Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537 – 1552
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Towards an improved understanding of project

stakeholder landscapes
Kirsi Aaltonen ⁎, Jaakko Kujala
University of Oulu, Industrial Engineering and Management, P.O. Box 4610, FIN-90014 University of Oulu, Finland

Received 19 November 2015; received in revised form 14 August 2016; accepted 21 August 2016

Abstract

Understanding stakeholders, their influences and devising engagement strategies based on the analyses of stakeholder landscapes has become
one of the key capabilities within project-based firms. Based on a systematic literature review of the project stakeholder management literature, we
develop a conceptual framework for characterizing and classifying project stakeholder landscapes. The framework synthesizes four key dimensions
of project stakeholder landscapes and their various sub-factors: complexity (element and relationship complexity), uncertainty, dynamism and the
institutional context. The developed framework will provide both academics and practitioners with a shared language to make sense of what types
of stakeholder landscapes exist, to categorize projects based on their stakeholder environments and to start evaluating what types of implications
different types of landscapes have on stakeholder management and project management in general.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Project stakeholder landscapes; Stakeholder management; Stakeholder theory; Complexity; Uncertainty; Dynamism; Institutional context

1. Introduction Mok et al., 2014). Anecdotal accounts and emerging research

The disposal of nuclear waste in deep geological repositories
is an increasingly popular topic around the globe. In the United
States, the funding from a widely debated Yucca Mountain
nuclear repository project was recently withdrawn. How is this
possible after so many resources and so much energy were
dedicated to the development and shaping of the megaproject
for decades? In its analysis of what is called Yucca Mountain
failure, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear
Future suggests the simplification of the complex stakeholder
environment of the project consisting of a multitude of
stakeholders with converging interests. Similarly, the literature
on large engineering and infrastructure projects suggests that
the social complexity of these projects, associated particularly
with the number of, variety of and relationships among project
stakeholders is a key managerial challenge (Flyvbjerg, 2014;
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kirsi.aaltonen@oulu.fi (K. Aaltonen),
jaakko.kujala@oulu.fi (J. Kujala).
from new product development and internal development
project contexts (e.g., Beringer et al., 2012) also discuss the
challenges that projects have faced when interacting within
their rugged or foggy stakeholder contexts. There are also
projects that successfully meet their stakeholder demands and
perform exceptionally within their supportive stakeholder
landscapes. But how exactly can project stakeholder landscapes
be conceptualized and what are their key dimensions?
Despite the rich, extensive and multidisciplinary research on
project stakeholder management (Cleland, 1986; Eskerod et al.,
2015), in our view, prior research has paid very limited attention
for conceptualizing and understanding better and more holisti-
cally the nature of different types of project stakeholder
environments, their pivotal characteristics, key dimensions and
implications for project management. Instead, much research
effort has been devoted to the development of conceptual tools,
conventional techniques and theoretical frameworks to analyze
the attributes of single stakeholders and dyadic relationships
between the project and its stakeholders (e.g., Bourne and
Walker, 2005; Olander and Landin, 2005; Winch, 2004). More

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.009
0263-7863/00/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd, APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
1538 K. Aaltonen, J. Kujala / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537–1552
recent research on project stakeholder management has also
addressed empirically the behavioral strategies of stakeholders
(Aaltonen et al., 2008; Beringer et al., 2013) and the
corresponding dynamic responses of project organizations over
the project life-cycle (e.g., Missonier and Loufrani-Fedida, 2014;
Tryggestad et al., 2013; Vaagaasar, 2011). However, also within
this stream of research much of the focus has been devoted to
single stakeholders and their independent influences instead of
systematically addressing and capturing the impacts from entire
stakeholder environments. Consequently, there is room for
synthetizing the different fragmented pieces of project stakehold-
er knowledge into a more holistic analysis framework that would
provide a more complete understanding of the concept of project
stakeholder environment and its key dimensions. More impor-
tantly, while the concept of project stakeholder environment has
been treated highly superficially and without operationalization
in project stakeholder research (Aaltonen, 2010), this holds true
also for the more general stream of stakeholder research. There
the dominant mode to approach stakeholder environments has
been through the hub-and-spoke model (Freeman, 1984) that
emphasizes the management of single, independent stakeholders
(Neville and Menguc, 2006).
