Int. J. Business Innovation and Research, Vol. 9, No. 6, 2015
731
Stakeholder analysis: a vital step in restructuring
projects in project-based companies
Behrouz Zarei
Department of Corporate Entrepreneurship,
University of Tehran, Iran
Email: bzarei@ut.ac.ir
Yahya Chaghouee*
Department of Media Management,
Islamic Azad University,
Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
Email: chaghouee@ut.ac.ir
*Corresponding author
Fereshteh Ghapanchi
School of Accounting,
Azad University,
Mobarakeh, Iran
Email: fereshteh.ghapanchi@yahoo.com
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to identify the role and benefits of
stakeholder analysis in the project-based companies. To this end, a model is
developed and stakeholders’ demands, wants and expectations are identified.
This paper presents a case study in a large company in energy sector and the
data is collected through focus groups. To achieve sustainability, project-based
companies should find a balance between different stakeholders’ interests in
different phases of their change programmes. The model proposed herewith
can be used in project-based companies in different industries based on
stakeholders’ expectations.
Keywords:
companies.
stakeholder
analysis;
project
management;
project-based
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Zarei, B., Chaghouee, Y.
and Ghapanchi, F. (2015) ‘Stakeholder analysis: a vital step in restructuring
projects in project-based companies’, Int. J. Business Innovation and Research,
Vol. 9, No. 6, pp.731–749.
Biographical notes: Behrouz Zarei is an Associate Professor of Management
Science and Head of Corporate Entrepreneurship at the Entrepreneurship
Faculty of Tehran University. He holds a PhD in Management Science from the
Management School of Lancaster University. His main research interests
include information technology, entrepreneurship, e-government development
and implementation, and business process reengineering.
Copyright © 2015 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
732
B. Zarei et al.
Yahya Chaghouee is a PhD candidate in media management in Isalmic Azad
University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran. He holds an MS in the
field of entrepreneurship management from the Tehran University. His main
research interests include organisational capitals, organisational diagnosis,
business process management and entrepreneurship.
Fereshteh Ghapanchi has studied a Bachelor of Accounting in Isfahan
University. She is currently doing her master study in the School of
Accounting, Islamic Azad University, Mobarakeh, Iran. She is also working as
a Senior Accountant in Foulad Technique Company. Her research surrounds
accounting information systems, and online trading in stock exchange. She has
published several journal articles.
1
Introduction
Due to globalisation, businesses experience rapid and significant changes. Many of them
have occurred in light of values that an organisation affects and is affected by, both
positively and negatively. To survive in that volatile, often ambiguous and uncertain
environment, the contemporary organisations should satisfy a number of stakeholders
whose wants and expectations are disparate, often in conflict and subject to such changes
(Johansson, 2008). Consequently, globalisation has expanded the business environment
into a network of multiple stakeholder groups (Lo, 2013).
As modern strategic management emerged, the stakeholder perspective has played a
prominent role in strategy discussions (Harrison et al., 2010). The general denominator of
stakeholder theory/management arguments concerns whether organisations should adopt
a spacious strategy perspective that incorporates the demands and needs of various
stakeholder groups to improve its performance (de Luque et al., 2008). So, understanding
the stakeholders’ needs is important in managerial strategic decision-making. As Telli
et al. (2011) stated, many organisations change their asset management process into a risk
taking approach in which decisions are made based on the risk position of the
organisation which is affected by the stakeholder’s behaviour and interaction in the
environment. Recently, the value of different types of stakeholder valuation, analysis,
engagement and management methods is increasingly being acknowledged (e.g.,
Furneaux et al., 2008; Hayles et al., 2010) and stakeholder analysis (SA) methods that
can help gain insight into possible outcomes of stakeholders’ interaction are receiving
interest from a strategic management point of view (Telli et al., 2011).
Edward Freeman (1984) is often credited for the introduction of SA concept.
According to his definition, the stakeholders of an organisation are any group or
individual who can affect or are affected by the achievement of the objectives of the
organisation (Gil-Lafuente and Paula, 2013). Clarkson (1995) constantly defined
stakeholders as constituencies that are affected (favourably or adversely) by the operation
of the organisation, regardless of whether they are linked through explicit or implicit
contracts (Yang et al., 2009). As in Garvare and Johansson (2007), stakeholders are
posited in the present study as being actors that:
Stakeholder analysis
733
1
provide essential means of support required by an organisation
2
could withdraw their support if their wants or expectations are not met, thus causing
the organisation to fail, or inflicting unacceptable levels of damage.
While SA has a specific position in organisations, it is more conspicuous in project-based
organisations. Many studies have focused on the management of project stakeholders by
taking their needs and requirements into account for project success (Aaltonen, 2011).
They believe that the project stakeholders can be divided into two categories: internal and
external stakeholders. Internal stakeholders are those that are formally members of the
project coalition and, hence, usually support the project (Winch, 2004). Such
stakeholders have a formal, official, or contractual relationship with an organisation or
they are directly involved in the organisation’s decision-making. External stakeholders
are not formal members of the project coalition, but may affect or are affected by the
project and are often referred to as non-business stakeholders (Cova and Salle, 2005;
Aaltonen, 2011).
The role of SA in restructuring a project-based organisation is not well understood in
the previous research (Freeman, 1984; Johansson, 2008; Simmons and Lovegrove, 2005).
Various SA models are developed, however they are not customised to be used in
restructuring projects. This research attempts to fill the gap through the examination of a
case study in a Water and Power Resources Development Company (IWPRDC) and
illustrates a SA model for its restructuring.
