Strategies for Effective Project Stakeholder Engagement (ProStakE)

STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTIVE PROJECT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT (ProStakE)

DR. SAIPOL BARI ABD KARIM MIVMM, MACPM, MAPM(UK) [email protected]

Faculty Of Built Environment University Of Malaya 50603 Kuala Lumpur

© Saipol Bari 1

Content:

1. Who is the stakeholder

2. Stakeholder management vs. stakeholder engagement

3. Why engage with them?

4. How to engage with them?

5. When do we engage with them?

6. ProStakE - The research project

a) Stakeholders’ concerns & needs

b) How to engage?

c) Effective method

d) Critical success factors

e) Challenges

f) Strategy to conduct

© Saipol Bari 2

Considerable asset

Group / Individual

Can contribute knowledge

insights and support

Can affect or be affected

Have an expectation

Receive associated direct and

indirect benefits

and/or losses

© Saipol Bari 3

• Creating and destroying value What is a

stakeholder?

• Legal contract with the client Internal

stakeholders

• All others with a direct interest in the project

External stakeholders

• Influence the progress of the project.

Project stakeholders

© Saipol Bari 4

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT VS.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

© Saipol Bari 5

STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT

Mapping Identify

© Saipol Bari 6


dialogue

share

involve

mutual

© Saipol Bari 7

© Saipol Bari 8


© Saipol Bari 9

WHY ENGAGE WITH THEM?

Better understand its impacts

Help articulate its values, mission, strategy, commitments and implementation

Participate in measurement and

reporting

Determine the style of engagement and

stakeholders' expectations

Facilitate a regulatory approvals process

Avert or solve a crisis, or to proactively improve

relationships

© Saipol Bari 10

© Saipol Bari 11

HOW TO ENGAGE WITH THEM?

© Saipol Bari 12

As early as possible

Why? One of the most common failures to the success of

a project if neglected (Sharma, 2008)

Why bother engaging stakeholders? There can be no common enduring agreement, ownership or support for a particular project.

WHEN DO WE ENGAGE WITH STAKEHOLDER?

© Saipol Bari 13

THE RESEARCH PROJECT:

© Saipol Bari 14

PROSTAKE

AIM To develop effective strategies for project

stakeholders engagement (ProStakE)

SCOPE Stakeholder engagement

Infrastructure projects

© Saipol Bari 15

OBJECTIVES To explore the needs of different groups of stakeholders

To investigate the critical success factor to stakeholder engagement

To investigate the challenges of stakeholder engagement practices.

To develop an effective process for stakeholder engagement.

© Saipol Bari 16

- Distributed to project managers, quantity surveyors, engineers, senior executives (public relations, corporate communication, etc.) in Greater KL/KV area

- Hand delivered and by email

- Questionnaire was designed based on literature review

- To identify and evaluate the current practices of stakeholder engagement in local infrastructure projects

Questionnaires

© Saipol Bari 17

© Saipol Bari 18

56.86% 43.14%

Response from Questionnaire Survey

Received

No reply

• 255 sets of questionnaires were sent

• 145 sets of questionnaires were received

• Rate of response - 56.86%

RESPONSE

© Saipol Bari 19

5%

42%

5%

36%

3% 5%

2% 0%

1%

1%

Respondents’ Current Position

Project Manager

Engineer

Engineer Assistant

Quantity Surveyor

Quantity Surveyor Assistant

Senior Executive

Senior Manager

Deputy Vice Chancellor

General Manager

Assistant Manager

© Saipol Bari 20

45%

32%

16%

1% 3% 3%

Respondents' Working Experience

Less than 5 years

5-10 Years

11-15 Years

16-20 Years

20-25 Years

More than 25 years

© Saipol Bari 21

THE STAKEHOLDERS’ CONCERNS AND NEEDS

Low risk

© Saipol Bari 22

Mean Rank Std. Deviation

Economic Benefits 3.24 1 0.556

Quality 3.24 2 0.615

Health and safety 3.22 3 0.661

Value-for-money 3.21 4 0.614

Clear objectives 3.21 5 0.626

Sustainable 3.16 6 0.537

Shorter time frame 3.14 7 0.601

Low risk 3.13 8 0.680

Location 3.12 9 0.618

Design 2.86 10 0.630

THE STAKEHOLDERS’ CONCERNS AND NEEDS

© Saipol Bari 23

ProStakE: HOW TO ENGAGE?