In this study we conceptualize project stakeholder environment
through the concept of project stakeholder landscape. Our aim is to
contribute to project stakeholder research through proposing and
conceptualizing a novel concept of project stakeholder landscape
and to develop a framework for characterizing, analyzing and
classifying project stakeholder landscapes. Based on the above, the
following research question has been formulated: How can project
stakeholder landscape be conceptualized and what are its key
dimensions? To answer the research question a systematic
literature review is conducted: we integrate the fragmented findings
and frameworks of project stakeholders from previous pieces of
literature into an umbrella typology that may help scholars in
making sense of a project's stakeholder landscape and to support
project managers to evaluate the stakeholder landscapes of their
projects and adjust their management approaches accordingly. In
this study, the project stakeholder landscape is considered to cover
both the internal and external stakeholder environment of the
project. Internal stakeholders are the stakeholders that are formally
members of the project coalition and, hence, usually support the
project (Winch, 2004). They are often referred to as primary
stakeholders (Cleland, 1998) or business actors (Cova and Salle,
2005). Such stakeholders have a formal, official or contractual
relationship with the organization. External project stakeholders, in
turn, are not formal members of the project coalition but may affect
or be affected by the project. Such groups are often referred to as
non-business stakeholders (Cova and Salle, 2005) or secondary
stakeholders (Clarkson, 1995).
The study is grounded on contingency thinking of project
management (Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011; Geraldi et al., 2011;
Maylor et al., 2008; Shenhar, 2001; Shenhar and Dvir, 1996;
Vidal and Marle, 2008). It therefore adopts the perspective that
different projects face different types of stakeholder landscapes
and that management methods should be adapted to take into
account the characteristics of the stakeholder landscape. Although
there is growing evidence on the role and influence of different
types of project stakeholder environments in, e.g., project strategy
formation (Artto et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Vuori et al., 2013),
the most prominent contingency models for project management
(Shenhar, 2001; Shenhar and Dvir, 1996; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007)
tend to highlight the effects of internal and technical factors, thus
downplaying the influences from the stakeholder environment
(Geraldi et al., 2011; Jensen et al., 2006). Hence, we extend the
contingency thinking, and particularly recently emerged com-
plexity thinking of project management, by focusing on the
stakeholder perspective: we review systematically existing project
stakeholder management literature to identify salient dimensions
and sub-factors that characterize stakeholder landscapes and
therefore affect the way projects should be managed. By
developing the comprehensive framework, we may also start
theorizing about how the identified key dimensions relate to the
challenge of managing project stakeholders.
The paper is organized as follows. We begin by providing
a short introduction into general stakeholder thinking and
stakeholder thinking in projects in particular, in order to build
an understanding of the key concepts and to motivate our
research on project stakeholder landscapes. Next, the methodology
concerning the building of the conceptual framework is presented.
We then synthesize our findings into a comprehensive multi-
dimensional framework of project stakeholder landscapes. This is
followed by discussion section and conclusions with areas for
further research.
2. Introduction to project stakeholder thinking
Understanding stakeholders, their influences and devising
engagement strategies based on analyses has become one of the
key capabilities within project-based firms (Morris, 2013; PMI,
2013). The basic idea of stakeholder theory is that an organization
has relationships with many constituent groups and that it can
engender and maintain the support of these groups by considering
and balancing their relevant interests (Freeman, 1984; Jones and
Wicks, 1999). Overall, a central purpose of stakeholder theory is
to enable managers to understand and, subsequently, manage
stakeholders more strategically. Stakeholder management is at the
very heart of project management: projects as temporary
endeavors affect and are influenced by a number of diverse
organizations or individuals and are very much reliant on their
contributions, skills and capabilities. Freeman's landmark book
(1984) on the strategic management of stakeholders was followed
by Cleland's (1986) nascent work on project stakeholder
management, where he attempted to fit the central ideas of
stakeholder management to the context of temporary organiza-
tions. Over the years, the stakeholder theory stream has evolved
into a legitimized organization theory, building very much on the
foundational ideas of Freeman and other strategy scholars. Central
contributions within the field of academic stakeholder theory
literature include, among others, the stakeholder salience frame-
work by Mitchell et al. (1997); Frooman's (1999) categorization
of stakeholder influence strategies, Rowley's (1997) work on
stakeholder networks and firms' response strategies, Savage et al.
