{"id":559,"date":"2007-09-18T19:37:55","date_gmt":"2007-09-18T19:37:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/svapm.org\/2007\/09\/18\/project-communications-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-part-3-of-3\/"},"modified":"2019-08-07T14:37:36","modified_gmt":"2019-08-07T21:37:36","slug":"project-communications-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-part-3-of-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/svapm.org\/?p=559","title":{"rendered":"Project Communications – The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (Part 3 of 3)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Chess\"We\u00a0have all been on projects where an understanding different stakeholder groups becomes a ‘touchy-feely’ process.\u00a0 You have a gut feel for their tolerance for change, commitment, ability to influence and what they view as important.\u00a0 Most of the time we are wrong but if we had some real data for these areas, then we could establish effective communications and begin to understand what challenges faced us during our project time line.
\n\u00a0
\nOne project where the Project Manager reflected that the V.P. Finance has been very quiet in the initial meetings, the initial perception was he was not opposed to the project.\u00a0 About two months later, just before the kick-off, there seemed to be a growing opposition.\u00a0 At the last minute he did not approve the project to proceed.\u00a0 The Project Manager regretted he didn’t spend more time developing a key stakeholder analysis and a corrective action plan.
\n\u00a0
\nHave you had similar stakeholder gaps?<\/em><\/p>\n

The analysis of stakeholder and organizational requirements can be used to identify the degree of project related change required (both incremental or fundamental) and to diagnose required changes.\u00a0 This gap analysis will provide a process for examining the differences between where the stakeholders are and where they need to be after the project is completed.\u00a0 Though “gut feelings” are many times correct, there is nothing better than supportive data.\u00a0 The difference between actual and desired future states indicates potential areas for planned interventions.\u00a0 Once these differences have been identified, it will be important to assess priorities to guide the project communications activities.<\/p>\n

\"Survey<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

You can see in this graphic the stakeholder group in the analysis on the left is both committed and have a high tolerance for change.\u00a0 On the right, a lot of the stakeholders in the analysis felt the project was very important but none had the ability (organization or decision making structure) to influence the change.\u00a0 The only person who had the ability to influence identified the project as the\u00a0lowest level of importance.\u00a0 This\u00a0analysis provides great insight to the project management team to use communications as a method of positive change.
\n\u00a0
\nIn one project, I remember there was a stakeholder group showing a lot of resistance to the project.\u00a0 They were vocal and our project management team was all leaning on me to “do something.”\u00a0 After a preliminary analysis, I found that they had very little ability to influence and a low tolerance for change: but they thought the project would eliminate their jobs.\u00a0 Actually this was not true and with a clear picture of how to structure our communications with them, they quickly turned their energy to helping with the success of the project.<\/p>\n

Some additional data points you could consider are:<\/p>\n