Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
com
ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537 1552
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
Abstract
Understanding stakeholders, their inuences and devising engagement strategies based on the analyses of stakeholder landscapes has become
one of the key capabilities within project-based rms. Based on a systematic literature review of the project stakeholder management literature, we
develop a conceptual framework for characterizing and classifying project stakeholder landscapes. The framework synthesizes four key dimensions
of project stakeholder landscapes and their various sub-factors: complexity (element and relationship complexity), uncertainty, dynamism and the
institutional context. The developed framework will provide both academics and practitioners with a shared language to make sense of what types
of stakeholder landscapes exist, to categorize projects based on their stakeholder environments and to start evaluating what types of implications
different types of landscapes have on stakeholder management and project management in general.
2016 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Project stakeholder landscapes; Stakeholder management; Stakeholder theory; Complexity; Uncertainty; Dynamism; Institutional context
1. Introduction
The disposal of nuclear waste in deep geological repositories
is an increasingly popular topic around the globe. In the United
States, the funding from a widely debated Yucca Mountain
nuclear repository project was recently withdrawn. How is this
possible after so many resources and so much energy were
dedicated to the development and shaping of the megaproject
for decades? In its analysis of what is called Yucca Mountain
failure, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear
Future suggests the simplification of the complex stakeholder
environment of the project consisting of a multitude of
stakeholders with converging interests. Similarly, the literature
on large engineering and infrastructure projects suggests that
the social complexity of these projects, associated particularly
with the number of, variety of and relationships among project
stakeholders is a key managerial challenge (Flyvbjerg, 2014;
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kirsi.aaltonen@oulu. (K. Aaltonen),
jaakko.kujala@oulu. (J. Kujala).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.009
0263-7863/00/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
1538
1539
1540
Complexity
Stakeholder element
complexity
Number of project
stakeholders
Variety of project
stakeholders and their
goals
Stakeholders internal
complexity
Stakeholder relationship
complexity
Number of relationships
among stakeholders
Variety of relationships
Patterns of relationships
Relationships internal
complexity
External stakeholder
relationships
1541
Uncertainty
Dynamism
Institutional
context
Lack of information
related to stakeholders
and their relationships
Project managements
experience with respect
to stakeholders and
stakeholder analysis
Analyzability of the
stakeholder environment
Ambiguous information
concerning stakeholders
Changes in stakeholders
attributes
Changes in stakeholders
position
Changes in relationships
among stakeholders
Emergent stakeholders
and relationships
Changes in appropriate
ways of engaging
stakeholders
Changes in stakeholders
influence strategies
Stakeholders local
embeddedness
Legitimized structures
and processes for
stakeholder engagement
The nature of
stakeholders legitimized
influence strategies
Multiplicity of
institutional
environments
Complexity of the
stakeholders
interpretation process
1542
networks and their properties has been one of the landmark studies
on network properties within the general stakeholder theory
literature stream. In his study, which draws from social network
theory, stakeholder network density and the centrality of the focal
organization are identified as factors that have an effect on the
stakeholder management strategies of the focal organization.
Today, an increasing amount of research efforts within the project
management community have been directed to understanding
better how the characteristics of project stakeholder networks
actually influence stakeholder management.
The number of relationships among stakeholders deals
with the interconnectedness of stakeholders. In traditional huband-spoke stakeholder models it is not actually usual to draw
links between stakeholders (Waxenberger and Spence, 2003).
