influence-diagramming

Influence Diagramming

You perform autonomous influence analysis. You research influence dynamics yourself — do not ask the user for data they would need to look up. Only ask the user for decisions and confirmations.

This skill complements stakeholder-mapping (which identifies and classifies stakeholders) by analyzing the relationships and influence flows between them.

Phase 1 — Setup

Input handling

Follow shared foundation §7 — interview mode. When input is missing or insufficient, interview to gather at minimum:

Dimension	Required	Default
Project/initiative context	Yes	—
Stakeholder mapping output	No	Will identify stakeholders itself
Known relationships	No	Will be researched/inferred
Focus	No	All (change management, risk, communication, coalition)

Exit interview when: Project context is clear enough to identify stakeholders and research influence dynamics.

1. Collect input

Accept one of:

• A project or initiative description
• A file path to a stakeholder mapping report (imports stakeholders)
• Pasted stakeholder list or business case content
• No input or vague input → enter interview mode

2. Detect scope

From the input (or interview results), identify:

• Project/initiative: What is being planned or executed
• Stakeholder source: Imported from mapping or to be identified
• Known relationships: Any explicitly mentioned influence dynamics
• Focus areas: Change management, risk, communication, coalition building (default: all)

3. Confirm scope

Present the detected scope to the user for confirmation:

**Project**: [name]
**Stakeholder source**: [imported from mapping / will identify]
**Known relationships**: [listed or "will be researched"]
**Focus**: [areas]

Ask the user to confirm or adjust. Ask diagram render mode and output path per the diagram-rendering and autonomous-research mixins.

Phase 2 — Research

Use WebSearch and WebFetch per the autonomous-research mixin.

2a. Influence dynamics research

Research typical influence patterns for this type of project/industry:

• Common power structures and organizational politics
• Typical influence dynamics in similar initiatives
• Best practices for influence management in this domain
• Known challenges with stakeholder influence in similar contexts

2b. Domain-specific context

Research factors that shape influence relationships:

• Industry governance structures and decision-making patterns
• Regulatory influence channels
• Typical coalition formations in similar organizations/projects
• Change management influence research for this domain

Phase 3 — Stakeholder Import or Identification

If stakeholder mapping is provided

Import stakeholders with their attributes:

• Read the stakeholder mapping report
• Extract: ID, Name/Role, Organization, Category, Power, Interest, Attitude
• Present imported list for user confirmation
• Note any stakeholders that should be added or removed for influence analysis

If no stakeholder mapping

Identify 10-20 key stakeholders with basic attributes:

Field	Description
ID	S01, S02, etc.
Name/Role	Generic role or specific title
Organization	Department or external entity
Attitude	Supportive / Neutral / Resistant

Present stakeholder list for user confirmation before proceeding.

Target: 10-20 stakeholders. For small-scope projects, minimum 6 with explicit note.

Phase 4 — Influence Relationship Assessment

For each pair of stakeholders with a meaningful relationship, assess:

Field	Description	Values
From	Influencing stakeholder	Stakeholder ID
To	Influenced stakeholder	Stakeholder ID
Direction	Flow direction	Unidirectional (→) / Bidirectional (↔)
Strength	Influence intensity	1-5 (1=minimal, 2=weak, 3=moderate, 4=strong, 5=dominant)
Type	Influence mechanism	One or more of 7 types (see below)
Nature	Relationship quality	Supportive / Neutral / Adversarial
Basis	Why this influence exists	Brief explanation

Seven influence types

Type	Definition	Example
Formal authority	Decision-making power from position	CEO approves budgets
Resource control	Controls budget, staffing, equipment	CFO controls funding
Information access	Privileged access to critical data	Data analyst controls reporting
Expertise	Domain knowledge others depend on	Architect defines technical direction
Social capital	Trust, relationships, reputation	Senior developer mentors the team
Political leverage	Alliances, institutional memory	Long-tenured manager knows the history
Referent power	Charisma, role model status	Respected leader inspires followership

Rules

• Not every pair needs a relationship — only meaningful ones
• A single relationship can have multiple influence types
• Bidirectional relationships may have different strengths in each direction — record as two entries
• Indirect influence (A→C→B) is captured through the pathway analysis in Phase 8, not here

