The homepage states the problem: management mostly talks to those who are already positively disposed, and that feeling is mistaken for trust. This page shows how the tool makes that difference visible, in four steps, and what remains necessary afterwards to keep the picture current.
The reader supplies a list of relevant stakeholders: names, organisations, and which department or person maintains the internal contact. This can be done in one go, but doesn't have to be: the input can be divided among several people, for example per department, so that no one has to compile the full list on their own. This is immediately relevant, because four departments talking to the same party without coordination are here, for the first time, placed side by side.
What happens: the tool organises the input, signals overlap between departments, and prepares the list as the basis for the survey. No fixed number of stakeholders is required to start; the matrix in the next step becomes more complete as the list does.
The time mainly goes into internally gathering the right contact details and coordinating between departments about who already maintains which relationship. Who is involved: the people who have day-to-day contact with the stakeholders in question, not necessarily one central owner.
Management is surveyed internally according to a fixed format: how is the trust of each stakeholder assessed, and on what is that based. The same stakeholders then receive an external survey, with a similar but tailored conversation format. Both surveys are structured in writing, not an open conversation that has to be interpreted afterwards.
What happens: the answers are processed in the same way, so that the internal picture and the external picture end up side by side on the basis of identical categories. This makes the outcome explainable: every difference can be traced back to a concrete answer, not to a gut feeling about how a conversation felt.
The turnaround time depends on how quickly stakeholders respond to the external survey, something the tool has no influence over. Who is involved: management for the internal part, the stakeholders themselves for the external part. Conversations with parties outside the existing circle do not go through this route; that is what route 2 is for.
Once both surveys are in, the tool sets the internal and external picture against each other in the baseline report. The report shows per stakeholder where management's assessment matches what the stakeholder themselves indicates, and where it deviates. The report becomes available digitally, with the underlying answers per category visible, so that a conclusion can always be traced back to the source data and does not stand on its own as an isolated figure.
The tool does not pass judgment on what a deviation means for the organisation; that remains up to the reader. How stakeholders subsequently factor into the broader materiality analysis is described on Outcomes, including how this survey connects to the double materiality assessment.
Who is involved: no one extra, the report is compiled automatically from the data of steps 1 and 2. The time this takes is limited to processing time once all answers are in.
The stakeholders from step 1 are linked to an influence × impact matrix, with an owner responsible for the contact for each relationship. Commitments made during conversations are recorded in a commitment tracker with a clock on it, so that a commitment doesn't come back as a reproach months later simply because no one remembers exactly what was promised. In addition, a signal rhythm is switched on: a fixed frequency at which deviations and commitments go to the board table, instead of only being noticed once it escalates.
A year later, a re-measurement follows: the same internal and external survey, again placed side by side. This does not guarantee improved trust, but it does deliver a comparable picture: has the difference between the internal and external picture become smaller, have commitments been fulfilled, is the matrix still current. What happens with that outcome is up to the organisation itself.
Who is involved: the same owners as with the matrix, supplemented by whoever is responsible for the signal rhythm towards the board.
There are no completed engagement trajectories to point to: the tool structures the survey, it does not prove a track record. Conversations outside the fixed circle of stakeholders do not go through the self-service route, but through route 2, where a partner conducts the external conversations with the questionnaire as a script. Those who prefer to outsource a full programme, including the baseline as a zero measurement, will find that in route 3. More about the underlying approach is on What it is, and background on materiality and stakeholder analysis can be found in the knowledge base.
The button to start is currently in waitlist mode; the tool has not yet been built and this page describes the workings as envisioned.
What this means for the organisation in tasks, hours and systems only becomes concrete once it is placed alongside the existing work processes. That translation is made by the work scan from FTE TO AI (ftetoai.com).
Vraag maar. Het interessantste antwoord komt meestal van wie u nog niet heeft gesproken.
Answers come from this site’s knowledge base. Not tailored advice, and not a scan of your company.