Stakeholder Management In Complex Project: Review Of .
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management2018, 8(2), 75-89Stakeholder Management in Complex Project: Review ofContemporary LiteratureT. S. Nguyen1, S. Mohamed2, and K. Panuwatwanich31PhD candidate, School of Engineering and Built Environment, Griffith University, Australia. , School of Engineering and Built Environment at Griffith University, Australia. E-mail:s.mohamed@griffith.edu.au (corresponding author).3Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering and Technology, Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology(SIIT), Thailand. E-mail: kriengsak@siit.tu.ac.thProject ManagementReceived January 11, 2018; received revision April 9, 2018; accepted April 20, 2018Available online June 5, 2018Abstract: Previous studies have made vital contributions to the theory and practice of engaging and managing projectstakeholders. A literature review plays a critical role in supporting researchers to better understand the research topic,helping researchers identify the boundaries of the current body of knowledge and research trends, and shaping futureresearch. Thus, this paper analyses the latest research developments in stakeholder management within the context ofcomplex projects. It examines articles published between 2005 and 2016, and discusses the relevant trends under fourthemes: stakeholder analysis, stakeholder influence, stakeholder management strategies and stakeholder engagement. Thepaper reveals that social network analysis strongly emerges to be a valuable tool for analyzing the complexity ofstakeholder interrelationships in the context of CPs. Stakeholder analysis and stakeholder engagement strategies arepowerful in addressing environmental complexity (including multiple stakeholders, an environment of changing policyand regulation, and an environment with a changing nature) projects. The paper draws conclusions regarding the findingsof the review, and provides some recommendations for future research.Keywords: Stakeholder management, complex projects, research review.1. InstructionStakeholder management (SM) plays a critical role inproject performance in complex projects (CPs) as a keysuccess factor (Beringer et al., 2012). SM does not justfocus on single stakeholders, but accounts for allstakeholders’ influence on one another in complexinteractions of multiple, and potentially interdependentstakeholders (Beringer et al., 2012). Interestingly,stakeholders’ interrelationships themselves are also asource of project complexity (Debrie and Raimbault,2016; Ommen et al., 2016; Yang, 2014). Complexity isthe main source of uncertainty and risk in projects, and itaffects project performance if participants fail to addressthis issue from the beginning (Floricel et al., 2016). Theseparticipants can be viewed as stakeholders. Thecomplexity of the projects requires systematic approachesand appropriate project management skills to managestakeholders to achieve the best value for projectperformance (Mok et al., 2015).Previous studies have made a considerablecontribution to the theory and practice of engaging andmanaging stakeholders in projects that are perceived ascomplex. Williams et al. (2015) examined the networkstructure of online stakeholders’ discussions in theplanning stage of a mega project that was highly complexbecause it was embedded in a network of stakeholderswho were either supporting or opposing the project.Aaltonen et al. (2015) sought to advance understandingsof stakeholder challenges in CPs by focusing on theplanning phase. Their study highlighted how stakeholderdynamics—including stakeholder influence strategies,SM strategies and project contextual conditions—areaffected by the interactions between stakeholders’influence, SM activities and the project’s contextualconditions.Although comprehensive literature reviews are vital,there is no previous literature review on SM research inthe context of CPs. A literature review plays a critical rolein supporting researchers to understand the research topic,helping researchers identify the current body ofknowledge and research trends, and shaping futureresearch. Littau et al. (2010) outlined the development ofstakeholder theory in project management literature overa 25-year period (1984 to 2009). They found thatstakeholder theory is predominantly applied in theconstruction and information technology sectors, and thatunderstandings of the stakeholder notion have moved
