Stakeholder Engagement For Development Projects: An Essay.

Discuss about the Stakeholder Engagement For Development Projects

Discussion of Summary of D&R Log

Stakeholders play a very important role in the community development projects. The bodies and planners of the projects in order to ensure success of the projects. Vargas-Hernandez, and Gonzalez (2018) bring forth a very significant that would provide a powerbase to the entire discussion. They have compared the importance of the stakeholders to the shareholders. A shallow view of the matter would make it appear that the shareholders or the investors of projects are the more important than the stakeholders. However, a deeper insight would point out that stakeholders consists of all groups which are impacted and in return can impact business organizations. The stakeholders like the government, suppliers and customers play extremely important role to ensure success of projects. For example, the government forms the laws which place obligations on the projects attracting investments from shareholders to give positive returns on investments to the latter. Thus, in order to obtain positive ROI, shareholders need support of other groups of stakeholders. Rodriguez et al.(2015) add to this discussion my mentioning that client attribute projects with success and revenue, thus, indirectly ensuring high returns to shareholders. In fact, it can be mentioned that shareholders form a part of the stakeholders. The aim of the study is to uncover this importance of stakeholders through a simulated project which takes place in a town called Getfitville. The council of the town has uncovered that the fact that a vacant part of the township has been converted into a parking lot which has promoted private transport at the expense of public transport. The outcome of this conversion is damage to the health of the local community due to the exhaust released from vehicles. The local government council decides to launch a project of bicycle path and pedestrians. A survey to realize the pattern of public transport of the town revealed that while 40 percent of the residents of the town are dependent on public transport, 70 percent residents supported the concept of the bicycle track. This story would form a part of the stakeholder engagement plan in Getfitville, the crux of the paper.

The following section would explain the discussions and lectures which were delivered each week:

The discussion started with a preliminary discussion of the term stakeholder and their role. The discussion clearly mentions that stakeholders are the individuals and groups who/which are affected by projects. Alex was able to develop the clearest idea of the term whereas Billy only considered the term to bicyclists. Thus, it can inferred that among the students Alex was more aligned to the discussion while Billy needed to strengthen his concepts. An analysis and an in depth discussion of the case study would reveal involvement of several stakeholders in the bicycle track, thus necessitating formation of a bicycle track. Dahan, Doh and Raelin (2015) mention that government bodies at central, state and local levels play a very significant role in projects. This is because they form laws and policies which project management companies are supposed to comply with. The government bodies imposes taxes which they use finance developmental projects. This role of the government comes to the forefront while analyzing the case. The City council or the urban local government plans to initiate a bicycle track to encourage use of bicycle as a means of intra-city transport. The local government is expecting financial assistance from the higher stratum of government. Thus, the government bodies here play two important roles, project planner and project facilitator. Dwivedi, Jagadish and Schelhas (2015) completes this discussion of the role of the government by mentioning since the government bodies at all the three level work at the basic level by providing financing and pervades the projects both before and after completion, thus, engaging in the projects as the key stakeholders.

Week 1:

The second week discussion started with aspect of decision making functions of the stakeholders.  The projects like the bicycle network discussed in the provided case study require extensive financing and thus are subject to the financing bodies. The second item of the second week was building trust between stakeholder groups. The stakeholders groups in an environment of trust and consensus would also exchange their concerns. The discussion also points out that it is not feasible for all the stakeholder groups to arrive at a consensus while taking decisions. However, trust between them can pave way for arriving at a rational decision which can in fact enable evading conflicts among stakeholders to a great extent. The third item was about stakeholder communication. The fourth item shed light on the need to consider that project scenarios might change and stakeholders need to take decision to tackle the changes in the favour of the project. Dwivedi, Jagadish and Schelhas (2015) point out that shareholders invest in the projects and thus, the project owners become obliged to protect their interests. Considering the mentioned case study it can be pointed out that government at the superior level is the financer and while the local government is the driver of the project. Here, it can be pointed out that the term shareholders is not appropriate unlike in most cases because shareholders apply more business projects. It can be pointed out, here the project revolves around building of a cycle track to control pollution caused by private transport. Alex was able to conceive the idea accurately about securing funding for the project in question. The analysis of the case study of Getfitville brings into the picture next important stakeholders of projects, the primary stakeholders or the clients. Saeidi et al.(2015) point out that the customers or clients are the groups towards which projects are aimed. The importance of consumers lie in the fact that they attribute revenue to the companies. However, considering the case in question, it can be pointed out that the project is not commercial by nature and hence revenue generation role of consumers is not applicable. The consumers or the key stakeholders in this case would be local residents of the town who would be using the cycle and public transport (Kates, 2018). The case presents a unique situation which can be considered analogous to the concept of conflict between the stakeholders and shareholders, the conflict between residents supporting the project of converting the parking into open ways and the ones using private transport, hence benefactors of the parking plot.

