Stakeholder analysis
Identify people who affect or are affected by a change, check influence and interest separately, and plan communication around their actual needs.
Use stakeholder analysis when a change involves several roles and you need to clarify whom to ask, who is affected and what information each person needs. The influence–interest position guides communication for a specific situation and must be reviewed as information changes.
A specific change and stage, affected or influential roles, authority records, expressed concerns, open questions and communication constraints.
An influence–interest matrix with reasons, an unplaced list for unknown roles, and a draft communication plan with purpose, owner, channel and review point.
On this page
How to use it
- Define the change, stage and decision scope. Include people who affect it and those affected by it, including frontline users.
- Check influence and interest separately against role records and actual conversations; do not infer attitudes from titles.
- Place supported roles in the matrix and retain unknowns outside it. Empty quadrants are acceptable.
- Confirm concerns and information needs, then propose a purpose, channel, owner and time for each conversation, keeping a reply route open.
- Review positions and plans when roles, scope or feedback change. Record actual agreement, approvals and disagreements separately.
Keep its limits in mind
Influence is not limited to job title. Interest is not willingness to cooperate, support or personality. Both axes are contextual judgments, not objective scores; leave unknown roles unplaced. Lower-influence people still have rights and information needs. Planned contact does not establish agreement or approval.
Planning conversations for a library reservation pilot
Fictional teaching example: Baybridge Library is preparing a reservation pilot. The coordinator has a fictional role card R1 and preparation meeting M1. The pilot is unapproved, and the proposed contacts below have not been made. R1 describes authority; M1 records information requests, not a general assessment of personalities.
On a small screen, scroll across the diagram to read it.
Identify affected roles: Include the director, finance contact, frontline librarians, reader representatives, neighboring-library contact and supplier. Listing only senior roles would miss practical impacts and unknown interface authority.
Use separate reasons: R1 supplies authority evidence; M1 supplies stated information needs. Four supported role groups are placed on the axes, while the supplier remains unplaced. Limited formal authority does not mean no other influence or no right to be heard. The example uses formal decision rights as a limited proxy, not an assessment of all informal influence.
Result and status: The result is a matrix, an unplaced role and a draft contact plan. The coordinator proposes the listed conversations before launch and a pre-launch review. No new authorization, agreement or pilot approval has been obtained.
Positions reflect only R1 and M1 during preparation. Low interest does not mean opposition, and low influence does not justify exclusion. The supplier is unplaced; contact is planned and the pilot is unapproved.
Next step: The coordinator should first ask the supplier about interface authority, then confirm roles and information needs before launch and update the draft using actual responses.
Three reasons to pause before placing people on a matrix
Begin with a decision and the people affected by it. A map for a reservation pilot may differ from a map for purchasing its software. Record whose perspective is being used, what each axis means and when the map will be reviewed. Write the reason beside each placement so another person can question it.
Pause when a senior title is the only evidence of influence. Pause when interest is being inferred from a person agreeing with you: a concerned reader can care deeply while opposing the proposal. Pause when the purpose is to decide whose rights can be ignored. An accessible reply route and the opportunity to raise impacts do not depend on a favorable quadrant.
Unknown belongs in an explicit unresolved list. Assign a question and a proposed person to ask, rather than giving an uninformed role a convenient middle score. Keep contact details and sensitive personal opinions out of a public copy of the analysis. Share only what the work requires.
Choose between understanding relationships and assigning work
The Baybridge matrix addresses who should be heard before a decision. Other tools answer different questions. An organizational line cannot substitute for a deliverable owner, and a responsibility letter cannot show whether a reader can use the proposed service.
| Method | Material | Useful output |
|---|---|---|
| Stakeholder analysis | Role evidence, stated concerns and unknown relationships | A reasoned engagement plan |
| RACI matrix | Specific deliverables and confirmed authority | Proposed responsibilities to agree |
| Organizational chart | Supported reporting or coordination lines | A role structure with defined line meanings |
| Customer journey map | Attributed records of a person’s task | An experience and accessibility investigation |
Worked case: trace every contact proposal to R1 or M1
This continues the fictional Baybridge example above. R1 is the role card and M1 the preparation meeting record. They are teaching inputs, not interviews conducted by this site. There is no contact log showing that the coordinator has sent the proposed messages. Formal authority is the limited influence proxy here; informal networks remain unassessed.
Read each row in two directions. R1 answers what a role may decide, while M1 answers what information or impact was raised. Finance can pause unbudgeted purchases, but asking for budget-change notices does not establish opposition to the pilot. The director’s request for weekly risks does not establish scope approval. Librarians and readers are shown together in the diagram for readability; their staffing and accessibility concerns must remain distinguishable in the working notes.
The supplier has neither axis established. Do not put the supplier in a low-interest box simply because no response exists. Ask who can confirm interface compatibility and who receives change notices. A coordinator’s proposed question is not an answer or a grant of authority.
| Role | Given evidence | Draft next contact |
|---|---|---|
| Director | R1 scope approval; M1 weekly risks | Discuss scope and unresolved risks |
| Finance | R1 purchasing pause; M1 change notices | Ask when a budget notice is needed |
| Librarians / readers | R1 no approval right; M1 staffing / access | Offer separate ways to raise impacts |
| Neighbor contact | R1 no approval right; M1 final summary | Confirm summary and a reply route |
| Supplier | Authority and interest unknown | Ask interface and information questions in writing |
Turn the map into a contact log, then review the evidence
The defensible conclusion is a draft sequence of conversations and one unplaced role. It is not stakeholder agreement. First ask the supplier about interface authority, then confirm the other roles and information needs before launch. The order prioritizes an unresolved dependency without dismissing the affected readers. The coordinator still needs an accessible channel for people unable to attend a meeting.
For each actual contact, append the date, question, respondent’s own answer, unresolved issue and next check. Keep “message drafted,” “sent,” “received,” “understood” and “agreed” distinct. If the director accepts a meeting invitation, record that limited acceptance; scope remains unapproved until the relevant decision is actually made.
At the pre-launch review, compare R1 and M1 with the new responses. Revise a placement only with a stated reason, retain previous versions and ask affected roles whether an important person or impact is missing. A newly identified budget constraint may change the purchasing conversation without changing a reader’s right to usable information. If authority or access concerns remain unresolved, bring them to the decision owner rather than coloring the map green.
Check your work
- Both axes and all four regions are clear, with reasons and unplaced roles visible.
- Lower-influence people's impacts, rights and information needs have not been ignored.
- The draft has an owner and review point; planned contact has not become received support or approval.
Framework references
References explain the framework and its scope; they do not validate the fictional example's results.
Put the framework to work
Copy the outline and add your question, evidence, and open questions.