakeholder analysis.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Project management; Stakeholder outline; Commitment matrix; Stakeholder analysis

1. Introduction is ‘‘. . . the continuing development of relationships with

stakeholders for the purpose of achieving a successful pro-
Stakeholder management has received considerable ject outcome” [4], p. 103.
interest in both the general management literature and Contributions (e.g. deliverables or supporting decisions)
the project management (PM) literature since Freeman from a strong coalition of supportive and influential stake-
introduced the concept in his very much quoted book holders are necessary to carry out a project successfully and
‘‘Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach” from it is the responsibility of the project manager to ensure such
1984 [1]. However, in 1997, Mitchell et al. [2] pointed out contributions through management of the stakeholders.
that there has not been much research trying to test An important component of stakeholder management is
whether current theory is usable when examining real stakeholder analysis [1,2,5–8]. Proponents for stakeholder
stakeholder–manager relationships. analysis [3,4,9–12] argue that stakeholder analysis increases
Stakeholder management is an important issue in PM as the project manager’s ability to anticipate opportunities
a project can be seen as a temporary coalition of stakehold- and problems for the project at a time when the project
ers having to create something together [3]. Building on team still has time and opportunity for manoeuvring.
Freeman [1], Andersen [3], p. 84 defines a project stake- Accordingly, a stakeholder analysis is often carried out
holder as ‘‘. . . a person or a group of persons, who are front end [11,12].
influenced by or able to influence the project”. According The question for project managers then is: how should
to McElroy and Mills, stakeholder management in projects they carry out such an analysis?
*
As we shall see in the following, there are theoretical
Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 6550 1511.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.L. Jepsen), [email protected]
contributions targeted at answering this question. How-
(P. Eskerod). ever, the advice which can be found in these contributions
1
Tel.: +45 6550 4154. is on a rather general level and to our knowledge the

0263-7863/$34.00 Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.04.002
336 A.L. Jepsen, P. Eskerod / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 335–343

usefulness in practical settings has only been evaluated to a Knowledge about the importance and influence of each
limited extent. For example, Pouloudi and Whitley [13], p. stakeholder is not sufficient as can be seen from the follow-
4 state that the literature ‘‘lacks a practical technique for ing statement:
actually identifying stakeholders”. To find directions for
‘‘Effective project managers require keen analytical and
further development of theory on how to do stakeholder
intuitive skills to identify stakeholders and work with them
analysis, the research presented in this paper therefore
to understand their expectations and influence upon pro-
aimed at uncovering challenges in making a stakeholder
ject success. This facilitates managing a process that max-
analysis using some of the guidelines presented in current
imises stakeholder positive input and minimises any
literature.
potential detrimental impact’’ [17].
In the following, we first look into PM literature regard-
ing stakeholder analysis in projects. We then describe how For stakeholder management to be efficient, it thus also
we applied some of the guidelines from this normative the- an important part of the project manager’s job to try to
ory to four projects. Subsequently, we present the findings understand the stakeholders’ expectations. This is neces-
from the application of the guidelines and discuss the find- sary to know how the stakeholders can be influenced so
ings in relation to implicit assumptions behind the guide- that they support and contribute to the project.
lines. Finally, we consider implications of the findings for
PM theory and practice. Throughout the paper, we use 3. Current advice regarding stakeholder analysis
the term ‘project manager’ in a broad sense meaning that
it is not necessarily the project manager in person who car- The findings from the stakeholder analysis should make
ries out the tasks referred to. Rather, the project manager is the project manager capable of determining how much and
responsible for the tasks being carried out. We use the term what kind of attention each stakeholder should get and
‘stakeholder’ for both individual stakeholders and a group subsequently how to interact with each stakeholder. Based
of persons seen as one type of stakeholder. on the above and in line with current literature [2–4,10–
12,18–21], stakeholder analysis in projects requires the fol-
2. Stakeholder analysis in projects lowing activities:

A central premise underlying the concept of project (1) Identification of the (important) stakeholders.
stakeholder management is that the project manager (2) Characterization of the stakeholders pointing out
should make deliberate attempts to exert influence on pro- their
ject stakeholders so that they deliver their contributions to (a) needed contributions,
the project. Therefore, identification of the stakeholders (b) expectations concerning rewards for contri-
and their necessary contributions is an important issue butions,
[13,14]. Another central premise underlying project stake- (c) power in relation to the project.
