Rethink! Project Stakeholder Management

creators.

Introduction

1.1 The Purpose of This Book

Project stakeholder landscapes are becoming more and more complex in contemporary contexts. Project stakeholders decide whether they want to get involved, contribute to, and accept the project outcomes. Often, stakeholders challenge projects or make them fail because project managers and their teams do not sufficiently consider and steer stakeholders’ expectations and interests. Striving for sustainable development makes the complexity of projects more evident.

In the context of sustainable development, the involvement of stakeholders has become even more important, as the cooperation with stakeholders may support the creation of shared benefits. Although project stakeholder management is not a new topic at all in project management, the enrichment of project stakeholder management with recent stakeholder theories brings opportunities for managing projects. Stakeholder management has the potential for incorporating sustainable development principles into projects. Research that incorporates stakeholder theory into project management and operationalizes systemic methods to support practitioners in analyzing project stakeholders more comprehensively is missing.

The purpose of this book is to report the results of the research project Rethink! Project Stakeholder Management. The focus of this research is to develop project stakeholder management. We further develop project stakeholder management here by enriching it with stakeholder theory and by experimenting with selected systemic constellation methods to better deal with the complexity that is inherent in projects in the context of striving for sustainable development.

1.2 Relevance of the Research Study

At the start of our research study, we identified three potentials for developing project stakeholder management:

First, the consideration of sustainable development as a contemporary context for projects

Second, the consideration of recent developments in stakeholder theory

Third, the consideration of systemic methods to grasp the increasing complexity of the stakeholder situation

Consideration of Sustainable Development as a Contemporary Context for Projects

While companies have started to consider sustainability (Wagner, 2007), the consideration of sustainability principles in projects and programs, and especially in project and program management, has just emerged as a topic in the last couple of years (Eid, 2009). The integration of sustainable development principles into the management of projects increases the project management quality and raises performance benefits (Gareis, Huemann, & Martinuzzi, 2013). Scholars gave attention to sustainable development for consideration on projects, especially in development, public, engineering, and construction projects (see also Abidin & Pasquire, 2007; Labuschagne & Brent, 2006; Labuschagne & Brent, 2004; Edum-Fotwe & Price, 2009; Eid, 2009; Khalfan, 2006; Labuschagne & Brent, 2005; Labuschagne, Brent, & Claasen, 2005; Shelbourn et al., 2006). For a comprehensive literature review on sustainability and project management, see Silvius and Schipper (2014).

A defintion of sustainable development principles suitable for managing different project types (Gareis et al., 2013; Silvius, van den Brink, Schipper, Köhler, & Planko, 2012), includes:

Economic, ecologic, and social orientation

Short-, mid-, and long-term orientation

Local, regional, and global orientation

Values, such as transparency and fairness

Project stakeholder management plays an important role when integrating sustainable development principles into project management (Edum-Fotwe & Price 2009; Eskerod & Huemann, 2011; Gareis et al., 2013). Stakeholder management is not a new topic and, in literature, a long tradition of project stakeholder management can be found (Littau, Jujagiri, & Adlbrecht, 2010).

Stakeholders of a project are important for project success, as they may put the project under pressure (Aaltonen & Sivonen, 2009). Project managers and their project teams are challenged to understand and manage different expectations and interests of stakeholders. Thus, many projects seem to fail because stakeholders’ expectations and interests were not sufficiently considered (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). Some stakeholders have power and may put the project under pressure (Aaltonen & Sivonen, 2009). They judge the project success (Aarseth, Rolstadås, & Andersen, 2011; Morris & Hough, 1987) and decide whether they want to get involved with, contribute to, and accept the project outcomes. In the context of sustainable development, the involvement and consideration of stakeholders gets more important as the cooperation with stakeholders supports the creation of shared benefits (Porter & Kramer, 2011).

Consideration of Recent Developments in Stakeholder Theory

Although the management of stakeholders is considered a central task in project management, a closer analysis indicates a rather superficial and mechanistic approach to dealing with stakeholders (Eskerod & Huemann, 2013). In the project management field, project stakeholder management is often based on a mechanistic project management planning paradigm (Cleland & King, 1983) that prevails in practice. Project stakeholder management is not a new topic in project management (e.g., Cleland, 1985), but links to contemporary developments in stakeholder theory are missing. New insights from stakeholder theory have not been considered in project stakeholder management.

