Kennisbank

Ownership of a relationship with multiple projects running simultaneously

A large organization rarely has just one relationship with one stakeholder. A municipality may have a permit process underway, a subsidy application, and an informal line with a council member about a future matter. Three project teams, one stakeholder. The question of who owns that relationship is usually not asked until something goes wrong: the council member hears a different story from two sides, or a commitment made in one project is not recognized in another.

Why ownership does not arise on its own

In a matrix organization, the project structure is usually clear, but the relationship structure is not. Every project has a project leader, and that project leader often behaves as if the relationship with the stakeholder belongs to the project. As soon as the project ends, the relationship disappears with it, even if the stakeholder remains. That is the first mistake: a relationship is treated as a project component instead of something that exists independently of the project.

The second mistake is the reverse: no one becomes the owner because everyone assumes someone else already is. This happens especially with stakeholders who score high on both influence and impact at the same time, precisely the cases where coordination is most needed. How that score is determined is described on the pages about how you assess a stakeholder's influence and how you determine how affected a stakeholder is. The matrix that results from this is explained on the page that explains what an influence-impact matrix is.

Ownership is not a hierarchical question

It seems logical to link ownership to seniority: the highest position in the room becomes the owner. That does not work, because seniority says nothing about who has the most structural contact. An operational manager who has weekly contact with a local resident knows more about that relationship than a director who speaks with them twice a year. Ownership follows the relationship, not the position.

What does work is linking ownership to the question of who is responsible for the commitments made to that stakeholder. Someone who makes commitments without being able to monitor them is not an owner but a risk. How a commitment is concretely recorded, including who, what and when, is described on the page about recording a commitment. Without that record, the question of who is the owner is mostly theoretical, because there is nothing to hold anyone to.

One owner, multiple projects

The practical solution is not complicated: one person becomes the owner of the relationship, independent of which project is running. That person does not need to be involved in every project, but must know what has been said to that stakeholder on behalf of the organization, in whichever project. This requires a register that is separate from project administration: a place where every commitment to that stakeholder ends up, regardless of who made it.

That register is exactly what the page about ownership of a relationship addresses: not as an organizational principle in the abstract, but as the question of who keeps the overview once more than one project is running at the same time. Without answering that question, the scenario arises in which the council member, the local resident, or the journalist hears three different versions of the same organization, not because someone is lying, but because no one sees the whole picture.

Deadlines keep running, even when the project stops

A project has an end date. A commitment does not always have one. A commitment to follow up in six months keeps running after the project in which that commitment was made has already been completed and the team has been disbanded. Without an owner of the relationship, there is no one left to see that deadline coming. Who monitors these deadlines within the organization, and how it is prevented that a commitment silently lapses, is described on the page about monitoring a deadline. This is precisely why a small, unmet commitment often costs more trust than the absence of a large investment: the small commitment was concrete and verifiable, the large investment never had a hard date.

From relationship ownership to the work scan

Keeping track of who owns what, which commitment belongs to which stakeholder, and which deadline is still running is largely administrative work: collecting signals, linking them to a file, setting a reminder. That is precise work, but not necessarily work that a scarce senior employee should be doing. Anyone who wants to know which part of these kinds of tasks can be taken over by AI and which part cannot can have this calculated with the work scan from FTE TO AI, which indicates per task where automation fits and where it does not.