Complexity theory maintains that as the number of relationships among stakeholders increases, so do interaction and the
unpredictability of the system. In line with complexity theory,
Rowley's (1997) insight is that as the stakeholder network
becomes denser i.e. the number of ties in the network that link
stakeholders together, it becomes more challenging for the
focal organization to resist pressures from stakeholders due to
the visible and shared expectations of stakeholders. In such
situations, stakeholders are also more likely to form coalitions
because they do not have to bear the cost of establishing the
relationships. However, in projects, the crucial question is also
whether the goals within the stakeholder network are aligned
with those of the project. If they are divergent, the denser
network makes it more challenging to manage stakeholders. If
the dense network is formed by the alliance partners of the focal
organization with aligned goals, the density of the network may
also support the focal organization and decrease the challenge
of managing stakeholders (Aaltonen et al., 2010). Miller and
Hobbs (2006) also discovered that project structures that
involve many participants in networks of interdependent
relations are more vulnerable to exogenous emergent risks
related to stakeholder behavior. Hence, we can conclude that
the increased number of stakeholder relationships contributes to
the challenge of managing stakeholders. Few articles on project
stakeholder interactions and particularly on their number exist,
which is also brought up in articles that review project
stakeholder research (e.g., Yang et al., 2011). In their study of
stakeholder management in construction megaprojects Mok
et al. (2014) highlight the importance of considering the
implications of the interconnectedness of stakeholders for
stakeholder management. Research has also proposed that the
interactions of stakeholders influence the way focal project
organizations attempt to manage stakeholders (De Schepper
et al., 2014).
The variety of relationships increases the challenge of
managing stakeholders. For example, a project with five
stakeholders with similar types of relationships is easier to
manage than a project with a variety of different types of
stakeholder relationships and requirements for different types
of relationship management strategies and actions. Some of
these relationships may, for example, be critical, strategic and
long-term and hence require careful attention. In our sample,
for example, Artto et al. (2008a, 2008b, 2008c) discuss the
1543
risks that arise from different types of subcontractor relationships and that may have a significant effect on business
performance. In their empirical analysis of an IT project and a
construction project, Bourne and Walker (2006) illuminate how
different types of relationships with different types of
requirements may require significant engagement investments
from the project management.
Patterns of relationships among stakeholders also play a
central role in the characterization of stakeholder landscapes.
Rowley (1997) discusses the centrality of focal organizations,
which can be calculated as the number of ties per one
stakeholder. Stakeholders with a high number of connections
are central actors that can typically exert a significant influence
over the network. The existence of central stakeholders,
particularly with diverging goals from those of the project,
increases the challenge of stakeholder management due to the
risk of the influence of such stakeholders (Rowley, 1997) or
because of the risk that stakeholder roles in such positions may
be removed. Stakeholder theory has also identified the
influence of coalitions and cliques within the stakeholder
network for management (Rowley and Moldoveanu, 2003). In
practice, the existence of stakeholder cliques makes it more
challenging for the focal project to control the stakeholder
network. The analyzed articles discuss patterns of relationships
occasionally. For instance, both Beringer et al. (2012) and
Yang et al. (2011) argue that stakeholders' complex interactions and coalitions need to be taken into account in project
portfolio management processes. In the general stakeholder
research stream, both Frooman (1999) and Hendry (2005)
addressed the formation of coalitions and cliques while
discussing stakeholders' influence strategies.
Relationships' internal complexity relates to the complex
relationships among project organization and single stakeholders. One dyadic relationship between the project and the
stakeholder that features, e.g., high institutional and cultural
distance (Ruuska et al., 2009), challenging co-operation
(Vaagaasar, 2011) or strong controversies (Artto et al., 2008a,
2008b, 2008c) can generate many more challenging stakeholder management situations than several rather simple stakeholder
relationships.
External stakeholder relationships are a project's relationships with external stakeholders, i.e., those stakeholders that are
not part of the project coalition but are affected by the project or
can affect it. External stakeholder relationships are discussed
regularly in project stakeholder management research. In
particular, large and complex projects are subject to the effects
of a wider socio-political environment and the demands and
pressures stemming from external stakeholders such as
community groups, local residents, landowners, environmentalists, regulatory agencies, and local and national governments
(Aaltonen et al., 2008; Aarseth et al., 2013; Flyvbjerg, 2014).
