Smarter Stakeholder Decisions to Deliver Defensible Consultations

Public consultations succeed or fail based on who attends and who does not. As consultation efforts grow more complex and span multiple sectors, effectively identifying your stakeholders becomes your key guide for engagement. tCI treats stakeholder mapping and identification as essential, and says no serious consultation should proceed without such an analysis. Nevertheless, the tools we use and the voices we consider must evolve with the changing world. This discussion explores how stakeholder mapping has developed and what it means for public consultation today.

Why mapping still matters

Effective consultations require identifying interested parties and understanding how to collaborate with them. tCI defines a stakeholder as anyone who has an interest in an organisation or issue and whose support is required for successful outcomes. Engaging early with the right stakeholders fosters trust and relationships, helps practitioners understand the site’s history, community concerns, and perceptions, and facilitates ongoing engagement. Therefore, mapping is crucial for consultation planners to reach seldom-heard groups and prevent tokenism.

Stakeholder analysis is applied across various fields, from conflict resolution to project management, to evaluate how to handle the interests and influence of key parties. This process can be performed once or periodically revisited to monitor shifts in attitudes over time. In the fast-changing environment of today, adopting an iterative approach is essential.

Moving beyond simple lists

Traditional maps typically categorise stakeholders into broad groups like internal or external,  with internal stakeholders including paid staff, managers, and board members, and external ones covering service users, local politicians, funders, or regulators.  Modern mapping, however, delves deeper, acknowledging that engagement strategies differ based on stakeholders’ interest, influence, and priorities.  This approach results in various analytical models.

• The Power-Interest grid is a popular tool that visualises stakeholders based on their influence over a project and their level of interest. By dividing stakeholders into quadrants- such as high power/high interest, high power/low interest, low power/high interest, and low power/low interest- practitioners can customise their communication and engagement approaches. For instance, stakeholders with high power and high interest are considered “key players” who require regular and substantive engagement, while those with low power and low interest need only minimal communication, with occasional updates to ensure transparency.
• Power-impact or influence-interest grids: Imperial College London’s influence-interest grid plots stakeholders by their influence over a project and their interest in it, while the former Office of Government Commerce’s power-impact grid maps the impact of a change on stakeholders against the importance of those stakeholders to the project’s success. These models remind practitioners to consider not only who can influence decisions but also who will be affected by them.
• The Salience Model,  developed by Mitchell and colleagues, categorises stakeholders based on power, legitimacy, and urgency.  It includes types such as dominant (powerful and legitimate, but not urgent), dependent (urgent and legitimate, but lacking power), and definitive stakeholders, who possess all three qualities and require immediate attention.  This framework helps consultation teams identify when morally legitimate claims should take precedence over quick alliances.
• Other classification methods  include Cameron et al.’s process for ranking stakeholders based on their needs and importance.  Savage et al. categorise stakeholders considering their potential for threat and cooperation.  Turner et al. incorporate dimensions like awareness, support, and attitude, which are particularly helpful when mapping public consultation participants.

These models share a common theme: they assist teams in prioritising stakeholders and deciding how and when to engage them. Results can identify who requires targeted engagement and who simply needs to be kept informed. In larger organisations, concentrating on representatives – such as decision-makers, change sponsors, department heads, union officials, or customer advocates – helps prevent overwhelming consultation teams.

Dynamic and data‑driven mapping

Contemporary thinking emphasises that stakeholder maps are living documents. Contemporary practice treats stakeholder maps as living documents that guide projects through challenges and keep practitioners aligned. It stresses that understanding stakeholders’ needs, expectations, and concerns isn’t just useful – it’s vital. To achieve this, modern maps not only plot power and interest but also track factors such as receptiveness, availability, and risk level. Stakeholders can then be categorised by roles – sponsors, impacted executives, change champions, super users, or influencers – enabling strategic planning.

Digital tools now support this adaptable approach. Software platforms integrate mapping templates with tags for various stakeholder types and automate data collection, encompassing everything from contact details to engagement history. They enable practitioners to update maps regularly, visualise complex networks, and share information across teams. Although technology can improve efficiency, the core principle remains human-centred: ensuring that seldom-heard groups are identified and receive appropriate support. If mapping shows that seldom-heard groups are likely to be seriously affected, tCI says organisations must invest in building those relationships (specialist knowledge, dedicated staff, or longer timescales)

Designing an inclusive map

Inclusivity is at the heart of public consultation.  The following practices reflect current thinking:

1. Begin with a comprehensive list: Identify all potential stakeholders, including internal staff and external entities such as service users, community organisations, suppliers, and regulators. Consider those who might be affected indirectly, such as neighbouring communities or under-represented groups.
2. Prioritise but don’t exclude: Although resources are limited, prioritisation should not mean neglecting those with low power or low interest. These groups still deserve to be kept informed and may become more important if circumstances change.
3. Understand relationships and attitudes:  Map not only power and interest but also stakeholders’ support or opposition, their relationships with others, and their capacity to mobilise networks.  Techniques from the salience model and other frameworks can identify which stakeholders may require more effort to foster trust.
4. Account for risk and receptiveness:  Assess each stakeholder’s capacity to influence outcomes and their receptiveness to your proposals .  Engage those with high influence but low support early and often, addressing concerns to secure buy‑in.
5. Review and update regularly: Attitudes and power dynamics change throughout a consultation’s lifecycle. Revisit your map at key milestones to ensure no group is overlooked.

Bringing it all together

Stakeholder mapping combines both art and science.  It involves methodical analysis – using grids and models to visualise aspects like power, interest, legitimacy, and urgency – along with empathy and local insights about affected people and communities.  Modern tools help practitioners prioritise efforts, include seldom‑heard voices, and respond flexibly to changing situations.  Nonetheless, the core principles stay the same: start early, identify the right stakeholders, listen to their concerns, and customise engagement approaches.  When done well, mapping not only sets projects up for success but also enhances the credibility of the consultation process.

If you’d like to explore stakeholder mapping further, tCI has developed thinking and practice on this important technique for many years and offers dedicated e‑learning. And if your consultation involves complex or contentious proposals, our team can help you design a dynamic and inclusive mapping process that withstands scrutiny.