The methodology to
research of internal,
external stakeholders
in megaprojects
Ivana Burcar Dunović
Agnieszka Lukasiewicz
Louis-Francois Pau
Research questions
• How project context and local cultures influence stakeholder’s
behaviour?
• How do the stakeholders interact?
• How do stakeholders impact the project thorough their behaviour?
• How to measure stakeholder involvement? NB: how is involvement
defined? -
• Project performance by classical metrics
is only a CONSEQUENCE of the above
• Therefore data analysis of project
performances alone is like looking at
output variables, without considering
exogeneous and endogenesous variables
.
Research concept
Culture and
context
Stakeholders
(eksternal)
Impact on
the project
CONTEXTUAL & CULTURAL
BASIS (L-F)
• Method based on measures from established
disciplines:
A) culturally affected micro-behaviors (of individuals
and teams within each stakeholder)
B) physioeconomics
C) synergy processes in organizational theory
• Analysis of these measures by gap analysis is
carried out
• In the gap analysis, an attribute value 3 corresponds to a
normal situation, while 1 and 5 correspond to opposite
extremes in the cultural and organizational sense
• Resulting in a toolbox to characterize and compare
megaprojects based on their contextual and
cultural attributes
CONTEXTUAL & CULTURAL BASIS:
GAP ANALYSIS MEASURES (I)
Some measures are exogeneous, while others depend on user feedback
• Leadership style
• Promoting equality/open to compromise – 1
• Using hierarchy/authority – 5
• Project concept incubation style
• Innovative – 1
• Conformity or standard solution to a new situation – 5
• Endorsement processes in the project initiation phase
• Bottom-up/ Democratic/ Critics allowed - 1
• Top-down/ Authoritarian/ No critics allowed – 5
• Project staffing
• Few people / high skills – 1
• Plentifull / average skills – 5
• Communications style around project
• No public communication - 1
• Wide public communication and feedback -5
• Governance
• None / Minimal – 1
• Public scrutinity / Company wide - 5
GAP ANALYSIS MEASURES (II)
• Organizational team culture
• No synergy / Conflict prone - 1
• High synergy / Organizational Consensus – 5
• Executing and controlling the project
• Formal /Rigid / Heavy forward planning and reviews – 1
• Pragmatic / Tools as a support – 5
• Accountability for success/failure
• Decentralized between stakeholders – 1
• Centralized – 5
• Significant fines actually levied in case of delays
• Nominal
• Significant / Dissuasive
• Risk view by Project owners (attitude)
• Embracing risk - 1
• Avoiding risk - 5
• Willingness of Project owners to change contractors
• Low - 1
• High - 5
GAP ANALYSIS MEASURES (III)
• Values: Main contractor
• Promote Social and public value of the project – 1
• Profitability – 5
• Values: Project funders
• Promote Social and public value of the project – 1
• Profitability-5
• Political interference
• Weak - 1
• Strong - 5
• Project achieving Green policy goals
• None - 1
• Very significant - 5
ANALYSIS and OUTPUT OF CULTURAL
MEASURES
• Case data from a megaproject: e.g. Anholt Offshore Wind
Farm (now completed) : (Denmark, References,
(3,1,2,5,4,2,4,4,5,4,4,2,2,3,2,5))
• Analysis of cultural measures
a) Clustering into groups of megaprojects exposed to
similar contextual and cultural influences (across
countries, or within a given country)
b) Comparison of extremes for a given measure, and
justification by cultural differences in behavioral,
organizational or decision traditions
OUTPUT for Stakeholder network analysis :
• a) homogeneous clusters of similar megaprojects
(clustered by a))
• b) or megaprojects grouped by extreme values of a given
cultural attribute, to better explain stakeholder relations
due to that attribute
ILLUSTRATION OF OUTPUT TO NEXT
LEVEL
Social network analysis of stakeholder relations
Politically
driven projects
Projects with lean
management and high
team synergies
Projects with
high loss risk
on project
manager (loss of
contract, fines)
NB: The three bottom clusters are examples generated by clustering from data
INTERACTION FLOW
Project values and user-stakeholder assessment
Stakeholder
behavior
Culture
and
context
Project
execution
Impact
Perform
ance
Stakeholder
interactions
Exogenous
Endogenous
Output
Stakeholders impact cluster (I&A )
• On what?
