stakeholder-mapping

Stakeholder Mapping

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

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	—
Industry/sector	No	Inferred from context
Known stakeholders	No	Will be researched
Frameworks to apply	No	All four
Focus areas (governance, delivery, external relations)	No	All covered

Exit interview when: Project context is clear enough to research stakeholders.

1. Collect input

Accept one of:

• A project or initiative description
• A file path to a business case document
• Pasted 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
• Organization context: Industry, size, structure
• Known stakeholders: Any explicitly mentioned
• Frameworks: Which to apply (default: all four)
• Strategic context: Why the mapping is needed

3. Confirm scope

Present the detected scope to the user for confirmation:

**Project**: [name]
**Organization**: [context]
**Known stakeholders**: [listed or "will be researched"]
**Frameworks**: [Power/Interest Grid, Salience Model, Engagement Assessment, Onion Diagram]

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. Industry stakeholder patterns

Research typical stakeholder categories for this type of project/industry:

• Internal stakeholder roles and their typical interests
• External stakeholder categories relevant to the domain
• Regulatory and compliance stakeholders specific to the industry
• Common stakeholder dynamics and coalition patterns

2b. Domain-specific context

Research factors that affect stakeholder relationships:

• Industry regulations and governance requirements
• Typical organizational structures in this domain
• Known best practices for stakeholder engagement in similar initiatives
• Common failure patterns related to stakeholder management

Phase 3 — Stakeholder Identification

Identify 15-30 stakeholders across all categories.

Categories

Type	Examples
Internal — Upward	C-suite, board members, sponsors, steering committee
Internal — Sideways	Department heads, peer project managers, cross-functional teams
Internal — Downward	Team members, affected employees, support staff
External — Primary	Customers, end-users, partners, suppliers
External — Secondary	Regulators, industry bodies, media, community, competitors
External — Tertiary	Investors, analysts, advocacy groups

Stakeholder identification table

For each stakeholder produce:

Field	Description
ID	S01, S02, etc.
Name/Role	Generic role or specific title
Organization	Department or external entity
Category	Internal/External + Directional
Primary/Secondary	Directly or indirectly affected
Description	Brief role description and relationship to initiative

Target: 15-30 stakeholders. For small-scope projects, 8-12 is acceptable with explicit note.

Phase 4 — Attribute Assessment

Assess each stakeholder on 6 dimensions using a 1-5 scale:

Dimension	1 (Low)	3 (Medium)	5 (High)
Power	No decision authority	Influences decisions	Can approve/block
Interest	Unaware or indifferent	Moderately concerned	Deeply invested
Influence	Cannot affect implementation	Indirect influence	Direct influence on outcomes
Impact	Project barely affects them	Moderate effect on their work	Fundamentally changes their work
Legitimacy	No recognized claim	Informally recognized	Legally/contractually mandated
Urgency	No time pressure	Moderate timeline	Immediate action needed

Assessment table

ID	Stakeholder	Power	Interest	Influence	Impact	Legitimacy	Urgency	Composite
S01	[name]	[1-5]	[1-5]	[1-5]	[1-5]	[1-5]	[1-5]	[avg]

Composite = average of all 6 dimensions. Used for ranking, not as sole prioritization metric.

Assessment evidence

For each stakeholder scoring 4-5 on any dimension, provide brief justification citing research or project context.

Phase 5 — Power/Interest Grid (Mendelow)

Plot all stakeholders on a 2×2 matrix using Power (Y-axis) and Interest (X-axis).

Quadrant strategies

Quadrant	Power	Interest	Strategy	Tactics
Manage Closely	High (4-5)	High (4-5)	Collaborate; involve in key decisions	Frequent 1:1 meetings, steering committee seats, early consultation, personalized updates
Keep Satisfied	High (4-5)	Low (1-3)	Satisfy without overwhelming	Periodic executive summaries, strategic briefings, concise relevant info only
Keep Informed	Low (1-3)	High (4-5)	Inform and leverage as advocates	Regular newsletters, open forums, feedback channels, demos/reviews
Monitor	Low (1-3)	Low (1-3)	Light-touch monitoring	General announcements, routine communications, watch for position changes

Power/Interest Grid diagram

Generate a Mermaid quadrantChart:

quadrantChart
    title Power/Interest Grid — [Project]
    x-axis Low Interest --> High Interest
    y-axis Low Power --> High Power
    quadrant-1 Manage Closely
    quadrant-2 Keep Satisfied
    quadrant-3 Monitor
    quadrant-4 Keep Informed
    [Stakeholder 1]: [x, y]
    [Stakeholder 2]: [x, y]

Plot all stakeholders. Position reflects actual Power and Interest scores (normalized 0-1).