(1991) work on stakeholder management strategies, stakeholder
lifecycle models by Jawahar and McLaughlin (2001) and research
 K. Aaltonen, J. Kujala / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537–1552
on stakeholder mobilization strategies (Rowley and Moldoveanu,
2003). Criticism and shortcomings of stakeholder theory have
been discussed and debated primarily from philosophical
standpoints. Fassin (2008), in turn, has addressed his critique to
the hub-and-spoke stakeholder model itself, introduced originally
be Freeman (1984), and on how it addresses the organization's
stakeholder environment. According to him the shortcomings of
the model deal with the following areas that are relevant aspects
for understanding stakeholder landscapes more holistically:
heterogeneity within stakeholders, multiple inclusion of stake-
holders, the variability in the dependence among stakeholders, the
variability in salience, the multiple linkages and the network
model of stakeholders.
After Cleland's (1986) seminal work, project management
research community and practitioners have been adopting
rather slowly the theoretical ideas and insights from general
stakeholder management despite the acknowledged relevance
of the subject for project success (Achterkamp and Vos, 2008;
Jepsen and Eskerod, 2009; Yang et al., 2011). Stakeholder
management did not receive its legitimized status as a best
practice knowledge area in the Project Management Body of
Knowledge until 2013. The majority of project stakeholder
research has focused on the development of different types of
tools and frameworks for assessing the attributes and charac-
teristics of stakeholders (Olander and Landin, 2005; Bourne
and Walker, 2005). In addition, debates on the precise and
correct definitions of project stakeholders have been ongoing
(Achterkamp and Vos, 2008; Eskerod et al., 2015). The current
consensus perception is following Freeman's (1984) original
work and views project stakeholders as organizations or
individuals who can somehow affect the achievement of the
project's objectives or are affected by the achievement of the
project's objectives (PMI, 2013). This definition includes a
broad range of actors, such as customers, suppliers, employees,
regulatory authorities, local communities and unions, as
legitimate stakeholders. More recently, research interest has
shifted from tool orientation to the way stakeholder manage-
ment is actually carried out in practice in a wider environment
and in how the theoretical ideas and frameworks stemming
from the general stakeholder research can be utilized in
building the understanding of stakeholder management in
temporary project contexts (Eskerod et al., 2015). Consequent-
ly, research on project stakeholders is currently divided into
distinct, fragmented and diffused research streams that address
definitions, tools and stakeholders' characteristics, stake-
holders' behavioral influences and stakeholder management
strategies. These are all relevant vantage points for understand-
ing the characteristics of project stakeholder landscapes better.
3. Methodology
The conceptual framework synthesizing the key dimensions
and sub-dimensions of project stakeholder landscapes was
developed based on an analytic, detailed and systematic study of
the literature. The analysis proceeded in two stages: In the first
stage of the framework development, the initial key dimensions of
project stakeholder landscapes were identified based on multiple
1539
sources from general stakeholder theory, project stakeholder
research and extant project complexity frameworks. In the second
stage, a more specific method of systematic literature review
(Kitchenham et al., 2010; Tranfield et al., 2003) was used in order
to validate and elaborate the key dimensions and to identify the
sub-factors related to each of the key dimension from the project
stakeholder management literature. As such, the purpose of a
systematic literature review can be seen to provide collective
insights through syntheses and analyses of research on particular
areas (Tranfield et al., 2003). Systematic literature reviews have
been used extensively as a means to aggregate knowledge about a
certain topic or research question, to develop evidence-based
practices, or to construct frameworks in different disciplines of
science such as medical science and sociology. The quality and
outcome of the review process of literature is improved, as
transparent and reproducible procedure is applied (Tranfield et al.,
2003). Within the field of management studies systematic
literature reviews have appeared in many leading journals
(e.g. Crossan and Apaydin, 2010) and within the area of project
management as well (e.g. Bakker, 2010; Geraldi et al., 2011).
