Classifying and Prioritizing Project Stakeholders

For this Discussion, refer to the article “Lessons Learned from Managing the Design of the ‘Water Cube’ National Swimming Centre for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games”

Managing project stakeholders presents many challenges for a project manager. This is especially true as the size and complexity of a project increases. Identifying and analyzing project stakeholders typically begins in the initiation phase of a project, but it is not necessarily a one-time activity. The process may need to be repeated at certain points in a project, such as when a milestone is achieved, or a new phase begins.

Classifying and prioritizing project stakeholders are designed to highlight stakeholders with the greatest interest in the project; those with high levels of influence who might impact the results of the project; and those who are responsible for the financial resources for the project. One of the purposes of this process is so that the project manager can develop strategies for effectively managing and engaging stakeholders.

The PMBOK (PMBOK® Guide) suggest that there are five “stakes” that a stakeholder may have in a project. They include interest, rights, ownership, knowledge and contribution. Also, there are multiple ways to classify and prioritize project stakeholders.

Post your answer to the following?

• Briefly describe each of the five “stakes” that a stakeholder may have in a project.
• Which of the stakeholders from the Water Cube project has the greatest level of interest? Rights? Ownership? Knowledge? Contribution? Explain why.
• Which approach to prioritizing stakeholders is most appropriate for the Water Cube project? Why?

References:

Project Management Institute. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). Sixth edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author.

Zou, P. X. W., & Leslie-Carter, R. (2010). Lessons learned from managing the design of the ‘Water Cube’ National Swimming Centre for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 6(3), 175–188.