What's changed: Initial version
5.1Stakeholder identification & analysis
Covers stakeholder identification, which surfaces the parties who affect or are affected by the project; engagement level (unaware through leading), which measures the degree of each party's involvement; and the power/interest grid, which the PM uses to judge how to allocate limited effort across stakeholders.
A project involves many parties with differing positions and interests: sponsors, user departments, end users, regulators, subcontractors, and more. If the PM tries to engage everyone with the same intensity, limited time and effort get spread thin, leaving truly important stakeholders under-served. This section builds the judgment to identify stakeholders without omission, understand each one's degree of engagement and level of influence and interest, and apply a deliberately differentiated response.
5.1.1Stakeholder identification and engagement level
- Stakeholder identification is the ongoing process, starting at project initiation, of surfacing the individuals, groups, and organizations that affect or are affected by the project's decisions, execution, and outcomes, and recording them in the stakeholder register along with their interests, influence, and expectations. New stakeholders often surface partway through, so this is not a one-time exercise but must be revisited iteratively.
- Engagement level is a scale describing each stakeholder's current stance toward the project (unaware to resistant to neutral to supportive to leading). Tracking engagement level makes visible the gap between a stakeholder's current stance and the stance needed for project success, allowing the PM to prioritize outreach that closes that gap.
5.1.2Power/interest grid (response approach by quadrant)
- The power/interest grid plots each stakeholder's power (influence over decisions and resource allocation) on one axis and interest (degree of concern for the outcome) on the other, classifying stakeholders into four quadrants to guide the PM's response approach. The quality and quantity of effort that should be spent differs greatly depending on whether power and interest are each high or low.
- The four quadrant responses are: high power, high interest = manage closely—engage individually and carefully as the top priority, and involve them in decisions. High power, low interest = keep satisfied—satisfy them with concise, essential information without over-informing in a way that needlessly raises their interest. Low power, high interest = keep informed—though their influence over decisions is small, their high interest means regular information sharing is needed to prevent anxiety or misunderstanding. Low power, low interest = monitor—continue watching for changes in the situation, but without spending excessive effort.
Most-tested: the four-quadrant responses—"high power, high interest = manage closely," "high power, low interest = keep satisfied (without over-informing)," "low power, high interest = keep informed," and "low power, low interest = monitor with minimal effort." Also keep in mind the engagement-level stages (unaware through leading) and the idea of closing the gap versus the current state.
Suppose that on an internal core-system renewal project, the PM builds a stakeholder register and identifies an executive who holds final approval authority over budget execution at the management committee. This executive has very high power over the project's decisions and resource allocation, but shows little interest in day-to-day progress details, giving them low interest. The PM places this executive in the "high power, low interest" quadrant of the power/interest grid and judges the response approach to be "keep satisfied." Concretely, rather than inviting the executive to detailed weekly progress meetings, the PM instead provides a concise one-page monthly summary (budget consumption rate, status of key milestones, and whether any major risks exist). Had the PM instead asked this executive to join detailed weekly reports and technical discussions at the same intensity as working-level staff, it would have burdened a low-interest party with unneeded information load, risking the complaint "I don't want to be dragged into the details," which could actually worsen the relationship. Meanwhile, a front-line lead in the user department on the same project has little direct power over decisions, but because day-to-day operations are strongly affected by the renewal, has very high interest. The PM places this lead in "low power, high interest" and, under a "keep informed" approach, sets up weekly progress sharing with a Q&A opportunity. Had the PM neglected to inform this lead, the lead might have felt dismissed because of their low power, risking anxiety, misunderstanding, and resistance on the ground (a worsening of engagement level). As this shows, even the same act of "communicating information" calls for a judgment of what volume, frequency, and granularity is optimal, which flips depending on the combination of the other party's power and interest—that is the judgment this section asks for.
| Quadrant | Response approach | Risk of a mismatched approach |
|---|---|---|
| High power, high interest | Manage closely (engage individually, involve in decisions) | Under-engagement risks decisions missing their input, stalling the project |
| High power, low interest | Keep satisfied (concise, essentials only) | Over-informing invites unneeded scrutiny/complaint, worsening the relationship |
| Low power, high interest | Keep informed (regular sharing) | Under-informing breeds anxiety/misunderstanding that grows into ground-level resistance |
| Low power, low interest | Monitor with minimal effort | Over-investing effort here starves attention from more important stakeholders |
Trap: "A high-power stakeholder should always be given detailed information intensively" is wrong—even with high power, low interest calls for "keep satisfied," and excessive detail can actually breed complaints. Also wrong: "a low-power stakeholder can always be deprioritized"—high interest still requires regular information sharing (keep informed) even when power is low; the response approach must not be decided on power alone.
5.1.3Section summary
- Stakeholder identification is ongoing from project initiation, recorded in the stakeholder register with interest, influence, and expectations, and revisited iteratively
- Engagement level (unaware through leading) reveals the gap between the current and desired stance, guiding outreach priority
- The power/interest grid's four quadrants (manage closely / keep satisfied / keep informed / monitor) determine the quality and quantity of the response approach
Sign in to track progress — Log in.
Quick check
(just a quick review)Q1. An executive on a project holds final approval authority over budget execution and has very high power over decisions, but shows little interest in day-to-day progress details. Based on the power/interest grid, which response approach is most appropriate?
Q2. A front-line lead in a user department has little direct power over decisions, but because day-to-day operations are strongly affected by the renewal, has very high interest. Which response approach is most appropriate here?
Q3. Regarding the operation of the stakeholder register, which is the most appropriate way to handle it after it is created once at project initiation?
Keep track of your progress
The full study guide is free to read. Sign up free to practice with the question bank, track what you have read, review your mistakes, and highlight passages.