holder management is that project managers have limited
resources and should allocate these resources in such a (3) Decision about which strategy to use to influence
way that they achieve the best possible results [15]. Further, each stakeholder.
the law of diminishing returns suggests that efforts are bet-
ter expended spread across a range of stakeholders than Andersen et al. [11] suggest presenting the results of the
concentrated on a few, because initial efforts yield a higher stakeholder analysis in an outline like the one displayed in
benefit than will later efforts. This entails that the stake- Fig. 1. In the outline, the (types of) stakeholders should be
holder analysis should uncover how necessary the prospec- listed along with their area of interest (their stake). Further,
tive contribution from each stakeholder is for the project necessary contributions along with each stakeholder’s
[11] as well as the power of the stakeholders and the possi- expectations in the form of rewards from the project as well
bility to influence them [1]. Power in stakeholder manage- as their power in relation to the project should be put in the
ment in projects is related to ‘‘the way the stakeholder outline. Finally, the appropriate strategy for influencing
can affect the project in case of a conflict and whether it each stakeholder and the person responsible for imple-
can increase its power by cooperating with others” [11], menting the strategy should be added.
p. 50. Along this line, Mitchell et al. [2] suggest that stake- The concepts in the outline are quite clear and easy to
holders should be categorized based on their possession of understand. They are also in line with the activities
three attributes: Power, legitimacy, and urgency, and
receive different amounts of attention based on the catego-
rization. This is in line with Freeman’s [1] and later Clark- Stakeholder Area of Contribu- Expecta- Power Strategy Respon-
interest tions tions sible
son’s [16] notion of primary and secondary stakeholders
according to which primary stakeholders are essential to
the wellbeing and survival of the organization and there-
fore, should be allocated more attention than should sec-
ondary stakeholders. Fig. 1. Stakeholder outline [11].
 A.L. Jepsen, P. Eskerod / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 335–343 337

presented in the above. However, Andersen et al. [11] do Stakeholder Active Passive Neutral Passive Active
Opposition Opposition Support Support
not offer much advice on how to how to acquire the infor-
mation which is necessary to fill in the outline. We have, Suppliers XO
therefore, looked for advice regarding this in other litera- Top
ture. In the following, the guidelines are presented along Management X O
the lines of the three activities listed above. Colleagues in
the permanent X O
organisation
3.1. Activity 1: identification of the stakeholders
Grumbler O X
Calvert [22] suggests identifying the stakeholders by
X = current position, O = necessary/wanted position
conducting a brainstorm, in which names of all the stake- *Example of content filled in by the authors.
holders are identified. Other authors [13,23] suggest asking
Fig. 2. Stakeholder-commitment matrix* [4].
persons in the organization to point out stakeholders. Fur-
ther, Pouloudi and Whitley [13] refer to other authors sug-
gesting the use of generic stakeholder lists, but criticise this want other benefits, like influence on the project process or
approach for being too general to reveal all important the project objectives, good-will, access to the project
stakeholders for a specific case. results, positive publicity, praise, or attention. There is only
limited advice concerning how to acquire the information
3.2. Activity 2: characterization of the stakeholders needed to characterize the stakeholders as regards expecta-
tions concerning rewards. However, Varvasovsky and Bru-
Stakeholders have to be characterized as regards contri- gha [25] suggest the use of face-to-face interviews and
butions needed from them, the expectations they have con- questionnaires. Mikkelsen and Riis [12] propose that the
cerning rewards for delivering the contributions, and their project manager carries out a start up dialogue with each
power in relation to the project. Contributions can be in team member and his/her line manager in which their
the form of specific deliverables, a positive attitude, or spe- expectations and benefits can be assessed.
cific behaviour like making a supportive decision. Contri- The final characterization parameter for stakeholders is
butions in the form of deliverables can typically be found the power that the stakeholders have as regards influencing
in the project mandate or in the terms of Refs. [3,11,12] the project. Mikkelsen and Riis [12] suggest that the power
while other contributions need to be assessed by the project may be assessed by the project team and the project man-
manager or the project team. ager for example based on their knowledge about the stake-
One type of contribution can be supportive behaviour holders and the organizational context.
which is related to a positive attitude towards the project.
