Now we know what can be called a stakeholder and that a stakeholder can attain different stances or roles, one might question how to actually identify who’s a stakeholder and who isn’t.
Vos et al. (2006) label stakeholders either as actively involved or passively involved. This kind of distinction is common in literature, even though they may be named differently; Savage et al. (1991) call these different sets of stakeholders primary and secondary stakeholders (Savage, Nix, Whitehead, & Blair, 1991)
Within a narrow circumscription those parties are situated who actively contribute to the outcome of the innovation project. Within the broader circumscription the parties are situated, in addition to the actively involved, who are affected by its outcome, i.e. the passively involved. This latter group (‘the affected’) can only be represented by means of representation, since, as argued, this group can never be identified completely. (Vos & Achterkamp, 2006).
In stakeholder literature, stakeholder identification is considered a classification problem. As described by Vos and Achterkamp (2006) identification is mostly about determining which stakeholder is salient with respect to the issue of investigation. (Vos & Achterkamp, 2006). Those authors describe a method, not focusing on identifying stakeholders in general, but focusing on identifying stakeholders in the particular context of innovation projects. In our research, we roughly distinguish two phases in stakeholder analysis methodology; (1) the identification and (2) the classification of stakeholders, based on stakeholder capacities and intentions. The identification of stakeholders in our research, thus only concerns the rough determination of potential internal stakeholders with respect to the innovation at hand. The classification of these stakeholders determines whether the stakeholder is a member of the decision making unit or not. In practice, these two seemingly separate activities will be executed in congruence.
For the above reason, stakeholder classification means placing the right stakeholders in the right ‘salience’ cluster (what specific stakeholders fit within a specific category?). This can only be done by classifying characteristics of stakeholders in the light of the innovation at hand. This is a matter of drawing justifiable boundaries between categories, which is a majorly unresolved issue in literature. Vos and Achterkamp (2006) argue that additional classification procedures are necessary to append existing classification, like the one described by Mitchell et al. (1997) (Vos & Achterkamp, 2006). This can be done through the analysis of role involvement.
As described by Savage et al. (1991) stakeholder assessments should include the capacity, opportunity and willingness of a stakeholder in relation to the issue (in our case: innovation) (Savage, et al., 1991). We will use these terms to verify our theoretical framework.
By executing a stakeholder analysis (on multiple time intervals) a better insight in the influences of the salient stakeholder community or decision making unit can be gained in relation to the specific innovation; dynamics in role-involvement can be determined as well.
In this research context, we extend the definition of a decision making unit as those stakeholder groups with high degrees of all three attributes urgency, power and legitimacy.
In light of the here described research theme, stakeholder dynamics can be defined as changes in configuration of the relevant stakeholder community as well as changes in individual stakeholders’ capacity and intentions.
These systems or stakeholder clusters have reciprocal effects on the independent predictors of individual and organisational IT-based innovation adoption.
Now, remember the notion by Lewis (1993) that different parts of the organisation are likely to be at different stages in the innovation adoption process at the same point in time. Each of possible changes during the innovation adoption process (as a result of for example a structured implementation activity) may be more salient or less salient for each user or work group, and each may differentially influence the attention and behavior of the user or work group. (Lewis & Seibold, 1993). This in turn, might lead to a change of stakeholder salience over the innovation adoption process, according to stakeholder theory (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997).
Stakeholder’s dynamic role involvements may be summarized as follows as principles of stakeholder behavior (Pouloudi, 1999; Pouloudi & Whitley, 2000);
As noted before, a stakeholder’s role may change over time and the set and number of stakeholders are context- and time dependent and viewpoints and wishes of stakeholders may change over time (Pouloudi & Whitley, 2000). In other words, the earlier mentioned decision making unit is susceptible to continuous change. This implicates the need for iterative, continuous stakeholder analysis and predictor valuation. This matches the continuous process view on innovation adoption processes as described earlier.
Principles of stakeholder behavior implications for stakeholder identification
and analysis 1. The set and number of stakeholders are context
and time dependent
- Stakeholder map should reflect the context - Stakeholder map should be reviewed over time 2. Stakeholders cannot be viewed in isolation - Consider how stakeholders are linked 3. A stakeholder’s role may change over time - Adopt a long-term perspective;
study how perceptions change 4. Stakeholders may have multiple roles
5. Different stakeholders may have different perspectives and wishes
- There are different versions of the stakeholder map to be drawn for different perspectives 6. The viewpoints and wishes of stakeholders
may change over time
- These different versions should be studied over time
7. Stakeholders may be unable to serve their interests or realize their wishes
- Need to consider political issues (as well as technical, economic or other)