The purpose of the research is to provide an initial network-based stakeholder model that can be used to identify stakeholders by their social interactions in project teams. Those with high positional power can be identified using the workflow network, and those with high political power can be identified using the friendship network.
Research title
Research problem
Various stakeholder models have been developed and applied in the project environment to help project managers identify, classify and manage stakeholders. These stakeholder models depend on the ability of the project manager and sponsor to identify key stakeholders, observe their relationships with others, and understand their level of influence on the project.
Research motivation
Bourne and Walker (2005) suggested that social network analysis was a useful way to visualize stakeholder power and influence in a project. This study proposes that social network analysis provides an alternative tool that can be used to identify key stakeholders based on their power and influence in the project network.
Research scope and aim
The first type of network used is the communication network, which includes the formal and informal communication channels in a project team (Assudani & . Kloppenborg, 2010). The third network type is the friendship network, which has been used in the social network studies related to individual power in a network because it measures the alliances formed by friendships (Krackhardt, 1990; Brass & Burkhardt, 1993; Ibarra & Andrews, 1993).
Conclusion
Introduction
Relevant literature on social network analysis is reviewed to explain how stakeholder interaction can be measured using network centrality, which provides an appropriate means of visualizing stakeholder influence on projects. Once the theoretical basis for measuring network centrality is established with its relevance for measuring influence, three network types, workflow, communication and friendship, are discussed.
Evolution of strategic project management
Project managers are responsible for the project management process which includes project planning, monitoring and execution. The process requires the project manager to take a series of inputs through the project management process to generate a desired outcome for the stakeholders (Milosevic, 1989).
Project stakeholders
Project stakeholders can therefore be defined as individuals and/or groups who are affected by or have an expectation of the project's performance and are actively involved and can influence the project's results. Therefore, a central function for a project manager is to be able to identify important stakeholders who can be deliberately influenced so that they deliver their contribution to the project (Jepsen & Eskerod, 2009).
Mapping project stakeholders
An alternative approach suggested by Achterkamp and Vos (2008) to begin with is to first define stakeholder groups and then identify the stakeholders that form part of each of the groups. Essentially, a role-based classification model is used to define groups of stakeholders based on their role in the project to ensure that the project context is first addressed before a role-based identification model is applied to name the stakeholders and to each of the groups (Achterkamp & Vos, 2008).
Traditional project stakeholder models
The radial depth of the area within the circle indicates the level of power for each stakeholder, and the position of the stakeholder relative to the 12 o'clock position indicates their ranked importance to the project (Bourne & Weaver, 2010, p. 110). Boddy and Paton (2004) explain that a stakeholder network is completed by first completing a visual stakeholder map that shows the project stakeholders as circles around a central circle that represents the project.
Stakeholder attributes: power, influence and interaction
The PMBOK Guide recognizes that the power to influence the outcomes of the project is the primary measure of a stakeholder's importance (PMBOK Guide, 2004). Friedman and Miles (2002) support this view of stakeholder influence by viewing stakeholders' interests as compatible (aligned) or incompatible (opposed) with the project.
Social network analysis
Network analysis is used to collect data on the characteristics and relationships of actors (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 38). Actor attributes can include any information specific to the actor, such as race, gender, and organizational role (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 29).
Network types
Krackhardt (1990) found that accurate perceptions of certain networks could be a source of power in itself. Central actors in the friendship network will have access to and control over sources of power based on their reputation and charisma (Krackhardt, 1990).
Conclusion
Influence and power have been related to the centrality of the communication network in small decision-making groups (Pryke, 2004), and central actors in the communication network have been found to be more influential in organizations (Brass, 1984). Yukl (1998) defined information referential and expert power as a form of personal power, which means that important project stakeholders should be central actors in the communication network.
Introduction
Research Question 1
Research Question 2
The null hypothesis states that workflow, friendship, and communication centrality are all equally good measures of identifying actors with high personal power. The alternative hypothesis states that differences exist in workflow, friendship, and communication network centrality measures in relation to the ability to identify actors with high personal power.
Research Question 3
Introduction
Research design
The whole network approach is used for this study because it involves project teams that contain a series of actors that form an identifiable group. It can be difficult to determine which objects are within the set for studies across the whole network (Carrington et al., 2005, p. 9).
Sample design
An interview was then conducted with the project manager to verify the size of the project group and the importance of the project to the organization. Finally, the project manager had to give permission for the survey to be conducted on their project team.
Time Horizon
Each included project member was assigned a project role by the project manager that would be overridden by the respondent when completing the survey. Thus, all project roles would be known before the survey was presented to project members.
Data collection method
Before the web survey was delivered, an email was distributed to project stakeholders with instructions and explanations of the purpose of the study to motivate participants to respond. Project stakeholders were also informed that participation was voluntary and assured of their confidentiality.