Influence relationship table

#	From	To	Direction	Strength	Type	Nature	Basis
1	S01	S02	→	4	Formal authority	Supportive	CEO sponsors the initiative
2	S03	S04	↔	3	Expertise, Social capital	Neutral	Peer architects collaborate

Phase 5 — Influence Matrix

Build an N×N matrix where:

• Rows = influencing stakeholder (outgoing influence)
• Columns = influenced stakeholder (incoming influence)
• Cell = influence strength (0 = no relationship, 1-5 = strength)

Matrix format

	S01	S02	S03	...	Out Total
S01	—	4	0	...	[sum]
S02	2	—	3	...	[sum]
S03	0	3	—	...	[sum]
In Total	[sum]	[sum]	[sum]	...

Matrix analysis

• Top influencers: Highest outgoing total — these stakeholders exert the most influence
• Most influenced: Highest incoming total — these stakeholders receive the most influence
• Influence ratio: Outgoing / Incoming — >1 = net influencer, <1 = net influenced
• Reciprocity: Count of bidirectional relationships — indicates collaborative vs hierarchical dynamics

Phase 6 — Network Analysis

Centrality metrics

Calculate for each stakeholder:

Degree centrality = (number of connections) / (N-1)

• High = many connections = hub

Betweenness centrality = fraction of shortest paths between all pairs that pass through this stakeholder

• High = controls information flow = gatekeeper
• Simplified calculation: for each stakeholder, count how many other pairs would lose their connection if this stakeholder were removed

Closeness centrality = (N-1) / (sum of shortest distances to all other stakeholders)

• High = can reach everyone quickly = connector
• Use path length = 1 for direct connections; for indirect, count minimum hops

Network roles

Role	Identification criteria	Significance
Hub	Degree centrality > 0.6	Central connector; failure disrupts many relationships
Gatekeeper	Betweenness centrality > 0.4	Controls information flow; bottleneck risk
Bridge	Connects two otherwise disconnected subgroups	Critical for cross-group communication
Broker	High betweenness + connections to multiple coalitions	Mediator between factions
Isolate	Degree centrality < 0.1	Excluded from influence network; risk of disengagement
Connector	High closeness centrality	Can reach all stakeholders efficiently

Thresholds are guidelines — adjust if the network is very small or very large.

Centrality analysis table

ID	Stakeholder	Degree	Betweenness	Closeness	Role(s)	Significance
S01	[name]	[0-1]	[0-1]	[0-1]	[role]	[why this matters]

Phase 7 — Coalition Detection

Identify clusters of stakeholders who form natural groupings.

Coalition identification criteria

A coalition exists when 3+ stakeholders share:

• Strong mutual influence relationships (strength ≥ 3 between members)
• Similar attitudes (all supportive, all resistant, or all neutral)
• Organizational or functional proximity

Coalition profile

For each coalition:

Field	Description
Name	Descriptive label (e.g., "Engineering Supporters", "Operations Resistance")
Members	Stakeholder IDs and roles
Stance	Supportive / Opposed / Neutral / Mixed
Combined influence	Sum of outgoing influence totals of members
Internal density	Average influence strength between members
Leader	Most influential member (highest outgoing within coalition)
Swing members	Members with cross-coalition ties who could shift allegiance
Vulnerabilities	What could weaken or split this coalition

Cross-coalition dynamics

From Coalition	To Coalition	Relationship	Key bridges	Risk
[name]	[name]	Supportive/Adversarial/None	[bridge stakeholders]	[what could go wrong]

Phase 8 — Influence Pathway Analysis

Map how influence flows through the network.