• From the external stakeholder’s point of view the most
important is the sustainability
• personal /internal
• global/ external
• the PRiSM (Project Integrating Sustainable Method) or Green
Project management allows us analyse interest and impact of
stakeholders
• The concept is based on 5P’s
•
•
•
•
•
Product/The deliverable- result
Process
People/Social
Planet/Environmental
3P’s
Profit/Economical
OMEGA Centre’s adaptation of the
HalSTAR systems model of sustainability
Examples of UK sustainability policy
mapped onto the adapted HalSTAR
wheel
How stakeholders influence the
project?
“The triangle –
performance”
Sideeffects
Endogeneous
Culture and context
The project
1. P
2.P
process
product
4.P - Planet/Ecological personal and/or global
5.P -Profit/Economical personal and/or global
Internal
Stakeholders
External Stakeholders
Institutional - personal
and/or global
Exogeneous
Sustainability
3. P - People/Social –
personal and/or global
Current evaluation approaches
• Evaluating the total impact of stakeholders in relation to the
project requires more than identifying the impact level and
probability of impact. (…..)
• Project managers need to assess the stakeholder attributes
and classes (Mitchell et al. , 1997), and their position towards
the project (Cleland, 1986; Winch and Bonke, 2002)—are
they opponents or proponents?
• Stakeholder atributes (Olander):
• value (A) = power x legitimacy x urgency
• position value (Pos)
• interest–impact index (ViII),
• Evaluation - stakeholder impact index (SII) as a function of A,
Pos and ViII.
Stakeholder measurements
External stakeholder network
• Elements /Nodes/Constructs – external stakeholders
• Connections
• Internal – within the network
• External
• to 5P
• To context, culture and policy makers
• Possible tools :
• Causal/cognitive mapping
• Social Network analysis
• ANP – analytical network process
Stakeholder’s interaction
characteristics - attributes
• Can be increased or decreased by the mutual
stakeholder interactions
1. Power – the ability to change the process (1 to 5)
• What gives the power to the stakeholders
• Inherent
•
•
•
•
Legal power
Political power
Social capital
Business power/capital (money, hiring,….)
• Inherited
• Due to administrative flaws
• due to media influence
• Informaniveness
2. Grade of Interest – willingness to engage (1 to 5) Likert scale
3. Attitude – positive or negative (-3 to-1 and+1 to+3) Stapel scale
Proposed Stakeholder’s
measurement characteristics attributes
1. Power x Attitude – from -5 to 5 (it cannot be zero)
2. Proximity = 1/(Power x Grade of interest)
• From 0,04 to 0,2
3. Attitude/Power x Grade of interest (???) = attitude x
proximity = stakeholder value
-0,2 to -0,04 or 0,04 to 0,2
NB: Are only 1 and 2 needed? Instead of fixing such closed form
expressions, why not let non linear regression determine the actual
formulas???
OK, we could do that too but we do not have all data values.
Interactions between external
(?) stakeholders
• Frequency of interaction /communication (1-5) NB: It has been
shown that frequency alone is a poor measure – yes, but this
is why we will combine it with other measures
• Type of interactions – cooperation vs. Competition
• For each stakeholder (this is specific to each stakeholder and
assymmetric) - Yes, that was the intention (Modified Likert)
Cooperation
Coopetition
Competition
+5
+4 0 -4
-5
Example of the network
representation
Frequency
S1
S2
S3
S4
S1
0
s1,2
s1,3
s1,4
S2
s2,1
0
s2,3
s2,4
S3
s3,1
s4,1
0
s3,4
S4
s4,1
s4,2
s4,3
0
S1
S1,3
S2,1
S1,2
S3,1
S3
S2
S2,4
S4,2
S4,3
S3,4
S4
Nature of relationship
S1
S2
S3
S4
S1
0
s1,2
s1,3
s1,4
S2
s2,1
0
s2,3
s2,4
S3
s3,1
s4,1
0
s3,4
S4
s4,1
s4,2
s4,3
0
How external stakeholders influenced the
process, product and 3P (?-too general) – it
is aggregated
Process
Product
Planet
Int.
People
Ext.
Int.
Profit
Ext.
Int.
Institutional
Ext.
Stak 1
Stak 2
Stak 3
Stak 4
Stak 5
Answering the question how will lead to influence and impact cluster
This is the framework to obtain the information based on slide 6
Int.
Ext.
External stakeholders impact to time, cost
and 3P (?-too general) – it is aggregated
Exceedin
g Cost
Time
delays
Scope
1-5 (%)
1-5
(%)
1-5
(%)
Planet
People
Profit
Institutional
Int.
Ext.
Int.
Ext.
Int.
Ext.
Int.
Ext.