In the first stage of the framework development the focus was
on identifying the initial key dimensions of the framework under
development. This process was based on a synthesis of insights
from stakeholder theory, a detailed study of project management
research related to stakeholders and to projects' environments,
our own empirical experience and knowledge and conceptual
frameworks of project complexity, particularly those by Geraldi
et al. (2011); Bosch-Rekveldt et al. (2011) and Ramasesh and
Browning (2014). In addition to pure stakeholder research, we
found the use of these project complexity frameworks to be
relevant since they build on extensive and systematic literature
reviews and, unlike many other project complexity frameworks,
also address the organizational actors in posing project
complexity. This phase of the research relied on more subjective
approach, but, as such, supported our subsequent systematic
literature review in focusing our efforts and in utilizing relevant
knowledge and papers within the field. Based on this analysis, we
synthesized that the characteristics of the stakeholder landscape
can be captured with four central key dimensions: complexity,
uncertainty, dynamism and the institutional context.
As our next step in the framework development, we engaged
in a systematic literature review (Kitchenham et al., 2010) on
project stakeholder management to identify, position and
categorize prior research on project stakeholder management to
the four identified key dimensions. Based on the systematic
review, the sub-factors of each dimension were further elaborat-
ed, and the initial construct of the framework with four key
dimensions was validated. Systematic literature reviews follow a
structured approach for analyzing and categorizing literature to
enable replication. Systematic literature review does not rely on
subjective data collection methodologies, but uses a predefined
selection algorithm (Tranfield et al., 2003). After the articles have
been selected for review, data analysis may proceed in multiple
ways. In this study, our aim was the conceptual consolidation of
stakeholder research for the purpose of creating a framework that
synthesizes the dimensions and aspects of stakeholder landscape
currently present in literature. We decided to use descriptive
1540 K. Aaltonen, J. Kujala / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537–1552
methods and qualitative analysis techniques in our analysis of
results, instead of statistical methods that can also be applied in
systematic literature reviews. Data synthesis – in this case the
project stakeholder landscape framework – that produces new
knowledge based on systematic and thorough data collection and
analysis, is the value-adding outcome of our systematic literature
review.
In our case, the systematic literature review was conducted as
follows. We chose to limit our sources to three leading
peer-reviewed journals on project management, International
Journal of Project Management (IJPM), Project Management
Journal (PMJ) and International Journal of Managing Projects
in Business (IJMPiB) that are likely to have the highest impact in
the research field. These sources were considered to capture
validated knowledge and research on project stakeholders in the
field of project management. Field-specific journals were
deliberately left out at this point. The literature search covered
papers published in IJPM from the years 1995–2015 (January), in
PMJ from 1997 to 2015 (January) and in IJMPiB (January) from
2008 to 2015 (January), covering hence all years available in the
databases at the time of research. Forthcoming papers were also
included in the sample. Taking into account the widespread and
varied use of the term stakeholder and the plurality of the
meanings embedded in it, we decided to employ a very general
selection requirement for the initial pool of studies to maximize
the initial sample. The basic keyword used for search was
‘stakeholder’ and its derivatives (i.e. stakeholder*).
The sample selection was done through the following
procedures.
1. During the first stages of the analysis, all of the papers
containing stakeholder (whole text) were searched. This initial
search procedure ensured that any article that would have even
a single mention of a ‘stakeholder’ or its derivate in the text
would be identified and returned 801 papers in IJPM, 141
papers in PMJ and 224 papers in IJMPiB. The initial sample
was carefully reviewed and considered to contain an overly
broad category of papers of which the majority did not focus
on project stakeholders, and the search was then limited to
papers that had stakeholder in their title, abstract or keywords.