Critical pathways

Pathway	Route	Purpose	Strength	Bottleneck
Decision → Implementation	S01→S03→S07→S12	Budget approval to team execution	[weakest link strength]	[stakeholder where path is weakest]
Sponsor → Resistant group	S01→S05→S09	Change adoption influence	[weakest link]	[bottleneck]

Pathway types

• Decision pathways: How decisions flow from authority to execution
• Information pathways: How information propagates through the network
• Change adoption pathways: Optimal routes to influence resistant stakeholders
• Risk pathways: Fragile chains where a single failure breaks the flow

Bottleneck analysis

Bottleneck	Stakeholder	Why	Impact if removed	Mitigation
[type]	[ID + name]	[reason]	[what breaks]	[alternative path or engagement strategy]

Single points of failure

Identify stakeholders whose removal would disconnect parts of the network. For each:

• What groups would be disconnected
• What pathways would break
• What alternative routes exist (if any)
• Recommended mitigation

Phase 9 — Strategic Recommendations

Based on network analysis, provide actionable strategies. Every recommendation must reference specific network findings.

Recommendation categories

1. Key influencer strategy

• Who are the most influential stakeholders (highest outgoing influence + high degree centrality)?
• How should they be engaged to maximize positive influence?
• What happens if they are not engaged?

2. Gatekeeper management

• Who controls information flow (high betweenness)?
• How to ensure they pass information accurately and timely?
• What bypass routes exist if they become blockers?

3. Coalition strategy

• How to strengthen supportive coalitions?
• How to weaken or neutralize opposing coalitions?
• Which swing members could be moved?
• What alliances should be built?

4. Bridge activation

• Who bridges disconnected groups?
• How to empower bridges to facilitate cross-group communication?
• What new bridges need to be created?

5. Isolate engagement

• Who is isolated from the network?
• What is the risk of their isolation?
• How to connect them to relevant groups?

6. Risk mitigation

• What are the single points of failure?
• What redundant pathways should be created?
• What monitoring should be in place for network changes?

Recommendation table

#	Category	Recommendation	Based on	Priority	Stakeholders involved
1	[category]	[specific action]	[finding reference]	Critical/High/Medium/Low	[IDs]

Phase 10 — Diagrams

Diagram 1: Influence Network Diagram (flowchart)

flowchart LR
    classDef supportive fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#333,color:#fff
    classDef neutral fill:#9E9E9E,stroke:#333,color:#fff
    classDef resistant fill:#F44336,stroke:#333,color:#fff

    subgraph Coalition_A["Supportive Coalition"]
        S01["CEO\n(Hub)"]:::supportive
        S02["CTO\n(Bridge)"]:::supportive
    end

    subgraph Coalition_B["Resistant Group"]
        S05["Ops Director\n(Gatekeeper)"]:::resistant
        S06["Ops Manager"]:::resistant
    end

    S01 ==>|"5: Formal authority"| S02
    S02 -->|"3: Expertise"| S05
    S05 -.->|"2: Information"| S06

Edge styling by strength:

• ==> (thick) for strength 4-5
• --> (normal) for strength 2-3
• -.-> (dotted) for strength 1

Node styling by attitude:

• Green (supportive class) for supportive
• Grey (neutral class) for neutral
• Red (resistant class) for resistant

Label edges with strength and primary influence type.

Diagram 2: Influence Matrix Heat Map (flowchart)

Represent as a styled table using Mermaid flowchart with nodes arranged in a grid pattern, or fall back to a markdown table with emoji indicators if the matrix is too large for a clean Mermaid diagram.

Strength indicators:

• ⬛ = 5 (dominant)
• 🟫 = 4 (strong)
• 🟧 = 3 (moderate)
• 🟨 = 2 (weak)
• ⬜ = 1 (minimal)
• · = 0 (no relationship)

Diagram 3: Centrality Comparison Chart (xychart-beta)

xychart-beta
    title Centrality Analysis — Top 10 Stakeholders
    x-axis [S01, S02, S03, S04, S05, S06, S07, S08, S09, S10]
    y-axis "Centrality Score" 0 --> 1
    bar [0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.5, 0.4, 0.4, 0.3, 0.3, 0.2]
    bar [0.6, 0.3, 0.8, 0.2, 0.7, 0.1, 0.5, 0.4, 0.2, 0.1]
    bar [0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.6, 0.4, 0.5, 0.3, 0.3, 0.4, 0.3]

Three bars per stakeholder: degree, betweenness, closeness centrality.

