Stakeholder Prescription And Managerial Decisions In Runway Project

Discuss about the Stakeholder Prescription and Managerial Decisions.

Importance of Stakeholder Engagement Process

The stakeholders in the runway project include all the persons who have a direct or an indirect interest. The stakeholders also include the persons that the project affects both directly and indirectly. The stakeholders have a high chance of influencing the outcome of the project either positively or negatively. The stakeholders purpose to influence the outcome of the project to ensure the earning of benefits. Sydney airport has identified various stakeholders for the project such as the government officials, the communities living around the airport, the project personnel and the customers. However, the stakeholder list has expanded with time to include the suppliers and the shareholders. All the stakeholders intend to influence the project in a way that results in benefits. Therefore, Sydney has to tailor the runway project in a way that does not result in conflict among the stakeholders.

The stakeholder engagement process continues throughout the life of the project. The engagement includes various formally scheduled meetings and consultations among all the affected stakeholders. The consultations ensure that the Sydney airport includes all the members in the project without discriminating or giving less attention to certain groups. The engagement allows the dissemination of information from the project development team to the stakeholders in a timely manner. Additionally, the disseminated information upholds the highest levels of accuracy to allow proper understanding of uniformity of knowledge among the stakeholder groups. The engagement also ensures that the stakeholders have adequate information about the significant changes in the project. Therefore, the stakeholders have a chance of giving opinions on whether the project team should effect the changes.

The proper implementation of an engagement plan supports the development of strong and constructive relationships during the project lifecycle. Therefore, Sydney airport should ensure that the runway project team initiates the process in the early phase of development. The stakeholder engagement plan enables the successful management of the project’s decisions and the assessment of the social risks and impacts. The runway stakeholder engagement plan will prevent all forms of manipulation by allowing all stakeholders to access information and understand the set procedures. Therefore, the plan will identify all groups of stakeholders and provide an equal opportunity to raise concerns. Sydney airport will also ensure that the concerns get equal attention to avoid dissatisfaction among the stakeholders. Furthermore, the engagement plan will provide procedures for the members of the public to participate in the runway project. The public requires standard procedures for giving inputs to avoid confusion and disorganisation in the reception of unsolicited views.

Inclusive Stakeholder Engagement Plan

The engagement plan involves the signing of agreements with the various stakeholders to ensure unity in development. The engagement will assist in conducting consultations for discussing the social impact of the project. Furthermore, the scope consultations involved in the engagement plan allowed the stakeholders to raise concerns about the runway design and development. The engagement plan will also involve specialist studies to ensure discussions on the relevant issues facing the project. Therefore, the engagement plan captures all the issues raised by the stakeholders, which ensures equal concern and response to issues.

Moreover, Sydney airport will use the engagement plan to facilitate future engagements through the various stages of the project’s lifecycle. The various stages require proper planning of ways to respond since each presents different challenges. Therefore, for the success of the runway project, Sydney airport ensures that the plan defines the methods to use when responding to various challenges.

The engagement plan adopts an inclusive method that ensures that all the stakeholders have a say in the development. The plan has details about the levels of engagement of the stakeholders during the pre-feasibility stage of the runway project. The engagement plan defines the policies of interactions among the stakeholders. The interaction policies play an important role in ensuring that the teams do not conflict during the runway lifecycle. However, after the approval of the project, the engagement plan will require revision to accommodate the changes experienced during the lifecycle. Additionally, the engagement plan will include a guide on how the project implementation will ensure respectful and beneficial relations with the stakeholders. The plan will also identify the various hierarchies of stakeholder management to ensure protocol when dealing with the various interested groups.  Furthermore, the engagement plan will identify various timelines for various activities, resources and the budget required to ensure successful planning.

The stakeholders were identified based on the levels of interest and the likely effect each member could have on the runway project (Boag, 2018). The engagement plan sorts each stakeholder according to the levels of power or effect on the success of the project. The identification process gives priority to the stakeholders with a high interest and ability to influence the outcome of the runway project. The identification process will continue for a long time during the project’s lifecycle (Boyer, 2018). The continued identification arises from the need to satisfy stakeholders who come up during the development of the project. Furthermore, the identification ensures that each party has a clear understanding of when to participate in the project and the powers allocated (Gleeson, 2018).