76 Mohamed, S., Nguyen, T. S., and Panuwatwanich, K.towards a more complex view. Mok et al. (2015)conducted a literature review on SM studies that focusedonly on mega construction projects. Eskerod et al. (2015)examined project SM by considering a theory outside theproject management field to advance understandings ofthis topic. However, they emphasised the core argumentthat the current working forms are not suited to addressthe increased complexity facing project managers andproject teams.In addition, it is widely recognized in the literaturethat many projects ultimately fail (Damoah and Akwei,2017; Sharma et al., 2011). There are many causes offailure, one of which is project complexity, which createsdifficulty in completing projects and requires extra effortto overcome (Dao et al., 2016). CPs demand systematicapproaches and efficient management skills to managestakeholders to attain the best outcomes in terms ofproject performance (Mok et al., 2015). Thus, acomprehensive literature review of SM issues in thecontext of CPs is necessary to advance understandings ofthis specific topic. As such, this literature reviewconducts a critical analysis of SM in the context of CPs inpapers published from 2005 to 2016 to answer theresearch question: what are SM trends in the context ofCPs?This review begins by discussing the fundamentals ofSM and CPs, followed by outlining the researchmethodology that was adopted. The next sections reviewselected publications under four main themes: stakeholderanalysis (SA), stakeholder influence (SI), SM strategies(SMS) and stakeholder engagement (SE). The finalsection of the paper makes suggestions for future studies.2. BackgroundThe stakeholder concept was first mentioned in 1963 byresearchers in an internal memorandum at the StanfordResearch Institute. They defined stakeholders as ‘thosegroups without whose support the organization wouldcease to exist’ (cited in Freeman (2010)). From theoriginal work at the Institute, the stakeholder notion hasdiverged into four main research themes: corporateplanning, systems theory, corporate social responsibilityand organization theory (Freeman, 2010). To unite thesethemes, Freeman (1984) introduced a strategicmanagement process—a stakeholder approach that hasbeen widely acknowledged as a milestone in theevolution of SM research, where stakeholders are definedas a party ‘who can affect or is affected by theachievement of the firm’s objectives’. Following that,many different perspectives of SM have been developed,such as the concepts of stakeholder dynamics (Aaltonenet al., 2015), three aspects of categorizing stakeholdertheory (descriptive, instrumental and normative) (Jones,1995), stakeholder salience and typology (Mitchell et al.,1997), SI strategy (Aaltonen et al., 2008; Frooman, 1999;Hendry, 2005), stakeholder response strategy (Aaltonenand Sivonen, 2009; De Schepper et al., 2014; Savage etal., 1991) and SE (Greenwood, 2007; Strand and Freeman,2015).The theory and application of complexity is asignificant topic across diverse fields, such as philosophy,mathematics (Bountis et al., 2016), biology, physics,chemistry (Margineanu, 2013; Sherrington, 2010;Whitesides and Ismagilov, 1999), computer science(Eberhard, 2015), technology, engineering (Jamshidi,2012) and project management (Bosch-Rekveldt et al.,2011; del Puerto et al., 2013; Mozaffari et al., 2012). CPshave received much attention from researchers andproject managers because of an increase in the number ofCPs worldwide in different fields (Floricel et al., 2016),as well as CP failure because of their complexity (Vidalet al., 2011). In this context, ‘complexity’ is defined as‘the property of a project which makes it difficult tounderstand, foresee and keep under control its overallbehavior, even when given reasonably completeinformation about the project system’ (Vidal et al., 2011).This definition emphasizes, in theoretical terms, thatproject complexity is based on both the project’scharacteristics and the ability of managers to address thediverse factors that affect project outcomes, ity,recursiveness, uncertainty, irregularity and randomness(ICCPM, 2012).As complexity is an intrinsic property of projects(Floricel et al., 2016), scholars have sought to quantifyand measure it (Vidal et al., 2011). He et al. (2015)proposed a complexity measurement model that wouldbenefit researchers and serve as a reference forprofessionals in managing CPs. The model consists of 28factors that are grouped