Project stakeholder

About: Project stakeholder is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 3317 publications have been published within this topic receiving 110056 citations. The topic is also known as: Project stakeholder.

Stakeholder management: a case of its related capability and performance

Abstract: Purpose – A central claim of stakeholder theory is that the purpose of business is to create value for various stakeholders. However, managing diverse interests of stakeholders can be challenging in a business environment entrenched with different value systems. Lacking of qualitative narratives and complicated nature of corporate governance perhaps have impeded the stakeholder theory to become a major theory of strategic management and organizational ethics on its own. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain the strategic values of stakeholder management. Design/methodology/approach – Three stakeholder management case studies, taken in the context of a large corporatized public organization, were conducted in attempting to amplify the underpinning theories of stakeholder identified by Laplume et al. (2008). Tape-recorded semi-structured interviews were transcribed into texts. To reduce retrospective bias, some typical secondary records were examined. Findings – Stakeholder management can be a core comp...

Project excellece or failure? Doing is the best kind of learning

Abstract: Project management1 has been around for decades. and has also evolved over time. Likewise, the author has worked for a few decades in Industry with a prime focus on project management. Various flavors and even evangelists exist, from PMI2, IPMA3, Prince24, Agile5 and more. The author has had experiences with several of these flavors. Unfortunately for many years, a substantial amount of projects still does not deliver on time, on budget or worse do not create the value expected. It has been published in various media and type of organizations, from research to industry and government for example by organizations such as The Standish Group and others. It seems that despite of all the project evaluations, we have not learned from all those past projects. Nor did all the development in methods and tools help us overcome this problem, or it might be due to other factors such as the human factor, as has been subject of the Dutch National Research Group (DNRG6) on Project Management under the umbrella of IPMA. Why does this problem keep manifesting itself? And of course the question arises, how do we learn best? Time to rethink project management? The current article intends to provide Young Professionals some tips or at least food for thought, based on a personal retrospect based on just a few cases from the author's past experiences. In particular, it aims to give the members of the IEEE Young Professionals a perspective for a bright future, given the large number of technological, innovation, societal projects, and business ventures expected as we enter the era of digital transformation.

The shifting dynamics of social roles and project ownership over the lifecycle of a community-based participatory research project.

Abstract: Background . Community based participatory research (CBPR) is often initiated by academic researchers, yet relies on meaningful community engagement and ownership to have lasting impact. Little is understood about how ownership shifts from academic to community partners. Objectives . We examined a CBPR project over its life course and asked: what does the evolution of ownership look like from project initiation by an academic (non-community) champion (T1); to maturation-when the intervention is ready to be deployed (T2); to independence-the time when the original champion steps aside (T3); and finally, to its maintenance-when the community has had an opportunity to function independently of the original academic champion (T4)? Methods . Using sociometric (whole network) social network analysis, knowledge leadership was measured using 'in-degree centrality'. Stakeholder network structure was measured using 'centralisation' and 'core-periphery analysis'. Friedman rank sum test was used to measure change in actor roles over time from T1 to T4. Results . Project stakeholder roles were observed to shift significantly (P < 0.005) from initiation (T1) to project maintenance (T4). Community stakeholders emerged into positions of knowledge leadership, while the roles of academic partners diminished in importance. The overall stakeholder network demonstrated a structural shift towards a core of densely interacting community stakeholders. Conclusion . This was the first study to use Social network analysis to document a shift in ownership from academic to community partners, indicating community self-determination over the research process. Further analysis of qualitative data will determine which participatory actions or strategies were responsible for this observed change.