Simplified Stakeholder Analysis A Demonstration Nisha Narayanan, PRMPS Stephen Ndegwa, PRMPS

Simplified Stakeholder Analysis
A Demonstration
Nisha Narayanan, PRMPS
Stephen Ndegwa, PRMPS
Goals
•
•
•
•
•
Demonstration, preliminary use
Simple, user-friendly and portable model
Transparent calculations and assumptions
Scenario building over prediction
Accessible charts and grids as guides for
potential options/targets for policy dialogue
Data Collection
• As with other models, extensive and
reliant on field interviews
• Depending on government or policy area
openness, data can be collected by two
methods:
• Interviews with specialists or experts and/or
• Interviews with actual stakeholders
Data Attributes
The data consists of five attributes associated with stakeholders:
Group
These are sectors in which stakeholders share similar
characteristics and often common objectives. Specific strategies
can be applied to stakeholders according to their group.
Position
This value describes the initial level of reform the stakeholder is
willing to accept.
Salience This value indicates the level of importance and priority the
stakeholder attaches to the issue.
Influence This value represents the level of resources and power the
stakeholder has relevant to this issue. This can take the form of
money, contacts, access and/or other resources.
*Effective This value represents how effective the stakeholder can be in
Power
protecting (or promoting?) its position.
*Annex 1: New Effective Power equation
Sample Data
Marketing
Stakeholder
MoyAg100
SecGenAg
DirVeg
ONICL
MP
ChamCereales
UGTM
SCAMS
MediaDroite
PJD
APMS
CDT
Roi
MinAg
ImportCer
PM
ConsRoi
MediaGauche
UMT
FAO
MoyAgPoss
FinMin
USFP
Consom
Mondiale
EU
Group
Position
Civil
0
Govt
5
Govt
5
Govt
5
Parl
5
Civil
5
Labor
7
Civil
10
Civil
10
Parl
40
Civil
40
Labor
50
Palace
60
Govt
60
Civil
62
Govt
65
Palace
75
Civil
75
Labor
75
Exterieur
75
Civil
80
Govt
90
Parl
90
Civil
100
Exterieur
100
Exterieur
100
Salience Influence Effective Power
95
20
42.5
55
10
23.5
55
30
37.5
95
40
56.5
95
58.75
69.625
80
50
59
70
75
73.5
95
80
84.5
80
15
34.5
50
100
85
60
50
53
50
70
64
75
100
92.5
75
80
78.5
50
100
85
55
100
86.5
75
20
36.5
80
10
31
45
100
83.5
40
3
14.1
30
25
26.5
75
70
71.5
60
100
88
40
5
15.5
90
80
83
70
80
77
Policy Continuum A
ORIGINAL POLICY CONTINUUM
0
Status
Quo
5
Begin
study of
SCAMS
40
Introduce a
standard cereals
marketing contract
and a dispute
resolution procedure
60
Begin process
of developing
a private
industry body
and decide
future of ONICL
65
75
80
Restructure
or "divest"
SCAMs
Develop financial
instruments, e.g.