Stakeholder Identification

The identification process also sets up the communication procedures for the stakeholders to ensure complete engagement (Cole-Ingait, 2018). The runway project had various stakeholders who the project team categorised as internal and external depending on the ability to affect the project. Additionally, Sydney airport identified categorised the stakeholders based on the market relations. However, the runway project team ensured that each party had the power to influence the activities in a way that achieves benefit for Sydney airport and the stakeholders (Hartney, 2016).

The government forms part of the external stakeholders who have a high interest and have the power to influence the outcome of the project (Juneja, 2018). The government includes various ministers such as the minister for economic development, the minister for finance, the minister for tourism, the minister for infrastructure and the minister for transport. Each minister represents the government to ensure the achievement of different objectives (Krishnan, 2018). For example, the minister of economy will ensure that the project achieves the national economic goals such as the provision of employment. The minister of finance will ensure that the project has adequate funds to ensure success. The minister for infrastructure will ensure that the project meets the construction standards required by the national government. Finally, the ministers of transport and tourism will ensure that the runway project achieves the safety standards and increases the airport’s capacity (Mandviwalla, 2015).

The government has a high interest in the project due to the concern about matters that affect the citizens (Olsen, 2018). The government must ensure that the runway meets the quality standards that promote safety to the airport users. Therefore, the ministers should concentrate on the details of the project to identify the various opportunities that the government could exploit from the successful runway development. Additionally, the ministers have a high chance of influencing the outcome of the project due to the authority awarded by the national government (Perks, 2017). The ministers have the power to stop the development of the runway in the event that the project team does not align with the national interests. Therefore, Sydney airport should ensure that the runway aligns to the recommendations and the needs of the government (Suzanne de Treville, 2016).

The local community forms the external environment of the project (Thompson, 2018). The runway affects the local community and the project team should ensure the consideration of the interests. The runway affects the local community in various ways such as using up extra local land, noise during the construction and increased employment opportunities for the community. The communities have a high interest in the project due to the potential land loss that the runway will occupy. Therefore, Sydney airport should listen to the suggestions aired by the community to mitigate the possible risks (Minoja, 2012). The runway project team should develop a resettlement and a compensation plan for the employees to minimise the losses faced by the community. Other effects involve noise and dust pollution during the excavations involved when developing the runway. The noise pollution could lead to the dispersion of the local community, while the dust could cause respiratory infects among the community (Benson, 2010). 

Government Stakeholders in Runway Project

The local community has a high power to influence the output of the project, which calls for high prioritisation (Schlierer, 2012). Failure to consider the local community requirements could lead to sabotage and possible failure of the project. Sydney airport has to bring the local community on board and show commitment towards ensuring that the runway development aligns to requirements (Fassin, 2012).

The suppliers form the external stakeholders and have the power to influence the outcome of the project (Verbeke, 2013). The suppliers have a high interest in the project due to the supply of inputs. The inputs should meet the required standards in terms of quality and quantity. Therefore, the suppliers have a great attention to the details of the project to understand the necessary inputs. The suppliers understand that failure to deliver the required inputs could lead to the failure of the project. On the other hand, the suppliers have the power to influence the outcome of the project by ensuring that the inputs meet the necessary standards. Therefore, Sydney airport should prioritise the needs of the suppliers such as paying timely for the inputs delivered (Freeman, 2012).

The customers form the internal stakeholders of the runway project (Fooks, 2013). The customers have a direct influence on the outcome of the runway project. The reason for customers having a direct influence is because the runway should meet the expectations. Therefore, Sydney airport management and the project team should focus on satisfying the customer needs. Moreover, the customers have high interest and high impact on the project thus should get first priority and attention (O'Riordan, 2014).

The customers require platforms and engagement opportunities to ensure easy contribution to the project. The customers have an interest in the project to ensure the achievement of high-quality standards. Most of the quality measures required by the customers include such as safety. Therefore, the engagement plan should ensure that the customers get a chance to air grievances using methods such as meetings, phone calls and workshops. On the other hand, the customers have a high influence on the success or failure of the project. The influence arises from the fact that the customers have the power to reject a project if the quality does not meet the requirements (Wolf, 2014).

The shareholders form the other group of internal stakeholders. Shareholders include persons who have a financial interest in the runway project (Windsor, 2010). The shareholders stand a chance to increase the financial wealth when the project completes successfully and meets the customer expectations. Therefore, the shareholders have a high interest in the project to ensure meeting the required standards for financial gain. Furthermore, the shareholders have a high power to influence the project since most of the finances come from the shares investments. Therefore, the shareholders could use the wealth to influence the outcome of the project (Torugsa, 2013). 

