La gestión de las empresas de servicio

Data of how stakeholder analysis has been practiced traditionally is accessed with the initial project report and existing status reports of the project.

Stakeholder identification has been initiated at the early stages of the project. The PM has listed key stakeholders in a table, where they have been categorised in internal and external. Stakeholders have been identified through reports from previous similar types of projects and through the experience of the PM.

Those identified stakeholders are analysed qualitatively by the PM in regard to their power and the own level of interest. The analysis is based on subjective opinions by the PM, where points have been given from 1 (low) to 5 (high) for both analysis criteria‘s. The analysis of the key stakeholders was done tabular. An abstract of the stakeholder analyses is shown in Table 1.

After the stakeholders have been analysed, the PM created a table where priorities have been set and the suggested treatment strategies were listed. Those findings have been presented to the client in the framework of the initial project report, so that the client was able to add eventually key stakeholders and make decisions if the suggested effort shall be investigated for the stakeholder or not.

Table 1: Power-Interest-Table of Case Study

Stakeholder Power Level of interest

Client 5 5 Public authorities 5 4 Project Management 3 5 Aerospace Foundation (sponsor) 2 3 Operator 1 3 Architect 2 4 MEP Planners 1 1 Contractor 2 1 City 4 2

1 = none … 5 = very high

The Power-Interest-Table of the case study (shown above) reflects the current way of how stakeholders have been analysed for the Dornier Museum in Friedrichshafen, Germany. The level of power from the stakeholder has been related to the level of own interest by the PM. Those stakeholders can be pasted in a Power-Interest-Matrix (see Fig.1), where they can be categorised into four categories (minimal effort, keep informed, keep satisfied or key players) of treatment strategies. If a stakeholder is in between several areas, the PM has to decide how this stakeholder has to be classified. However, understanding the expectations of key stakeholders is an important issue, but it is also important to consider risks which could arise out of those stakeholders, because the PM needs to consider what happens if the engagement strategy fails. Therefore the authors argue that the two dimensional interpretation of stakeholders might be not enough to increase opportunities and to decrease threats which could arise out of key stakeholders. More transparency can be added to the Power-Interest- Matrix through using the attitude of the stakeholder as a third dimension. This will help in identifying possible threats or opportunities, i.e. risk identification. Relating the derived theory to practice, results in considering the key stakeholders of the case study and adding the new third dimension (the attitude), which is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: 3dSA

Stakeholder Power* Level of interest* Attitude

Client 5 5 1 Public authorities 5 4 3 Project Management 3 5 2 Aerospace Foundation (sponsor) 2 3 2 Operator 1 3 2 Architect 2 4 3 MEP Planners 1 1 3 Contractor 2 1 3 City 4 2 2

* 1 = none … 5 = very high

** 1= very positive; 2=positive; 3=neutral; 4=negative; 5= very negative

A risk can be a potential benefit or a potential threat. This case study will give a different perspective on risk identification, namely the positive one. This is related to confidentiality issues, the authors are not allowed to show any stakeholders who might have an interest in the project failure and would have a negative attitude to the project. However, considering the fact that the construction project is a museum outside the city centre, results in a building which contributes to the social environment in a positive way. Therefore this project holds more opportunities and benefits by its stakeholders, than disadvantages and potential threats. Furthermore showing the positive perspective of risk is also a great contributor to risk management research.

The qualitative numerical values of the row attitude have been proposed by the authors, and were then confirmed by the project management company.

The three dimensionality can be visualised with the below shown 3dSA diagram.

In comparison with figure 1, the main difference of the 3dSA diagram is the three dimensional view on stakeholders. The third dimension here is the size of the ball, which shows if the stakeholder has a positive or negative attitude on the project. Therefore the attitude shows if eventual opportunities or threats might be caused by this particular stakeholder. In order to create higher transparency in the framework of this paper, the authors have added also the colour (green positive, yellow neutral, red negative). But the basic principle behind 3dSA diagram is that the bigger the ball the higher the opportunity.

However, after those stakeholders have been mapped the PM gets a higher transparency about which stakeholders need more engagement and which do not.

As an example, the sponsor of the project (Aerospace Foundation) has a positive attitude towards the project. They expect more recognition and interest of their organisation through the museum. They want to have areas where they can do promotion and advertisement about the aim and objectives of their institution in order to get more members and donors. In the Power-Interest-Matrix this stakeholder is classified as ‗keep satisfied‘. But this stakeholder, who is a major sponsor of the project, can cause benefits during the operational phase. For instance it might be that the museum needs new funds for refurbishments, expansions or new exhibition materials. Engaging with this stakeholder during the project execution actively might result in a closer relationship towards the project and might be helpful. Therefore this stakeholder can be viewed as a key player during the operational phase, and the PM should try to create a strong relational foundation during the project execution, in order to increase the potential benefits during operation. A possible engagement strategy could be to make a quarterly project journal where the current and expected status of the project is illustrated (might be used for other stakeholders as well), to enable site visits and provide actual pictures, i.e. to engage actively with relevant project material and give the sponsor the feeling that he is an important part of the project.

This identified opportunity (positive risk) can be used for qualitative risk analysis and/or quantitative risk analysis in order to create higher transparency about the possible impact and probability (in numerical and/or statistical values). Out of that the treatment strategy can be further developed.