These were considered to be articles that would clearly
address, contribute to and discuss project stakeholder
management. This search returned 125 papers in IJPM, 41 in
PMJ and 46 in IJMPiB. These papers were considered eligible
and formed the paper sample that was reviewed further.
2. A structured excel database consisting of a total of 212 papers
was created. During this stage of the analysis, the paper
abstracts were reviewed by a single reviewer to determine the
content of the paper in terms of stakeholders and whether the
paper would be included in the final sample. In this process, all
papers that were considered to be out of the scope of project
stakeholder research stream were excluded. Many of these
papers used the word stakeholder in their abstract, just to refer
to the actors of the project, but the paper itself was clearly
focused and addressing other issues, such as cost manage-
ment. In this process, the number of papers was reduced
significantly. We found a total of 35 papers in IJPM, 14 in
PMJ and 14 in IJMPiB that were considered to be of relevance
for our analysis.
3. During the next step, we reviewed the contents of all 63 papers
by reading them carefully through, to be able to synthesize
their content in terms of stakeholder management. In this
process, 8 more papers were eliminated because their
stakeholder content was not considered to provide the required
insight on the stakeholder landscape and its dimensions. These
papers were from project success research stream and focused
on different stakeholders' perceptions of project success.
4. Next, we engaged in analyzing the content of the 55 papers
that focused particularly on how various characteristics of the
project stakeholder landscape were described. The procedures
of qualitative content analysis were followed. In our analysis
of the papers, we focused particularly on whether and how
complexity, uncertainty, dynamism and the institutional
context were taken into account in the papers, but we kept
our analysis open for characteristics that might not fit into
these categories. During this analysis stage the contents of the
papers were content analyzed to identify and find indicators of
each of the key dimensions and find empirical examples to be
able to describe the rather abstract concepts through real-life
experiences. Based on this work, we were able to classify all
our findings into the four key categories and identify a set of
sub-factors to each of the key dimensions. In general, the
papers addressed stakeholders and their management in
diverse ways. The majority of the papers discussed the
identification, management or conflicting expectations of
stakeholders. In addition, aspects related to stakeholder
dynamism were mentioned frequently, although their analysis
was not typically conducted systematically. Uncertainty with
regard to stakeholder mobilization and action was also
addressed in a number of the papers, while clearly less focus
was placed on the institutional context and its implications for
project management. Altogether, four review papers were
found. Table 1 (Appendix 1) shows the content of our sample
and the results of the qualitative analysis and categorizations.
5. After the classification and identification of sub-factors other
relevant sources on project stakeholder management, such as
books, conference papers and research in the general
stakeholder management area, were used to support the
discussions of each of the dimensions and complete the
development of our typology. This procedure was relevant for
eliminating the disadvantage inherent in a systematic literature
review i.e. that of leading to the omission of books and book
chapters from the search. Additionally, research related to
project complexity was used to deepen our analysis. However,
we want to emphasize that the key dimensions and indicators
in each dimension are based on project stakeholder-related
literature, and additional material was used only to provide
more in-depth viewpoints in the discussion.
4. Results: development of the conceptual framework
In the first stage of the framework development the focus
was on identifying the key dimensions of project stakeholder
landscapes based on a synthesis of insights from stakeholder
 K. Aaltonen, J. Kujala / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537–1552 1541

theory, a detailed study of project management research related
to stakeholders and to projects' environments, our own
empirical experience and knowledge and conceptual frame-
works of project complexity, particularly those by Geraldi et al.