This can be assessed in a stakeholder-commitment matrix 3.3. Activity 3: decision about which strategy to use to
as described in McElroy and Mills [4]. The matrix contains influence each stakeholder
(1) each stakeholder’s commitment to the project at a given
moment, and (2) the type of commitment which the project Stakeholder management is about making stakeholders
manager finds is necessary or desirable for the project to be contribute to the project as needed. Therefore, the strategy
accomplished successfully. McElroy and Mills define possi- for influencing the stakeholders must be based on a need to
ble types of commitment as follows: active opposition, alter or support each stakeholder’s inclination to deliver
passive opposition, neutral, passive support, and active the needed contributions and the resources required to do
support. The type of commitment can be seen as a desired so. McElroy and Mills [4] can also be used for this purpose
contribution. as illustrated by the arrows in Fig. 2. Stakeholders who are
See an example of a filled-in commitment matrix in supportive are expected to be more compliant than stake-
Fig. 2. holders who are in some level of opposition. Therefore,
There is only limited advice concerning how to acquire they will need less attention than stakeholders who are
the information needed to characterize the stakeholders powerful and in opposition.
as regards commitment towards the project. This activity is based on the characterization of the
The project manager must also determine expectations stakeholders in activity 2 and methods for development
and benefits desired by each stakeholder. This is the of strategy.
‘‘price” that has to be paid for the needed deliverance
and/or compliance from each stakeholder [12]. ‘‘Price” 4. Research method and cases
has to be understood in a broad sense, not only as direct
monetary payment. For internal stakeholders, the payment Our research question regards how guidelines on how to
can also be in the form of rewards like for example a salary do stakeholder analysis work in a practical setting. We
raise, new computer facilities, professional challenges or a decided to undertake a participatory action research pro-
feeling of meaningfulness. The reward may be expected ject [26] since this type of research is well suited for study-
sometime in the future [24]. External stakeholders typically ing development processes, and for putting research
338 A.L. Jepsen, P. Eskerod / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 335–343

findings into immediate use [27]. Action research can be Meeting 2 took place three weeks later. At this meeting,
defined as ‘. . . research in which the validity and value of difficulties in filling in the matrices were discussed as well as
research results are tested through collaborative insider – possible benefits from doing so. After this discussion, the
professional researcher knowledge generation processes in project managers were asked to gather the information that
projects of social change . . .’ [28], p. 45. Knowledge is gen- they felt they needed to proceed in filling in the matrices
erated through ‘collaborative communicative processes’ before the next meeting, which would take place three weeks
[28]. During the planning of the research, we discussed later. Especially, we discussed the use of semi-structured
forms of participation and collaboration and how to bal- face-to-face interviews as a means for gathering the data.
ance our research interests and the project managers’ At meeting 3, we again discussed if and in what ways the
interests in engaging in the research project [29]. We stakeholder analysis matrices had helped the project man-
decided to collaborate and communicate with project agers. Special focus was on experiences gained from gather-
managers by acting as process facilitators [30], instructing ing the data necessary for filling in the matrices. At the end
them on how to carry out a stakeholder analysis containing of the meeting, tasks were agreed for the next meeting that
the activities presented in the above and interviewing them would take place six weeks later. Focus this time would be
about their experiences in using the guidelines. This way, on discussing filling in the commitment matrix presented in
we were able to make our professional knowledge interact Fig. 2. As we did not have any specific tools to offer, the pro-
with the project managers’ local knowledge [28]. This type ject managers were free to gather information as they
of participatory action research is what Kemmis and pleased and to develop their own tools for doing this.
McTaggart refer to as an ‘‘action science” approach At meeting 4, we discussed the experiences that the pro-
[26]. ject managers had gained with the methods that they used
During four months, we followed four projects that to collect information and filling in the stakeholder outline
were carried out at a large Danish hospital by four different and the commitment matrix. The purpose in the present
project managers. All of the four projects can be defined as research was to discover the challenges that the project
renewal projects as their purposes are related to improve- managers found when making a stakeholder analysis and
ments within the hospital that are beneficial for both not how they would actually choose to manage the stake-
patients and staff. Three of the projects concern improve- holders. Therefore, we did not ask the project managers
ments of procedures on how to treat patients. The fourth to report on how to fill in the ‘‘Strategy” and ‘‘Responsi-
project concerns an assessment of the quality management ble” columns in the stakeholder outline.
