A Survey of Stakeholder Visualization Approaches

Martin Cenek, Ondřej Částek

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to present an overview of studies for the representation/visualization of stakeholders with a proposal of our own method of visualization. The following text examines the existing representational methods and at the same time critically evaluates their advantages and disadvantages. In addition, our own proposed approach is also presented.

The need to develop visualization methods for use in the concept of stakeholders has been accepted by researchers, and it is possible to encounter number of various alternatives which have been applied more or less successfully. The shared weakness of the majority of the models is that they only represent two main attributes simultaneously. When such models do contain three variables, then the third one is only a complementary aspect of the relationship compared to the two dominant attributes.

Our proposed visualisation model based on three Mitchell´s (1997) stakeholder attributes should overcome the before mentioned disadvantage. Also, it takes into account the development over time in accordance with the dynamic of the relationships with the stakeholders. Therefore, the proposed three-dimensional model meets these needs and simultaneously removes the shortcomings of the other models, which are identified in our overview presented in this paper.

Keywords

Stakeholders, model, mapping, representation, visualization, Mitchell´s attributes.

Full Text:

References

Show references Hide references

[1] BOURNE, L., WALKER, D. H. T. Visualizing Stakeholder Influence – Two Australian Examples. In Project Management Journal.1/37/2006. p. 5 – 21.

[2] GOMES, Ricardo C., LIDDLE, Joyce, GOMES, Luciana, O., M. A Five-Sided Model Of Stakeholder Influence. In: Public Management Review. Vol. 12, Iss. 5, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719031003633979 Available at: ˂http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14719031003633979˃.

[3] CHAMBERLAIN, C., STUTESMAN, Y. Stakeholder Management and Virtual Teams. PMI Honolulu 2006. [on-line] Available 5. 5. 2009 at WWW www.pmi-honoluluchapter.org/PROGRAMS/Stakeholder Management %20062106.ppt.

[4] jawahar, I. M., McLaughlin, g. l. Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. California Management Review, 6/2001, p. 397 – 414. ISSN 0363-7425.

[5] JOHNSON, G., SCHOLES, K., WHITTINGTON, R. Exploring corporate strategy. Text and Cases. London: Prentice Hall Europe, 1999. p. 468. ISBN 978-0-273-71192-6.

[6] KAPLAN, A. M. and HAENLEIN, M. 2010. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. In: Business Horizon, 53(1): 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003 [CrossRef]

[7] KIM, J.-N. and GRUNIG, J. E. 2011. Problem solving and communicative action: a situational theory of problem solving. In: Journal of Communication, 61(1): 120–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01529.x [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

[8] MITCHELL, R. K., AGLE, B. R., WOOD, D. J. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, October 1997, vol. 22, no. 4, p. 853-886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105

[9] Murray-Webster, R., Simon, P. Make sense of stakeholder management with sensible stakeholder mapping. [on-line] Available 1. 4. 2009 atWWW: http://www.lucidusconsulting.com/articles/Lucid%20Thoughts%2024.pdf.

[10] NEWCOMBE, Robert. From client to project stakeholders: a stakeholder mapping approach. In: Construction Management and Economics. 2010, 21:8, 841-848, https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619032000072137.

[11] POST, J. E., PRESTON, L. E., SACHS, S. Redefining the corporation: stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford: Stanford Business Books, 2002. 334 p. ISBN 0804743045.

[12] SEDEREVICIUTE, Kristina, VALENTINI, Chiara. Towards a More Holistic Stakeholder Analysis Approach. Mapping Known and Undiscovered Stakeholders from Social Media. In: International Journal of Strategic Communication. Vol. 5, Iss. 4, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2011.592170 Available at: ˂http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1553118X.2011.592170˃.

[13] SHELLEY, A. 2007. The Organizational Zoo: A Survival Guide to Workplace Behavior, Fairfield, CT: Aslan Publishing.

[14] STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT.: Stakeholder Circle – Manage the Right Stakeholders. [online]. 2016 [cit. 2016-01-23]. Available at: ˂http://www.stakeholder-management.com/default.asp˃.

[15] SUSNIENÉ, Dalia, PURVINIS, Ojaras. Empirical Insights on Understanding Stakeholder Influence. In: Journal of Business Economics and Management. Vol. 16, Iss. 4, 2015. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2013.785974 Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/16111699.2013.785974.

[16] WALKER, Derek H. T., BOURNE, Lynda M., SHELLEY, Arthur. Influence, stakeholdermapping and visualization. In: Construction Management and Economics pages. Volume 26, Issue 6, 2008, Special Issue: Stakeholder Management In Construction. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190701882390. Page: 645 - 658. Available at: ˂http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01446190701882390˃.

[17] WALKER, Derek H. T., BOURNE, L. and ROWLINSON, S. 2008. Stakeholders and the supply chain. In Procurement Systems: A Cross Industry Project Management Perspective, Edited by: Walker, D. H. T and Rowlinson, pp. 70–100. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor& Francis., p. 76.

https://doi.org/10.5817/CEJM2015-1-2-1


Copyright (c) 2016 Martin Cenek, Ondřej Částek

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.