The remainder of the paper is presented as follows: the next section provides a
background of SA and presents a model for this project. Section 3 describes the research
methodology and data sources, and finally the results and conclusion are presented.
2
Literature review
2.1 Stakeholder theory background
Stakeholder research has repeatedly demonstrated that an organisation cannot survive in
the long run unless it provides fair treatment to its key stakeholders (Lamberg et al.,
2008). In this regard, the concept of analysing and managing the relationship with
stakeholders for mutual benefit has been applied in numerous business and sociological
studies, including marketing (Polonsky and Scott, 2005), strategic management and
corporate finance (Lo, 2013). It has become very ‘fashionable’ in recent years and
increasingly important, especially, one recent trend in the strategic management literature
is to analyse how individual stakeholders influence a firm’s operations and its wealth
creation (Lo, 2013). Whilst, as a general principle, SA is akin to a 360-degree approach,
there is still a debate about the identification, types and level of stakeholder (Harvey,
2011). As noted by Yang et al. (2009), the SA and management are important for
organisations because:
1
it is increasing the likelihood of achieving the marketplace success
2
the corporation’s survival and continuing success depend upon the ability of its
managers to create sufficient wealth, value, or satisfaction for stakeholders
734
B. Zarei et al.
3
high levels of responsibility towards primary stakeholders can lead to lower explicit
costs
4
the performance of companies that balanced the interests of all their stakeholders is
better than that of those which put their shareholders first
5
adherences to stakeholder principles and practices tended to achieve conventional
corporate performance objectives better than rival approaches
6
the mismanagement of stakeholder activist issues can result in lost markets and
revenues, a decline in share prices, large legal fees, as well as wasted management
time.
2.2 SA models
There is a wide range of SA methods and different overviews of them exist. What
characterises many of the reviews is that they keep to their application field (e.g.,
Mingers and Rosenhead, 2004) or to a single method or set of similar techniques (e.g.,
Bryson, 2004). Others have taken the challenge to map a broader spectrum of SA
methods (Van der Lei, 2009; Van der Lei and Herder, 2011). For example, Heidrich et al.
(2009) proposed a multi-dimensional scoring mechanism that allows the different roles of
stakeholders to be considered and then rated on power, legitimacy, and urgency and
additionally on importance and the time-span of influence (Harvey, 2011). In addition, as
noted by Merrilees et al. (2005), Freeman’s ‘hub and spoke’ assembling model is
recognised as the first model to stakeholder theory. He proposes a four-step process for
analysing and managing the stakeholders’ expectations. The identification is the first step
in building a sustainable relationship with stakeholders. This process is very important
for companies because at this point, those groups that may influence its sphere of activity
will be identified (Gil-Lafuente and Paula, 2013). Second, the nature, scope and
importance of the stakeholders’ connection are determined. Third, an analysis is made to
ascertain how effectively the needs or expectations of each group are currently being met
by the lead organisation. Fourth, there is a presumption that the unsatisfied needs of
stakeholder groups will be addressed through modification of the lead organisation’s
plans, policies and activities (Merrilees et al., 2005). In spite of the pervasive application
of this model, Wu (2007) demonstrates that being one dimensional and dyadic is one
major shortcoming of Freeman’s original model. He proposes:
a
the stakeholders’ identifying and positioning (SIP)
b
optimisation model for analysis of organisation’s stakeholders.
2.2.1 SIP model
In a decision-making process, in spite of the role of stakeholders’ identity, the kind of
stakes they have and the influences of these stakes are prominent. Therefore, SA should
start from identifying and categorising the stakes. Wu (2007) identifies and summarises
three general types of ‘stakes’:
Stakeholder analysis
735
•
Product and revenue: stakeholders who possess this type of stakes contribute to and
shape the organisation’s business environment. In other words, the organisation’s
survival and smooth operation hinges upon the commitment, cooperation and
contribution pledged and provided by such stakeholders.
•
Policy and regulation: in an organisation, those who have the power to draw the
lines or make the rules possess the ‘Policy and Regulation’ type of stakes.
•
Perception and reputation: an organisation’s perception and reputation, are in the
eyes of the beholders. Although a corporation can claim it has a good reputation, the
‘perception and reputation’ stakes are owned by those primary or ancillary
constituents.
An organisation’s good reputation creates a friendly environment to operate, and to
develop (Wu, 2007). Wu (2007) points out:
“Stakeholders not only have different types of stakes in their hands, but also
have different goals in their minds. As a rational player, each and every
stakeholder will be maximizing its benefits and minimizing its risks. However,
not all interests are compatible with each other. Most of the time, stakeholders
compete, contend, and conflict for the best outcome to their interests. Just as
the stakes are different, so are the ways stakeholders using their stakes?
Stakeholders, in a dynamic system, will pull the corporation toward the
direction that meets their needs. The magnitude and determination of their
pulling efforts help shape the final decision of a company.”
2.2.2 Optimisation model
To construct an optimisation model for providing a simplified reproduction of the theme
and pattern of these maneuvers by different stakeholders in a dynamic system, a complete
list of attributes is needed to signify the form, strength, and direction of different forces.
According to Wu (2007), the following attributes can be categorised and signified in an
optimisation model,
1
stakeholders
2
direction of influence
3
power and strength of influence
4
affinity/vicinity with decision-making centre
5
consistency and continuity of influence
6
extremity of the position
7
visibility of the influence.
According to the aim of this research, an adapted framework was used by authors. In this
model, we concentrate on Freeman’s SA model. For meeting additional analysis that is
necessary, the SIP and optimisation model were added in the first step of Freeman’s SA
model.