procedures at the hospital. The information gathering that we did in this study did
The four projects were related to a single or a few not follow a straight line forward but rather went a bit for-
departments at the hospital. They all lasted about one year ward and then returned to topics discussed early in the pro-
(2006–2007). The project organizational form for all four cess. This turned out to be necessary because the projects
projects were a weak matrix organization [31] implying that moved forward at different paces and because the project
none of the project managers had any formal authority managers kept reflecting on identification and grouping
over the project team members. The project managers of the stakeholders even though they were supposed to
had to negotiate with both the heads of the departments focus on later activities. We consider this only natural in
and with project team members and other stakeholders a study using action research accepting that the field con-
about all resources for and activities in the project before trols the pace and progress rather than the researcher’s
and during the project course. Therefore, the project man- plan controlling the field.
agers were forced to manage the stakeholders, and as a pre- We have analysed the data by reading the interview
requisite for that, analyze them very carefully in order to be notes several times looking for illustrative statements of
able to deliver the project outcomes. The studied projects the experiences that the project managers had with carrying
can thus be characterized as phenomenon revealing. out activities that we asked them to engage in.
We studied stakeholder analysis in the four projects by
engaging in discussions with the project managers in four 5. Findings
half-day group sessions. One author carried out the discus-
sion while the other author took extensive notes from the In the following, the findings are presented along the
discussions. The group sessions took place in a meeting lines of the three different activities involved in doing a
room at the hospital. To facilitate the process, we asked stakeholder analysis. Focus is on the challenges that the
the project managers to use some of the suggestions which project managers experienced in performing the activities.
have been presented in the above. Project managers 1–4 are referred to as PM1, PM2, PM3,
At meeting 1, the project managers presented their pro- and PM4.
jects. We agreed that they should prepare a list of stake-
holders to present at the next meeting in the group using 5.1. Activity 1: identifying the stakeholders
brain storm. The project managers were also asked to start
filling in the stakeholder outline and the stakeholder-com- The project managers reported that making a list of
mitment matrix displayed in Figs. 1 and 2. stakeholders at one point in time was not a difficult task.
 A.L. Jepsen, P. Eskerod / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 335–343 339

The list of stakeholders was generated by thinking of ‘‘If I cannot get a ‘‘go” from the project owner, it is hard
needed contributions and who could/should provide these to list needed contributions’’.
contributions or would be influenced by the project in
[PM4]
other ways. Still, the stakeholders would have liked more
guidance from the literature on how to identify the stake- Contributions are not just deliverances but also how
holders and define common areas of interest. stakeholders take part in the project work by participating
in meetings and making decisions. This kind of contribu-
‘‘How do you ensure that you make the right categories –
tion was difficult to asses in advance. It was also hard to
what is it that really separates the various stakeholders? Is
find the time for an initial project meeting in which needed
it how long you have been employed [in the organization]?
contributions could be assessed by the project manager and
Education? Type of staff ?’’
the project team.
[PM1]
‘‘It was very hard to find time for a project meeting as
The project managers had particular difficulties in some of the project team members were busy with their
assessing when to treat individuals as a group and when daily work and preferred to meet in the late afternoon.
to treat them as individuals. At the same time, one of the team members [an adminis-
trative person] had to pick up her child from day care and
‘‘Groups do not necessarily consist of individuals with sim-
could not stay after regular working hours.’’
ilar interests and motivation. It can be hard to know
whether individuals should be treated as such or as a [PM4]
group’’.
A part of defining needed contributions was to assess
[PM2] each stakeholder’s position in the stakeholder-commitment
matrix presented in Fig. 2. The project managers reported
The project managers further had problems making an
that they had ethical dilemmas relating to explicitly catego-
exhaustive and clearly delimited list of stakeholders for
rising stakeholders as negative towards the projects, espe-
the entire project course as they expected stakeholders to
cially when it came to singling out individuals.
arrive and leave again during the project course.
‘‘It can be problematic to single out individuals who are a
‘‘Actors come and go – this can be a problem in making a
part of a larger group. Is it to label them – and who is
stakeholder analysis that is durable’’.
eventually going to see the stakeholder categorization? It
[PM1] may also not be so important for the usability of the anal-
ysis – I know who they are’’.
‘‘What are the project’s boundaries?’’
[PM1]
[PM2]
The project managers pointed out that it may not be 5.3. Activity 2b: determining expectations and benefits
worth the effort to list all possible stakeholders as the num- desired by each stakeholder
ber of stakeholders is potentially unlimited.