into six categories: technological,organizational, goal, environmental, cultural andinformation complexities. These six categories are used inthe current review to classify CPs. The authors selectedthis model because it is a comprehensive model toclassify CPs.Stakeholder interrelationships are a source of projectcomplexity (Debrie and Raimbault, 2016; Ommen et al.,2016; Yang, 2014). A large number of stakeholders inCPs can lead to: (1) a complex interaction of actors withvarying stakes (Afreen and Kumar, 2016; Caniato et al.,2014; Martinez, 2016); (2) conflicting stakeholderinterests (Burgin et al., 2013; Yang, 2014), concerns(McKenna and Metcalfe, 2013) and perspectives (Walton,2013); and (3) inadequate understanding of the complexstakeholders (Sæbø et al., 2011). A complex network ofstakeholders may also result in a complex decisionmaking process (Blokhuis et al., 2012) and CPevaluations involving multiple objectives and multiplestakeholder groups (De Brucker et al., 2013; Windapoand Qamata, 2015).In addition, projects have different phases, such as theconceptual, planning, execution and termination phases.These project phases have dramatically differentcharacteristics (Turner, 2009) and create a dynamiccontext for managing stakeholders and their behavior asthe project shifts through the different phases of itslifecycle (Aaltonen and Kujala, 2010). Thus, a betterunderstanding of SM trends during the CP lifecycle mightincrease project performance when facing the complexityof projects.3. Research MethodThe review process in this paper included two stages:paper collection and content analysis. The papercollection followed the collection protocol (Table 1),which included information about the inclusion/exclusioncriteria and search strategy (Jasinski et al., 2015). Thecontent analysis enabled identification of the focusedsubjects and captured emerging trends in the literature(Elo and Kyngäs, 2008). This section also providesJournal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2018, 8(2), 75-89
Stakeholder Management in Complex Project: Review of Contemporary Literature 77overview information regarding the collected articles,such as the number of publications per year, distributionof collected articles by publishers and period, andresearch themes in relation to the different CP fields.3.1. Paper CollectionTable 1 presents the inclusion/exclusion criteria andliterature survey. The inclusion and exclusion criteriawere identified based on a review question thatrepresented the scope of the literature review and itscharacteristics. Only peer-reviewed journal articles werecollected for this comprehensive literature review. Papersin conference proceedings, editorials and book reviewswere eliminated in consideration of their impact positionsin the research community, based on the SCImagoJournal Rank and H-index (Mok et al., 2015). The reviewincluded only studies reported in English, as the majorityof research is published in English, and this minimizedthe risk of language bias in the results (Jasinski et al.,2015; Pickering and Byrne, 2013). The followingdatabases were considered for searching SM in CPs: ISIWeb of Science and Scopus. Both databases cover themajor literature sources across the different fields anddisciplines areas (Thomas, 2014). The keyword searchterms were ‘stakeholder’ and ‘complex project’. Theresearch rules were slightly different because there wereslight differences in searching within each database(please see Appendix A for the research rules used forthis review). The timeframe for searching was a 20-yearperiod (1 January 1997 to 28 November 2016), but waslater revised to 2005-2016, as early published papers didnot fully satisfy our search rules. In total, there were 124collected papers, of which 73 were from Web of Scienceand 51 were from Scopus. However, some of these papersoverlapped. To eliminate duplication of papers, theauthors collected all the references (124 articles) andstored them in EndNote. By doing so, the overlappedpapers could be easily removed. Moreover, a number ofcollected papers were deemed irrelevant to the researchtopic. For instance, some were concerned with managingstakeholders, but not in CPs, and vice versa. The ones thatdid not contain both keywords of ‘stakeholder’ and‘complex’ were eliminated. This was followed by a briefreview of the papers’ content. The authors removedpapers that were irrelevant to SM in the context of CPs,which left a total of 55 papers for