736
3
B. Zarei et al.
Research design
3.1 Methodology
Case study research has been used to shed light on many management problems. It is
suitable to answer how and why questions (Michl et al., 2013) and suited to explore
current and real-time phenomena in depth (Yin, 2009; Cesinger et al., 2012).
Additionally, as noted by Kammani and Aljahdali (2013), the case study methodology is
appropriate when organisational rather than technical issues are the focus of research.
They recount that:
“...this research is based information collected via in-depth formal and informal
interviews and published material. This is the best strategy to gain insights into
socio-economic phenomena the perspective of the choice in favor of in-depth
interview.”
Table 1
Research
steps
Research steps
The core action
The result(s)
Step 1
To define the research question and appropriate research
model
The Wu (2007)
models are selected
Step 2
To select the case of research
The IWPRDC is
selected
Step 3
To search for qualitative as well as quantitative data from
multiple sources according to research model.
The data is searched
and the result is
reflected in next step
Step 4
To collect and A Identification of stakeholders
analyse data
a.1 SIP model – categorising
according to
stakeholders as:
research model
• Product and revenue
Refer to Figure 1 and
Figure 2
•
Policy and regulation
•
Perception and reputation
a.2 The optimisation analysis
B Identification of stakeholder needs and
expectations.
Refer to Table 2
C Interactive stakeholder expectations
analysis
Refer to Table 3
It can be regarded as “study of a sample of one” (Poindexter and Mccombs, 2000). To
meet the goals of this research, the single case study method is used and the procedure
suggested by Michl et al. (2013) is followed. According to their procedure, the following
steps are demonstrated (see Figure 1):
A
To define the research question and appropriate research model
A.1 due to the problem of the selected case, the main question of this research is:
“what are the stakeholder of the Iranian IWPRDC and what are their needs
and expectations?”
Stakeholder analysis
A.2
737
According to the circumstances of the research case, the Wu (2007) models
(SIP model and optimisation model) is selected.
B
To select the case of research
B.1 the Iranian IWPRDC is selected as the case of this research.
C
To search for qualitative as well as quantitative data from multiple sources according
to research model.
C.1 Appropriate data sources were found in interviews, internal and public reports.
D
To collect and analyse data according to research model.
D.1 It is explained in the following section (data collection).
3.2 Case description
In this study, a review of the Iranian IWPRDC operations revealed the detailed and
specific analysis of project-based organisation’s stakeholders.
IWPRDC is the paramount dam construction company in Iran and one of the subdivisions of the Iranian Water Resources Management Company. The main responsibility
of this company is to actualise a considerable part of the hydropower potentials of the
country and develop the facilities of reserving and supplying water. It is a quasigovernmental project-based company that was established in 1989. The company which
are financially independent and follow their own articles of association but their shares
belong to the government are named ‘quasi-governmental companies’. It was, at the time
of the case-study (between November, 2011 and April, 2012), considered to be in a
transition stage from the quasi-governmental to the private joint-stock. Hence, it has
recently received a number of serious shocks especially the reduction of governmental
budget and performance.
3.3 Data collection
A focus group approach was selected to collect data to identify stakeholders and
capitalise on the advantages of the interactive process (Madriz, 2000). In the analysis of
group dynamics, we have considered some of the questions posed by Egerod and Bagger
(2010) such as: how closely the group adhered to the issues presented for discussion?
What were the contradictions in the discussions? What common experiences were
expressed? Was a particular view dominant?
The focus groups offered an immediate reaction among the participants as they
negotiated and confronted each other’s views (Kidd and Parshall, 2000). The authors
explored agreements during the focus groups session and paid attention to disagreements.
The optimal size of a focus group is six to eight participants to ensure a proper
discussion, without being crowded (Egerod and Bagger, 2010; Zarei et al., 2014). Our
goal was having groups of eight participants (excluding moderator and observer and all
of them were the IWPRDC managers) to benefit from different experts. The duration of
these panels was typically two to three hours and they were usually conducted by a
moderator and an observer (co-researcher). The primary role of the moderator was to
facilitate discussions (about stakeholders and their expectations) among the participants.
738
B. Zarei et al.
Eventually, we held 21 sessions at the SA stage. During these sessions, the members
reviewed and considered the secondary data, including, annual reports, company statute,
consulting reports, company contracts with advisors and contractors and other company
documents. The focus group discussions aimed at identifying and analysing the
stakeholders of IWPRDC and their expectations. Additionally, semi-structured and
formal interviews of approximately 50 minutes were conducted with four project
managers (Sardasht, Javeh, Azad and Masjedsolyman), four IWPRDCs’ deputies, ten
office directors, four advisors and contractors and two consumers to modify the collected
data from focus groups.
4
Results
In this research the data were collected in step 4 according to the research model. Due to
the research questions and model, the authors must collect data about the IWPRDC’s
stakeholders and their needs and expectations. So, after the assessment of the reports and
documents of this company, the initial identified stakeholders’ document is prepared and
in the second round it is validated by evaluation of focus groups’ members during 21
sessions. After evaluation of data in these sessions, the following results were achieved in
accordance with research model:
4.1 The stakeholders were identified
At this stage of the analysis, 11 fundamental groups of stakeholders were identified.
These groups were verified through the focus groups, interviews and reviews of
organisational documents (Table 2). The main stakeholders were the Government,
Parliament, project managers, advisors and contractors, the Ministry of Energy, investors,
financial agencies, people and provinces (see Table 2). The government group reflects the
three different governmental layers of the IWPRDC including:
•
Deputy President for Strategic Planning and Control
•
Deputy President for Human Resource Management
•
The Cabinet.