The third week lessons began with the idea of the stakeholder engagement officer assuming that all the stakeholders were available for discussion. The first item consists of mentoring the SEO and the best approach was taken by Alex. He showed greater ability of taking decision pointing out that the projects with ability to benefit larger groups of shareholders are consequently able to obtain greater stakeholder support. The second item of learning for the week indicated the different stakeholders to projects in the light of the case study in question. The stakeholder groups consisted of community groups, bicycle groups, project team, the government bodies of Getfi8tville and design consultants. Alex excelled in mastering the concepts in this item as well. The third item deals with building terms of reference and reporting structure in order to coordinate between the different stakeholder groups. Here the lecturer pointed out the crucial concept of DNA reporting which means that the stakeholder reporting structure should be made in a way to ensure that the stakeholder interested to be achieved at each stage should be outlined. The scenario change in the third week consisted of presenting a challenge before Getfitville City Council. The challenge was a failed similar bicycle network in a neighbouring town. The situation presented the challenge before the council to make decisions more judiciously so as to meet with success. The effect of this challenge laid foundation for the fourth item. Dwivedi, Jagadish and Schelhas (2015) point out that shareholders invest in the projects and thus, the project owners become obliged to protect their interests. Considering the mentioned case study it can be pointed out that government at the superior level is the financer and while the local government is the driver of the project. Here, it can be pointed out that the term shareholders is not appropriate unlike in most cases because shareholders apply more business projects. It can be pointed out, here the project revolves around building of a cycle track to control pollution caused by private transport.

Week 2:

The first item of discussion of the week was more practical and application based compared to the previous lesson. It consisted of role play followed by the second item which consisted of forming an agenda for stakeholder meeting. The third and fourth items consisted of holding the meeting and identifying the outcomes of the meeting. The scenario change in the fourth week consisted of reluctance of the council to change the construction plan. The fifth item consisted of making decisions to deal with the situation. Alex was able to conceive the idea accurately about securing funding for the project in question. The analysis of the case study of Getfitville brings into the picture next important stakeholders of projects, the primary stakeholders or the clients. Saeidi et al.(2015) point out that the customers or clients are the groups towards which projects are aimed. The importance of consumers lie in the fact that they attribute revenue to the companies. However, considering the case in question, it can be pointed out that the project is not commercial by nature and hence revenue generation role of consumers is not applicable. The consumers or the key stakeholders in this case would be local residents of the town who would be using the cycle and public transport (Kates, 2018). The case presents a unique situation which can be considered analogous to the concept of conflict between the stakeholders and shareholders, the conflict between residents supporting the project of converting the parking into open ways and the ones using private transport, hence benefactors of the parking plot.

The next category of stakeholders exemplified is that of the competitors. Doran and Ryan (2016) point out that competitors are important stakeholders since they are able to impact companies and their consumers by forming strategies. As far as the case study is concerned, it mentions that the local government is planning to convert the parking lot into an open space which would be used for public transport and pedestrian crossing. The parking lot would provide the support for development of cycling transport which the government is also planning to strengthen. However, it can also mentioned that the parking serves as the parking area for the people owning private transport. The private car owners would be losing the parking lot with the commencement of the project. Van Alstyne, Parker and Choudary (2016) point out that conflict between consumers of projects require use of effective strategy making to protect the interests of both the consumer groups. Here, the private car owners are liable to conflict against the stakeholder groups supporting the project which include the government bodies as well as the public transport users of the project. The case study remains inconclusive about the outcome of this conflict. However, it can inferred from the discussion that the government should intervene and incorporate changes so as to protect the interests of both the stakeholder groups (Parveen, Jaafar and Ainin 2015).