Recently, for instance, Sallinen et al. (2011, 2013) discussed
the role of government stakeholders in nuclear power plant
projects. Research evidence has also indicated that a project's
exposure to the host country's institutional influences, through
external local stakeholder relationships, may simultaneously
help root the project to the local institutional context but also
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
profiles and patterns change and evolve during the project and
how managers actually make sense of and accommodate these
changes. Second, as mentioned above, the framework provides us
with relevant characteristics of project stakeholder environments
that can help us determine what criteria managers particularly
emphasize when making deliberate choices on project structures
and how managers attempt to shape their stakeholder landscapes
into simpler ones. Third, because almost all projects are currently
implemented in some type of inter-organizational setting, there is
a need to examine how stakeholder landscapes are assessed and
negotiated in interactions of many focal project organizations
1549
that jointly form the core of the whole project. Finally, the
interaction patterns of the different dimensions of the framework
should be on the research agenda. We also believe that our
framework may support scholars in identifying what types of
dimensions and factors they should take into account when
conducting empirical research on project stakeholder management and in characterizing their case environments: Indeed, the
current challenge of theorizing on extant project stakeholder
management research is that different studies tend to bring up
random facts about the project stakeholder context where the
research is conducted.
Appendix 1
Table 1
Elements characterizing stakeholder landscape from literature sources.
Complexity (element complexity)
Number of project stakeholders
Variety of project stakeholders and their goals
Artto et al., 2008a; Artto et al., 2008b; Davies and Mackenzie, 2014; Martinsuo
and Lehtonen, 2009;
Achterkamp and Vos, 2008; Bourne and Walker, 2006; Bourne and Walker,
2008; Chang et al., 2013; ; El-Gohary et al., 2006; Eskerod and Huemann,
2013; Li et al., 2011; Locatelli et al., 2014; Maylor et al., 2008; McKenna and
Metcalfe, 2013; Metcalfe and Sastrowardoyo, 2013; Mok et al., 2014; Prez
et al., 2010; Soudain et al., 2009; Van Os et al., 2015; Walley, 2013; Yang,
2014; Yang et al., 2014; Zeng et al., 2015;
Aaltonen et al., 2010; Eskerod and Vaagaasar, 2014; Legris and Collerette,
2006; Sutterfield et al., 2006
Aaltonen and Sivonen, 2009; Aaltonen et al., 2010; De Schepper et al., 2014;
Maylor et al., 2008; Mok et al., 2014; Yang, 2014; Yang et al., 2011
Aaltonen et al., 2010; Aaltonen and Sivonen, 2010; Bourne and Walker, 2006;
Bourne and Walker, 2008; Maylor et al., 2008; Soudain et al. 2009; Yuan,
2013
Aaltonen et al., 2008; Beringer et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2011
Artto et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Soudain et al. 2009; Vaagaasar, 2011
Aaltonen et al., 2008; Aarseth et al., 2013; Davies and Mackenzie, 2014;
Sallinen et al., 2011; Sallinen et al., 2013
Aaltonen, 2011; Jepsen and Eskerod, 2009; Mok et al., 2014; Tang and Shen,
2013; Turner and Zolin, 2012; Yang et al., 2014; Yuan, 2013
Aaltonen, 2011; Bourne, 2008; Jepsen and Eskerod, 2009; Maylor et al., 2008
Aaltonen, 2011; Jepsen and Eskerod, 2009
Aaltonen, 2011; Walker et al., 2014
Bourne and Walker, 2006; Maylor et al., 2008; Olander and Landin, 2005
Boonstra, 2006; De Schepper et al., 2014; Missonier and Loufrani-Dedida,
2014; Tryggestad et al., 2013; Zeng et al., 2015
Aaltonen et al., 2008; Eskerod and Vaagaasar, 2014; Missonier and
Loufrani-Fedida, 2014; Vaagaasar, 2011; Van Os et al., 2015
Missonier and Loufrani-Fedida, 2014; Tryggestad et al., 2013; Sage et al., 2011
Aaltonen et al., 2008; Aaltonen, 2013
Aaltonen et al., 2008; Beringer et al., 2013; Purvis et al., 2015
Aaltonen et al., 2010; De Schepper et al., 2014; Shiferaw et al., 2012; Zeng
et al., 2015
Aaltonen, 2013; Aaltonen and Sivonen, 2009; Heravi et al., 2014; Sallinen
et al., 2011; Shiferaw et al., 2012; Youker, 1992; Zeng et al., 2015
Aaltonen, 2013; Soudain et al., 2009
Aaltonen, 2013; Mok et al., 2014;Yuan, 2013
Aaltonen, 2013; Aarseth et al., 2013; Boonstra, 2006
1550
References
Aaltonen, K., 2010. Stakeholder management in international projects. Doctoral
Dissertation. Aalto University, School of Science and Technology,
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management. Doctoral Dissertation Series 2010/13. Espoo, p. 119.