‘‘Is it worth the effort to list everybody? Probably not, . . . The project managers in this study did not know what
and the important thing is to find out, who the important benefits the stakeholders would expect or want from con-
stakeholders are.’’ tributing to the project and current guidelines does not
provide much help in solving this problem. Therefore,
[PM1] our discussions with the project managers focused on
possible approaches to finding out which benefits stake-
5.2. Activity 2a: determining contributions required from holders expect to get from complying to the project
each stakeholder manager.
In the discussion, the use of questionnaires was
An important prerequisite for carrying out this task dismissed.
was that the project managers were able to be explicit ‘‘If you use a questionnaire . . . how do you ensure that you
about the support they needed from the stakeholders. get honest . . .and many answers?’’
The project managers reported that it was unusual for
them to be this specific about contributions needed in a [PM2]
project. They found that it was difficult to develop a To save time, one of the project managers tried using
complete list of needed contributions at the front end of focus group interviews to gather the relevant information.
the project, as it was hard to imagine events and This strategy proved difficult to carry out.
developments that could happen during the whole project
course because the renewal projects had a developmental ‘‘It is hard to gather the relevant people’’.
character. [PM3]
340 A.L. Jepsen, P. Eskerod / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 335–343

This project manager and the other three project manag- 5.4. Activity 2c: determining the power of each stakeholder
ers chose to carry out personal interviews with important
stakeholders who were expected to be in opposition. The The project managers in the study based their assess-
project managers preferred this way of gathering the ment of the stakeholders’ power on their intuitive judge-
needed data because the number of stakeholders was small ment supported by knowledge about the stakeholders’
and because they found it more personal. However, they formal and informal roles in the organization. Level of
were reluctant to approach important stakeholders who power was assessed in four categories: none, low, medium,
were expected to be in opposition to the project, partly and high. The project managers did not express any prob-
because they were afraid that this would make the stake- lems in making this assessment.
holders even more hostile or raise their expectations to a
level that could not be met. In the contrary to what was 5.5. Activity 3: decision about which strategy to use to
expected, the experiences were positive. For example, it influence each stakeholder
turned out that the mere data collection affected the stake-
holders’ attitudes towards the project. In spite of the problems encountered, the project manag-
‘‘The informants felt that the interview itself had influ- ers all reported that conducting the stakeholder analysis
enced them in a positive way’’ had been beneficial as a basis for determining which strat-
egy to use vis à vis each stakeholder. They especially
[PM3] pointed at the conscious reflection about stakeholders
Instead of a one-way process (transferring information and the contributions needed as beneficial for the progress
from the stakeholder to the project manager) the interviews of the project.
turned out to facilitate a two-way process in which the pro- ‘‘It is good to make it [the stakeholder analysis] because
ject manager influenced the stakeholder in a positive way. you get to think about some things which you would not
‘‘The interviews can be used to get more than input from think about otherwise. . . .when you have to write things
persons. They also get more ownership of the project’’. down, they might not be as you thought. You get new
thoughts and reflections.’’
[PM2]
[PM1]
The outcome of the interviewing process was supposed
to be data collection, but project marketing became a posi- ‘‘It has made me more conscious about involving others
tive and unintentional by-product. [the important stakeholders] and who the stakeholders
Based on the above, we can state that the project man- are’’.
agers had positive experiences from carrying out the data [PM1]
collection process. However, they did not feel that the
information which they gathered were fully valid as a basis However, the project managers also pointed out that it
for decisions on stakeholder management. Firstly, the pro- is not possible to make a detailed front end stakeholder
ject managers were not able to interview all relevant stake- analysis. They did not have the cognitive capacity to con-
holders, but had to sample from the groups which they had sider all stakeholders in detail, nor did they find such a
defined. In addition, the project managers had to rely on detailed analysis worthwhile. Firstly, it is impossible to
convenience or judgement sampling. Therefore, it may foresee interactions with stakeholders in the distant future.
not be safe to generalize from the interviews. Secondly, the contributions needed from each stakeholder
may vary in different stages in the course of the project
‘‘Another question is whether the . . .. . . are representative and due to unforeseeable events in the project.
for their departments?’’ Further, the project managers spent quite a long time
[PM2] conducting the stakeholder analysis mainly because they
had difficulty in getting access to important stakeholders.