The government, parliament and the Ministry of Energy set the boundaries of the
decision-making in the IWPRDC through legislation and have direct effect on it as
following:
•
The parliament has sway over the human resource management policies of IWPRDC
by enactment of labour laws.
•
IWPRDC is the sub-organisation of the Ministry of Energy that must approve the
IWPRDC annual budget.
•
Due to the governmental position of IWPRDC, the outline of its projects must be
approved by the Government.
Furthermore, the provinces were considered as a stakeholder group by focus group
members as the decision-making on the IWPRDC takes place at the national and local
levels. The executing step of the projects was coordinated by the local provinces and the
Stakeholder analysis
739
project managers should obtain required permission. The financial agencies basically
refer to the two main financial authorities: the Ministry of Economic affairs and finance
and the Iranian Central Bank who have authorities for approval and allocation of
financial resources. The main consumer of IWPRDC is Tavanir Company that purchases
the electricity. The IWPRDC managers have decided to enter the international market in
order to increase their market share. The project managers were considered as the
important internal stakeholders. They were responsible for the day-to-day IWPRDC
project management. Accordingly, the advisors and contractors are responsible for the
day-to-day construction and monitoring of IWPRDC projects.
4.2 Stakeholders’ categorisation according to the SIP model
In order to gain a more in-depth understanding of stakeholders, the authors additionally
asked the focus group’ members to categorise the IWPRDC stakeholder groups as
‘product and revenue’, ‘policy and regulation’, or ‘perception and reputation’. For
example, advisors and contractors are placed in ‘Perception and Reputation’ category
because their cooperation in IWPRDC’s project leads to the enhancement of the
IWPRDC brand and the projects’ reputations. Similarly, the government is put in the
‘Policy and Regulation’ because has authorised the IWPRDC to execute the dam
construction projects and approves the outline of the projects. Besides, it affects the
organisation by enacting legislation.
The final SIP model of IWPRDC was shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
SIP model of IWPRDC’s stakeholders (see online version for colours)
Perception
A
Policy
C
G
I
E
J
B
Regulation
F
H
Reputation
D
740
B. Zarei et al.
4.3 Stakeholders’ categorisation according to the optimisation model
In the next round of analysis, the authors employed the optimisation model to clarify the
direction, power, consistency, continuity, and visibility of stakeholders’ influences on
IWPRDC. For the purpose of this analysis, a representative member from each former
group is selected and sorted in a new one. Then, the new focus group assesses the
stakeholder using the following instructions:
a
For categorisation of the power and strength of influence of each stakeholder, a
continuum is defined that is sorted from 1 (low effect) to 3 (high effect). For
example, with regard to the power of the government in decision-making process,
the focus group finally assigned number 3. It means that the government has high
influence on the IWPRDC decision-making process.
b
For specifying the affinity/vicinity to decision-makers, a continuum is defined that is
sorted from 1(near) to 10(far). For example, as regards the vicinity to decisionmakers of the project managers, the focus group finally assigned number 2. So, in
Figure 2, it is plotted in 2 points from the vertical line.
c
For determination of the consistency and continuity of influence, a continuum was
used that is sorted from 1 (continuous) to 2 (non-continuous) .For examples, as
regards the consistency and continuity of the Energy Ministry, number 1 was
assigned by the group. It means that this stakeholder continuously affected
IWPRDC. The final result of IWPRDC’s SA according to optimisation model was
shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2
The result of IWPRDC’s SA according to Wu (2007) optimisation model
The dynamic system
H
D
E
A
B
J
IWPRDC
C
F
G
I
Notes: Square at the centre = IWPRDC
Symbols directory:
Arrow = Stakeholder
Size of arrow = the power and strength of influence (1 = low effect =
,
2 = medium effect =
, 3 = high effect =
)
Distance from centre = affinity/vicinity to decision-makers (the horizontal line is
divided into 10 parts and the symbol ( – ) represent one number. For example,
about the word (C) the ending part of arrow is aligned with the two above symbol.
It means that the focus group members assigned number 2 to this stakeholder)
Solid or broken arrow = consistency and continuity of influence (solid arrow
represents a more consistent, focus and dedicated force).
Up or below surface line = salience and visibility of influence.
Stakeholder analysis
741
The optimisation model optimises the initial SA by considering the relationship; power
and effect of stakeholders’ expectations (compare Figure 1 with Figure 2). The
assignment of the arrow size was based on the type of the stakes the stakeholders possess.
From the final dynamic system model, it is obvious that the ‘Ministry of Energy’ has
stronger stake power, closer association with IWPRDC’s decision making centre.
4.4 Identification of stakeholders’ expectations
In the decision-making process, what really matters were not who those stakeholders
were, but what kind of stakes they had (Wu, 2007). The corporate decision-making
process is a prominent factor that has a key role in designing of corporate structure and
hierarchy. Moreover, another important factor to consider about the stakeholders’
expectations is the level of importance for the organisation.
Therefore, in the next round of the analysis, the focus group members were requested
to determine the expectations or needs of the identified stakeholders and specify their
priority (in high, moderate or low categorise). The high groups were assigned to some
needs that were critical for company, and when not satisfied, may lead to organisational
inefficiency. The results obtained from the focus groups are reflected in Table 2.
