Management to Man to Man the affairs of the company ,organization whether small scale or large scale & even we can think also the manage the affairs even for the family group. We may go one step further that management is for our life also if we want to make in the line with the system & methods.

Stakeholder management why to think in the of stake when we wish to plan & to manage any matter for our good or even for the establishment we should not think of stakeholder management .

When we all have narrated the stakeholder management it is necessary to think for the expectation Management .When we talk regarding the expectation it indicates hope,aspiration & positive result of our working & how can we tune the said aspect by viewing under stake holder management.

When we have used the word stakeholder management it means we are planning to process & to go for the risk management & nothing more .It means in totality such sort of management we are to think on for speculation ,even for gambling & we may think for foul practice in the management by losing the moral code & ethics that Honesty is Best Policy in the business 

Dear Mr.Van de Griend,

                                         Since you are at the helm of affairs at Philips International I shall try hard to give you a good answer. Only kidding. If you would care to take alook at my paper on Information Structure on my RG page and also other papers, I think you would be able to derive the isolated role of information in physical, financial and economic efficiency derivation in virtually all markets which follow the Arrow-Debreu and Planning Structures (which exhausts all types of incomplete markets in the world today, my research would dare say). I think it would then be easy to derive the information stake by intrepreting the models as dynamic stock market models. Thanks for posing such a fundamental question. SKM QC

Although the word "stakeholders" gets used a lot of different ways, I think the dominant use is people who have a stake in what you do or decide ... or at least people who feel that they have such a stake.  That may be because they believe your behavior poses a risk to them.  Or it may be because they believe your behavior affects them in other ways -- potential beneficiaries, for example, are also stakeholders.

Because they see themselves as having a stake in what you do, stakeholders feel entitled to some say in what you do. If they already have a say that they consider satisfactory, or if their interests and yours are aligned, the fact that they are your stakeholders isn't especially problematic. 

It becomes problematic when their stake and your stake are not aligned -- when your actions in your own interests may adversely affect their interests -- and when they feel less powerful than they consider appropriate vis-a-vis your decision-making.  This may be true of dissident shareholders, dissatisfied employees, and the like.  It is frequently true of neighbors of industrial facilities.  It is invariably true of activists.

The key questions in stakeholder management therefore relate to stakeholder consultation, stakeholder engagement, stakeholder communication, and related issues: How should you talk -- and listen! -- to people who judge themselves to be adversely affected by your plans and actions?  When and to what extent should you modify your actions in deference to their concerns?  How can you ameliorate their outrage when you fail to do so? 

See http://www.psandman.com/col/stakeh.htm for my 2003 website article on "Stakeholders."  See also many other articles on my risk communication website.

I should add that public participation professionals sometimes use "stakeholders" differently -- to apply to people who are objectively affected by your decisions and should therefore want to participate in those decisions, but may not realize their stake or bother to get involved.  PP professionals are interested in arousing the interest of people who should care.  I am much more interested in addressing the concerns of people who do care.

--Peter Sandman

Risk communication consultant

[email protected]

From a project management standpoint, we define stakeholders as anyone who can be impacted in some way by a project: as a participant, beneficiary, or just affected by the project in some way.

Stakeholder management is the process in which we identify all the stakeholders and their concerns and then plan how to accomplish the project while satisfying all the stakeholders in accordance with their importance to the project and their impact on the project. In that sense it is expectation management.

Risk management consists of identifying all of the potential risk events, things that might occur that would either prevent the project from being accomplished or assist the project to being accomplished, what their impact and likelihood of occurrence, would be and then planning to deal with these events based on their priority.

In terms of your question, stakeholder management is more like expectation management. The possibility that a stakeholder could change or change their minds would be a risk that would have to be planned for. 

Hope this helps!

Pieter, it is a good question but closeness in approaches to management can be difficult to interpret and we may not all agree..

Whatever we are involved in, our overall objective is to add value by maximising gain and minimising loss. When operating under a significant degree of uncertainty we use prospect and risk management. However, whether something is of value is always a stakeholder judgement based on their needs, expectations and aspirations i.e. what motivates them. Stakeholder requirements are consequently relativistic and can be harmonising or conflicting. Integrated management attempts to manage this conundrum using a holistic joined up thinking approach. Integrated management has been defined as “effective direction of every aspect of an organization so that the needs and expectations of all stakeholders are equitably satisfied by the best use of all resources” – see http://www.thecqi.org/Documents/community/Special-Interest-Groups/Integrated-Management/CQI%20IMSIG%20Integrated%20management%20definition%20-%20Issue%202.1.pdf

See also Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_management

Integrated management (almost by its definition) subsumes all other fragmented approaches to management because they all generally have aspects that add a degree of value. Therefore, whatever approach to management you have adopted or focus on, if you try to develop it to become more effective you will head nearer an integrated approach. The success of any organisation is ultimately a collection of stakeholder judgements – stakeholders are able to exercise various degrees of power/influence. Understanding stakeholders needs, expecations and aspirations and their ability to exercise power is absolutely fundamental to establishing the context for conducting any form of prospect and/or risk assessment.

MSS 1000:2014 is based on 17 fundamental universal management principles that puts the above into practice in a very systematic way. Download a free copy of MSS 1000:2014 (top of list) via http://www.thecqi.org/Community/Special-Interest-Groups-SIGs/Integrated-Management-Group/Research-and-reports/

We normally manage internal and external stakeholder requirements and not the stakeholders although marketing people would like to think that they manage or at least influence some of the stakeholders. Employees, contractors and suppliers are managed by an organisation to varying degrees. The negotiations with stakeholders are a particularly complex stakeholder interaction.