(2011); Bosch-Rekveldt et al. (2011) and Ramasesh and
Browning (2014). Based on a systematic literature review of
the complexities of projects, Geraldi et al. (2011) provide a
typology of existing work on project complexity and divide
project complexity into five dimensions: structural, uncertainty,
dynamics, pace, and socio-political complexity. In addition,
they elaborate further the contents and indicators of each of the
dimensions. Bosch-Rekveldt et al. (2011) suggest three
dimensions of complexity that are particularly relevant in
large engineering projects: technical, organizational and
environmental complexity. In turn, Ramasesh and Browning
(2014) conceptualize the project complexity construct as
consisting of two key constituents, project element complexity
and relational complexity, which are determined by diverse
sub-factors. By systematically comparing and relating these
three frameworks to our findings from general stakeholder
research and project stakeholder research, we synthesized that
the characteristics of the stakeholder landscape can be captured
with four central key dimensions: complexity (including
stakeholder element and stakeholder relationship complexity),
uncertainty, dynamism and the institutional context. During the
second stage a systematic literature review of project stake-
holder research was conducted to validate and elaborate the
identified key dimensions and to identify their sub-factors.
The complete framework of project stakeholder landscapes
with key dimensions and their sub-factors was formulated based
on the analysis and classification. Fig. 1 presents the overall
model of the framework, detailing the sub-factors constituting
four of the main dimensions. A more detailed framework with all
the references that emerged from the systematic literature review
of the final paper sample is presented in Appendix 1.
In the following, the dimensions and the sub-factors of each
dimension as well as their implications for stakeholder manage-
ment are discussed in more detail based on both general research
on stakeholders and the results of the systematic literature review.
5. Complexity
Complexity theory equips us with ideas and frameworks for
identifying and modeling the sources of complexity, and it helps
us in understanding the behavior of complex systems. The
concept of complexity has been defined in numerous different
ways in the extensive body of literature and studied in a variety of
different contexts. The popularized and common use of the
concept further complicates the understanding of the concept
(Geraldi et al., 2011). Simon's (1962) work on the architecture of
complexity is one of the foundational pieces of literature with
regard to system complexity, defining complexity as the set of
interrelated elements. Within the field of operations management,
Jacobs and Swink (2011) provide extensive coverage of different
definitions of complexity, asserting that complexity is a state
manifested by the multiplicity, diversity and interrelatedness of
system elements. The more widely acknowledged notions of
structural complexity include three attributes: number of
components, variety and interdependence (Choi et al., 2001).
Ramasesh and Browning (2014) recently presented a conceptual
framework for understanding factors that influence knowable
unknown unknowns in projects and divide complexity into a
construct with two key constituents: element complexity,
determined by the number, variety, internal complexity and lack
of robustness of project elements, and relationship complexity,
determined by the number, variety, criticality, patterns, internal
complexity and externality of relationships among project
elements. In line with the division of Ramasesh and Browning
(2014), we divide the complexity dimension into element
complexity, i.e., stakeholder element complexity and stakeholder

Complexity
• Stakeholder element
complexity
• Number of project
stakeholders
• Variety of project
stakeholders and their
goals
• Stakeholders’ internal
complexity
• Stakeholder relationship
complexity
• Number of relationships
among stakeholders
• Variety of relationships
• Patterns of relationships
• Relationships’ internal
complexity
• External stakeholder
relationships
Uncertainty Dynamism
• Lack of information • Changes in stakeholders’
related to stakeholders attributes
and their relationships • Changes in stakeholders’
• Project management’s position
experience with respect • Changes in relationships
to stakeholders and among stakeholders
stakeholder analysis • Emergent stakeholders
• Analyzability of the and relationships
stakeholder environment • Changes in appropriate
• Ambiguous information ways of engaging
concerning stakeholders stakeholders
• Changes in stakeholders’
influence strategies
Institutional
context
• Stakeholders’ local
embeddedness
• Legitimized structures
and processes for
stakeholder engagement
• The nature of
stakeholders’ legitimized
influence strategies
• Multiplicity of
institutional
environments
• Complexity of the
stakeholders’
interpretation process

Fig. 1. Key dimensions of project stakeholder landscape.

1542 K. Aaltonen, J. Kujala / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537–1552
relationship complexity. The majority of all reviewed articles in
our total sample on project stakeholder management addressed
complexity: element complexity, relationship complexity or
both.
