About stakeholders and “setting” maps
The post below is a fairly direct translation of a blog post I wrote for work. I translated it as an exercise in talking in English about skills and methods I’ve only “lived” in Dutch.
As the original post was aimed at improving communications awareness among employees, it’s targeted toward governmental organizations looking at participative policy-making. I expect some of that will still show in the terminology used. That said, the theory behind it-how and why one might want to do an extensive stakeholder analysis-is applicable to any group aiming to work with its stakeholders to achieve its goals. This is the first step out of four stages we use when developing the communications process on a strategical, tactical and operational level for major issues and projects.
Thanks to
tanaqui for text suggestions and for “Englishifying” it.
Hic sunt dracones
In past times, before we had satellites and GPS and all sorts of other modern navigation aids, drawing up maps was quite a task. Mapmakers needed to go exploring themselves, study sketches made by other adventurers, read accounts and journals: they’d collect information from anywhere they could find it. But sometimes they wouldn’t be able to find any answers to their questions about what a piece of land looked like, or who or what lived there. The map would remain empty: a blank spot. Here be dragons the mapmaker would write, a warning to everyone to proceed with caution.
Today, maps of the physical landscape can be found easily on the internet, detailed down to the last paving stone. But what about the setting in which you'll be writing your policy proposal or project plan?
Do you know precisely what your surroundings look like? Do you have blank spots on your map? Or do you believe you know the setting in which you operate, only to find yourself bumping into unforeseen dragons while presenting your proposal or executing your project plan?
Good news: you can tame those dragons! How? By sketching out a map of the environment you'll be working in. Get others involved in drawing up that map, people who have experience in the area in which you'll be 'traveling'. Work with them to analyze the various actors you might meet. Will they be favorably disposed to your proposal or plan? What is their opinion of the problem you're hoping to solve? What interests or issues do they have? What position do they take? Which arguments are they using, and are they talking about practical issues, about whether the problem really exists or about the philosophy that should guide possible solutions?
There are various analytical tools available to help you draw up a map for your setting. The earlier in the process you do this, the better. And, as said before, it's wise to do it with other experts. Colleagues, for example, working in the same area or field, or with the same target groups, or on proposals for related issues. And don't forget about people who work in organizations other than your own. Who has the knowledge you need?
Make sure you schedule in a decent amount of time to do this, and don't just try to quickly sketch the map on your own while sitting at your desk. Otherwise, you might not discover gaps in your knowledge of the environment, blank spots that your colleagues or others can help you identify and fill in. And that'll better prepare you to defeat any dragons you encounter further down the line.
Just which analysis method you should use depends on what, exactly, you need to know. The chart below shows which tool is best suited to analyzing relationships between parties, and which is a better fit for understanding the various viewpoints people may have. Your communications consultant can offer help and advice on the various forms of analysis, and on creating a map of the landscape for your project.
AnalysisGoal MethodTo understand the positions of interested parties Arguments, positions in the debateFinding openings for dialogueArgument analsysisViewpoints and interestsFinding shared interests and mutually attractive options Interests analysisTo understand relationships between parties With an eye to influence and authorityIdentify key opponents and supportersColoursABCWith an eye to relationshipsIdentify strategies for maintaining or building good relationsForce field analysis
This entry was originally posted at http://scribblesinink.dreamwidth.org/269689.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
people have commented.
As the original post was aimed at improving communications awareness among employees, it’s targeted toward governmental organizations looking at participative policy-making. I expect some of that will still show in the terminology used. That said, the theory behind it-how and why one might want to do an extensive stakeholder analysis-is applicable to any group aiming to work with its stakeholders to achieve its goals. This is the first step out of four stages we use when developing the communications process on a strategical, tactical and operational level for major issues and projects.
Thanks to
tanaqui for text suggestions and for “Englishifying” it.
Hic sunt dracones
In past times, before we had satellites and GPS and all sorts of other modern navigation aids, drawing up maps was quite a task. Mapmakers needed to go exploring themselves, study sketches made by other adventurers, read accounts and journals: they’d collect information from anywhere they could find it. But sometimes they wouldn’t be able to find any answers to their questions about what a piece of land looked like, or who or what lived there. The map would remain empty: a blank spot. Here be dragons the mapmaker would write, a warning to everyone to proceed with caution.
Today, maps of the physical landscape can be found easily on the internet, detailed down to the last paving stone. But what about the setting in which you'll be writing your policy proposal or project plan?
Do you know precisely what your surroundings look like? Do you have blank spots on your map? Or do you believe you know the setting in which you operate, only to find yourself bumping into unforeseen dragons while presenting your proposal or executing your project plan?
Good news: you can tame those dragons! How? By sketching out a map of the environment you'll be working in. Get others involved in drawing up that map, people who have experience in the area in which you'll be 'traveling'. Work with them to analyze the various actors you might meet. Will they be favorably disposed to your proposal or plan? What is their opinion of the problem you're hoping to solve? What interests or issues do they have? What position do they take? Which arguments are they using, and are they talking about practical issues, about whether the problem really exists or about the philosophy that should guide possible solutions?
There are various analytical tools available to help you draw up a map for your setting. The earlier in the process you do this, the better. And, as said before, it's wise to do it with other experts. Colleagues, for example, working in the same area or field, or with the same target groups, or on proposals for related issues. And don't forget about people who work in organizations other than your own. Who has the knowledge you need?
Make sure you schedule in a decent amount of time to do this, and don't just try to quickly sketch the map on your own while sitting at your desk. Otherwise, you might not discover gaps in your knowledge of the environment, blank spots that your colleagues or others can help you identify and fill in. And that'll better prepare you to defeat any dragons you encounter further down the line.
Just which analysis method you should use depends on what, exactly, you need to know. The chart below shows which tool is best suited to analyzing relationships between parties, and which is a better fit for understanding the various viewpoints people may have. Your communications consultant can offer help and advice on the various forms of analysis, and on creating a map of the landscape for your project.
AnalysisGoal MethodTo understand the positions of interested parties Arguments, positions in the debateFinding openings for dialogueArgument analsysisViewpoints and interestsFinding shared interests and mutually attractive options Interests analysisTo understand relationships between parties With an eye to influence and authorityIdentify key opponents and supportersColoursABCWith an eye to relationshipsIdentify strategies for maintaining or building good relationsForce field analysis
This entry was originally posted at http://scribblesinink.dreamwidth.org/269689.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
people have commented.