Table 2
SA findings in IWPRDC
Stakeholder
group
A Government
B Members of
parliament
Percentage of
members that
were agreed
Needs or expectations
with this
stakeholder in
focus group
84%
77%
Percentage
of members
that were
agreed with
this item in
focus group
Priority
1 Reduction of project cost
92%
Medium
2 Decline of project delay
89%
High
3 Enhancement of project quality
78%
High
4 Reduction of project negative
effect on local people’s lives
75%
Medium
5 Decrease in negative
environmental impacts
80%
Medium
6 Compliance with labour laws
77%
Medium
7 Providing advisory services in
the field of hydro and
hydropower industry
78%
Low
1 Compliance with project budget
and milestone
91%
High
2 Decrease of negative
environmental impacts
89%
Medium
3 Reduction of unemployment
85%
Low
4 Compliance of projects with the
regional development plan
83%
Medium
742
B. Zarei et al.
Table 2
SA findings in IWPRDC (continued)
Stakeholder
group
C Project
managers
D Advisors
and
contractors
E
F
Consumer
Ministry of
Energy
Percentage of
members that
were agreed
Needs or expectations
with this
stakeholder in
focus group
91%
85%
81%
89%
1 Provision of project financing,
according to project schedule
2 Provision of equipment and
materials, according to project
schedule
3 Awareness of assistance with
changes
4 Elimination of potential
disruption due to changes etc.
5 Supply of needed manpower
6 Participation in the contractor
and advisor selection
7 Elimination of project
administrative barriers
1 Provision of project financing
according to project milestone
2 Access to necessary information
3 Participation in the decisionmaking process
4 Adherence to commitments
5 Providing competitive and equal
opportunities for consultants
and contractors to conclude
cooperation contracts for projects
1 Delivery of services in
accordance with agreed schedule
2 Enhancement of services quality
3 Optimisation of services cost
1 Enhancement of project quality
2 Reduction of project cost
3 Decline of project delay
4 Provision of hydro and
hydropower development plan
5 Actualising feasible hydro and
hydropower potentials of the
country according to the Iranian
development plan
6 Promoting the level of project
management in hydro and
hydropower field
7 Quality and quantity promotion
of the company’s contractors
and consultants network
Percentage
of members
that were
agreed with
this item in
focus group
Priority
88%
High
87%
Medium
73%
Low
82%
Low
84%
86%
Medium
Low
79%
Low
79%
High
81%
86%
Low
Low
90%
82%
81%
Medium
Medium
84%
High
83%
81%
89%
88%
85%
80%
High
Medium
High
Medium
High
Medium
81%
Medium
78%
Medium
77%
Medium
Stakeholder analysis
Table 2
SA findings in IWPRDC (continued)
Stakeholder
group
G Investor
79%
80%
I
74%
Local
people
Provinces
Percentage
of members
that were
agreed with
this item in
focus group
Priority
1 Optimisation of project cost
90%
Medium
2 Participation in financial
decision-making
85%
Low
3 Identification of project
financial risk
73%
Medium
1 Optimisation of project cost
89%
Medium
2 Management of financial risk
85%
Medium
1 Decrease of negative
environmental impacts
81%
Medium
2 Reduction of project negative
effect on local people’s lives
82%
Medium
3 Enhancement of job opportunity
90%
Medium
4 Participation in local
development plan
70%
Medium
1 Reduction of project negative
effect on local people’s lives
83%
Medium
2 Enhancement of job opportunity
87%
Medium
3 Participation in local
development plan
82%
Medium
Percentage of
members that
were agreed
Needs or expectations
with this
stakeholder in
focus group
H Financial
agencies
J
743
73%
4.5 Interactive analysis of stakeholders’ expectations
The former analysis clarifies that the stakeholders’ expectations can be interpreted in
three forms from the interactive perspective: aligned, conflicted and unrelated. We
categorised two expectations as aligned if satisfaction of one leads to meeting of another.
They conflicted if the company could not meet both and must select one. This type of
expectation is very prominent for company and should be considered in SA as the main
group. Moreover, some of the expectations have no influence on others.
In the research, the authors recognised the conflicting expectations due to the
following reasons:
1
The company cannot meet the entire stakeholders’ expectations due to resource
limitations especially financial.
2
Some of the stakeholders and their expectations are more important than others. In
other words, some of stakeholders’ expectations are critical for the company and will
lead to failure when they are ignored.