5.1. Stakeholder element complexity
The stakeholder complexity dimension considers stake-
holders as the elements of the stakeholder system. Based on
the systematic literature review, the stakeholder element
complexity construct was synthesized to include the number
of project stakeholders, variety of project stakeholders and their
goals and stakeholders' internal complexity.
The first sub-factor of it is the number of project stakeholders.
The influence of the number of elements has been discussed by,
for example, Geraldi et al. (2011); Jacobs and Swink (2011);
Choi et al. (2001) and Artto et al. (2008a, 2008b, 2008c). It is
generally recognized in the complexity literature and also in
stakeholder literature that a system with a greater number of
elements (stakeholders) is more complex and will make
stakeholder management more challenging. The general stake-
holder literature also confirms that the multiplicity of stake-
holders (a number and variety of stakeholders) contributes to the
challenge of managing stakeholders (Oliver, 1991). Hence, as the
number of stakeholders within the project landscape increases, so
do the time, resources, coordination costs and effort required by
project management to engage stakeholders, to balance acts
between their needs, and to decide which of the stakeholders will
be included in engagement efforts and which stakeholders will be
dismissed. In addition, the great number of stakeholders makes it
harder to recognize all central stakeholders and possible
outcomes. With regard to the number of stakeholders, the
number of opponent stakeholders (Winch, 2004), in particular,
can be considered essential in terms of the challenge of managing
stakeholders. In our sample very few articles discuss explicitly
the influence of the number of stakeholders on stakeholder and
project management: only Artto et al. (2008a, 2008b, 2008c) and
Martinsuo and Lehtonen (2009) bring up the number of strong
stakeholders as a distinct attribute that affects the way a projects'
strategy and autonomy are formed. However, the sub-factor of
the number of project stakeholders is implicitly present in the
research addressing the mapping of stakeholders, stakeholder
maps, matrices or models (e.g., Bourne and Walker; Yang et al.,
2014) as well as in the referencing to the conflicting goals of
multiple stakeholders (e.g., McKenna and Metcalfe, 2013).
The second sub-factor, the variety of project stakeholders and
their goals, is related to the differences in stakeholders' attributes,
backgrounds and goals. The impacts of all stakeholders are not
equal even though stakeholders in basic models are oftentimes
depicted in the same size and shape (Donaldson and Preston,
1995). Mitchell et al.'s (1997) well-known salience framework,
consisting of attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency,
provides a model for describing stakeholders' attributes and
analyzing differences between them. Furthermore, the differences
in the institutional backgrounds of stakeholders pose require-
ments for the managers to adjust their stakeholder management
approaches accordingly (Orr and Scott, 2008). In terms of the
challenge of managing stakeholders, the variety of goals with
respect to the system-level goals of the project become crucial. As
the stakeholders' goals become more fundamentally divergent
from those of the project, the management of stakeholders
becomes more challenging, particularly if such groups have
power and legitimacy in their environment (Freeman, 1984). The
variety of stakeholders and their goals is a constantly discussed
theme within project stakeholder management research: Research
on complex and conflicting stakeholder requirements and claims
(McKenna and Metcalfe, 2013; Li et al., 2011; Sutterfield et al.,
2006), on the identification and modeling stakeholders' claims
and requirements (Bourne and Walker, 2006; Bourne and
Walker, 2008; Yang et al., 2014), and on stakeholders' attributes
and positions (Aaltonen et al., 2008; Eskerod and Vaagaasar,
2014; Yang et al., 2014) and heterogeneity (Zeng et al., 2015)
provides accounts on the variety of needs. However, the
balancing processes with regard to stakeholders' expectations
and goals have been only limitedly addressed and have not been
addressed in a particularly concrete and systematic manner
(Chang et al., 2013). Studies that provide tools for classifying
stakeholders also highlight the importance of identifying and
addressing the concerns of most salient and critical stakeholders
(e.g., Aaltonen et al., 2008).
