Tools and Techniques for Stakeholder Management

Some tools and techniques have been identified as useful for carrying out stakeholder engagement/management in construction projects. They include design charrette, contingent valuation method, Delphi technique, strategic needs analyses and stakeholder cycle. These are discussed as follows.

2.8.1 Design Charrette

A charrette is a series of workshop held at the pre-design stage of projects in order to obtain and integrate the interests and contributions of the project stakeholders into the eventual design of the project. The aim of the charrette is to seek to understand all design related issues from the stakeholders’ perspective and identify solutions all of which are presented in the form of a report to guide the final design of the project (Sutton and Kemp, 2006). It can take varying length of time depending on the nature and scope of the project, level of understanding of the stakeholders involved and resources available. The duration of a design charrette could range from half-day to two or more days.

The charrette sessions require some human and material resources to be effectively carried out, these include; a facilitator, an agenda for the session(s), project summary and or brief, site plan, etc. The role of the facilitator who is normally expected not to be involved with the design is very important for the success of charrette. Participants at the design charrette should be drawn from the following: members of the design team,

52

project owner or competent representative(s), representatives of relevant interest groups, users/occupants if different from the owners, any relevant specialists, etc.

Design charrettes have been successfully used in construction projects. For example, the Scottish sustainable communities initiative (SSCI) is led by the Scottish government to encourage the creation of places in different locations in Scotland, which are designed and built to last, where a high quality of life can be achieved to the satisfaction of all stakeholders (Scottish sustainable communities initiative charrette series, 2008).

2.8.2 Contingent Value Method

This is a widely accepted method in environmental economics and urban planning for evaluating the monetary value of assets and or infrastructure which cannot be traded in the market (Portney, 1994). It seeks to achieve a common ground between the organisation and its stakeholders by capturing the total economic value (TEV) which is composed of the direct use value (DUV) and non-use value (NUV) of the proposed project. DUV is the market value such as in: access fees, adjacent property value, and people who use but do not pay for the facility directly whereas the NUV is the value that cannot be captured in the market which include the future use potential and existence value of the asset. The total economic value therefore, is the sum of the direct use value and the non-use value (TEV=DUV+NUV). Before this, the value of the project is assessed in two dimensions from the users’ perspective. Prior to the commencement of the project, the users’ willingness to pay (WTP) is assessed; whereas, willingness to accept (WTA) is assessed when the project is completed. WTP is a measure of how much the user is willing to pay for the service rendered by the project and WTA is a measure of how much the user is willing to accept for not having the facility or service of the project.

The basic steps involved in the CVM include: 1. Setting up a hypothetical market; 2. Obtaining bids

This has been used to obtain stakeholder buy in for infrastructure construction projects (Fonta et al., 2007) and has proven to be a very useful tool especially for engaging with and securing the support of project stakeholders at the early stages of the project when the investment decision is being made.

53 2.8.3 Delphi Technique

This is a technique for obtaining stakeholders’ interests/inputs in the formulation of proposed project design. It fosters communication and interaction among project stakeholders and helps to incorporate stakeholders’ interests through representation of the diverse interest groups which are drawn from different disciplines and backgrounds. The Delphi process normally runs in a series of three rounds (Figure 2.7) involving different set of groups in each of the rounds (Orndorff, 2005). The same set of questions (survey instrument) is given to the participants (stakeholders) who are adequately informed about what it takes and what is required of them in each of the rounds. The Delphi technique is usually expected to produce either a consensus or an entirely new (alternative) proposal for the project being developed. The Delphi Technique has been used for construction investment decisions (Orndoff, 2005).

Decision makers Impacted business Public Decision makers Impacted business Public Decision makers Impacted business Public

ROUND 1 ROUND 2 ROUND 3

Statistical Statistical

Analysis Analysis

Synthesis of results

Document process &strategies

Figure 2.6 Diagram of Delphi Technique process (Orndoff, 2005) 2.8.4 Strategic Needs Analysis

The strategic needs analysis involves the use of workshops and meetings to collate information about stakeholders’ needs regarding the project and analyse them using software (strategizer) to decide on the preferred strategy (Smith and Love, 2004). The

54

strategic needs analysis process which involves five major stages is shown in Figure 2.8. These stages are as follows:

1. Collection of information to understand the nature of the problem (preliminary information seminar);

2. Discuss and analyse the problem (stage two, workshop one);

3. Develop options for solving the problem(stage two, workshop one) ; 4. Choose a preferred option (stage two, workshop two) and

5. Recommend the implementation of the decision based on the workshop activities (stage two, workshop two).

In a study that focussed on stakeholder management during project inception, Smith and Love (2004) explored the use of strategic needs analysis at the briefing stage of the project to involve stakeholders in identifying and proposing a range of strategic options for a proposed project.

55 Preliminary Information seminar 3 to 5 Day Break Stage one Workshop one One, One and half or Two days

3 to 5 Day Break

Stage two Workshop two Half to one day

Identification of problems and issues with documentation. Distribution of an information pack Identification of alternative strategies Options selection Scoring of options by stakeholders Decide on preferred strategy Problem definition Ab so rb In fo rm at io n R ef le ct o n o p ti o n s Options generation Options scoring Strategic decision

Problem solving stages

Figure 2.7 Problem solving stages and the Strategic Needs Analysis process (Smith and Love, 2004)

The work of Smith and Love (2004) which is limited to briefing, found that stakeholder management at the briefing stage of construction projects is useful although it observed but failed to capture the need for continuity and sustenance of the process which effect was felt in the case used for the research. The assumption that once some stakeholders have been involved at the briefing stage leading to the final decision on the project is sufficient to address stakeholder related issues could be misleading as evidenced in the concerns expressed by some of the stakeholders at the later stages in the case project. 2.8.5 Stakeholder cycle

Bourne (2005) developed a tool referred to as the stakeholder management cycle for identifying, visualising and mapping stakeholder influence on projects. The stakeholder cycle is made up of five steps:

 Step 1 – identification of stakeholders;

56

 Step 3 – visualize the stakeholders;

 Step 4 – engage the stakeholders; and

 Step 5 – monitor the outcome.

The stakeholder cycle can be used for stakeholder identification and engagement in construction. This has been tested in construction projects (Yang and Shen, 2014).

2.8.6 Public hearing

Public hearing is a means of bringing stakeholders together to exchange views, negotiate different interests and identify mutual goals in construction projects. It can further be used to decide rights, obligations and arrangements for decision making in the project (Rowe and Frewer, 2005). Although public hearing has proven beneficial in stakeholder engagement it can be problematic if not properly carried out. Public hearing involves engaging the general public together with all key stakeholders of the project in an open forum where views are freely and systematically exchanged and captured in the project’s final scheme (Li et al., 2012). This is mostly applicable for projects of public interests.