A
B
C
3
4
A
5
6
7
1
2
B
3
4
1
2
3
4
C
5
6
7
1
2
3
D
4
5
1
2
E
3
1
2
3
4
F
5
6
7
1
2
G
3
1
H
2
1
2
I
3
4
1
2
J
3
U
U
A
U
U
U
A
A
U
A
U
U
A
A
U
U
U
U
6 U
7 U
1 A
2 C
3 U
4 U
1 U
2 U
3 U
4 U
5 U
6 U
7 A
1 A
2 U
3 U
4 U
5 U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
A
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
A
C
U
A
C
U
A
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
A
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
A
U
U
U
A
A
A
U
A
U
U
A
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
A
A
A
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
C
A
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
A
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
C
U
A
U
U
A
U
A
A
U
U
89 82 73 91 88 85 84 73 76 88 87 83 77 79 81 82 89 89 82 73 91 88
81 88 84 80 77 88 70 69 82 89 71 76 73 87 83 77 79 81 82 81 88 84 80
76 89 82 70 69 76 77 84 80 88 81 74 70 89 82 81 79 77 83 87 88 76 76 89
91 85 73 75 76 85 84 79 75 73 91 88 85 84 73 76 88 87 83 77 79 81 82 89 70
84 80 88 81 74 70 89 82 81 79 77 83 87 88 76 73 88 91 73 75 79 84 85 76 75 84
74 70 89 82 81 79 77 83 84 80 88 81 74 70 69 82 89 71 76 73 88 84 80 77 76 70 88
79 75 73 91 88 85 84 73 76 88 87 83 77 79 81 82 89 70 74 81 88 84 80 77 79 75 73 91
89 70 74 81 88 84 80 77 88 70 69 82 89 71 76 89 70 80 88 81 74 70 89 82 73 91 88 80 88
85 83 79 78 91 85 73 75 76 85 84 79 75 73 91 88 85 84 79 81 82 89 70 74 81 88 84 80 77 88
91 77 83 80 74 76 75 69 82 89 76 84 80 88 81 91 73 75 79 84 77 83 87 88 76 73 76 70 91 73 75
77 76 70 91 73 75 79 84 87 88 88 84 80 77 74 76 75 69 82 89 76 70 91 77 83 87 69 82 89 76 84 80
82 81 79 77 83 87 88 76 73 88 91 73 75 79 84 85 76 75 89 70 74 81 88 84 80 77 88 89 69 82 89 76 70
91 77 83 87 77 76 70 91 73 75 79 84 91 85 73 75 76 85 84 79 77 76 70 91 73 75 79 84 87 88 88 91 73 75
76 75 69 82 88 84 80 77 76 70 91 73 75 79 88 84 80 77 76 70 91 73 76 75 69 82 76 75 69 82 89 76 84 80 82
80 74 76 75 69 82 89 76 70 91 77 83 80 74 76 75 69 82 89 76 84 80 88 81 74 70 89 82 81 79 77 83 84 80 88 81
84 80 88 81 74 70 89 82 73 91 88 85 84 73 76 88 87 83 77 79 81 82 89 70 74 81 88 84 80 77 89 82 70 69 76 77 89
84 87 88 88 84 80 77 76 70 69 84 87 73 76 88 87 88 76 73 88 91 73 75 73 76 88 87 88 76 77 79 81 82 84 73 76 88 87
76 70 91 73 75 79 84 87 88 88 84 80 74 76 75 69 82 89 76 70 91 77 83 87 88 76 73 88 91 73 75 79 84 77 83 87 88 76 73
87 83 77 79 81 82 89 70 74 81 88 84 80 77 88 70 69 82 89 71 76 73 87 83 77 79 81 82 84 73 76 88 87 88 76 73 88 91 73 75
Notes: The letter ‘C’ and red colour show conflicting expectations.
The letter ‘U’ and blue colour show unrelated expectations.
The letter ‘A’ and green colour show aligned expectations.
The number demonstrates the percentage of focus group members that approved this result.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
91 73 75 79 84 87 88 88 84 80 77 76 70 69 82 89 71 76 73 88 84 80 77 76 70 91 73 75 79 84 87 88 88 84 80 77 76 70 69 82 89
U
5 U
A
85 84 79 75 73 91 88 85 84 73 76 88 87 88 76 73 88 91 73 75 79 84 87 88 88 84 80 77 76 70 69 82 89 71 76 73 88 84 80 77 76 70
U
4 C
U
73 71 76 89 82 70 69 76 77 84 80 88 81 74 70 89 82 81 79 77 83 87 88 76 73 88 91 73 75 79 84 85 76 75 73 85 91 78 79 83 85 89 76
U
3 C
89 85 83 79 78 91 85 73 75 76 85 84 79 75 73 91 88 85 84 73 76 88 87 83 77 79 81 82 89 70 74 81 88 84 80 77 76 70 69 82 89 71 76 73
2
2 A
1
1
Table 3
D
744
B. Zarei et al.
Interactive stakeholder’s expectations analysis in IWPRDC (see online version
for colours)
E
F
G
H
I
U
A
U
A
A
U
U
U
A
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
3 A
1 C
2 A
3 A
4 U
5 U
6 U
7 A
1 A
2 U
3 A
1 A
2 A
1 C
2 C
3 U
4 U
1 C
2 U
3 U
A
1 C
2 C
2
U
U
A
U
U
A
A
U
C
U
U
C
A
A
U
U
U
C
A
C
A
A
3
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
U
C
U
U
C
U
U
U
U
U
C
A
C
U
U
4
A
A
U
A
A
U
A
A
U
C
U
U
C
U
U
U
U
U
C
A
C
U
U
5
A
A
A
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
6
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
7
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
A
U
U
A
A
U
U
U
A
A
U
A
U
A
1
A
U
A
A
U
A
A
U
C
U
U
C
U
U
U
U
U
C
A
C
U
U
2
B
U
A
A
A
A
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
3
A
U
A
A
A
A
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
4
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
A
U
A
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
A
A
A
1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
A
U
A
A
U
A
2
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
A
3
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
A
U
A
4
C
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
A
5
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
6
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
A
A
U
A
U
A
7
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
A
A
U
A
A
A
1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
3
D
Notes: The letter ‘C’ and red colour show conflicting expectations.
The letter ‘U’ and blue colour show unrelated expectations.
The letter ‘A’ and green colour show aligned expectations.
The number demonstrates the percentage of focus group members that approved this result.