The runway project team should ensure the achievement of the shareholder requirements. The achievement will result in an increase in the shareholder’s wealth since the runway will increase the capacity for operations. Therefore, with increased capacity, more customers will use the airport, which translates to more income. The shareholders require engagement through constant communication and high priority when listening to the grievances. The shareholders work in the project’s environment meaning that striving for the satisfaction could lead to the possible success of the business. Moreover, the shareholders have the power to use the financial power to dictate the execution procedures and the outcome of the project (Crane, 2011).

The plan will use various techniques to ensure the inclusion of each stakeholder and avoid discrimination. The plan will also select economical techniques to reduce expenses while maintaining effective communications (Myllykangas, 2010). Moreover, the techniques should ensure that the stakeholders get clear information in the required manner and time.

The engagement plan will include communicating with the stakeholders in large audiences. The public meetings will allow discussions of the issues affecting the project and the airing of views (Plaza-Úbeda, 2010). The public meetings will happen in open places to ensure the involvement of all stakeholders. The project team will use tools such as powerpoint, posters and videos to communicate during the meetings. The reason for using public speaking includes allowing one on one give and take discussions among the stakeholders. Therefore, the discussions allow synergy, which results in the raising of better ideas for solving project challenges.

The project team will also engage the stakeholders through workshops. The workshops will allow the stakeholders to air views and grievances about the project in a participatory exercise (Phillips, 2010). The stakeholders engage in activities such as brainstorming, analysis of situations and the development of recommendations and strategies. Additionally, the project team records the responses from the stakeholders to use when planning the ways of treatment. The project team employs the workshop techniques to ensure that the stakeholders come together to brainstorm and find solutions to challenges. Brainstorming allows the development of responses that favour all the parties of the runway project.

The meetings enable smaller groups to air views and opinions on issues specific to the group. The meetings allow the creation of relationships between people who have the same interests (Kujala, 2012). The runway project team conducts the focus meeting using interviews to ensure discussion about various issues. The workshops allow the project team to give attention to the specific group present in the meeting. The group has a chance to air grievances and give opinions on issues affecting the project. The benefit of the workshops lies in the ability to allow the project team and the specific groups to discuss special issues affecting the group alone. Therefore, the project has the ability to shape up and attend to the needs of the specific group. For example, the customers could air grievances and issues affecting the project that the government officials do not care about. Moreover, the workshops allow equality in the treatment of stakeholders due to the giving of equal opportunities to air grievances (Kujala, 2012).

The runway project team will engage the stakeholders using roundtable discussion. The discussions use pre-set questions or discussion topics to facilitate the conversations (Liu, 2013). The roundtable discussions allow all the members to have an equal chance to participate in the project’s progress. The persons have the right to push for the implementation of ideas that could favour the group available in the roundtable discussions. The reason for the runway project to engage the stakeholders through round table discussions include the ability to collect ideas during a give and take process. The groups have mutual discussions that lead to the achievement of objectives.

Stakeholder group	Time of engagement
Government officials (includes the ministers for finance, tourism, infrastructure, transport and economic development.)	· Design phase · Implementation phase
Local communities	· Design phase · Implementation phase · Monitoring and evaluation phase
Project personnel	· Design phase · Implementation phase · Monitoring and evaluation phase
Customers	· Design phase · Implementation phase
Suppliers	· Design phase · Implementation phase
Shareholders	· Design phase · Implementation phase · Monitoring and evaluation phase

Component	Timing
Preparation of disclosures and consultations	1.1.2018
Disclosure process	1.4.2018
Post disclosure stage	1.6.2018

The preparation for disclosure and consultation involves the appointment of different persons responsible for running the activities. The disclosure involves informing the stakeholders about the engagement plan and the technical aspects of the project. The next stage involves the full disclosure of the project and the engagement plan to the stakeholders. The disclosure will take place in a meeting attended by all the stakeholders. Finally, the post-disclosure stage includes the receiving views and opinions from the stakeholders. The stakeholders could show satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the plans set (Hörisch, 2014).

Various problems could happen during the timing of the components involved in the engagement plan. The problems include delays caused by conflicts among the stakeholders who do not agree with the set plans. The solution to the issue of delay includes involving all the stakeholders in the development of the plan. The equal inclusion allows the stakeholders to move uniformly thus avoiding delays caused by groups that air issues late after deliberations (Tangpong, 2010).