content analysis. Thecollected publications included the diverse perspectivesof managing stakeholders in the context of CPs, includingSA, SI, SMS and SE, as well as the theories and practicalapproaches to addressing SM.3.2. Content AnalysisThis review adopted content analysis, which is astructural and systematic process to identify the mainresearch themes for literature reviews. Content analysis isknown as a method of analyzing documents, and, throughcontent analysis, ‘it is possible to distil words into fewercontent-related categories’ (Elo and Kyngäs, 2008).Content analysis allows scholars to examine hugequantities of documents in a systematic manner, identifythe focused subjects, and capture emerging trends in theliterature (Elo and Kyngäs, 2008; Krippendorff and Bauer,2007; Weber, 1990). This methodology was applied byLaplume et al. (2008) and Mok et al. (2015) in theirreview of SM theory, in which they identified the mainresearch themes by coding and analyzing using aninductive approach. Table 2 presents the codebook forcontent analysis in the current review.3.3. Overview of Collected PapersThrough content analysis, this study found that SMresearch in the context of CPs is categorized under fourmain themes: SA, SI, SMS and SE. Table 3 and AppendixB present the distribution of publications by period andidentified research themes. The reason we divided thedata into two periods (2005 to 2012 and 2013 to 2016)was because, in the four years from 2013 to 2016, thenumber of articles (35 articles) was nearly double thatpublished in the 2005 to 2012 period (20 articles) (Fig. 1).SA (67.27%) and SE (56.36%) appeared more frequentlythan did SI (5.45%) and SMS (12.72%) (Table 3).There is an increasing trend in the number ofpublications annually, indicating a growing researchinterest in this topic in the context of CPs (see Fig. 1).This growth might be attributed to the increase in CPsworldwide and the subsequent increase in issues relatedto managing stakeholders in CPs (Floricel et al., 2016).The collected papers were widely distributed across41 journals. In terms of paper frequency, the top journalwas International Journal of Project Management(12.72%), followed by Project Management Journal(5.54%) and Environmental Science and Policy (5.54%)(Table 4).From our review, it appears that there is a variety ofCP fields (see Table 5). Infrastructure and environmentare the fields in which most CPs are being reported,followed by industry and technology, research anddevelopment.Table 1. Collection protocol designed for the literature review processStepResearch methodInclusion criteriaPopulation: Peer-reviewed journal articles representing the SM in CPsLanguage: EnglishExclusion criteriaSearching the literatureConference proceedings, editorials and book reviewsMethod: Database searchingDatabases: ISI Web of Science and ScopusTerms for searching: ‘stakeholder’ and ‘complex project’Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2018, 8(2), 75-89
78 Mohamed, S., Nguyen, T. S., and Panuwatwanich, K.Table 2. Codebook for content analysis (Adapted from Laplume et al. (2008) and Mok et al. (2015))CodeYearAuthorArticle titleJournalConcernSMProjectMethodologyData sourceIndustryResearch questionsContributionsMain findingsDefinition of codeQuantitative variables codedYear of publicationList of authorsTitle of the articlePublication in which the article was publishedPrimary stakeholders, secondary stakeholders, or bothTheoretical terms in regard to stakeholdersType of CP, project phasesQualitative, quantitative, mixed methodsSurvey, interview, secondary data, othersIndustry from which the data were collectedQualitative variables codedResearch question explicitly stated in the articleContributions explicitly stated in the articleMain findings explicitly stated in the articleTable 3. Distribution of publications by period and identified research S437SE1318311The total percentage is higher than 100% because a number of papers had more than one theme.Research themeFig.1. Number of publication papersJournal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 2018, 8(2), 75-89Percentage (%)167.275.4512.7256.36