The project managers sometimes even felt that they had In some cases, the result was that they had to decide on
to base the description of expectations on what they and implement a stakeholder management strategy without
referred to as ‘‘mere prejudice”. having the proper information to do so because the project
‘‘It is all guesswork. From where do I know these things? needed to get in motion.
It is really all based on beliefs and assumptions’’.
[PM2] 5.6. Solutions to some of the challenges

In sum, the project managers found that the determina- The project managers indicated possible solutions to
tion of stakeholder expectations was a very challenging some of the challenges which they encountered in doing
task and that the information which they were able to col- the stakeholder analysis.
lect did not suffice to make a valid description of the stake- One project manager solved the problem related to the
holders’ expectations. stakeholders not finding time for participating in an
 A.L. Jepsen, P. Eskerod / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 335–343 341

interview by interviewing each type of stakeholders sepa- that the information needed for characterization of the
rately in groups and serving a meal as a gift for stakeholders can be gathered through interviews with
participating: relevant stakeholders. Our findings show that a project
manager may not have the skills required for selecting
‘‘I had a meeting with doctors only. Doctors often do not
informants and conducting interviews. Further, conducting
come to meetings for nurses and doctors. Therefore, I
the interviews is a time-consuming activity and it is impor-
scheduled a lunch meeting lasting 1 hour with the doctors.
tant not to waste time on interviewing non-important
And most of them came.’’
stakeholders. This is a problem because the project man-
[PM2] ager may have difficulty determining the importance of
each stakeholder in advance.
The project managers also pointed out that it could be a
In spite of these challenges, making the interviews was
solution to their own resource problem to involve others in
perceived as a valuable activity by the project managers.
the information gathering. This however was not consid-
Once the project manager succeeded in interviewing stake-
ered successful by the project managers in the study.
holders, the process itself seemed to add to the mutual
‘‘It is difficult to let others gather the needed data – then sense-making of the project. This supports the notion of
you loose some information. On the other hand. . .. . .some- doing interviews as a part of an ongoing stakeholder anal-
times it might be an advantage if the interviewer is some- ysis. It may be that this positive outcome of doing inter-
body else than the project manager’’ views can be explained by the dialogue influencing the
narratives about the project purpose and objectives as
[PM3]
was also reported in Boddy and Paton [32]. It is especially
Project manager 4 had problems assessing needed con- interesting that a very negative narrative changed after the
tributions from stakeholders because she could not assem- interview/dialogue regarding possible positive outcomes
ble her project team for an initial meeting due to differences from the project and the needed contribution from the
in working hours. She thought that attending this meeting stakeholder for the project to succeed.
was a necessary minimum contribution from each team A positive outcome of doing interviews requires that
member. However, when she talked to some of the mem- the stakeholders are able and willing to share their expec-
bers individually, she revealed that it was actually not tations regarding and attitudes towards the project. They
imperative that all the members took part in a joint meet- may not be so, and this problem is aggravated if the
ing in which the necessary contributions from stakeholders project manager has problems handling the interview situ-
would be confirmed. As a consequence of this, she adjusted ation. It takes courage to conduct interviews with power-
her view of necessary contributions which made her able to ful stakeholders who are negative towards the project and
get on with the project. its outcome, and it is hard to control the way that stake-
holders are influenced by the interview or dialogue. It may
6. Discussion be that their expectations regarding the outcome of the
project are raised to an unrealistic level. Finally, many
The main purpose of doing a stakeholder analysis is to stakeholders have busy schedules and there are, therefore,
enable the project manager to take action in relation to also practical problems involved in setting up the needed
the stakeholders of the project and their interests in a interviews.
timely manner. The results of the analysis constitute a basis Even if the information needed can be gathered by the
for decisions, objectives, and plans for the project. To get project manager, there are problems in indicating who is
the project properly assigned and started, there is thus a negative and who is positive towards the project. We found
need for doing a stakeholder analysis in the front end of that the project managers were reluctant to describe stake-
the project. Building stakeholder management on a front holders explicitly and in writing. They were afraid that the
end stakeholder analysis rests on two important assump- commitment matrix and the stakeholder outline could be
tions (a) that the project manager can grasp the nature of seen by the ‘‘wrong” people, whether at the present time
the stakeholder coalition in terms of identification of or in some distant future.
important and not-so-important stakeholders, as well as Another problem is that the stakeholder analysis is sup-
characterize them on several dimensions, and (b) that the posed to reveal important actors in a complex, dynamic
coalition of stakeholders is stable across the course of the process which project managers are not able to foresee.
project. Our findings show that these assumptions may This is, of course, a difficult task. We found that the coali-
not hold in a practical setting. tion of stakeholders often is not well delimited and changes
Project managers may not have the resources or capabil- during the project course because different stakeholders
ities to gather the necessary information. The guidelines may be important at different stages in the process. This
provided in current literature are far too general to be use- is in line with the findings of Pouloudi and Whitley [13].
ful for people who are not academically trained in doing On top of this, the coalition may be very complex. For
data collection and the data may therefore not give a valid example, the stakeholders may interact and influence each
description of the stakeholders. One example is the advice other in various ways.
