Nisha Narayanan, PRMPSStephen Ndegwa, PRMPS

Simplified Stakeholder Analysis

A Demonstration

Goals

• Demonstration, preliminary use

• Simple, user-friendly and portable model

• Transparent calculations and assumptions

• Scenario building over prediction

• Accessible charts and grids as guides for potential options/targets for policy dialogue

Data Collection

• As with other models, extensive and reliant on field interviews

• Depending on government or policy area openness, data can be collected by two methods:

• Interviews with specialists or experts and/or• Interviews with actual stakeholders

Data Attributes

The data consists of five attributes associated with stakeholders:

Group

Salience

These are sectors in which stakeholders share similar characteristics and often common objectives. Specific strategies can be applied to stakeholders according to their group.

*Effective Power

This value represents how effective the stakeholder can be in protecting (or promoting?) its position.

Position This value describes the initial level of reform the stakeholder is willing to accept.

This value indicates the level of importance and priority the stakeholder attaches to the issue.

Influence This value represents the level of resources and power the stakeholder has relevant to this issue. This can take the form of money, contacts, access and/or other resources.

*Annex 1: New Effective Power equation

Sample Data

Stakeholder Group Position Salience Influence Effective PowerMoyAg100 Civil 0 95 20 42.5SecGenAg Govt 5 55 10 23.5DirVeg Govt 5 55 30 37.5ONICL Govt 5 95 40 56.5MP Parl 5 95 58.75 69.625ChamCereales Civil 5 80 50 59UGTM Labor 7 70 75 73.5SCAMS Civil 10 95 80 84.5MediaDroite Civil 10 80 15 34.5PJD Parl 40 50 100 85APMS Civil 40 60 50 53CDT Labor 50 50 70 64Roi Palace 60 75 100 92.5MinAg Govt 60 75 80 78.5ImportCer Civil 62 50 100 85PM Govt 65 55 100 86.5ConsRoi Palace 75 75 20 36.5MediaGauche Civil 75 80 10 31UMT Labor 75 45 100 83.5FAO Exterieur 75 40 3 14.1MoyAgPoss Civil 80 30 25 26.5FinMin Govt 90 75 70 71.5USFP Parl 90 60 100 88Consom Civil 100 40 5 15.5Mondiale Exterieur 100 90 80 83EU Exterieur 100 70 80 77

Marketing

Policy Continuum A

0 5 40 60 65 75 80 100

Status Quo

Begin study ofSCAMS

Introduce astandard cerealsmarketing contractand a disputeresolution procedure

Begin processof developing a private industry body and decide future of ONICL

Develop financialinstruments, e.g.forw ard contractinginsturment or pricerisk insurance scheme

Restructureor "divest"SCAMs

Develop a marketoriented cereals storage and finance system

Continuedevelopmentof a privateindustry body

ORIGINAL POLICY CONTINUUM

New Policy Continuum B(#) = Effective Power

5025 750 100

Status Quo

Continue privatization of industry

Initiate privatization with standard contracts and procedures

Complete study of SCAMS

Restructure SCAMS and finance system

Demand 1A

ChamCereals (60)UGTM (74)

Demand 1BMediaDroite (35)SecGenAg (24)

Demand 2B

Demand 2AFinMin (72)

MoyAgPoss (27)

Effective Power/Position MatrixIdentifies stakeholder position and their relative power -- how hard reform will be

With simple rule -- movement within quadrant/subset -- allows setting goals to influence

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Position

Eff

ecti

ve P

ow

er

SCAMS

MediaDroite

MoyAg100

SecGenAg

DirVeg

ChamCerealsONICL

MP

UGTM

APMS

PJ D

CDT

MinAg

Roi

ImportCer

PM

FAO

MediaGauche

ConsRoi

UMT

FinMin

USFP

Consom

EU

Mondiale

MoyAgPoss

A1 A2 B1 B2

C1 C2 D1 D2

Scenarios: Governing Assumptions

• Stakeholders can only move within their policy preference sector, or minimally into next one

• Strategy may then be to: – Move stakeholders with low policy reform

preferences to the right or diagonally upwards by increasing information

– Empower stakeholders with higher policy reform preferences to move up and to the right by increasing effective power

Influence-Salience MatrixIdentifies the stakeholders by their level of salience and influence (color-coded on policy reform preference)

Information on stakeholder attributes allows setting intervention strategy and coalition building

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Influence

Sal

ien

ce

HI/LSLI/LS

LI/HS HI/HS

MoyAgPoss (80)

Consom (100)FAO (75)

SecGenAg (5)DirVeg (5)

MediaGauche (75)MediaDroite (10)

ConsRoi (75)

APMS (40)

ChamCereal (5)

MoyAg100 (0) ONICL (5)MP (5)

FinMin (90)

CDT (50)

UGTM (7) EU (100)

MinAg (60)

Mondiale (100)

SCAMS (10)

Roi (60)

USFP (90)

PM (65)

UMT (75)

PJD (40) ImportCer (62)

PROMOTERSDEFENDERS

APATHETICS LATENTS

Policy Range 0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100

Specific Examples in response to influence-salience

profile of opponents• Promoters - counter or compromise

• Defenders - suppress potential action

• Latents – Increase salience

• Apathetics - Ignore

Specific Examples in response to influence-salience profile

of proponents • Promoters - Build coalitions with low preference

stakeholders-common interests• Defenders - Provide resources to promote

position• Latents - Provide information and incentives to

increase saliency and preference for reform• Apathetics – Ignore

New Policy Continuum B(#) = Effective Power

5025 750 100

Status Quo

Continue privatization of industry

Initiate privatization with standard contracts and procedures

Complete study of SCAMS

Restructure SCAMS and finance system

Demand 1A

ChamCereals (60)UGTM (74)

Demand 1BMediaDroite (35)SecGenAg (24)

Demand 2B

Demand 2BFinMin (72)

MoyAgPoss (27)

Improvements/Simplifications

• Adds detailed stakeholder “reservation price” to policy continuum

• Clarifies “effective power” equation • Focuses on creating scenarios in lieu of

predictions to promote policy • Uses maps to identify and assess

stakeholder positions and potential movement for dialogue and goal-setting

Conclusion

• Simpler model– Portable, cost effective– Excel-based– WB team executed (data/scenarios/dialogue)

• Transparent assumptions– Informed by Task team – country/issue knowledge– Theoretically valid, methodologically reliable

• Organic scenarios over precise/debatable predictions

Annex 1: Effective Power Equation

(.70)*I + (.30)*S = Effective Power

• Effective Power is the weighted sum of 70% Influence and 30% Salience

• Influence is weighted more than Salience because those with higher influence have a higher ability to block reform

• Eg. A stakeholder with 80 (I) and 20 (S) has more power to veto a policy than a stakeholder with 20 (I) and 80 (S)

More Information

• On Sentia’s Model, Other Models used elsewhere, Bank Pilots, and Simplified Model, please contact:

– Stephen Ndegwa/Nisha Narayanan

Ed Campos/Shilpa Pradhan (PRMPS) – Barbara Nunberg/Amanda Green (EASPR)– Jennie Litvack/Nabil Chaherli (MNSED)