It is the stakeholders who principally influence the defining of the context of prospect and risk management. Prospect and risk is associated with all of an organisation's structures and processes. We cannot separate these things and hope to manage in an optimal way.

Interesting. If you don't manage expectations, then your risk is not being managed and visa-versa. Might be better to focus on better understanding stated and unstated business/clinical goals and requirements so you know what the expectations and subsequent risks are. In some projects, it is difficult to manage expectations or risks because they are not clearly defined. Thank you for the question.

Assuming that the primary objective of project management is to align expectations and commitments along time, risk management is logically the complement of expectations management.

https://caminao.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/events-meaning/

The population of stakeholders may be quite broad, and can include groups who neither identify a priori expectations, nor bear responsibility for the associated risk. In the context of eHealth, for example, patients are undeniably stakeholders, but rarely express crystallised expectations, and are not required to manage the risks which might result from adverse project outcomes.

Each class of stakeholder will have a different degree of influence on project governance, moderated by their expectations, and by their responsibility for the management and remediation of project risk.

Very simply stakeholder management is closer to expectation management. Risks are elminated or mitigated when possible. 

You might be interested in the attache file.

Dear Dr. Van De  Griend,

                                           In the absence of my PhD thesis at NYU on "Bounded Rationality and Arrow-Debreu Economies" which you can take a look at in abstract form on the PhD Tree website and my monograph on Entrepreneural Behavior and Incomplete Financial Markets on my RG page and my papers on the String Theory of Indian Stock Markets and Information Structure on my RG page, you will see that I have both in terms of Behavioural Economics and String Theoretic and Relativistic Physics of Dynamic Equilibrium in Asset Markets using the phenomenon of money-energy conversion which forms the basic driver for asset market dynamics especially under incomplete markets, no matter what the nature/chemistry of the good is, been able to separate the physical information structure from the trading market potential driven actions in asset markets. Hence I can separately identify computer demand from asset demand for example by using the Vectorial Laws of Demand (Information and contingent goods demands) as well as factorisation of the market potential Classification and Systems Integration Theorems. This I have discovered using Political Uncertainty environemnts which lot of resarch and experiments show shape fundamentals in India. The necessary resolution or factorisation of the market potential in financial markets (of which asset markets are the building blocks) had been started with my PhD thesis at NYU and I particularly thank my dissertation committee members for that. In fact the very essential role of entropy formation and trades, which are the defining properties of the dynamic string theoretic-relativistic market potential actions and result out of lagrangean actions on Econophysics fields developed by yours truly, in a genetic algorithmic flow as has been shown by me in the Haag Theorem paper and the Coal Mining paper on my RG website. This also requires risk neutral agents after learning i.e. with logarithmic utility (which has been found to be quite general in research published in Econometrica even in the US) and certainly would apply to man-machine systems where learning proceeds continuously as has been experimentally found by me. I hope that answers your question and thanks for this opportunity to communicate. SKM QC

Dear Dr. van De Griend,

                                          Please read the line on risk neutral utility as risk averse which is the case with logarithmic utility which satisfies my theorems. Sorry for the error in the previous reply. SKM QC

Pieter, a very good question. Each time I read the question, I am understanding the question at different levels. Generally speaking, from a PMP perspective Michael Cuellar has explained the basics and Chris Showell has given a good example from an industry perspective. I think, it is the premise "if Stake= a Risk" in your question that provides a twist to the basic definitions and applications of these concepts. 

In the absence of the premise, expectation management would drive project objectives and/or project objectives would enable in managing stakeholder expectations. Identified risks in such a scenario would have to be addressed and mitigated to ensure project success. In case of "equating stake to a risk to be managed", would mean considering stakeholder expectations (arising from such risky-stakes) as potential risks, which then should be addressed via risk management approach. The more such stakes, the higher is the project's risk exposure. In such a case, yes, stakeholder management would be closer to risk management. Risk mitigation in such a situation would be to reduce the level of risk in the stakes or make the stakes risk-free (if possible) but elimination of the risk would mean eliminating the stake itself! 

Put endeavor instead of stake and expectations, with time as a given.

It is my view that stakeholders are at the heart of all management. It is the stakeholders who judge how an individual/organisation is managed and its various aspects of .performance. Stakeholders judge against their needs, expectations and aspirations and may be conscious/unconscious and can be rational/irrational. Integrated approaches to management tries to equitably balance stakeholder needs, expecations and aspirations while making the best use of resources.

Stakeholder management embraces expectation management and prospect and risk management. The context will determine the appropriate combination of expectation and risk management etc so the question as posed cannot be simply answered in my view. MSS 1000 embraces a universal approach to management - refer to http://cqiimsig.wixsite.com/imsig/mss-1000

MSS 1000 defines a universal set of basic management terms.

To manage stakeholders they all need to understand their values in relation to the project, program, process or product and agree a common statement of value proposition.

Once you have this you can the develop agreed ways of achieving this value, managing risks and expectations and finally achieving best value for money.  Try looking at the approach and diagrams in Australian Standard AS 4183:2007, Value Management, and see if this works for you.

Interesting.

There is some ambiguity in the question I believe from the responses. Are we talking about managing stakeholders or managing with respect to stakeholders which vary enormously and may be internal and external? Management is conducted certainly through internal stakeholders but is it constructive to talk about managing external stakeholders such as banks, shareholders although their needs do have to be addressed.