WORKSHOPS

NEGOTIATIONS

INTERVIEW

FEEDBACK SHEETS EMAILS

QUESTIONNAIRES

GROUP MEETINGS

SOCIAL CONTACTS

© Saipol Bari 24

ProStakE: Effective methods 2.1

%

1.4

%

3.4

%

4.8

%

5.5

%

2.1

%

3.4

%

4.1

%

2.8

%

6.2

%

6.2

%

5.5

%

4.1

%

22

.8%

5.5

%

31

.7%

42

.8%

35

.9%

11

.0%

23

.4%

26

.9%

13

.8%

34

.5%

23

.4%

28

.3%

25

.5%

52

.4%

42

.8%

51

.7%

42

.8%

47

.6%

58

.6%

55

.9%

59

.3%

53

.1%

49

.0%

48

.3%

50

.3%

51

.7%

22

.8%

50

.3%

13

.1%

9.7

%

11

.0%

28

.3%

17

.2%

9.7

%

30

.3%

10

.3%

22

.1%

15

.9%

18

.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Not Important

Less Important

Important

Very Important

© Saipol Bari 25

ProStakE: Effective methods

Important Very Important Total

Frequency Frequency Frequency

1. Meetings

i. Individual 76 33 109

ii. Group 62 73 135

2. Social contacts

i. Media Marketing and Advertising 75 19 94

ii. Social Networking: (Twitter,

Facebook, Blogs, etc.) 62 14 76

iii. Social Media Tools: Online

Voting, Texting and Public Polling 69 16 85

3. Negotiations 85 41 126

4. Workshops 81 25 106

5. Interviews

i. Telephone Interview 86 14 100

ii. Face-to-face Interview 77 44 121

6. Questionnaire 71 15 86

7. Email 70 32 102

8. Feedback sheets 73 23 96

9. Website 75 27 102

© Saipol Bari 26

ProStakE : The Critical Success Factors

CSF Mean Median Mode Std. Deviation Variance

Project team’s motivation and goal orientation 3.40 3.00 3 0.558 0.311

A clear project objective 3.57 4.00 4 0.550 0.303

Understanding of stakeholders’ interests, types

and needs.

3.46 3.00 3 0.527 0.278

Predicting the influence and reaction of

stakeholders accurately

3.24 3.00 3 0.604 0.365

Engage stakeholders at much earlier stage of a

project

3.30 3.00 3 0.649 0.421

Regular communication 3.46 3.00 4 0.577 0.333

Monitoring and managing stakeholders’

contribution and satisfaction levels

3.26 3.00 3 0.598 0.358

Actively providing feedback on the project and

listening the feedback from the stakeholders

3.27 3.00 3 0.580 0.337

Assessing and addressing the impact of the

project

3.32 3.00 3 0.574 0.329

Analyzing conflicts among stakeholders 3.24 3.00 3 0.592 0.351

Building and maintaining a base of trust 3.29 3.00 3 0.588 0.346

Evaluate stakeholders’ power accurately 3.08 3.00 3 0.583 0.340

Evaluate stakeholder legitimacy accurately 3.14 3.00 3 0.577 0.333

Reduce uncertainty and risks 3.27 3.00 3 0.568 0.323

Increases accountability during engagement 3.32 3.00 3 0.523 0.274

© Saipol Bari 27

Challenges to ProStakE 5

6.6

%

53.8

%

62

.8%

64

.2%

60

.7%

61

.4%

66

.2%

64

.1%

62

.8%

62

.8%

62

.1%

29

.7%

15

.9%

28

.3%

31

.7%

19

.3%

19

.3%

22

.1%

24

.1%

23

.4%

18.6

%

25

.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Insufficient time frame to

engage

Cultural barriers exists

Lack of commitment

from stakeholders

Lack of ability to understand

the implications of

the project

New use of technology and method

Different power among

the stakeholders

Limited in the ability to

identify the stakeholder’s

needs and concerns

Insufficient access to support

resources

Different perceptions of

the same issue

10) Difficult to sort out special interest groups

11) Lack of experience in

engaging stakeholders

© Saipol Bari 28

Challenges to ProStakE

Challenges Mean Median Mode Std.