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
A
4
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
5
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
A
C
A
A
U
1
3
1
2
3
4
F
5
6
7
1
2
G
3
1
H
2
1
2
I
3
4
1
2
J
3
U
U
A
U
U
U
A
U
C
U
U
C
A
U
U
U
U
C
A
C
U
U
C
U
U
C
C
A
A
U
U
A
A
U
U
U
A
A
C
U
U
A
U
U
U
A
U
C
U
U
C
A
U
U
U
U
C
U
U
C
U
U
C
C
U
A
U
U
A
A
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
A
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
A
U
U
C
U
U
C
C
U
A
A
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
C
U
U
C
C
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
A
A
U
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
87
70 69
88 85 84
70 69 76 77
80 77 76 70 69
70 91 77 83 80 74
77 76 70 91 73 75 79
83 77 79 81 82 89 70 74
89 70 74 81 88 84 80 77 88
85 76 75 73 85 91 78 79 83 85
91 88 85 84 73 76 88 87 88 76 73
70 89 82 73 91 88 85 84 73 76 88 87
91 73 75 79 88 84 80 77 76 70 91 73 76
89 82 70 69 76 66 84 80 88 81 74 70 89 82
80 77 88 70 69 82 89 71 76 73 87 83 77 79 81
73 88 91 73 75 79 84 87 88 88 84 80 77 76 70 69
69 82 88 84 80 88 76 73 88 91 73 75 79 84 85 88 76
73 76 88 87 88 76 73 88 91 73 75 79 84 87 88 88 84 80
69 82 89 76 70 91 77 83 87 69 82 89 76 84 80 69 82 89 76
79 77 83 87 88 76 73 88 91 73 75 79 84 85 76 75 89 70 74 81
76 75 69 82 89 76 84 80 88 81 74 70 89 82 81 79 77 83 84 76 75
2
E
Table 3
1
Stakeholder analysis
745
Interactive stakeholder’s expectations analysis in IWPRDC (continued) (see online
version for colours)
746
B. Zarei et al.
Table 3 reflects the interactive analysis of the stakeholders’ expectations that was
concluded by the participants of the focus groups. In this table, the number demonstrates
the percentage of focus group members that approved the results. For example, in cell
D1-A2 the number 82 means that 82% of members approved that the ‘decline of project
delay (A2)’ is aligned with the “provision of project financing according to project
milestone (D1)”.
5
Conclusions
Business and management research have made numerous progress (Ghapanchi et al.,
2012a, 2012b; Khakbaz et al., 2010; Ghapanchi and Aurum, 2011). Several researches
have been conducted on various areas of business and management (Ghapanchi et al.,
2008, 2011; Ghapanchi and Aurum, 2012a, 2012b). To conclude this paper, in
project-based companies the stakeholder identification, analysis and management is
very important because it can lead to more productive management of projects
in accordance with stakeholders’ needs and expectations. Furthermore, the satisfactions
of projects’ stakeholder enhance the success of it b. For identification and analysis of
stakeholders in project-based companies, the main emphasis should be put on the
response of the following questions: What are the main stakeholders of the company and
their expectations? Which of the stakeholders’ expectations support others? Which of
them conflict with others? And, in conflicting expectations, which of them are more
important for the company compared with others?
Our study provides a contribution to the advancement of research in the field of SA
and has implications for managers of project-based companies. The main contribution is
development of a new model and method for analysis of stakeholders and their
expectations in project-based companies. According to this model, the stakeholders of
projects in a company have diverse expectations while the company is faced with
resource limitation in responding to these expectations and cannot satisfy all stakeholders
at a time. Thus, the identification and analysis of stakeholders’ expectations is very
important for productive management of projects.
Despite, from a management perspective, the model which is developed in this paper
can be used by managers of project-based companies in SA process and productive
management of projects; it is tested only in one company. Additionally, the shortage of a
model which demonstrates the key stakeholders of projects was one of the research
limitations. Also, the diversity of projects, their stakeholders and expectations were other
limitations that the authors have experienced during the research.
We argue that future research in the field of SA in project-based companies should
focus on this model and test and modify it in accordance with the circumstances of other
projects in different companies. These studies could investigate new key stakeholders and
their expectations and add them in our model. In addition, they could clarify the position
of SA in project management practices. We hope that the preliminary exploration of this
case study will provide other researchers with anchors to conduct further empirical
studies on this increasingly relevant subject.
Stakeholder analysis
747
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their time in the review process and valuable
comments to make the paper more acceptable by the readers. Nevertheless, the authors
are thankful to the Board of Managers, General Manager, Deputies, Project Managers,
Office Directors of the IWPRDC for their help and cooperation to get the study
completed in time.
References
Aaltonen, K. (2011) ‘Project stakeholder analysis as an environmental interpretation process’,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.165–183.
Bryson, J.M. (2004) ‘What to do when stakeholder matter, stakeholder identification and analysis
techniques’, Public Management Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.21–53.
Cesinger, B., Habisreutinger, C. and Danko, A. (2012) ‘Opening the black box: a comparative case
study on international prospectors’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing,
Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.77–95.
Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995) ‘A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social
performance’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.92–117.
Cova, B. and Salle, R. (2005) ‘Six key points to merge project marketing into project management’,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp.354–359.
De Luque, M.S., Washburn, N.T., Waldman, D.A. and House, R.J. (2008) ‘Unrequited profit: how
stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates ‘perceptions of leadership and firm
performance’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp.626–654.
Egerod, I. and Bagger, C. (2010) ‘Patients’ experiences of intensive care diaries – a focus group
study’, Intensive and Critical Care Nursing Journal, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp.278–287.
Freeman, E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, London.
Furneaux, C.W., Brown, K.A. and McCabe, A.C. (2008) ‘Stakeholder engagement in infrastructure
projects through art in infrastructure delivery’, in Brown, K.A., Mandell, M., Furneaux, C.W.
and Beach, S. (Eds.): Proceedings Contemporary Issues in Public Management: The Twelfth
Annual Conference of the International Research Society for Public Management (IRSPM
XII), pp.1–27, Brisbane.
Garvare, R. and Johansson, P. (2007) ‘Management for sustainability- a stakeholder theory’,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.33–43.