Diagram 4: Coalition Map (flowchart)

flowchart TB
    subgraph CS["Supportive Coalition\n(Combined influence: 28)"]
        direction LR
        S01["S01: CEO ⭐"]
        S02["S02: CTO"]
        S03["S03: PM"]
    end

    subgraph CO["Opposed Coalition\n(Combined influence: 18)"]
        direction LR
        S05["S05: Ops Dir ⭐"]
        S06["S06: Ops Mgr"]
    end

    subgraph CN["Neutral Group\n(Combined influence: 12)"]
        direction LR
        S08["S08: HR Dir"]
        S09["S09: Finance"]
    end

    CS -->|"Bridge: S02↔S05"| CO
    CS -->|"Bridge: S03↔S08"| CN
    S09 -.->|"Swing member"| CO

Show coalitions as subgraphs with stance label and combined influence. Mark leaders with ⭐. Show cross-coalition bridges and swing members.

File naming (image mode)

• influence-network.mmd / .png
• influence-matrix.mmd / .png
• centrality-chart.mmd / .png
• coalition-map.mmd / .png

Render diagrams per the diagram-rendering mixin.

Phase 11 — Report Assembly and Approval

Assemble the complete report:

# Influence Diagramming: [Project/Initiative]

**Date**: [date]
**Project**: [name]
**Stakeholders analyzed**: [count]
**Relationships mapped**: [count]
**Coalitions identified**: [count]

## Executive Summary
[Key findings: most influential stakeholders, critical gatekeepers, coalition dynamics, primary risks, top recommendations]

## Stakeholder Overview
[Table: ID, Name/Role, Organization, Attitude — imported or identified]

## Influence Relationships
[Phase 4 relationship table]

## Influence Network Diagram
[Phase 10 diagram 1]

## Influence Matrix
[Phase 5 matrix with totals + Phase 10 diagram 2 heat map]

## Centrality Analysis
[Phase 6 table + Phase 10 diagram 3 chart]

## Coalition Analysis
[Phase 7 coalition profiles + cross-coalition dynamics + Phase 10 diagram 4]

## Influence Pathways
[Phase 8 critical paths, bottlenecks, single points of failure]

## Strategic Recommendations
[Phase 9 recommendation table with all 6 categories]

## Sources
[Numbered list of all web sources consulted]

## Assumptions & Limitations
[Explicit list of assumptions made and data gaps]

Present for user approval. Save only after explicit confirmation.

Generation rules

Per the autonomous-research mixin, plus:

• Assessments: Must be justified — never assign influence strength without rationale
• Specificity: "CTO controls architecture decisions and has veto power over technology choices" not "has high influence"
• Centrality: Calculate from actual relationship data — never fabricate scores
• Language: Respond and generate in the user's language unless specified otherwise

Failure behavior

Situation	Behavior
No project context	Enter interview mode — ask what project or initiative to analyze
Context too vague	Enter interview mode — ask targeted questions
Too few stakeholders (< 6)	Report limitation, produce simplified output without full network metrics
Stakeholder mapping output malformed	Ask user to verify, attempt partial import
No meaningful relationships identifiable	Report limitation, use role-based inference with [Assumption] labels
Network too sparse for centrality	Calculate available metrics, note limitations
mmdc / web search failures	See diagram-rendering and autonomous-research mixins
Out-of-scope request	"This skill analyzes influence relationships between stakeholders. [Request] is outside scope."

Self-check

Before presenting output, verify:

[] 10-20 stakeholders with influence relationships mapped (6+ for small scope)
[] Influence relationships assessed with direction, strength, type, nature, basis
[] Influence matrix complete with row/column totals
[] Top influencers and most influenced identified from matrix
[] Centrality metrics calculated for all stakeholders (degree, betweenness, closeness)
[] Network roles assigned (hub, gatekeeper, bridge, broker, isolate, connector)
[] Coalitions detected with stance, strength, leader, vulnerabilities
[] Cross-coalition dynamics mapped
[] Influence pathways identified with bottlenecks and single points of failure
[] Strategic recommendations cover all 6 categories
[] Every recommendation traces to a specific network finding
[] All 4 Mermaid diagrams render valid syntax
[] Sources listed for all major claims
[] Assumptions explicitly labeled
[] No fabricated relationships, politics, or centrality scores