Deviation Variance

Insufficient time frame to engage 3.14 3.00 3 0.693 0.481

Cultural barriers exists 2.83 3.00 3 0.707 0.500

Lack of commitment from

stakeholders

3.19 3.00 3 0.601 0.361

Lack of ability to understand the

implications of the project

3.26 3.00 3 0.578 0.334

New use of technology and method 2.99 3.00 3 0.629 0.396

Different power among the

stakeholders

2.99 3.00 4 0.640 0.410

Limited in the ability to identify the

stakeholder’s needs and concerns

3.10 3.00 3 0.574 0.330

Insufficient access to support

resources

3.12 3.00 3 0.607 0.368

Different perceptions of the same

issue

3.10 3.00 3 0.605 0.366

Difficult to sort out special interest

groups

3.00 3.00 3 0.612 0.622

Lack of experience in engaging

stakeholders

3.12 3.00 3 0.375 0.387

© Saipol Bari 29

Challenges to ProStakE – Top 5 ranking

Lack of ability to understand the implications of the project

Lack of commitment from stakeholders

Insufficient time frame to engage

Lack of experience in engaging stakeholders

Insufficient access to support resources

© Saipol Bari 30

Challenges to ProStakE - Correlation

Time Barrier Commitment Implications Technology Power Ability Access Perception Interest Experience

Time Pearson Correlation 1 .373** .238** .169* .082 .253** .208** .225** .233** .343** .362**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .002 .021 .164 .001 .006 .003 .002 .000 .000

N 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145

Barrier Pearson Correlation .373** 1 .269** .311** .091 .151* .282** .256** .249** .273** .221**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .001 .000 .138 .035 .000 .001 .001 .000 .004

N 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145

Commitment Pearson Correlation .238** .269** 1 .539** .059 .166* .367** .283** .237** .245** .569**

Sig. (1-tailed) .002 .001 .000 .242 .023 .000 .000 .002 .001 .000

N 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145

Implications Pearson Correlation .169* .311** .539** 1 .158* .230** .337** .150* .126 .098 .411**

Sig. (1-tailed) .021 .000 .000 .029 .003 .000 .036 .066 .120 .000

N 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145

Technology Pearson Correlation .082 .091 .059 .158* 1 .328** .117 .093 .458** .288** .180*

Sig. (1-tailed) .164 .138 .242 .029 .000 .080 .133 .000 .000 .015

N 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145

Power Pearson Correlation .253** .151* .166* .230** .328** 1 .380** .092 .432** .549** .299**

Sig. (1-tailed) .001 .035 .023 .003 .000 .000 .137 .000 .000 .000

N 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145

Ability Pearson Correlation .208** .282** .367** .337** .117 .380** 1 .523** .211** .296** .333**

Sig. (1-tailed) .006 .000 .000 .000 .080 .000 .000 .005 .000 .000

N 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145

Access Pearson Correlation .225** .256** .283** .150* .093 .092 .523** 1 .310** .224** .329**

Sig. (1-tailed) .003 .001 .000 .036 .133 .137 .000 .000 .003 .000

N 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145

Perception Pearson Correlation .233** .249** .237** .126 .458** .432** .211** .310** 1 .675** .319**

Sig. (1-tailed) .002 .001 .002 .066 .000 .000 .005 .000 .000 .000

N 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145

Interest Pearson Correlation .343** .273** .245** .098 .288** .549** .296** .224** .675** 1 .383**

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .001 .120 .000 .000 .000 .003 .000 .000

N 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145

Experience Pearson Correlation .362** .221** .569** .411** .180* .299** .333** .329** .319** .383** 1

Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .004 .000 .000 .015 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 © Saipol Bari 31