forw ard contracting
insturment or price
risk insurance scheme
Develop a market
oriented cereals
storage and
finance system
100
Continue
development
of a private
industry body
New Policy Continuum B
(#) = Effective Power
ChamCereals (60)
UGTM (74)
FinMin (72)
Demand 2A
0
Demand 1A
25
50
Demand 1B
Com plete study
of SCAMS
100
Demand 2B
MediaDroite (35)
SecGenAg (24)
Status Quo
75
MoyAgPoss (27)
Initiate privatization
w ith standard
contracts and
procedures
Restructure
SCAMS and
finance system
Continue
privatization of
industry
Effective Power/Position Matrix
Identifies stakeholder position and their relative power -- how hard reform will be
100
A2
B1
B2 to influence
With simple rule -- movement
within quadrant/subset
-- allows setting goals
A1
Roi
90
PJD
SCAMS
USFP
PM
ImportCer
UMT
Mondiale
MinAg
80
EU
UGTM
FinMin
MP
70
CDT
Effective Power
60
ChamCereals
ONICL
APMS
50
C1
C2
D1
D2
MoyAg100
40
DirVeg
ConsRoi
MediaDroite
MediaGauche
30
MoyAgPoss
SecGenAg
20
Consom
FAO
10
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Position
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Scenarios: Governing Assumptions
• Stakeholders can only move within their
policy preference sector, or minimally into
next one
• Strategy may then be to:
– Move stakeholders with low policy reform
preferences to the right or diagonally upwards
by increasing information
– Empower stakeholders with higher policy
reform preferences to move up and to the
right by increasing effective power
Influence-Salience Matrix
Identifies the stakeholders by their level of salience and influence (color-coded on policy reform preference)
Information on stakeholder attributes allows setting intervention strategy and coalition building
Policy Range
0-25
26-50
51-75
76-100
100
LI/HS
MoyAg100 (0)
MP (5)
ONICL (5)
Mondiale (100)
90
MediaGauche (75)
ChamCereal (5)
MediaDroite (10)
80
FinMin (90)
ConsRoi (75)
UGTM (7)
70
MinAg (60)
Roi (60)
EU (100)
APMS (40)
60
Salience
HI/HS
SCAMS (10)
SecGenAg (5)
USFP (90)
DirVeg (5)
PM (65)
DEFENDERS
PROMOTERS
APATHETICS
LATENTS
50
CDT (50)
PJD (40)
ImportCer (62)
UMT (75)
FAO (75)
Consom (100)
40
30
MoyAgPoss (80)
20
10
LI/LS
0
0
HI/LS
10
20
30
40
50
Influence
60
70
80
90
100
Specific Examples
in response to influence-salience
profile of opponents
•
•
•
•
Promoters - counter or compromise
Defenders - suppress potential action
Latents – Increase salience
Apathetics - Ignore
Specific Examples
in response to influence-salience profile
of proponents
• Promoters - Build coalitions with low preference
stakeholders-common interests
• Defenders - Provide resources to promote
position
• Latents - Provide information and incentives to
increase saliency and preference for reform
• Apathetics – Ignore
New Policy Continuum B
(#) = Effective Power
ChamCereals (60)
UGTM (74)
FinMin (72)
Demand 2B
0
Demand 1A
25
50
Demand 1B
Com plete study
of SCAMS
100
Demand 2B
MediaDroite (35)
SecGenAg (24)
Status Quo
75
MoyAgPoss (27)
Initiate privatization
w ith standard
contracts and
procedures
Restructure
SCAMS and
finance system
Continue
privatization of
industry
Improvements/Simplifications
• Adds detailed stakeholder “reservation
price” to policy continuum
• Clarifies “effective power” equation
• Focuses on creating scenarios in lieu of
predictions to promote policy
• Uses maps to identify and assess
stakeholder positions and potential
movement for dialogue and goal-setting
Conclusion
• Simpler model
– Portable, cost effective
– Excel-based
– WB team executed (data/scenarios/dialogue)
• Transparent assumptions
– Informed by Task team – country/issue knowledge
– Theoretically valid, methodologically reliable
• Organic scenarios over precise/debatable
predictions
Annex 1: Effective Power Equation
(.70)*I + (.30)*S = Effective Power
• Effective Power is the weighted sum of 70%
Influence and 30% Salience
• Influence is weighted more than Salience
because those with higher influence have a
higher ability to block reform
• Eg. A stakeholder with 80 (I) and 20 (S) has
more power to veto a policy than a stakeholder
with 20 (I) and 80 (S)
More Information
• On Sentia’s Model, Other Models used
elsewhere, Bank Pilots, and Simplified
Model, please contact:
– Stephen Ndegwa/Nisha Narayanan
Ed Campos/Shilpa Pradhan (PRMPS)
– Barbara Nunberg/Amanda Green (EASPR)
– Jennie Litvack/Nabil Chaherli (MNSED)