Recent general stakeholder theory offers the concept of management for stakeholders in contrast to the classic concept of managing of stakeholders (Freeman, Harrison, & Wicks, 2007; Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Parmar, & De Colle, 2010). The concept of managing for stakeholders especially has the potential to consider sustainable development principles, because it advocates the internalization of interests of stakeholders into the project. However, we question its practicability in project management practice in the current descriptions of the concept in the literature.

Consideration of Systemic Methods

Many contemporary project stakeholder landscapes are challenging and project managers and their teams need to be able to grasp the complexity of the situation. Our assumption is that different working methods than those that are commonly applied today are required for analyzing the project stakeholders. While visualization (Bourne & Walker, 2006) and abstraction are of importance, we stress that systemic methods help to enlighten the analysis of relationships (Martinuzzi & Kopp, 2009) and construct a more comprehensive understanding of a project-stakeholder landscape.

1.3 Research Project: Rethink! Project Stakeholder Management

The international research project, Rethink! Project Stakeholder Management, was conducted between January 2012 and June 2014 in cooperation with the Project Management Group of the Vienna University of Economics and Business and the Department of Leadership and Corporate Strategy of the University of Southern Denmark. The Project Management Institute (PMI) and the cooperating case study projects sponsored the research project. NETLIPSE—a network for the disseminating knowledge on the management and organization of large infrastructure projects in Europe—supported the research project as a marketing partner to help access project stakeholder practice.

The objectives of the research project Rethink! Project Stakeholder Management were:

Development of a more holistic project stakeholder management understanding—in the context of sustainable development—that considers new insights from stakeholder theory

Experiment with systemic methods for a stakeholder analysis that is better suited for dealing with the complexity of contemporary project landscapes

Reflection of potentials and limitations of a more holistic stakeholder management

Dissemination of research results

Figure 1 provides the second level of the work breakdown structure of the research project and shows the process of the research.

In the notion of engaged scholarship (Van de Ven, 2007), the project organization included project management researchers as project team members, but also included project management, stakeholder management, constellation, and project stakeholder management practitioners as project contributers. Furthermore, case study representatives, as well as constellation experts, were part of the project organizations as subteam members. Also, focus group participants are shown as part of the project organization. This integrated project organization was the basis for an engaged communication process between research and practice and allowed for the co-creation of new knowledge on project stakeholder management.

In addition to project management experience, some research team members also had training and education as family therapists, or with systemic methods. These experiences of the researchers offered specific reflection possibilities and influenced the choices of new methods for project stakeholder analysis.

1.4 Structure of the Monograph

This monograph describes the results of our research project, Rethink! Project Stakeholder Management, and is structured as follows:

Chapter 2: This chapter describes the research objectives and process. The research project is based on radical constructivism, social systems theory, and qualitative social research approaches. The research methods, including literature review, research workshops, practice case studies, demonstration case studies, and focus group workshops are introduced.

Chapter 3: This chapter summarizes the literature on stakeholder theory and stakeholder management, as well as project stakeholder management. We discuss the difference between management of stakeholders and management for stakeholders and summarize the relevance of sustainable development and stakeholder management. Through that, we outline the theoretical basis of the research conducted and summarize it.

Chapter 4: This chapter describes the history and characteristics of constellation methods. We introduce selected systemic constellation methods, the systemic board constellation, the classical constellation with representatives, and the management constellation with involved representatives. We discuss the benefits and challenges of constellation methods. Finally, we introduce how we will document the systemic constellations of the demonstration case studies.

Chapter 5: This chapter provides an overview of the four case study projects we worked with and describes the case study processes in detail for each. We make a distinction between practice case studies and demonstration case studies. In the practice case studies, we observed existing stakeholder management practices. In the demonstration case studies, we further developed constellation methods with our partners.

Chapter 6: This chapter presents the project stakeholder management practices of the Branding Slagelse Strategy project, the Planning the West Link project, and the Establishing WU New Campus project. We describe, analyze, and compare the stakeholder management practices identified in our study.

Chapters 7–9: These chapters describe the demonstration case studies and our experiments with constellation methods for stakeholder analysis. With the project manager of the Branding Slagelse Strategy project, we applied a classical constellation with external representatives. With the project manager of the Internal IT Implementation project, we conducted a classical systemic constellation with representatives drawn from his company. With the project team of the Planning the West Link project, we conducted a systemic board constellation and two management constellations.

Chapter 10: This chapter discusses the research results gained in the course of the research project. We discuss the research propositions. Through these results, we conceptualize a stakeholder-oriented project management approach suitable for contemporary project contexts.

Chapter 11: This final chapter provides a summary and an outlook regarding related future research topics.