Questionnaire design
The list of individual actors for each project was developed during an initial structured interview with the project manager. This list contained the name, email address and project stakeholder role of each identified member of the project.
Independent variables
Check the names of people with whom you often talk about what is happening in the project, including any activities related to the project, to ensure the success of the project. Following Brass's (1984) example, the work flow measure asked respondents to check the names of “people with whom you interact to complete your work activities on a project.
Dependent variables - Stakeholder power
Data analysis
The data collected from the survey were then imported and analyzed using UCINET Version 6 SNA software (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002). The three hypotheses presented in Chapter 3 were tested using regression analysis in SPSS 19.0 to determine the results of the data collection.
Limitations
Summary
Introduction
Pre-testing
Network participants
The response rate achieved is therefore lower than some of the current literature has achieved. The response rate for each project network is constructed from the sum of all full and partial relationships as indicated in Table 5.
Descriptive Information
The communication network density was also significantly greater than the friendship network with a T-statistic of 2.8331, p = .0078. The communication network density was also significantly greater than the friendship network with a T-statistic of 3.5800, p = .0012.
Network Visualisation
Paired sample T-test results show that the density of the communication network is significantly greater than the workflow network with a T-statistic of 2.0694, p. Finally, the same test showed that the density of the friendship network was significantly lower than the workflow network with a T-statistic of -2.4316, p = 0.0136.
Data Preparation
Arrowheads in the link indicate the direction of the relationship (who named whom). The average rating of personal, political and positional influence was calculated for each stakeholder role in the project.
Hypothesis 1
Workflow_In_Degree is the most important explanatory variable, explaining 34.9% of the variance in positional influence. The adjusted R square for the model including the explanatory variables Workflow_In_Degree, Workflow_In_Closeness, and Friendship_In_Closeness achieves.
Hypothesis 2
The adjusted R-squared for the model including the explanatory variables Communication_In_Degree, Communication_In_Closeness and Workflow_In_Closeness. This is why Communication_In_Closeness (p = .002) ranks higher than Workflow_In_Closeness (p = .019), although Workflow_In_Closeness (3.9%) explains more of the variance of the variable Personal Influence than Communication_In_Closeness (3%) See Appendix G for the table of coefficients.
Hypothesis 3
Friendship_In_Degree is the most significant explanatory variable explaining 31.0% of the variance in Political Influence. The adjusted R-squared for the model including the Friendship_In_Degree, Friendship_In_Closeness and Friendship_Betweenness explanatory variables reached.
Conclusion
The standardized beta coefficients for each of the variables included in the model are significant. The primary explanatory variables for political power are the degree of closeness and in-betweenness of the friendship network.
Introduction
Hypothesis 1
In a project environment, the project manager, who is the central coordinator of activities, should be expected to be central to the work flow network. Analyzes of project stakeholder roles showed that in each project the project manager was one of the most powerful stakeholders in the workflow network.
Hypothesis 2
The regression results also support the findings of Brass (1984), who found that they are central actors in the communication network. Therefore, stakeholders with a higher personal power rating will be more central in the communication network.
Hypothesis 3
This may indicate that project managers typically do not use their political power to try to influence project outcomes and instead prefer to use their positional and personal power. The project manager of project C may not have appeared among the five most powerful stakeholders for political power because he had only recently joined the project.
Summary
Stakeholders with high personal power are likely to have a high degree of centrality, indicating that many actors in the network interact directly with them. Stakeholders with high political power are likely to have a high degree of centrality, indicating that they have personality characteristics that attract others in the network.
Introduction
Findings
It is also necessary to distinguish between types of centrality, as certain measures are more useful in identifying powerful stakeholders. Traditional stakeholder models will rely on the external relationships that the project manager has or perceives to identify powerful stakeholders.
Recommendations
A social network formed through the interactions of individuals allows stakeholders to influence project outcomes, as they can use alliances, expertise, and charisma to impose their will on the project. Organizations and project managers need to be aware of the sources of power that stakeholders can use to influence project outcomes.
Limitations
Additionally, the validity of network variables was not tested due to the lack of available techniques for social networks (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 58). Providing respondents with a subset of stakeholders to assess impact may have prevented them from assessing powerful stakeholders who were not part of the subset.
Suggestions for future research
The influence and power of actors outside the boundaries of the project may have provided further insight into powerful stakeholders. The survey design may have introduced response bias linking questions, where respondents first select network actors with whom they interact via network type (communication, workflow, or friendship) and then can only assess influence (personal, positional, or political) for a subset selected actors.
Conclusion
For each person on the list you checked, please indicate on the scale of 1 (very little influence) to 5 (very much influence) how much positional influence the person has in the everyday activities of the project. For each person on the list you checked, please indicate on the scale of 1 (very little influence) to 5 (very much influence) how much personal influence the person has in the everyday activities of the project.
