THE NETWORK APPROACH

• Key-concepts
• What a process looks like in the network approach
• Tools: stakeholder analysis
• SWOT

1
Actor network

2
 Structure: hierarchy versus network
Why project managers get stuck sometimes

Hierarchy Network
• Uniformity • Variety
• Unilateral dependencies • Mutual dependencies
• Openness/receptiveness to • Closedness to hierarchical
hierarchical signals signals
• Stability • Dynamic

3
Structure of networks: variety
Threats:
• Limited reach of intervention
• Limited possibilities for tailor-made approaches
• Different interpretations of the same intervention

Opportunities:
• Higher chance of success with at least some of the parties
– Be satisfied with this result
– Learn for subsequent intervention
– First leaders, then followers
• Divide and rule
• Innovation
• Constructive ambiguity
4
Structure of networks: closedness
Threat:
• Ineffective interventions
– Actors do not notice
– Actors do notice, but ignore it
– Actors do notice, cannot ignore it, but resist it
– Actors do notice, cannot ignore it, apparently comply,
but in reality evade
– Actors do notice, cannot ignore it, comply but
reinterpret and transform it
– Actors do notice, cannot ignore it, comply, but avail
themselves of every opportunity to evade it

Opportunity:
• Commitments of closed parties tend to be strong
commitments 5
Structure of networks:
interdependence
Threats:
• Risk of hit-and-run (ignoring repetitive character of the
process)
• Opaqueness (need to find out the position of other actors)
and sluggishness
• Poor substantive decision-making (grey compromises)

Opportunities:
• Actors need interventions
• Incentive for moderate behaviour
• Raising complexity means more possibility for exchange
• Substantive enrichment
6
Stakeholder-issue diagram (Bryson)

Actor 6
Issue 4
Actor 1
Actor 4
Issue 1 Actor 7

Actor 2 Process
manager Issue 2

Actor 3 Actor 5

Issue 3

7
Stakeholder-issue diagram (Bryson)

Actor 6
Issue 4
Actor 1
Actor 4
Issue 1 Actor 7

Actor 2 Process
manager Issue 2

Actor 3 Actor 5

Issue 3

8
Actors and the network
• Actors do not communicate their
objectives and time frame clearly
• Content is dynamic
• Major issues degenerate into details;
details become major issues
• Decision-making is capricious

9
Redundant relations and the
value of interdependencies
• Strategic information (get info on someone through others)
• Double-checking
• Coincidental information
• Repertoire building (building up experience on information)
• Availability of alternatives/room for manoeuvre (multiple
sourcing)
• Limited predictability
• Redundant relations as gateway to other actors
• Redundancy forces actors to behave moderately
(dependencies beyond the process)

10
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

11
Stakeholder analysis
• Interdependencies
• Closedness/receptiveness to interventions
• External impacts
• Strategic behaviour

So:
• Who is involved?
• What are their problem perceptions?
• In what way do you depend on others?
• In what way do you expect other actors to position
themselves and behave in the process?

12
Who are stakeholders? (Bryson)
• ‘All parties who will be affected by or will affect [the
organization’s] strategy’ (Nutt and Backoff 1992: 439).
• ‘Any person group or organization that can place a claim on
the organization’s attention, resources, or output, or is
affected by that output’ (Bryson 1995: 27).
• ‘People or small groups with the power to respond to,
negotiate with, and change the strategic future of the
organization’ (Eden and Ackermann 1998: 117).
• ‘Those individuals or groups who depend on the
organization to fulfill their own goals and on whom, in turn,
the organization depends’ (Johnson and Scholes, 2002:
206).

13
What to do?
• Articulate the purpose of the stakeholder
analysis
• Select
– Brainstorm a list of potential stakeholders
– Criteria stakeholders would use to judge
organisation’s performance
– Think how stakeholder would assess process
manager’s performance
– What can be done to satisfy stakeholder?
– Identify longer term issues
14
 Power/interest grid

High
Subjects Players
Interest

Crowd Context setters

Low

Low High

Power

15
 Interests, perceptions, goals

Actor Interests Problem perception Goals

Actor 1 Accommodate Lack of sufficient Develop large city

Munici- housing needs dwellings for growing expansion with
pality population associated facilities

Actor 2 Protection of New districts takes bird Restriction of urban

Nature wildlife on habitat development at the
preserva- greenfield location cost of
tionists nature/environment

Actor N … … …

16
Resource dependency

Low importance High importance

Low replaceability Moderate High

High replaceability Low Moderate

17
Critical actors

Actor Important Replaceability Dependency Critical actor? Yes or

Resources (high/low) (low, no
moderate,
high)

Actor 1

Actor 2

Actor N

18
Stakeholder map
Dedicated actors Non-dedicated actors

Critical actors Non-critical Critical actors Non-critical

actors actors

Actors with same

perception,
interests and
goals

Actors with
different
perception,
interest and goals

19
More advanced typology of
stakeholders

Murray-Webster and Simon, 2006

20
More advanced typology of
stakeholders
Saviour – powerful, high interest, positive attitude or alternatively influential, active, backer. They need to be paid attention to;
you should do whatever necessary to keep them on your side – attend to their needs.