The engagement plan will the input of various resources to ensure success. The runway project team should ensure the availability of the necessary resources to allow the success of the plan. The resources allocation for the engagement pan occurs during the initial stages of the project. However, the engagement planners should set aside funds to utilise in the case of shortages during the implementation of the plan (Tangpong, 2010).

The engagement plan requires financial resources to pay the planners and other staff included in the development. The financial resources also enable the purchase of the tools required for the implementation such as phones and laptops for sending messages to the stakeholders. Additionally, the financial resources allow the business to pay external experts who help in the development of the plan.

Other resources include human labour required in the development and the implementation of the engagement plan (Tangpong, 2010). The team realises that without the human labour the plan cannot succeed as intended. Therefore, the project team employs the necessary individuals to work on the various components and details of the engagement plan.

The engagement plan requires various staff to run the activities successfully. The staff will perform different activities to ensure effectiveness and efficiency in the proceedings.  The following organisation structure will explain the staffing approach of the engagement plan (Santana, 2012).

 The engagement plan identifies various environmental issues caused by the runway project. The engagement plan identifies environment issues such as noise pollution and dust pollution (Santana, 2012). The pollution arises from the excavation and machine operation involved. Therefore, the engagement plan should develop strategies to ensure that the stakeholders do not suffer from adverse effects such as respiratory infections. For example, the runway project could install soundproof equipment to prevent noise pollution.

Additional environmental issues include the loss of land by the local community since the new runway will occupy a wider space (Santana, 2012). Sydney airport should ensure the adequate compensation of the displaced landowners. The compensation should enable the persons to continue living comfortably without feeling the effects of the land lost. Additionally, the airport should ensure proper landscaping to repair the geographical damages that arise from the excavations. The repairs include sealing the excavation pits to avoid forming mosquito breeding grounds during the rainy seasons.

The facilitators of the engagement plan play a huge role in the success of communications between the project team and the stakeholders (Santana, 2012). The facilitators act as the link between the stakeholders and the runway project. Therefore, the facilitators ensure the success of communications by collecting information from the stakeholders and passing to the project leaders. The facilitators have the ability to distinguish communications from various stakeholders and report to the necessary department. Therefore, the right information reaches the necessary officials for action taking.

Furthermore, the engagement plan facilitators bring together the various resources necessary for success. The facilitators gather resources such as finances and the communication tools to enable the continued interaction with the stakeholders. Therefore, the facilitators ensure the success of the plan with the efforts placed in bringing together the necessary resources (Duesing, 2013).

The engagement plan resulted in high expenditures on the part of the project. The engagement plan involved a budget totalling 600 million dollars. The funds financed various activities to ensure the success of the engagement plan. The activities involved the payment of salaries to the various facilitators, managers and experts involved in the plan. Furthermore, the finances paid for engagement tools such as booking halls for meetings, purchasing communication tools and the payment of meeting facilitator salaries. On the other hand, the budget set aside funds to cater for miscellaneous expenses arising in the course of implementation (Duesing, 2013).

Details	Amounts in million dollars
Salaries	300
Booking halls	200
Purchase of communication tools	80
Miscellaneous expenses	20
Total budget	600

Conclusion

Sydney airport intends to ensure the success of the runway project by including all the stakeholders affected by the activities. The stakeholder inclusion does not discriminate against any of the parties affected directly or indirectly. The runway project team understands the importance of an engagement plan to ensure success. The stakeholder engagement plan allows the tailoring of the project to meet the standards required by the customers, government, suppliers and the local community. The success comes through the continued exchange of ideas and opinions on the development of the runway. Therefore, new ways of developing the runway come up leading to an output that meets global quality standards.

The engagement plan includes all the resources and calls for the equal participation of the stakeholders. The engagement plan identifies the best communication tools that ensure effective and efficient communication. Furthermore, the engagement plan identifies the right methods to conduct communication between the various stakeholders to avoid conflict.

Moreover, the engagement plan ensures unity among the stakeholder groups to ensure uniformity in the final output of the project. For example, without an engagement plan, the government ministers could air views and ideas that differ from the consumers and suppliers ideas. The groups could end up clashing with each pushing for the implementation of ideas. Therefore, the engagement plan will come up with a solution to ensure a bargain in the conflicting ideas. The engagement plan could call for a roundtable discussion where the parties meet and brainstorm to resolve the conflict. Therefore, the project team should develop an effective development plan to ensure success in working with the stakeholders.

