essay代写 > 珀斯代写 essay > stakeholder dynamics management代写

stakeholder dynamics management代写

  • 100%原创,高质量代写&Turnitin反剽窃检测-24小时在线客服微信&QQ:273427
  • Introduction
    Stakeholder management pays an important role in project management. There are considerable theories of stakeholder to talk about that, but still, many practitioners do not know what stakeholder management is and what they should do with the stakeholders of their project. In order to explaining the importance of stakeholder management in IS management, this essay will firstly review the stakeholder management literature and theory, which is related to IS projects. Following this, it will compare and contrast several options of stakeholder management literature and theory mentioned, which talk about managing and understanding stakeholders’ interests and behaviours so that the practitioners are able to understand stakeholder dynamics in IS projects. Finally, it will make a conclusion and recommend an approach to managing the stakeholder dynamics in an IS development project.
     
    Review of Stakeholder Theory
    There are a lot of stakeholder theories and literatures. Regarding the definition of stakeholder, Freeman (1984) defined stakeholder as “can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives”. And Savage (1991) defined stakeholder as “have an interest in the actions of an organization and the ability to influence it”, while Clarkson (1995) defined stakeholder as “have, or claim, ownership, rights, or interests in a corporation and its activities”. The above statements all pointed out that stakeholder must have something to affect the organization.
     
    What is more, Freeman (1984) argued that to achieve sustainable development of enterprises, the manager must develop a strategy to meet a variety of different stakeholders’ interest. After Freeman, Savage (1991) stated that a successful business strategy should be developed by its stakeholders, which are the company's board members, employees and community representatives. That means, in addition to focus on the interests and revenue, it is necessary that company should at the same time pay attention to the employees, customers and communities as well as all enterprise-related individuals or groups. In this way, the company will grow and blossom. In 1995, Thomas Donaldson and Preston state in the Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications that "identification of moral or philosophical guidelines for the operation and management of the corporation". Then, the ideas about what key attributes stakeholder should own was brought. According to the literature called “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts” (Mitchell, Agle and Wood, 1997), three attributes including power, legitimacy as well as urgency make one a definitive stakeholder, which is the best statues. Power is the extent a party imposes its will to a relationship. Legitimacy is socially accepted and expected structures or behaviours, while urgency requires time sensitivity or criticality of the stakeholder's claims. That means, one, no matter an individual or a group, have the power and legitimacy in the organization and is able to react and make a decision in a timely manner when urgent circumstance comes up, is for sure the stakeholder who manager looks for. And the above three attributes are not steadily but variably. In 2002, Friedman and Miles explore the model which focuses on explaining the importance of distinguish different stakeholders and how and why stakeholder relationship changes over time. Later, Robert Allen Phillips distinguishes normatively legitimate stakeholders from the derivatively one. Normatively legitimate stakeholders are moral obligation, while the derivatively one affects the organization by their ability. For example, the Queen of the UK is a normatively legitimate stakeholder while the Prime Minister of the UK is the derivatively legitimate stakeholder.
     
    Stakeholder Theory Evaluation
    To manage and understand stakeholders’ interest and behaviours, the basic theory or literature of stakeholder mentioned above should first be compared and contrasted. After the concept is clear, it is easy to manage and understand stakeholders’ interest and behaviours accordingly. For the definition of stakeholder, all of them point out that stakeholder should have the ability or interest to affect the organization. But their focus is different. Freeman point out a point that other ignores. The stakeholder is also affected by the organizations. So when the practitioners have developed a good understanding of how the stakeholders are being affected by the information system development project, they could maximize the advantages and minimize the disadvantages. In this way, they will be able to convince the stakeholders to accept the IS project. For example, ask questions such as “who affects and who is affected, instead of just who affects”. According to Savage, stakeholder must have an interest toward the organization. So what practitioners supposed to do with the stakeholders is finding out their interest. By knowing what the IS project may bring benefits as well as risks to them, the practitioners are able to decide whether the stakeholders are keen on the project. For example, ask questions such as “who gains and losses from the IS project” instead of “who has the power over the IS project”.
     