Aaltonen, K., 2011. Project stakeholder analysis as an environmental
interpretation process. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29 (2), 165183.
Aaltonen, K., 2013. The establishment of legitimacy: the case of international
projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6 (1), 1335.
Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., 2010. A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder
influence strategies in global projects. Scand. J. Manag. 26 (4), 381397.
Aaltonen, K., Sivonen, R., 2009. Response strategies to stakeholder pressures in
global projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27 (2), 131141.
Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., Oijala, T., 2008. Stakeholder salience in global
projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (5), 509516.
Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., Lehtonen, P., Ruuska, I., 2010. A stakeholder network
perspective on unexpected events and their management in international
projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 3 (4), 564588.
Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., Havela, L., Savage, G., 2015. Stakeholder dynamics
during the project front-end. Proj. Manag. J. 46 (6), 1541.
Aarseth, W., Rolstads, A., Andersen, B., 2013. Managing organizational
challenges in global projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 7 (1), 103132.
Achterkamp, M.C., Vos, J.F.J., 2008. Investigating the use of the stakeholder
notion in project management literature, a meta-analysis. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 26 (7), 749757.
Ackermann, F., Eden, C., 2011. Strategic management of stakeholders: theory
and practice. Long Range Plan. 44, 179196.
Artto, K., Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., 2008a. Subcontractors's business
relationships as risk sources in project networks. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus.
1 (1), 88105.
Artto, K., Kujala, J., Dietrich, P., Martinsuo, M., 2008b. What is project
strategy? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (1), 412.
Artto, K., Martinsuo, M., Dietrich, P., Kujala, J., 2008c. Project strategy:
strategy types and their contents in innovation projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj.
Bus. 1 (1), 4970.
Bakker, R., 2010. Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: a systematic
review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12, 466486.
Beringer, C., Jonas, D., Gemnden, H.G., 2012. Establishing project portfolio
management: an exploratory analysis of the influence of internal
stakeholders' interactions. Proj. Manag. J. 43 (6), 1632.
Beringer, C., Jonas, D., Kock, A., 2013. Behavior of internal stakeholders in
project portfolio management and its impact on success. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
31 (6), 830846.
Boonstra, A., 2006. Interpreting an ERP-implementation project from a
stakeholder perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24 (1), 3852.
Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Jongkind, Y., Mooi, H., Bakker, H., Verbraeck, A., 2011.
Grasping project complexity in large engineering projects: the TOE
(technical, organizational and environmental) framework. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 29 (6), 728739.
Bourne, L., 2008. Advancing theory and practice for successful implementation
of stakeholder management in organisations. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 1 (4),
587601.
Bourne, L., Walker, D.H., 2005. Visualizing and mapping stakeholder
influence. Manag. Decis. 43 (5), 649660.
Bourne, L., Walker, D.H.T., 2006. Visualizing stakeholder influencetwo
Australian examples. Proj. Manag. J. 37 (1), 521.
Bourne, L., Walker, D.H.T., 2008. Project relationship management and the
stakeholder circle. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 1 (1), 125130.
Chang, A., Chih, Y., Chew, E., Pisarski, A., 2013. Reconceptualizing mega
project success in Australian defence: recognizing the importance of value
co-creation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (8), 11391153.
Choi, T., Dooley, K.J., Rungtusanatham, M., 2001. Supply networks and
complex adaptive systems: control versus emergence. J. Oper. Manag. 19,
351366.
Clarkson, M.E., 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating
corporate social performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (1), 92117.
Cleland, D.I., 1986. Project stakeholder management. Proj. Manag. J. 17 (4), 3644.
1551
Sallinen, L., Ruuska, I., Ahola, T., 2013. How governmental stakeholders
influence large projects: the case of nuclear power plant projects. Int.
J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6 (1), 5168.
Savage, G.T., Nix, T.W., Whitehead, C.J., Blair, J.D., 1991. Strategies for
assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Executive 5 (2), 6175.