342 A.L. Jepsen, P. Eskerod / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 335–343

As mentioned at the beginning of this section, in order though it is difficult. However, our findings show that
to make initial decisions, it is necessary that the project doing a thorough stakeholder analysis is a time-consuming
manager does the overall planning in the beginning of the activity. Therefore, the project manager can easily be torn
project course. Even though some authors [3,11–13] point in a dilemma between spending time doing a thorough
to a need for continuous updating of the stakeholder anal- analysis and the need for the project to get in motion.
ysis, the sense-making of the stakeholders resulting from Accordingly, it may be that in real life, project managers,
this initial analysis may very well last. Reasons for this at least to some extent, will have to rely on intuition and
may be that it is the first ‘‘official” understanding of the superficial analysis. To solve this problem, and keep costs
stakeholder landscape, and that project managers do not in time and money at a reasonable level, the project man-
always get round to making a revised stakeholder outline. ager should carefully consider which stakeholders are
Elevation of the initial result to being the ‘‘true” picture sufficiently important to warrant information gathering
of the landscape during the whole project course without concerning expectations as regards rewards for delivering
making further investigations into the matter is especially the needed contributions. The project manager should also
problematic if it is made based on superficial data collec- make only a detailed outline for the stakeholders that
tion and thus rests on very limited knowledge. are important in the early stages of the process and post-
pone making outlines for additional stakeholders to the
7. Conclusion and implications moment when they become important during the project
course.
The conclusions in the following are based on findings In spite of the challenges in making a stakeholder anal-
from application of guidelines regarding how to carry out ysis, we think that the pro-active project manager should
a stakeholder analysis to four renewal projects that were see the analysis not only as resource demanding activity,
carried out at a Danish hospital. The study is not represen- but as an ongoing learning process and an opportunity to
tative for all projects that can be thought of. However, we engage in dialogue with the stakeholders to take their
find that our research gives a good picture of the problems thoughts regarding the project into consideration at an
involved in stakeholder analysis in renewal projects. We do early stage. By choosing this perspective on stakeholder
not find that the hospital setting is so special that the cases management we think that stakeholder analysis can make
are only representative for renewal projects in hospitals; a great contribution to the success of a project. The current
hospitals are organizations like companies are. A larger guidelines on how to do a stakeholder analysis provide a
number of projects may have given the data more strength. good conceptual framework for doing so but lack in detail
However, we found that it was more important to spend as regards practical advice concerning collection of the
our resources studying projects over a comparatively long needed data.
period of time than to add extra projects. We, therefore,
find it safe to conclude on the challenges and benefits in
References
using the guidelines in practical settings based on the
research which was presented in the above. [1] Freeman ER. Strategic management. A stakeholder approach.
The study shows that current guidelines give useful Boston, Mass: Pitman; 1984.
advice about the elements that have to be covered in the [2] Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ. Toward a theory of stakeholder
analysis and also provide some tools for the analysis. There identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what
really counts. Acad Manage Rev 1997;22(4):853–86.
are, however, challenges in using the guidelines, especially
[3] Andersen ES. Prosjektledelse – et organisasjonsperspektiv. Bekkes-
concerning identification of the types of stakeholders and tua: NKI Forlaget; 2005.
characterization of stakeholders concerning the rewards [4] McElroy B, Mills C. Managing stakeholders. In: Turner RJ, editor.
that they want or expect for delivering their contribution. People in project management. Aldershot: Gower; 2003. p. 99–118.