    For the stakeholder theory, all of them believe there are various interests for stakeholders and distinguish stakeholders accordingly is significant for stakeholder management. Regardless of the similarities, their stand points are different. Freeman pointed out that the key to build business strategy is to meet the variety interest from different stakeholders. Savage had developed Freeman’s statement and stated that business strategy should be developed by different stakeholders themselves. Mitchell, Agle and Wood explored three attributes stakeholder should have, which is power, legitimacy and urgency. The more important the stakeholder is, the more power, legitimacy and urgency they should have. In other word, if one has all of those three attributes, the practitioners must pay a lot more attention to this one than others. And no matter how important one might see to be, if only one of those 3 variables is present, this party is not that important and the practitioners should turn their focus to others. With three attributes, stakeholders can be distinguished to eight type, including dormant stakeholder, discretionary stakeholders, demanding stakeholders, dominant stakeholders, dependent stakeholders, dependent stakeholders, dangerous stakeholders and definitive stakeholders as well as non-stakeholder. Dormant stakeholders have power but without legitimacy and urgency so their power is unused.  Discretionary stakeholders possess legitimacy, but do not have power and urgent claim. Practitioners will feel comfortable to deal with this kind of stakeholder. Demanding stakeholders just have urgent claims, but with no legitimacy and power, practitioners may feel uncomfortable to deal with them but they actually have little claim on the IS project. Dominant stakeholders who have power and legitimacy are what practitioners should build relationship with as they can form dominant coalition. Dependent stakeholders have no power but urgent and legitimate claims. Practitioners do not need to spend much time on them as their will will depend on others to carry out. So practitioners just need to manage and understand dominant and definitive stakeholders’ interest and behaviours to get dependent stakeholders in. Practitioners may be aware of dangerous stakeholders, because they possess urgency and power, but without legitimacy, following what they ask to do maybe coercive or dangerous. Definitive stakeholders possess power, legitimacy, and urgency at the same time, which are exactly what the practitioners look for. There is also one party practitioners may want to build relationship with, but when consider this party has none of these three attributes, the practitioners should spend less and even no time on them. Therefore, by pointing out what and who really counts, this theory helps practitioners to distinguish the primary, secondary and non-stakeholders and their potential impact of the IS project will be revealed. In addition, Friedman and Miles help explaining the importance of distinguish different stakeholders and how and why stakeholder relationship changes over time. By distinguish stakeholders’ influence and interest degree, stakeholder can be put into four catalogue. The promoters, latents, defenders and apathetics. The promoters with high influence and interest are people who really concern about and have a word in the IS project. If they are positive about the IS project, the practitioners should put most effort on them. For example, if the stakeholder is the IS developer, the practitioners may even offer them a task so that they are responsible for that. Value their opinions, and add those opinions into the proper places. If their ideas are not taken, make sure they know why another seems to be a better idea. The latents are one with high influence and low interest. They could be very helpful if the practitioners can convince them that IS project are toward their interest and for their own good. The practitioners should stay close with and inform every single decision to them. Give them a chance to participate in the relevant issues. If the practitioners can shift them into the promoters catalogue, it will help you conduct a successful IS project. The defenders are one with low influence and high interest. They are usually soldiers for you. Though they are with low influence, their interest will drive them to promote your IS project to the promoters, latents and apathetics. The apathetics are those with low interest and low influence. They do not care about your IS project but they will not bother you or be the barrier of the IS project. And by distinguish the stakeholders interest and influence degree, the practitioners will have a clear map about which parties they should put a lot effect on and which could just ignore.
     
    Conclusion
    In conclusion, stakeholder dynamics management is quite important. By distinguish stakeholders and put them into different catalogues, the practitioners will know exactly which stakeholders they should pay attention to and which just have little interest and influence of the IS project. To manage the stakeholder dynamics in an IS development project, the practitioners should identify and work out their influence and interest by identifying their power, legitimacy and urgency or interest and influence. Then, the practitioners should develop a good understanding of each stakeholder to predict their behaviour. Finally, work out a stakeholder management plan in an IS development project that provides a complete process management and communication with the stakeholders. It is recommended that the practitioners should develop a list of people and organizations related to an IS development project, which is also called stakeholders. For example, in an organization, an IS development project may include end-users, project organizers and system operations. The end-users are the executives, line management, business domain experts and data owners, etc. Project organizers are the executives, line management, business process or functional experts, product specialists and technical specialists, and so on. The system operations are IT service management, service desk, application management, infrastructure management and data or voice communications, etc. Addition to that, internal stakeholders also include HR, procurement and administration department as well as other support functions. There are also external stakeholders such as suppliers and clients. After that, the practitioners can work out the stakeholders’ power, legitimacy, urgency as well as interest, influence and behaviours. Then, create and update the stakeholder register to empower the stakeholders to either block or advance. That enables the practitioners easily identify which stakeholders should be blockers or critics, and which are expected to be advocates and supporters of the initiative.

    Reference
    Clarkson, E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
    performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91. doi: 10.2307/258888
     
    Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, Pitman.
     
    Friedman, A. & Miles, S. (2002). Developing Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39 (1), 1–21. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00280.
     
    Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), 853–886. doi: 10.2307/259247.
     
    Savage, G., Whitehead, C., & Blair J. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61 – 75. doi: 10.5465/1991.4274682
     
    Thomas, D. & Preston, L. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), 71. doi: 10.2307/258887.