Friend – low power, high interest, positive attitude or alternatively insignificant, active, backer. They should be used as a
confidant or sounding board.

Saboteur – powerful, high interest, negative attitude or alternatively influential, active, blocker. They need to be engaged in
order to disengage. You should be prepared to ‘clean-up after them’.

Irritant – low power, high interest, negative attitude or alternatively insignificant, active, blocker. They need to be engaged so
that they stop ‘eating away’ and then be ‘put back in their box’.

Sleeping Giant – powerful, low interest, positive attitude or alternatively influential, passive, backer. They need to be engaged
in order to awaken them.

Acquaintance – low power, low interest, positive attitude or alternatively insignificant, passive, backer. They need to be kept
informed and communicated with on a ‘transmit only’ basis.

Time Bomb – powerful, low interest, negative attitude or alternatively influential, passive, blocker. They need to be understood
so they can be ‘defused before the bomb goes off’.

Trip Wire – low power, low interest, negative attitude or alternatively insignificant, passive, blocker. They need to be understood
so you can ‘watch your step’ and avoid ‘tripping up’.
21
Risks of the stakeholder map
• Actors that do not fit in
• Self-fulfilling prophecy
• Black-and-white thinking
• May be more static than reality

22
SWOT ANALYSIS

23
SWOT analysis
• Build on strengths
• Eliminate weaknesses
• Exploit opportunities
• Mitigate threats

Helps to engage stakeholders

24
SWOT

I nternal Ex ternal

Helpful Strengths Opportunities

Harm ful Weaknesses Threats

25
From SWOT to objectives: situational
analysis

• Link strengths with opportunities

• Use strengths to fight threats
• Link elimination of weaknesses to fighting
threats

26
SWOT and TOWS

Internal Internal
strengths weaknesses
External SO WO
opportunities
External threats ST WT

• Strengths: internal qualities of process

• Weaknesses: internal weaknesses of process
• Opportunities: external chances for process to
increase value
• Threats: external threats to the process that might
decrease value
27
TOWS (Weihrich)
Internal strengths Internal
weaknesses
External SO WO
opportunities
External threats ST WT

• SO: Certain strengths enable the stakeholders in the process to grasp

opportunities. Maximise strengths and maximise opportunities
• ST: Certain strengths of the process can deal with threats. Maximise
strengths and minimise threats
• WO: The process has weaknesses that prevent stakeholders from
grasping opportunities. Minimise weaknesses and maximise opportunities
• WT: Due to certain weaknesses, the stakeholders in the process will not
be capable of dealing with certain threats. Minimise weaknesses and
minimise threats.
28
Example: Volkswagen’s strategy
regarding US market
Strengths Weaknesses
R&D One product
Quality production High costs in Germany
Sales and support No US experience
Opportunities SO WO
Incentives to invest Build cars in US Build in US
Small engines Supply engines to US Diversify product range
producers
Threats ST WT
High exchange rate of Build in US Build in US
Mark Improve cost Diversify product
Japanese competition effectiveness Withdraw from US
29
Dyson
• Score and rank strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats; this offers
opportunities for prioritisation

30
From SWOT/TOWS to policy
• Coupling problems and solutions
• Weaknesses and threats can contribute to
problems
• Strengths and opportunities can contribute
to solutions
• Your SWOT/TOWS overview is not
supposed to give blueprint solutions, but
ideas for coupling (and maybe de-coupling)

31
RESULTS OF NETWORK AND
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

32
From network analysis to decision-
making
Multi-issue decision-making

• There is not one comprehensive decision; complete

information is not available
• Tight planning and deadlines are disfunctional
• Options should be kept open
• Package deals
• Decisions indicate directions
• Open decision-making; losers can be compensated;
commitment should be durable
33
Evaluation
Project approach: have objectives been achieved?
Process:
• Are actors satisfied?
• Has the problem been solved?
• Has any learning taken place (that can change
insights)?
• Have durable relationships been created?
• Was the process fair?
• Continuous monitoring

34
Network analysis
• Characterise relational dependencies
(gateways, redundancy, exchange
possibilities etc.)
• Identify the threats and opportunities
mentioned

35
Stakeholder engagement plan

High
Trip wire
Time bomb

Interest Subjects Players

Crowd Context setters

Saviour
Low

Sleeping giant

Low High
Power

36
Level of involvement
• Inform
• Consult
• Involve
• Collaborate
• Empower

37
How to (dis)engage stakeholders?
Engaging:
• Offer them something (from the SWOT/TOWS)
• Define the problem with a broad perspective (on the
basis of SWOT/TOWS)
Risk: negative engagement (a plan stakeholders fear)

Disengaging:
• Take away their concerns (with help of SWOT/TOWS)
• Make them irrelevant
Risk: trip wires/time bombs

38