1.5 Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Project Management Institute, who partly sponsored the research project Rethink! Project Stakeholder Management, as well as to our institutions, and the case study partners who cosponsored this study. A special thanks goes to the members of NETLIPSE who supported our research by sharing their experiences with us. We would like to express special thanks for the interest in cooperating and the openness in the research process to the following people:

Carla Messikomer, PMI Academic Resource Manager, and our PMI liaison, Juan C. Nogueira de León, for their patience with us.

Constellation experts, Daniela Andratsch and Brigitte Sachs-Schaffer, who experimented with us to create new constellation formats for stakeholder analysis.

Pau Lian Staal-Ong and Per-Olov Karlsson from NETLIPSE, who gave us access to their members to learn about stakeholder practices in public transportation projects and allowed us to try out constellation formats.

The participants of the Branding Slagelse Strategy project: Anders Bjældager, Flemming Erichsen, Søren Lund Hansen, Steen Knuth, Tina Larsen, Mette Mandrup, Randi Mølager, Dorthe Pedersen, Niels Ove Pedersen, Rie Perry, Michael Steen, Carina Stubager, Susanne Sørensen, and Lis Tribler.

The participants of the Planning the West Link project: Bo Larsson, Bo Lindgren, Bo Näverbrant, Christer Johansson, Emelie Lorné Idenstedt, Erik Lööv, Hanna Jonsson, Sven Lindahl, Jenny Karlsson, Joakim Jonsson, Karin Holmström, Karin Malmquist, Katarina Delvret, Kerstin Olsson Repo, Lennart Dage, Lillian Brunbäck, Mikael Larsson, Mira Andersson Ovuka, Per Lerjefors, and Per-Inge Söderström.

The participants of the Establishing WU New Campus project: Rony Flatscher, Edeltraud Hanappi-Egger, Christoph Kecht, Edith Littich, Gerlinde Mautner, Regina Prehofer, Christoph Sommer, and Max Wagner.

The participants of the Internal IT Implementation project, who need to remain anonymous.

Our research assistants, who supported us in the performance of the case studies and in the documentation of the research project: Sylvia Auer, Binnur Fidan, Sarah Friedrich, Sabrina Schmid, and Tamara Wehrstein.

We thank the following project management and stakeholder management experts who participated in the focus group workshops (alphabetical order): Annabeth Aagaard (University of Southern Denmark), Wenche Aarseth (NTNU), Erling Andersen (BI - Norwegian Business School), Michael Bergau (Audi), Anders Bjældager (Municipality of Slagelse), Peter Birnstingl (Donau Universität Krems), Jesper Bredgaard (Ramboll), Michael Burisch (Riis Burisch & Partner GmbH), Massimo Corradi (SEA Milan Airports), Caroline Fabianskitro (Bartlett School of Planning & Construction and Project Management/UCL), Per Frank Povlsen (PFP Projects), Norbert Gansterer (A1 Telekom Austria AG), Carsten Groth-Pedersen (ODENSE ZOO), Karl-Hohann Hartig (ÖBB), Mario Hartl (s IT Solutions AT Spardat GmbH), Ralph Hemeier (BMW Group Munich), Marcel Herthog (Delft University of Technology), Sigi Herzog (ÖBB), Svend Hjorth (Riis Burisch & Partner GmbH), Nelie Houtekamer (Houtekamer & Van Kleef), Roland Kautz (Österreichische Bundesforste), Ursula Kopp (WU Institute for Managing Sustainability), Sara Lochte (Forsikring og Pension), Peter Lojka (Mindop), Petra Magova (Mindop), Valentin Mladenov (self-employed), Dimitry Naydenov (Kühne + Nagel Eastern Europe AG), Paul Nowak (A1 Telekom Austria AG), Niamh O'Sullivan (Arup), Martina Pitonokova (Mindop), Eva Riis (University of Southern Denmark), Kenneth Schultz (University of Southern Denmark), Anky Spaniers (At Osborne), Pau Lian Staal (At Osborne), Karen te Boome (Prorail), Susan Traun (Corporate Communication at University of Southern Denmark), and Dagmar Zuchi (enable2change).

Research Approach

2.1 Introduction

In this chapter, we describe the research methodology applied to this study. We designed the research as a coproduction of knowledge in engaged scholarship with practitioners. This happened by developing demonstration and practice case studies and by discussing and shaping our research findings in focus groups, as well as with the wider practice community in conferences and workshops.

We introduce the research questions, objectives, and the research approach applied in the research project Rethink! Project Stakeholder Management. The underpinning research paradigms are radical constructivism, social systems theory, and qualitative social research, which set the basis for designing this research. We describe the research process and the research methods applied. The chapter concludes by discussing the viability of the research results.