6. Conclusion

This paper proposed a new way on viewing on stakeholders, with the aim to create a link between risk management and stakeholder analysis. The tool looks on stakeholders in three dimensions and not as currently practiced in two, as a result it is called ―three dimensional stakeholder analysis‖, in short 3dSA. The project attitude by the stakeholder has been suggested by the authors as the third dimension, because this can be positive, neutral or negative towards the project aims and objectives, and can therefore reflect risks which can arise out of stakeholders. However, the decision about which dimensions should be chosen depends on the project circumstances and can be kept therefore flexible. The tool can be used for risk identification and creates therefore a link between stakeholder analysis and risk management.

The PM of the case study project confirmed that the tool creates a transparent understanding of stakeholders in the project and that it reflects the risks by them. This has been perceived highly supportive in strategy development of how to engage with which stakeholder.

The limits of that tool are related to the usage in practice. Stakeholders analysis has been always practiced, but not in a detailed and formalised way. Therefore might be this tool perceived as nothing new, but it is a formalisation of that what is already practiced.

Further research is required in order to define universal analysis dimensions for same type of projects. The validity of that tool with testing it on several case studies needs to be confirmed as well. Stakeholder analysis is practiced in a qualitative way, which results in that the data is related to subjective opinions. Being able to quantify stakeholders would result in more objectivity.

References

Al-Bahar, J., & Crandall, K. (1990). Systematik Risk Management Approach for Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering, 116(3), 533-546.

Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. (2005). Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Management Decision, 43(5), 649-660.

Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), pp. 239-246.

Celar, S., Turic, M., & Vickovic, L. (2010). 4DSA: 4-Dimensional Presentation of Stakeholder Analysis in Large Software Project. 21st International DAAAM Symposium (pp. 3-4). Vienna: DAAAM International.

Chapman, C. (1997). Project risk analysis and management-PRAM the generic process. International Journal of Project Management, 15(5), 273-281.

Chinyio, E., & Olomolaiye, P. (2010). 1 Introducing Stakeholder Management. In E. Chinyio, & P. Olomolaiye, Construction Stakeholder Management (pp. 1-12). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Eccles, R. G. (1981). The quasifirm in the construction industry. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2, 335-357.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.

Gann, D. M. (1996). Construction as a manufacturing process? Similarities and differences between industrialized housing and car production in Japan. Construction Management and Economics, 14(5), 437-450.

Gidado, K. (1996). Project complexity: The focal point of construction production planning. Construction Management and Economics, 14(3), 213-225.

Girmscheid, G. (2006). Strategisches Bauunternehmensmanagement- Prozessorientiertes integriertes Management für Unternehmen in der Bauwirtschaft. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Ihlen, O., & Berntzen, O. (2007). When lobbying backfires balancing loby efforts with insights from stakeholder theory. Journal of Communication Management, 11(3), 235-246.

Institute of Risk Management, Association of Insurance Managers, & National Forum for Risk Management in the Publicn Sector. (2002). A Risk Management Standard. London: IRM.

International Organisation for Standardisation. (2009). ISO 31000: Risk Management- Principles and Guidelines. Geneva: ISO.

Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2005). Exploring Corporate Strategy. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Leung, M., & Olomolaiye, P. (2010). 6 Risk and Construction Stakeholder Management. In E. Chinyio, & P. Olomolaiye, Construction Stakeholder Management (pp. 75-98). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Miller, K. D., & Bromiley, P. (1990). Strategic risk and corporate performance: An analysis of alternative risk measures. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 756-779. Olander, S., & Landin, A. (2005). Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation

of construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(4), pp. 321-328.

Oxford Dictionary. (2005). Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Perry, J., & Hayes, R. (1985). Risk and its management in construction projects. Proceedings

of the Institution of Civil Engineers Part1, 78(3), 499-521.

Pinto, J. K., & Covin, J. G. (1989). Critical factors in project implementation: a comparison of construction and R&D projects. Technovation, 9(1), 49-62.

Project Management Institute. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledege (PM Guide) (4th ed.). Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute. Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., et al. (2009).

Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), pp. 1933-1949.

Roy, G. G. (2004). A Risk Management Framework for Software Engineering Practice. Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC‘04) (pp. 1-8). Perth: IEEE Computer Society.

Schwarzkopf, D. L. (2006). Stakeholder Perspectives and Business Risk Perception. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), 327-342.

Slack, N., Chambers, S., & Betts, A. (2006). Operations and process management-Principles and practice for strategic impact (2nd ed.). Essex: Pearson Education.

Sparrevik, M., Ellen, G. J., & Duijn, M. (2011). Evaluation of Factors Affecting Stakeholder Risk Perception of Contaminated Sediment Disposal in Oslo Harbor. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(1), 118-124.

Tah, J., & Carr, V. (2001). Knowledge-Based Approach to Construction Project Risk Management. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 15, 170-177.

Thompson, M. (2010). 4 Uptake, Applications and Best Practices in Stakeholder Management. In E. Chinyio, & P. Olomolaiye, Construction Stakeholder Management (pp. 56-64). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Varvasovszky, Z., & Brugha, R. (2000). A stakeholder analysis- How to do (or not to do). Health Policy and Planning, pp. 338-345.

Wang, S. Q., Dulaimi, M. F., & Aguria, Y. (2004). Risk management framework for construction projects in developing countries. Construction Management and Economics, 22(3), 237-252.

Weiss, J. W. (1998). Business Ethics- A Stakeholder and Issues Management Approach. Orlando: The Dryden Press.

Williams, B. L., Brown, S., Greenberg, M., & Kahn, M. A. (1999). Risk Perception in Context: The Savannah River Site Stakeholder Study. Risk Analysis, 19(6), 1019- 1035.

Winch, G. (1989). The construction firm and the construction project: a transaction cost approach. Construction Management and Economics, 7(4), 331-345.

The Purchasing Motives of SMEs: A Pilot Study in Turkey