Quadrant summary table

Quadrant	Stakeholders	Strategy
Manage Closely	[list]	[tactics summary]
Keep Satisfied	[list]	[tactics summary]
Keep Informed	[list]	[tactics summary]
Monitor	[list]	[tactics summary]

Phase 6 — Salience Model (Mitchell/Agle/Wood)

Classify each stakeholder using three attributes: Power, Legitimacy, Urgency.

Threshold

A stakeholder "has" an attribute when they score 4-5 on that dimension. Score 1-3 = does not have it.

Seven stakeholder types

Type	Attributes	Salience	Strategy
Definitive	Power + Legitimacy + Urgency	Highest	Immediate, proactive engagement; highest communication frequency
Dominant	Power + Legitimacy	Moderate	Active relationship management; regular formal communications
Dangerous	Power + Urgency	Moderate	Threat mitigation; risk management integration
Dependent	Legitimacy + Urgency	Moderate	Advocacy support; connect with powerful allies
Dormant	Power only	Low	Monitor; prepare contingency plans
Discretionary	Legitimacy only	Low	Goodwill maintenance; CSR alignment
Demanding	Urgency only	Low	Acknowledge concerns; manage expectations

Salience classification table

ID	Stakeholder	Power (4+?)	Legitimacy (4+?)	Urgency (4+?)	Type	Salience
S01	[name]	Yes/No	Yes/No	Yes/No	[type]	[highest/moderate/low]

Salience Venn Diagram

Generate a Mermaid flowchart representing a 3-circle Venn diagram:

flowchart TB
    subgraph P["Power"]
        DORMANT["Dormant\n(Power only)\n---\nS03, S07"]
    end
    subgraph L["Legitimacy"]
        DISCRET["Discretionary\n(Legitimacy only)\n---\nS12, S15"]
    end
    subgraph U["Urgency"]
        DEMAND["Demanding\n(Urgency only)\n---\nS18"]
    end
    subgraph PL["Power + Legitimacy"]
        DOMINANT["Dominant\n---\nS02, S05"]
    end
    subgraph PU["Power + Urgency"]
        DANGER["Dangerous\n---\nS09"]
    end
    subgraph LU["Legitimacy + Urgency"]
        DEPEND["Dependent\n---\nS11, S14"]
    end
    subgraph PLU["All Three"]
        DEFINIT["Definitive\n---\nS01, S04"]
    end

Adapt node content to show actual stakeholder IDs in each type.

Phase 7 — Engagement Assessment

Current vs Desired engagement

Assess each stakeholder's engagement level:

Level	Description
Unaware	No knowledge of the initiative
Resistant	Aware but actively opposing
Neutral	Aware but uncommitted
Supportive	Willing to help when asked
Leading	Actively championing

Attitude classification

Also classify disposition:

Attitude	Description
Champion	Active advocate
Supporter	Supports the initiative
Neutral	No views for or against
Critic	Skeptical but not actively opposing
Opponent	Aims to disrupt
Blocker	Tries to sabotage

Engagement assessment table

ID	Stakeholder	Current	Desired	Gap	Attitude	Actions to close gap
S01	[name]	[level]	[level]	[Yes/No]	[attitude]	[specific actions]

Gap closure strategies

For each stakeholder with a gap:

• Resistant → Supportive: Address concerns, demonstrate benefits, involve in solution design
• Neutral → Supportive: Educate on benefits, create quick wins, provide regular updates
• Supportive → Leading: Empower as champion, give visible role, provide resources to advocate
• Unaware → Neutral/Supportive: Inform through preferred channel, personalize relevance

Engagement Gap Chart

Generate a Mermaid xychart-beta showing current vs desired for stakeholders with gaps:

xychart-beta
    title Engagement Gap Analysis
    x-axis [S01, S02, S03, S05, S08]
    y-axis "Engagement Level" 0 --> 5
    bar [1, 2, 3, 2, 1]
    bar [4, 4, 5, 4, 3]

Map levels to numbers: Unaware=1, Resistant=2, Neutral=3, Supportive=4, Leading=5. First bar = current, second = desired.