Benson, 2010. The Relation between Stakeholder Management Firm Value, and CEO Compensation: A Test of Enlightened Value Maximization. Financial Management, 39(3), pp. 929-963.

Boag, P., 2018. Customer Journey Mapping: Everything You Need to Know. [Online]  Available at: https:www.sailthru.com [Accessed 14 May 2018].

Boyer, S., 2018. 8 Top Project Management Methods, Approaches, Techniques. [Online] Available at: https://www.nutcache.com [Accessed 25 May 2018].

Cole-Ingait, P., 2018. The Socioeconomic Factors Affecting Small Businesses. [Online] Available at: www.smallbusiness.chron.com

Crane, 2011. Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, pp. 77-87.

Duesing, 2013. Building Understanding and Knowledge: A Case Study in Stakeholder Orientation. Journal of Managerial Issues, 25(4), pp. 401-415.

Fassin, 2012. Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(1), pp. 83-96.

Fooks, 2013. The Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility: Techniques of Neutralization, Stakeholder Management and Political CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), pp. 283-367.

Freeman, 2012. Stakeholder Theory: Ethical Ideas and Managerial Action. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(1), pp. 1-2.

Gleeson, A., 2018. Examples of Well-Known Business Models. [Online] Available at: articles.bplans.co.uk [Accessed 14 May 2018].

Hartney, J., 2016. The 10 PMBOK Knowledge Areas. [Online] Available at: www.projectengineer.net [Accessed 26 May 2018].

Hörisch, 2014. Applying Stakeholder Theory in Sustainability Management: Links, Similarities, Dissimilarities, and a Conceptual Framework. Organization & Environment, 27(4), pp. 328-346.

Juneja, 2018. Management Study Guide. [Online]  Available at: https://www.managementstudyguide.com

Krishnan, A., 2018. Techniques to Prioritize Requirements. [Online] Available at: www.modernanalyst.com/resources/article/tabid/115/ID/3332/Technique-to-Prioritize-requirements.aspx

Kujala, 2012. Understanding the Nature of Stakeholder Relationships: An Empirical Examination of a Conflict Situation. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(1), pp. 53-65.

Liu, 2013. Strategic Direction of Corporate Community Involvement. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(3), pp. 469-487.

Mandviwalla, M., 2015. Fox School of Business. [Online] Available at: https://www.community.mis.temple.edu

Minoja, 2012. Stakeholder Management Theory, Firm Strategy, and Ambidexterity. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(1), pp. 67-82.

Myllykangas, 2010. Analyzing the Essence of Stakeholder Relationships: What do we Need in Addition to Power, Legitimacy, and Urgency? Journal of Business Ethics, 96, pp. 65-72.

Olsen, E., 2018. Strategic Implementation. [Online] Available at: https://www.onstrategyhq.com

O'Riordan, 2014. Managing CSR Stakeholder Engagement: A New Conceptual Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), pp. 121-145.

Perks, R., 2017. Quality Control Systems and Customer Satisfaction. [Online] Available at: acdemic.mintel.com [Accessed 21 April 2018].

Phillips, 2010. Strategy, Stakeholders and Managerial Discretion. Strategic Organization, 8(2), pp. 176-183.

Plaza-Úbeda, 2010. Measuring Stakeholder Integration: Knowledge, Interaction and Adaptational Behavior Dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(3), pp. 419-442.

Santana, 2012. Three Elements of Stakeholder Legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(2), pp. 257-265.

Schlierer, 2012. How Do European SME Owner—Managers Make Sense of Stakeholder Management: Insights from a Cross-National Study. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(1), pp. 39-51.

Suzanne de Treville, T. B., 2016. Journal of Operations Management. Elsevier.

Tangpong, 2010. Stakeholder Prescription and Managerial Decisions: An Investigation of the Universality of Stakeholder Prescription. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(3), pp. 345-367.

Thompson, R., 2018. Stakeholder Analysis. [Online] Available at: https://www.mindtools.com [Accessed 26 May 2018].

Torugsa, 2013. Proactive CSR: An Empirical Analysis of the Role of its Economic, Social and Environmental Dimensions on the Association Between Capabilities and Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(2), pp. 383-402.

Verbeke, 2013. The Future of Stakeholder Management Theory: A Temporal Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), pp. 529-543.

Windsor, 2010. The Role of Dynamics in Stakeholder Thinking. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, pp. 79-87.

Wolf, J. 2014. The Relationship Between Sustainable Supply Chain Management, Stakeholder Pressure and Corporate Sustainability Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(3), pp. 317-328.