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
+ how
+ how
+ how
+ how
+ how
+ how
+ how
+ how
Stak 1
Stak 2
Stak 3
Stak 4
Stak 5
This is the framework to obtain the information based on slide 6
OMEGA - Adapted HalSTAR wheel
OMEGA - Adapted HalSTAR wheel
Social network metrics INTRODUCTION
TO THE FORMAL ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL NETWORKS USING MATHEMATICA
by Luis R. Izquierdo, Robert A. Hanneman
• Network size – how limited resources each actor
may have for building and maintaining ties
• Network density – speed of information, social
capital/constrains, connectivity of the network
Degree of actors – in-degree and out-degree (the
influence)
• Social distance between actors (between two
of them)
• Walks, cycles, trails and paths
• Eccentricity of actor – between diameter and
radius
Social network metrics
• Network conectivity
• Clustering coeficijent of a node
• to which the friends of my friends are my friends
• clustering coefficient for the entire network
• the average of the clustering coefficients of all the nodes
• Centrality of a node – measure of its structural
importance based on
• degree - having more ties means being more important
• closeness, - who are able to reach other actors at shorter
path lengths, or who are more reachable by others
• Betweenness - being in between many other actors what
makes an actor central
Megaproject stakeholder network
metrics
• New network metrics will be developed
combining these network metrics with
values of actors atributes and types of
relationships for:
• Network characteristics
• The role in the network - importance
• Communication and Clustering patterns for C-C
clustres
• Impact on the project with respect to the
stakeholder metrics
Stakeholder’s involvement
• Are external stakeholder’s representatives involved in regular
meetings
• Are external stakeholders engaged in plannig stage of the
project
• Is there a modification of the project introduced under the
remarks of stakeholder
• Actions taken to support the project by external stakeholders
• Actions taken against the project external stakeholders
• Media attitude
• Legal framework and practice of public consultations
• Is there a continuous commuinication with external
stakeholders
RESULTS
• How stakeholders impact the project?
Project performance and impact
How
stakeholders
impact the
project?
Stakeholder network
How to measure
stakeholder
involment?
How the
stakeholders
interact?
How project context
and culture influence
stakeholder’s
behaviour?
Groups of Megaprojects with consistent cultural & contextual attributes
References on sustainability and
stakeholders
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Commission Communication of 15 May 2001 ‘A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable
Development’
• This strategy provides an EU-wide policy framework to deliver sustainable development, i.e. to meet the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It rests on four separate pillars – economic, social,
environmental and global governance – which need to reinforce one another.
Chinyo, E., Olomolaiye, P. (2010). Construction Stakeholder Management. Wiley-Blackwell, p. 17, 68
Epstein, M.J., Roy, M-J. (2001). Sustainability in Action: Identifying and Measuring the Key Performance Drivers, Long Range Planning 34
(2001) 585–604, p. 588
Freeman, E. R. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman, p. 5-6, 12
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L. i de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory; The State of the Art. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, A. L. i Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olander, S. (2006). External Stakeholder Analysis in Construction Project Management. Lund University.
Olander, S. (2007). Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management. Construction Management and Economics (March
2007) 25, 277–287
Olander, S., Landin, A. (2008) A comparative study of factors affecting the external stakeholder management process. Construction
Management and Economics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190701821810
Olander, S., Atkin, B. Stakeholder Management – The Gains and Pains. In Chinyo, E., Olomolaiye, P. (2010). Construction Stakeholder
Management. Wiley-Blackwell,
Olander, S., Landin, A. (2005). Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects. International Journal of
Project Management 23 (2005) 321–328.
L.S. Smutko, S.H. Klimek, C.A. Perrin, and L.E. Danielson, Involving Watershed Stakeholders: An Issue-Attribute Approach to Determine
Willingness and Need (willingness – attached)
L-F Pau, with Kristian Jääskeläinen, “ERP project’s Internal Stakeholder network and how it influences the project’s outcome”, Working
paper, SSRN, July 2009, under publication http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1440687
L-F Pau, Discovering the dynamics of smart business networks, Proc. 2008 Smart Business network conference, Beijing, May 2008,
www.sbni.com ; and: Computational Management Science, March 2013, DOI: 10.1007/s10287-013-0162-x
L-F Pau, P. Vervest, E. van Heck, K. Preiss, Smart business networks (Eds), Springer, Berlin, ISBN: 3-540-22840-3, 2005,442 p.
UCLA- Omega centre, Centre for Mega Projects in Transport and Development, Incorporating Principles of Sustainable Development
within the Design and Delivery of Major Projects: An international study with particular reference to Major Infrastructure Projects for
the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Actuarial Profession, November 2010