Challenges to ProStakE - Correlation

The Pearson Correlation which had positive value between 0.50 to 1.00 indicated a strong positive linear relationship between two variables. Strong positive relationships: a) Different perceptions of the same issue + difficult to sort out special interest

groups - difficult to sort out special interest groups with different power among the stakeholders and different perceptions of the same issue

b) Lack of ability to understand the implications of the project was strongly affected by lack of commitment from stakeholder due to the lack of experience in engaging the stakeholders

c) Limited in the ability to identify the stakeholder’s needs and concerns due to the insufficient access to support resources

© Saipol Bari 32

How to conduct ProStakE

Developing internal skills

Assuring and mapping

stakeholders

Planning and follow-up activities

Identify key stakeholders and significant issues

Design the process

Identify project aim and

objectives

Strengthen ability

to respond

Reviewing the

engagement

Identify the most effective engagement

approach

Strengthen

Engagement

capacities

© Saipol Bari 33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Planning and follow-up activities 15.2% 7.6% 8.3% 14.5% 13.1% 11.7% 3.4% 6.2% 2.8% 17.2%

Identify project aim and objectives 55.2% 29.7% 3.4% 5.5% 0.7% 0.7% 1.4% 0.7% 2.8% 0.0%

Identify key stakeholders and significant issues 9.7% 42.8% 26.2% 5.5% 4.8% 2.8% 2.1% 3.4% 0.0% 2.8%

Assuring and mapping stakeholders 1.4% 9.0% 32.4% 22.8% 6.9% 5.5% 6.9% 1.4% 8.3% 5.5%

Identify the most effective engagement

approach 2.8% 4.1% 15.9% 27.6% 25.5% 13.8% 2.8% 3.4% 2.8% 1.4%

Design the process 0.7% 4.8% 6.9% 10.3% 27.6% 32.4% 4.1% 2.8% 0.7% 9.7%

Reviewing the engagement 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 6.9% 13.8% 13.1% 27.6% 9.7% 10.3% 17.2%

Strengthen Engagement capacities 0.0% 0.7% 4.8% 2.8% 6.9% 10.3% 26.2% 26.9% 15.2% 6.2%

Strengthen ability to respond 1.4% 2.1% 1.4% 0.7% 3.4% 4.1% 11.0% 29.0% 37.9% 9.0%

Developing internal skills 9.0% 1.4% 1.4% 2.1% 3.4% 4.8% 14.5% 15.2% 18.6% 29.7%

1

2

3

10

5

4

8

9

7

6

Strategy to conduct ProStakE

© Saipol Bari 34


Identify project aim and objectives



stakeholders

Identify the most effective

engagement approach

Design the process

Reviewing the engagement

Strengthen Engagement

capacities

Strengthen ability to respond


Strategy to conduct ProStakE – Recommendation

© Saipol Bari 35

PROBLEMS IN COLLECTING DATA

Not interested Lack of time to

answer Questionnaire is too lengthy

Never handle stakeholders

before

Firms tend to be less helpful

© Saipol Bari 36

CONCERNS & NEEDS

Economic Benefits

Quality

Health and safety

Value-for-money

Clear objectives

Sustainable

Shorter time frame

Low risk

Location

Design

SUMMARY

METHODS

Meetings (Group)

Social contacts

(Media/Advertising)

Negotiations

Workshops

Interviews (Face-to-face)

Questionnaire

Email

Feedback sheets

Website

CHALLENGES

Lack of ability to understand the implications of the project

Lack of commitment from stakeholders

Insufficient time frame to engage

Lack of experience in engaging stakeholders

Insufficient access to support resources


Identify project aim and

objectives



stakeholders

Identify the most effective

engagement approach

Design the process

Reviewing the engagement

Strengthen Engagement

capacities

Strengthen ability to respond


© Saipol Bari 37

• Lack of the knowledge in stakeholder engagement

• Lack of practice of stakeholder engagement

• Regular communication among stakeholders is essential

© Saipol Bari 38

© Saipol Bari 39

© Saipol Bari 40

Strategies for Effective Project Stakeholder Engagement (ProStakE)

Documents