A power-interest matrix sets two questions against each other: how much power does a stakeholder have, and how affected is that stakeholder by what is happening. With one project, that is a straightforward exercise. With several projects running at the same time, the question changes. The same stakeholder may have little power in one project and a great deal in another. The same stakeholder may barely be affected by one project and profoundly by another.
The first choice to be made is whether there is one matrix for the entire stakeholder circle, or a matrix per project. A single matrix for everything at once produces an average that does not fit any of the projects. A local resident who is heavily affected by a construction project but has nothing to do with a reorganization disappears into the average if both projects are merged into one score.
The precise way this scoring works, and which questions help with it, is described at how you score power when several projects are running at once. Assessing how affected someone is calls for a slightly different set of questions, because it is not about power but about consequence; that distinction is worked out at how you score how affected someone is when several projects are running at once. Whoever keeps these two scores separate per project sees where attention actually needs to go at any given moment, instead of toward an average that does not exactly fit anywhere.
When the same stakeholder appears in several matrices, a second question arises that is just as important as the score itself: who owns that relationship. Not who owns the project, but who is the point of contact for this specific stakeholder, across all projects. Without that choice, a stakeholder may end up hearing a different story from two project teams at once, or hear something from one team that the other team did not yet know to share.
The question of who becomes that owner, and which considerations play a role in that, is addressed at who becomes the owner of a relationship when several projects are running. The answer depends on the organization: sometimes it is the person with the longest history with a stakeholder, sometimes the one leading the project with the highest affectedness score for that stakeholder, sometimes a separate role that looks across all projects. A matrix with multiple projects therefore produces not only scores, but also a distribution of ownership that needs to be recorded, or it disappears the moment someone changes roles.
Whoever needs a broader explanation of what a power-interest matrix precisely entails, apart from the question of how many projects are running, will find it at what a power-interest matrix precisely entails.
A matrix with multiple projects and multiple owners increases one risk: the chance that one of those owners promises a stakeholder something that another part of the organization does not follow through on. Failing to keep a small commitment costs more trust than not making a large investment. With one project and one point of contact, that risk is manageable. With multiple projects and multiple owners speaking to the same stakeholder, that risk builds up, unless commitments are recorded centrally somewhere.
How a commitment is recorded, so that it is not lost between project teams, is addressed at how you record a commitment. And because a commitment often has a deadline that no one sees approaching until it has passed, there is also the question of who monitors a deadline, worked out at who monitors a deadline. Both questions follow directly from the moment a matrix covers multiple projects and multiple owners: scoring is the beginning, monitoring is what matters.
This matrix, however carefully built up per project and per owner, says nothing about what a stakeholder actually thinks of one of the ongoing projects. The matrix orders power and affectedness as the organization estimates them. What a stakeholder truly thinks only becomes clear at the moment he says so himself, in a conversation, a response to a commitment, or a signal that comes in somewhere.
Keeping track of multiple matrices, multiple owners and multiple commitments is work that continues for as long as the projects run: updating scores, transferring ownership when staff changes, flagging deadlines before they pass. Part of that maintenance work is routine in nature. The work scan from FTE TO AI calculates per task which part of that work can be taken over by AI, so that it becomes clear where time is going and where that time is freed up for the conversation with the stakeholder itself.
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.