We find that there is a need for guidelines explicating [5] Daake D, Anthony WP. Understanding stakeholder power and
influence gaps in a health care organization: an empirical study.
how to distinguish important stakeholders from not-so-
Health Care Manage Rev 2000;25(3):94.
important stakeholders based on desk research and prior [6] Friedman AL, Miles S. Developing stakeholder theory. J Manage
knowledge. Further, there is a need for research on how Stud 2002;39(1):1.
to approach and interview important stakeholders to grasp [7] Simon HA. Administrative behavior – a study of decision-making
the kind and level of attention that they need. Finally, our processes in administrative organizations. 2nd ed. New York: The
Macmillan Company; 1957.
research shows that stakeholder analysis should be an iter-
[8] Juliano WJ. External communication as an integral part of project
ative process involving interaction with stakeholders con- planning. PM Network 1995(February):18–20.
cerning their contributions and rewards rather than [9] Elias AA, Cavana RY, Jackson LS. Stakeholder analysis for R&D
regarded as a task which can be carried out mainly as a project management. R&D Manage 2006;32(4):301–10.
front end desk research. More research on how to carry [10] Karlsen JT. Project stakeholder management. Eng Manage J
2002;14(4):19–24.
out dynamic stakeholder analyses and how to uncover
[11] Andersen ES, Grude KV, Haug T, Katagiri M, Turner RJ. Goal
the stakeholder coalition is therefore needed. directed project management. 3rd ed. London: Kogan Page; 2004.
As regards practice, our findings support that project [12] Mikkelsen H, Riis JO. Grundbog i projektledelse. 9 udg ed.
managers should undertake stakeholder analysis even Rungsted: Prodevo; 2007.
 A.L. Jepsen, P. Eskerod / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 335–343 343

[13] Pouloudi A, Whitley EA. Stakeholder identification in inter-organi- [23] Brugha R, Varvasovszky Z. Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health
zational systems: gaining insights for drug use. Eur J Inf Syst Policy Plann 2000;15(3):239–46.
1997;6(1):1. [24] Eskerod P. The human resource allocation process when organising
[14] Achterkamp MC, Vos JFJ. Investigating the use of the stakeholder by projects. In: Lundin RA, Midler C, editors. Projects as arenas for
notion in project management literature, a meta-analysis. Int J Project renewal and learning processes. London: Kluwer Academic Publish-
Manage 2008;26:749–57. ers; 1998.
[15] Eskerod P. Stakeholders, stakeholder analysis, and stakeholder [25] Varvasovszky Z, Brugha R. How (not) to do: a stakeholder analysis.
management. Internal teaching material. University of Southern Health Policy Plann 2000;15(3):338–45.
Denmark; 2006. [26] Kemmis S, McTaggart R. Participatory action research. In: Denzin
[16] Clarkson ME. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Strategies of qualitative inquiry. London:
corporate social performance. Acad Manage Rev 1995;20(1):92– Sage; 2003. p. 336–97.
117. [27] Ottosson S. Participation action research: a key to improved
[17] Bourne L, Walker DHT. Visualising and mapping stakeholder knowledge of management. Technovation 2003;23(2):87.
influence. Manage Decis 2005;43(5):649–60. [28] Greenwood DJ, Levin M. Reconstructing the relationships between
[18] Wenell T. Wenell om projekt. Uppsala: Uppsala Publishing House; universities and society through action research. In: Denzin NK,
2001. Lincoln YS, editors. The landscape of qualitative research. Theories
[19] Graham B, Gabriel E. Influencing the organization. In: Turner RJ, and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2003. p. 131–67.
Grude KV, Thurloway L, editors. The project manager as change [29] Cropper S, Bennet P. Testing times: dilemmas in an action research
agent. London: McGraw-Hill; 1996. project. Interfaces 1985;15(5):71–80.
[20] Mikkelsen H, Riis JO. Grundbog i projektledelse. 7 udgave ed. [30] Titchen A, Manley K. Spiralling towards transformational action
Rungsted: Prodevo; 2003. research: philosophical and practical journeys. Edu Action Res
[21] Andersen OS, Ahrengot N, Olsson JR. Aktiv projektledelse. 4th ed. 2006;14(3):333–56.
Copenhagen: Børsens Forlag; 2003. [31] Larson EW, Gobeli DH. Matrix management: contradictions and
[22] Calvert S. Managing stakeholders. In: Turner JR, editor. The insights. California Manage Rev 1987;29(4):126.
commercial project manager. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill; 1995. p. [32] Boddy D, Paton R. Responding to competing narratives: lessons for
214–22. project managers. Int J Project Manage 2004;22:225–33.