An Approach to Stakeholder Mapping


The conceptual framework of stakeholder mapping demonstrated in this chapter is inspired by theories of social constructivism, typically known as the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT), developed and applied by Bijker and Pinch (1987), among others, in a considerable number of technology analyses. In relation to large construction projects, the mapping method was tentatively applied in an attempt to comprehend the peculiarities of technology solutions on the Storebaelt fixed link project in Denmark (Bonke 1996).

Theories regarding technology as being socially constructed basically see technological development as arising from negotiations between different social actors, organized in "relevant social groups", each having their own comprehension of the problems to be solved and of the solutions available. Contrary to the linear projection of conventional technology models, this approach is multidimensional, making it possible to consider the development of a technological project as an alternation between variation and selection. Thus, as experienced in practice by most project managers, the unruly process of fixing and maintaining definite and consistent project objectives is at the very core of social constructivism. Rational technical arguments do not by themselves carry weight in the project definition process—only in the hands of a relevant, dedicated, and powerful stakeholder does rationality achieve the meaning of "universal importance" which governs the project through its life cycle.

SCOT theory's main conceptual relations are covered by the terms artifact, relevant social group, and technological frame. The artifact is the technological object, be it material or immaterial, toward which the actors in a SCOT analysis are orientated. In this context the artifact equals the project mission. Correspondingly the relevant social group represents a project stakeholder. Finally, technological frame defines the scope of a social group's actions and articulates the preferred technological solutions in terms of problems and preferred solutions.

Obviously, identifying the complete set of stakeholders is of great importance to the validity and usefulness of the mapping method. During this process all stakeholders must be identified, not on the basis of a priori distinctions between, for instance, technicians and economists, professionals and lay people, but rather from the perspective that any actor who possesses an interest in the project and the solutions to its problems should be considered a relevant stakeholder.

The technological frame of a stakeholder originates in the predominant practices, theories, tactics, political and economic goals, and means that characterize and are shared by specific stakeholders. It is then crucial for the manager of a project to realize that each stakeholder will be interpreting the project differently—that the artifact is constituted by as many meanings as there are relevant social groups. And this interpretative flexibility can be revealed by tracing the different meanings attributed to the project by the different stakeholders.

Normally, the interpretative flexibility of a project is easily demonstrated by its deconstruction into several alternative projects, each of which can be associated with the specific stakeholders. For instance, the construction of a fixed link across a sound, simultaneously represents turnover and profit for contractors, and increased pollution for environmentalist groups. This flexibility exists until consensus concerning the meaning of a project between different stakeholders occurs. The pluralism of the project then disappears into a closure as the project mission is defined (Haugblle Hansen 1993).

Whether and when closure takes place will depend, in part, upon the degree of stability within each stakeholder's comprehension of the project. For instance, if stability is low and confronted by powerful actors, the closure may be of a purely rhetorical nature. Closure may also be achieved through a redefinition of the problems and solutions linked to the project, for instance through favoring public transport on a fixed link project (Bonke 1998). As demonstrated in technology studies, closure mechanisms will often occur through technological and organizational innovations, under constraint, through negotiations based on convincing or well-founded argumentation, or via loss of interest by one of the stakeholders (Misa 1992).

Closure and stability consequently should be regarded as two aspects of the same question. The concept of closure focuses on the different meanings that relevant stakeholders associate with the project. Stability focuses on the development of a specific stakeholders' comprehension of the project. As indicated above, the implication of closure is that interpretative flexibility disappears—that one comprehension becomes dominant while others vanish. In the dynamic project perspective the dominant comprehension then gradually pervades other stakeholders' interpretation of the project, thereby letting the project definition process progress. While in principle, it is possible to reopen negotiations about the meaning of a project at any stage; in practice closure is an almost irreversible process.




The Frontiers of Project Management Research
The Frontiers of Project Management Research
ISBN: 1880410745
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2002
Pages: 207

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net