The next stakeholder group without whose support the community development projects cannot succeed is the community. Osei-Kyei and Chan (2015) opine that community support is one of the most important success factors community development projects. The case study mentions that the aim of the project is to bring about improvement in the health conditions of the communities living in and around the town by reducing usage of private transport. Thus, here it can pointed out that the community is the final target group of the project which the government wants to benefit by reducing pollution. Going by the opinion of Saeidi et al. (2015), it can be established that to some extent the town community can also be juxtaposed with the term consumers, primary stakeholders. The project in Getfitville would bring about reduction of pollution and boost the wellbeing of the resident community. Thus, going by the usage of the term, the opinion of the previous author can also prevail. The community in this respect can also be termed as consumer by the virtue of being the ultimate benefactor of the project.

Week 3:

The first item discussed discussed the short comings and defects of the approach taken the project in question followed by proposition of an internal team alignment workshop. The scenario change or rather challenge was presented by the mayor who was not ‘too sure’ about the project. The fourth item required the planners (students) to make decisions to tackle this situation. An analysis of the case study would also bring to light the flaws or shortcomings in the light of stakeholder engagement process. Bauwens, Gotchev and Holstenkamp (2016) point out that community development programs involve participation of suppliers of resources as well the bodies which remain involved mobilization of the resources. The media plays an important in creating awareness about the projects in the community and thus enabling the project owners (government bodies and large MNCs) win community support (Ika and Donnelly 2017). As far as the case study is concerned, it does not mention the suppliers and the resource mobilizing bodies and makes in indirect reference to media. Clarke (2018) point out that community development projects even before involvement suppliers. The media creates awareness about the need to embrace the changes which come with the community development projects. The inclusion of government and the bicyclists in the stakeholder list was good but exclusion of the suppliers was bad. As far as the case study is concerned, it mentions that parking area would be converted into an open space to which would be used for public transport and cycle transport. This conversion of parking lot into public transport way can be viewed as a change which is outcome of the community development project. The private car owners would try to oppose the change. Matthews (2016) strengthens this opinion by pointing out that media due to its access to the communities can create awareness about the importance of community development projects. Here media instead of acting as marketing agent, acts as change driving agent. The case study mentions about the intention of the city council of promoting the bicycle network, thus indirect referring to the involvement of media. However, does not elaborate on the exact engagement process of the media. It can also be pointed out that the construction of the bicycle network attract participation of civil contractors to construct the bicycle ways. However, the case study remains silent about the role of the suppliers. The stakeholder engagement plan would have to done differently by taking into account other stakeholders like suppliers not included in the previous plan.

The discussion of two students would be analysed namely Alex and Billy. Alex according to the discussions and rationale of the first week, had the most accurate concept of the term stakeholder. Billy, as pointed by the professor considered only the bicyclists as the stakeholders and left out the other stakeholders like the pedestrians.

The point of discussion of the second week was involvement of stakeholders and stakeholder communication. The week’s lesson stressed on the importance of gaining stakeholders’ support in projects. Alex, in retaining his position exhibited deep understanding of the lesion.

The discussion of the third week started with the concept of mentoring of stakeholder engagement officer or SEO. Alex, by the virtue of his clearer understanding of the concept was able to propose the most acceptable stakeholder endearment and SEO training method. His proposition was accepted. The second item of discussion of the week was making of project reference group which would incorporate the appropriate stakeholders. Engagement of all the stakeholders is not feasible in reality in all decision making activities and unnecessarily prolonged stakeholder discussion process impedes fast decision making (Hoefer and Green Jr 2016).  Here, again Alex makes the most appropriate project reference group. Alex did not find mention after the week’s discussion and did Billy. It can be pointed out very clearly that in the first three weeks, Alex found more mention and his learning was more detailed. The weeks’ study remain practically silent about the learnt of Billy and thus, analysis regarding the actual learning derived by the two students remains inconclusive. The lessons after this do not mention names of any student in particular. The approach of Billy (full name not mentioned) was narrower compared to Alex (full name not mentioned). Billy’s approach was limited and while Alex’s approach was more developed and strategic. However, it can be recommended that both the students should attend more workshops to develop their SEP skills. It has been learned that stakeholder engagement is imperative to successful execution of projects.