Stakeholder Management in Complex Project: Review of Contemporary Literature 79Table 4. Journals containing most SM in CPs papers2No.Journal containing two or more papersNumber of papersPercentage of papers (%)21International Journal of Project Management712.722Project Management Journal35.453Environmental Science and Policy35.454Climatic Change23.635Construction Management & Economics23.636International Journal of Managing Projects in Business23.637Land Use Policy23.638Ocean & Coastal Management23.63The total percentage does not equal 100% as only the journals with the most papers are shown.Table 5. CP fieldsCP typesNumber of paperPercentages ogy, research and on communication technology47.27Rural and agriculture35.45Turnkey11.81Mega engineering11.813The total percentage is higher than 100% because a number of projects had more than one type.stakeholder interest matrix in the complex contexts where4. Literature Reviewmultiple organizational interact (Ballejos and Montagna,This section discusses the four main themes revealed2008). This matrix was proposed to deal with difficultythrough the content analysis. Table 3 presents theand complexity in a project with several involveddistribution of publications by period and the identifiedorganizations. In addition, combining power position andresearch themes. It indicates that researchers haveurgency position, De Schepper et al. (2014) introduceddevoted much attention to SA and SE, yet less attention tothe SI identification matrix. This matrix has enormouslySMS and SI. Each of the following subsections reviewcontributed to overcome the difficulty of the increasingthe current development of each theme in the context ofimportance of the stakeholder context and dynamic inCPs and then present a brief conclusion.Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) project, in whichmakes stakeholder environment more complex to manage.4.1. Stakeholder AnalysisHowever, the limitation of the above stakeholder matrixSA can be defined as a technique of systematicallyapproaches is their failure to capture whether stakeholdergathering and analyzing both quantitative and qualitativeattitudes, towards the projec
complex projects. It examines articles published between 2005 and 2016, and discusses the relevant trends under four themes: stakeholder analysis, stakeholder influence, stakeholder management strategies and stakeholder engagement. The paper reveals that social network analysis strongly emer
need some form of stakeholder analysis. Stakeholder analysis focuses on the stakeholder’s importance to the project, and to the organization, the influence exerted by the stakeholder, plus stakeholder participation and expectations. A Stakeholder Expectations Questionnaire may be used to analyze sp
17 BAB II LANDASAN TEORI A. Teori Stakeholder (Stakeholder Theory) Ramizes dalam bukunya Cultivating Peace, mengidentifikasi berbagai pendapat mengenai stakeholder.Friedman mendefinisikan stakeholder sebagai: “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievment of the organi
Apr 03, 2018 · Stakeholder Mapping Sample Stakeholder Maps Stakeholder “Flavors” External Program Service/Agency Team Sample Stakeholder Map Template. 4/2/2018 6 Sample USMC Program Stakeholder Map Marine Corps Program Mgr MARCORSYSCOM Product
Oct 15, 2020 · This site includes a downloadable pdf template and a Google Sheet you can copy . 17 2. Stakeholder Analysis (6 of 11) Who are they? Tool A. Stakeholder Register. 18 2. Stakeholder Analysis (6 of 11) Who are they? Tool A. Stakeholder Register. 19 2. Stakeholder Analysis (7 of 11) Who are they?
Nov 19, 2013 · lity matrix to development a framework for stakeholder management, analysis, and identification. 2.1. Stakeholder Salience and Positioning in the Project Stakeholder salience is “the degree to which managers give priority to competing stakeholder claims” [25,
Stakeholder Management Plan Template _ Initials Stakeholder Analysis Stakeholder Name Internal or External Stakeholder Unaware, Resistant, Neutral, Supportive or Leading? Level of influence (1-5 with 5 being the lowest) Ability to impact resources (1-5 with 5 being the lowest) Tota
‘stakeholder management’, ‘stakeholder analysis’ and ‘stakeholder engagement’, and also clarifies the interrelationship among these three terms. Section 3 sets out the methodology followed to investigate the practice approaches for stakeholder analysis and engagement i
Have a brain storming session where they generate 10-15 themes. (Be patient, they'll get there eventually.) After they generate the list, allow people to talk in behalf of specific ideas Sometimes they may combine items Give everyone 3 votes and go through the list voting. If there is a clear winner then proceed. Otherwise repeat the process, but with one vote. Post the chosen theme .