Ghapanchi, A.H. and Aurum, A. (2011) ‘Measuring the effectiveness of the defect-fixing process in
open source software projects’, 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICCS), 4–7 January, Hawaii, USA.
Ghapanchi, A.H. and Aurum, A. (2012a) ‘Competency rallying in electronic markets: implications
for open source project success’, Electronic Markets, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.117–127.
Ghapanchi, A.H. and Aurum, A. (2012b) ‘The impact of project capabilities on project
performance: Case of open source software projects’, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.407–417.
Ghapanchi, A.H., Aurum, A. and Daneshgar, F. (2012a) ‘The impact of process effectiveness on
user interest in contributing to the project’, Journal of Software, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.212–219.
Ghapanchi, A.H., Khakbaz, M.H. and Jafarzadeh, M.H. (2008) ‘An application of data
envelopment analysis (DEA) for ERP system selection: case of a petrochemical company’,
International Conference of Information Systems (ICIS), December, France, Paris.
Ghapanchi, A.H., Tavana, M., Khakbaz, M.H. and Low, G. (2012b) ‘A methodology for selecting
portfolios of IS/IT projects with interactions and under uncertainty’, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 30, No. 7, pp.791–803.
748
B. Zarei et al.
Gil-Lafuente, A.M. and Paula, L.B. (2013) ‘Algorithm applied in the identification of
stakeholders’, Kybernetes, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp.674–685.
Harrison, J.S., Bosse, D.A. and Phillips, R.A. (2010) ‘Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder
utility functions, and competitive advantage’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1,
pp.58–74.
Harvey, J. (2011) ‘A ratings-based stakeholder analysis for a food production company, including
trust and risk implications’, Business Strategy Series, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.98–104.
Hayles, C., Graham, M. and Fong, P.S.W. (2010) ‘Value management for sustainable decision
making’, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Municipal Engineer, Vol. 163,
No. 1, ME1, pp.43–50.
Heidrich, O., Harvey, J. and Tollin, N. (2009) ‘Stakeholder analysis for industrial waste
management systems’, Waste Management Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.965–973.
Johansson, P. (2008) ‘Implementing stakeholder management: a case study at a micro-enterprise’,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.33–43.
Kammani, A. and Aljahdali, S. (2013) ‘KM capability for software development: a case study of
the Indian software firms’, International Journal of Business Information Systems, Vol. 12,
No. 1, pp.44–67.
Khakbaz, M.H., Ghapanchi, A.H. and Tavana, M. (2010) ‘A multi-criteria decision model for
supplier selection in portfolios with interactions’, International Services and Operations
Management, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.351–377.
Kidd, P.S. and Parshall, M.B. (2000) ‘Getting the focus and the group: enhancing analytical rigor in
focus group research’, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.293–308.
Lamberg, J.A., Pajunen, K., Parvinen, P. and Savage, G.T. (2008) ‘Stakeholder management and
path dependence in organizational transitions’, Management Decision, Vol. 46, No. 6,
pp.846–863.
Lo, Y.H. (2013) ‘Stakeholder management in the Chinese hotel industry: the antecedents and
impacts’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25, No. 4,
pp.470–490.
Madriz, E. (2000) ‘Focus group in feminist research’, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds.):
Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., pp.835–850, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Merrilees, B., Getz, D. and O’Brien, D. (2005) ‘Marketing stakeholder analysis: branding the
Brisbane goodwill games’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, Nos. 9/10,
pp.1060–1077.
Michl, T., Gold, B. and Picot, A. (2013) ‘Managing strategic ambidexterity: the spin-along
approach’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp.47–62.
Mingers, J. and Rosenhead, J. (2004) ‘Problem structuring methods in action’, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 152, No. 3, pp.530–554.
Poindexter, P.M. and McCombs, M.E. (2000) Research in Mass Communication: A Practical
Guide, Bedford/St.Martin’s, Boston, MA.
Polonsky, M.J. and Scott, D. (2005) ‘An empirical examination of the stakeholder strategy matrix’,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, Nos. 9/10, pp.1199–1215.
Simmons, J. and Lovegrove, I. (2005) ‘Bridging the conceptual divide: lessons from stakeholder
analysis’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 42, Nos. 3/4, pp.601–611.
Telli, E., Van der, L. and Paulin, M.H. (2011) ‘A double analysis of stakeholder interaction in
public infrastructure management’, Facilities, Vol. 29, Nos. 13/14, pp.563–576.
Van der Lei, T.E. (2009) Relating Actor Analysis Methods to Policy Problems, Dissertation, Delft.
Van der Lei, T.E. and Herder, P.M. (2011) ‘A double analysis of stakeholder interaction in public
infrastructure management’, Facilities, Vol. 29, Nos. 13/14, pp.563–576.
Winch, G.M. (2004) ‘Managing project stakeholders’, in Morris, P.W.G. and Pinto, J.K. (Eds.):
The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New Jersey.
Stakeholder analysis
749
Wu, X. (2007) ‘Stakeholder identifying and positioning (SIP) models: from Google’s operation in
China to a general case-analysis framework’, Public Relation Review, Vol. 33, No. 4,
pp.415–425.
Yang, J., Shen, Q. and Ho, M. (2009) ‘An overview of previous studies in stakeholder management
and its implications for the construction industry’, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 7,
No. 2, pp.159–175.
Yin, R.K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed., Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Zarei, B., Chaghouee, Y. and Ghapanchi, F. (2014) ‘Organizational diagnosis in project-based
companies: challenges and directions’, Sage Open, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.1–7.