The stakeholder engagement process would take into account only four stakeholders mentioned at length in the given case study. They are the local government, the state government, the community and the bicyclists. The SEP shows that the government, at all the three levels are key stakeholders. The government play three main roles, first that of law maker, approver is licenses and permits and financers of community development projects. The government bodies in return are interested in receiving higher taxes and infrastructure development. The governments’ roles are crucial for any project and lack of government support is capable of slowing down community development. Hence, it is important to maintain continuous communication with the government. The next stakeholder group, the customers are the primary stakeholders and in the given case study, the community is the customer. The community expects high quality facilities from the government and is effected by lack of facilities. The project management bodies just like the government should establish a continuous flow of communication with community members. The bicyclists are the third group of stakeholders who are primary stakeholders. The interest of this group of stakeholders lie in congestion free bicycle track. While the government cooperation is required in all project stages, the support of community is required at the initial stage. The support of the bicyclists are required after the completion of the project.

Conclusion and learning:

It can be learnt out that stakeholder engagement is very important to attain success of projects. The case study clearly mentions that community development projects call for involvement of several groups like the government and communities. The government plays several roles, especially in community development projects. The government make laws, plans community development projects and even finances the community development. The government also spreads awareness to bring about community development plan using media, another important stakeholder. It can also be learnt that the projects also include other stakeholders like the community which corresponds to customers in this case. The suppliers and the mobilisers of resources also play significant role. It can be learnt that effective management of stakeholders keep conflict between the two groups away and aid in smooth decision making. The government and the other stakeholders should take steps to enforce greater cooperation among suppliers. As far as the weekly suggestion and the case study are concerned, they are inconclusive. The case study remains silent about the other stakeholders like suppliers while the weekly discussion to Alex’s learning. These lack of proper information has been an issue in conducting the study.

References:

Agnihotri, R., Gabler, C.B., Itani, O.S., Jaramillo, F. and Krush, M.T., 2017. Salesperson ambidexterity and customer satisfaction: Examining the role of customer demandingness, adaptive selling, and role conflict. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 37(1), pp.27-41.

Bauwens, T., Gotchev, B. and Holstenkamp, L., 2016. What drives the development of community energy in Europe? The case of wind power cooperatives. Energy Research & Social Science, 13, pp.136-147.

Clarke, S., 2018. Social Work as Community Development: A management model for social change. Routledge.

Dahan, N.M., Doh, J.P. and Raelin, J.D., 2015. Pivoting the role of government in the business and society interface: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Business ethics, 131(3), pp.665-680.

Doran, J. and Ryan, G., 2016. The importance of the diverse drivers and types of environmental innovation for firm performance. Business strategy and the environment, 25(2), pp.102-119.

Dwivedi, P., Jagadish, A. and Schelhas, J., 2015. Perceptions of stakeholder groups about the participation of African American family forest landowners in federal landowner assistance programs. Journal of Forestry, 114(2), pp.89-96.

Hoefer, R.L. and Green Jr, S.E., 2016. A rhetorical model of institutional decision making: The role of rhetoric in the formation and change of legitimacy judgments. Academy of Management Review, 41(1), pp.130-150.

Ika, L.A. and Donnelly, J., 2017. Success conditions for international development capacity building projects. International Journal of Project Management, 35(1), pp.44-63.

Kates, R.W., 2018. What is sustainable development

Matthews, P., 2016. Social media, community development and social capital. Community Development Journal, 51(3), pp.419-435.

Osei-Kyei, R. and Chan, A.P., 2015. Review of studies on the Critical Success Factors for Public–Private Partnership (PPP) projects from 1990 to 2013. International Journal of Project Management, 33(6), pp.1335-1346.

Parveen, F., Jaafar, N.I. and Ainin, S., 2015. Social media usage and organizational performance: Reflections of Malaysian social media managers. Telematics and Informatics, 32(1), pp.67-78.

Rodriguez, M., Peterson, R.M. and Ajjan, H., 2015. CRM/social media technology: impact on customer orientation process and organizational sales performance. In Ideas in Marketing: Finding the New and Polishing the Old (pp. 636-638). Springer, Cham.

Saeidi, S.P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S.P. and Saaeidi, S.A., 2015. How does corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. Journal of business research, 68(2), pp.341-350.

Van Alstyne, M.W., Parker, G.G. and Choudary, S.P., 2016. Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of strategy. Harvard business review, 94(4), pp.54-62.

Vargas-Hernandez, J.G. and Gonzalez, D.C., 2018. The Discussion on Stakeholders in Contrast with the Shareholders Theory: Reconciliation to a Conscious Capitalism. SAMVAD, 14, pp.55-57.