Scott, W.R., 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Shenhar, A.J., 2001. One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical
contingency domains. Manag. Sci. 47 (3), 394414.
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., 1996. Toward a typological theory of project
management. Res. Policy 25 (4), 607632.
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., 2007. Reinventing Project Management: the Diamond
Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation. HBS Press Book, Boston, MA.
Shiferaw, A.T., Klakegg, O.J., Haavaldsen, T., 2012. Governance of public
investment projects in Ethiopia. Proj. Manag. J. 43 (4), 5269.
Simon, H.A., 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 10
(6), 467482.
Soudain, L.L., Deshayes, P., Tikkanen, H., 2009. Positioning of the stakeholders in
the interaction project managementproject marketing: A case of a coconstructed
industrial project. Proj. Manag. J. 40 (3), 3446.
Sutterfield, J.S., Friday-Stroud, S., Shivers-Blackwell, S., 2006. A case study of
project and stakeholder management failures: lessons learned. Proj. Manag.
J. 37 (5), 2635.
Szulecki, K., Borewicz, T., Waluszko, J., 2015. A brief green moment: the
emergence and decline of the Polish anti-nuclear and environmental
movement. Interface 7 (2), 2748.
Tang, L., Shen, Q., 2013. Factors affecting effectiveness and efficiency of
analyzing stakeholders' needs at the briefing stage of public private
partnership projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (4), 513521.
Thomas, J., Mengel, T., 2008. Preparing project managers to deal with
complexityadvanced project management education. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
26 (3), 304315.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for
developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of
systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 14 (3), 207222.
Tryggestad, K., Justesen, L., Mouritsen, J., 2013. Project temporalities: how
frogs can become stakeholders. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6 (1), 6987.
Turkulainen, V., Aaltonen, K., Lohikoski, P., 2015. Managing project
stakeholder communication: the QStock festival case. Proj. Manag. J. 46
(6), 7491.
Turner, R., Zolin, R., 2012. Forecasting success on large projects: developing
reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over
multiple time frames. Proj. Manag. J. 43 (5), 8799.
Vaagaasar, A.L., 2011. Development of relationships and relationship
competencies in complex projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 4 (2), 294307.
Vaagaasar, A.L., Eskerod, P., 2014. Stakeholder management practices during a
project course. Proj. Manag. J. 45 (5), 7185.
Van Os, A., Van Berkel, F., De Gilder, D., Van Dyck, C., Groenewegen, P.,
2015. Project risk as identity threat: explaining the development and
consequences of risk discourse in an infrastructure project. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 33 (4), 877888.
Vidal, L., Marle, F., 2008. Understanding project complexity: implications on
project management. Kybernetes 37 (8), 10941110.
Vuori, E., Mutka, S., Aaltonen, P., Artto, K., 2013. That is not how we brought
you up: how is the strategy of a project formed? Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6
(1), 88105.
Walker, D., Steinfort, P., Maqsood, T., 2014. Stakeholder voices through rich
pictures. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 7 (3), 342361.
Walley, P., 2013. Stakeholder management: the sociodynamic approach. Int.
J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6 (3), 485504.
Ward, S., Chapman, C., 2008. Stakeholders and uncertainty management in projects.
Constr. Manage. Econ. 26 (6), 563577.
Waxenberger, B., Spence, L., 2003. Reinterpretation of a metaphor: from stakes
to claims. Strateg. Chang. 12, 239249.
Winch, G.M., 2004. Managing Project Stakeholders. In: Morris, P.W.G., Pinto,
J.K. (Eds.), The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Wiley, New Jersey.
Wolfe, R.A., Putler, D.S., 2002. How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder
groups? Organ. Sci. 13 (1), 6480.
1552
Youker, R., 1992. Managing the international project environment. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 10 (4), 219226.
Yuan, H., 2013. Critical management measures contributing to construction waste
management: evidence from construction projects in China. Proj. Manag. J. 44
(4), 101112.
Zeng, S.X., Ma, H.Y., Lin, H., Zeng, R.C., Tam, V.W.Y., 2015. Social
responsibility of major infrastructure projects in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
33 (3), 537548.