Phase 8 — Communication Plan

For the top 15 stakeholders (by composite score), define:

ID	Stakeholder	Method	Frequency	Key Messages	Relationship Owner	Escalation Trigger
S01	[name]	[meeting/email/report/dashboard]	[daily/weekly/bi-weekly/monthly/quarterly]	[tailored messages]	[role]	[what triggers escalation]

Communication method guidelines

Quadrant	Primary method	Frequency
Manage Closely	1:1 meetings, steering committee	Weekly or bi-weekly
Keep Satisfied	Executive summary, strategic briefing	Monthly or quarterly
Keep Informed	Newsletter, open forum, demo	Bi-weekly or monthly
Monitor	General announcement	Quarterly or ad-hoc

Key messages

Tailor messages to each stakeholder's interests and concerns. Each message should address:

• How the initiative affects them specifically
• What they need to do (if anything)
• Where they can get more information or provide input

Phase 9 — Stakeholder Register

Compile the complete register combining all previous analyses:

ID	Name/Role	Organization	Category	Power	Interest	Influence	Impact	Legitimacy	Urgency	Composite	Quadrant	Salience Type	Current Engagement	Desired Engagement	Gap	Attitude	Strategy	Comm Method	Comm Frequency	Relationship Owner

This is the master reference document. All fields sourced from Phases 3-8.

Phase 10 — Diagrams

Stakeholder Onion Diagram

Generate a Mermaid flowchart representing concentric rings of proximity:

flowchart TB
    subgraph OUTER["Outer Ring — External Secondary"]
        S18["Media"]
        S19["Community"]
        S20["Competitors"]
    end
    subgraph MIDDLE["Middle Ring — External Primary"]
        S10["Customers"]
        S11["Partners"]
        S12["Regulators"]
    end
    subgraph INNER["Inner Ring — Internal Sideways"]
        S05["Dept Heads"]
        S06["Peer PMs"]
    end
    subgraph CORE["Core — Internal Upward/Downward"]
        S01["Sponsor"]
        S02["Project Lead"]
        S03["Team"]
    end

Place actual stakeholders in their proximity layer based on directional classification and daily involvement.

All diagrams summary

#	Diagram	Type	Content
1	Power/Interest Grid	quadrantChart	All stakeholders by power vs interest
2	Salience Venn Diagram	flowchart	7-region classification with stakeholder IDs
3	Stakeholder Onion	flowchart	Concentric rings by proximity
4	Engagement Gap Chart	xychart-beta	Current vs desired engagement levels

Render diagrams per the diagram-rendering mixin.

File naming:

• power-interest-grid.mmd / .png
• salience-venn.mmd / .png
• stakeholder-onion.mmd / .png
• engagement-gap.mmd / .png

Phase 11 — Report Assembly and Approval

Assemble the complete report:

# Stakeholder Mapping: [Project/Initiative]

**Date**: [date]
**Project**: [name]
**Stakeholders identified**: [count]
**Frameworks applied**: [list]

## Executive Summary
[Key findings: most critical stakeholders, biggest engagement gaps, primary risks]

## Stakeholder Identification
[Phase 3 table]

## Attribute Assessment
[Phase 4 table with evidence for high-scoring dimensions]

## Power/Interest Grid
[Phase 5 diagram + quadrant summary]

## Salience Analysis
[Phase 6 Venn diagram + classification table]

## Engagement Assessment
[Phase 7 matrix + gap chart + closure strategies]

## Communication Plan
[Phase 8 table with method, frequency, messages]

## Stakeholder Register
[Phase 9 complete register]

## Stakeholder Onion Diagram
[Phase 10 proximity diagram]

## Risk Factors
[Stakeholder-related risks: opposition, coalition risks, engagement gaps, dormant stakeholders]

## Recommendations
[Prioritized actions for stakeholder management, each traced to specific findings]

## 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 with evidence — never score a dimension without supporting rationale
• Specificity: "CFO controls budget approval and has blocked 2 similar initiatives" not "has high power"
• 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 map stakeholders for
Context too vague	Enter interview mode — ask targeted questions to narrow scope
Too few stakeholders identifiable	Report limitation, work with available (minimum 8), note gaps
Framework not applicable	Skip framework, explain why
Cannot research industry context	Produce output based on generic stakeholder patterns, label confidence as low
mmdc / web search failures	See diagram-rendering and autonomous-research mixins
User provides conflicting scope	Present conflict, ask user to resolve
Out-of-scope request	"This skill maps and analyzes stakeholders. [Request] is outside scope."

Self-check

Before presenting output, verify:

[] 15-30 stakeholders identified across internal/external categories (8-12 for small scope)
[] All stakeholders assessed on 6 dimensions (1-5 scale)
[] High-scoring dimensions (4-5) have evidence justification
[] Power/Interest grid complete with all 4 quadrants populated
[] Salience model classification for each stakeholder
[] Engagement assessment with current vs desired for each
[] Gap closure actions for every stakeholder with a gap
[] Communication plan for top 15 stakeholders
[] Complete stakeholder register with all fields
[] Risk factors identified and traced to specific stakeholders
[] Recommendations traced to specific findings
[] All 4 Mermaid diagrams render valid syntax
[] Sources listed for all major claims
[] Assumptions explicitly labeled