2.2 Research Questions

The research project, Rethink! Project Stakeholder Management, focused on the development of a more comprehensive stakeholder management understanding in the context of sustainable development. This research is based on the following research questions:

What can project stakeholder management learn from stakeholder theory?

Which systemic methods are suitable for a holistic stakeholder analysis?

What are the potentials and limitations of a more holistic project stakeholder management in the context of sustainable development?

To discuss these research questions, we:

analyzed the stakeholder theory to get new insight for the development of a comprehensive stakeholder management understanding in the context of striving for sustainable development;

analyzed current project stakeholder management practices;

experimented in the demonstration case studies with systemic methods (systemic constellation and systemic board) as emerging next practices for a more holistic project stakeholder analysis; and

reflected upon the potentials and limits of a more holistic stakeholder management in the context of striving for sustainable development.

Based on the research questions and objectives, we developed propositions to operationalize our research. We defined initial research propositions and further developed them during the research. We discuss the final research propositions in Chapter 10.

2.3 Research Paradigms

Research paradigms influence how we perceive reality and how we create knowledge (Kilduff, Mehra, & Dunn, 2011). Our attempt in this research study is to strive for a solid theoretical base, but also to engage with project management practice and create viable solutions that, on the one hand, enhance academic understanding, and on the other hand, are useful for practitioners. This is in line with an increasing need for management research that stresses the utility dimensions of the research studies (Corley & Gioia, 2011; Van de Ven, 2007). Our research results are measured against their usefulness and potentials for problem solving (Kilduff et al., 2011; von Glasersfeld, 1995).

To consider the theoretical, as well as the practical relevance of the research, we have chosen a systemic-constructivist research approach as developed by researchers of the Project Management Group of the WU Vienna University of Economics and Business (Fiedler, 1996; Gareis et al., 2013; Huemann, 2002). Our research approach is based on the epistemological paradigm of radical constructivism (von Glasersfeld, 1995), the understanding of organizations as social systems (Luhmann, 1995), and the methodological paradigm of qualitative social research (Yin, 2009, 2011). We operationalized this systemic-constructivist research approach through a qualitative, iterative research approach that supports knowledge co-creation.

Radical Constructivism: Creating Knowledge

This research study is based on the epistemological paradigm of radical constructivism as its basic understanding of how knowledge is created. While all constructivist approaches refer to the idea that reality is constructed and the observer plays a vital role in this construction, the radical position breaks with the illusion of a reality that is not bound to any observer (for a detailed discussion of different strands of constructivism, see Riegler, 2012).

Ernst von Glasersfeld (1995) claims that reality cannot be a subject of perception in the notion of a picture. Perception and knowledge are bound to the observer and related to the experience and expectations of this observer, leading to the impossibility of understanding reality as an objective picture or even describing reality objectively. He suggests that reality is bound to an observer, and therefore cannot be compared with the reality, but only with the perception of reality of the observer. The value of knowledge lies in its function.

Actions, concepts, and conceptual operations are viable if they fit the purposive or descriptive contexts in which we use them. Thus, in the constructivist way of thinking, the concept of viability in the domain of experience takes the place of the traditional philosopher's concept of truth, which was to indicate a ‘correct’ representation of reality. (von Glasersfeld, 1995, p. 14)

The quality criterion for reality constructions is viability. Viability describes how far the research findings fit reality. It cannot be the extent up to which the model matches reality, as the latter cannot be established. Viability does not mean true or false, but comprises the explanatory and prognostical potential for the research question itself, and the potential for further development of the research object regarding new questions or applications in other research areas (Huemann, 2015).

Ernst von Glasersfeld summarizes the fundamental principles of radical constructivism (1995, p. 51) with two fundamental rules:

First, knowledge is actively built up by the cognizing subject: Knowledge is not passively received, either through the senses or by way of communication; rather, the observer creates the knowledge actively.

Second, the value of knowledge lies in its function: Function of cognition is adaptive, in the biological sense of the term, tending toward fit or viability; cognition serves the subject's organization of the experiential world, not the discovery of an objective ontological reality.

Therefore, research results developed on the basis of radical constructivism are always actively built by the researchers, and remain their intepretations. Thus, they cannot represent reality objectively. The research propositions and models are not created for their own sake, but serve the purpose of contributing to problem solving. Through that, the research solutions created contain the potential to challenge existing practice. The roles of a researcher, therefore are observer, interpreter, and most importantly, creator (Huemann,