The third sub-factor, stakeholders' internal complexity, relates
to the multiplicity of goals and diversity within a single stakeholder
organization. The members within a stakeholder group may also
have multiple interests which creates intra-stakeholder heteroge-
neity. Recent findings from Ackermann and Eden (2011) within
the field of general stakeholder theory resonate with the internal
complexity aspect and indicate that there might be fundamentally
different claims and views on an issue within one stakeholder
organization. Wolfe and Putler (2002) argue that priorities within
role-based stakeholder groups are rarely homogeneous. As
differences and heterogeneity increase, the management of
stakeholders becomes more challenging. Few articles in our
project stakeholder management research sample bring up
stakeholders' internal complexity. Based on an in-depth longitu-
dinal case study, Eskerod and Vaagaasar (2014) discuss the
internal nuances and struggles within an organization regarding
how the stakeholder relationship management is thought to be
approached. By analyzing a complex delivery project to China,
Aaltonen et al. (2010) portray detailed accounts of struggles within
a single organization between local Chinese project members and
members located at the headquarters concerning how to manage a
local stakeholder conflict in China.
5.2. Stakeholder relationship complexity
Based on the systematic literature review, the stakeholder
relationship complexity construct was synthesized to include the
number, variety, patterns and internal complexity of stakeholder
relationships. In addition, we distinguished the complexity of
external stakeholder relationship as a different sub-element, due to
the cruciality and importance of external stakeholder relationships
in projects. In general, the construct of stakeholder relationship
complexity is closely tied to the characteristics of the project's
network of relationships. Rowley's (1997) work on stakeholder
 K. Aaltonen, J. Kujala / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537–1552
networks and their properties has been one of the landmark studies
on network properties within the general stakeholder theory
literature stream. In his study, which draws from social network
theory, stakeholder network density and the centrality of the focal
organization are identified as factors that have an effect on the
stakeholder management strategies of the focal organization.
Today, an increasing amount of research efforts within the project
management community have been directed to understanding
better how the characteristics of project stakeholder networks
actually influence stakeholder management.
The number of relationships among stakeholders deals
with the interconnectedness of stakeholders. In traditional hub-
and-spoke stakeholder models it is not actually usual to draw
links between stakeholders (Waxenberger and Spence, 2003).
Complexity theory maintains that as the number of relation-
ships among stakeholders increases, so do interaction and the
unpredictability of the system. In line with complexity theory,
Rowley's (1997) insight is that as the stakeholder network
becomes denser i.e. the number of ties in the network that link
stakeholders together, it becomes more challenging for the
focal organization to resist pressures from stakeholders due to
the visible and shared expectations of stakeholders. In such
situations, stakeholders are also more likely to form coalitions
because they do not have to bear the cost of establishing the
relationships. However, in projects, the crucial question is also
whether the goals within the stakeholder network are aligned
with those of the project. If they are divergent, the denser
network makes it more challenging to manage stakeholders. If
the dense network is formed by the alliance partners of the focal
organization with aligned goals, the density of the network may
also support the focal organization and decrease the challenge
of managing stakeholders (Aaltonen et al., 2010). Miller and
Hobbs (2006) also discovered that project structures that
involve many participants in networks of interdependent
relations are more vulnerable to exogenous emergent risks
related to stakeholder behavior. Hence, we can conclude that
the increased number of stakeholder relationships contributes to
the challenge of managing stakeholders. Few articles on project
stakeholder interactions and particularly on their number exist,
which is also brought up in articles that review project
stakeholder research (e.g., Yang et al., 2011). In their study of
stakeholder management in construction megaprojects Mok
et al. (2014) highlight the importance of considering the
implications of the interconnectedness of stakeholders for
stakeholder management. Research has also proposed that the
interactions of stakeholders influence the way focal project
organizations attempt to manage stakeholders (De Schepper
et al., 2014).
The variety of relationships increases the challenge of
managing stakeholders. For example, a project with five
stakeholders with similar types of relationships is easier to
manage than a project with a variety of different types of
stakeholder relationships and requirements for different types
of relationship management strategies and actions. Some of
these relationships may, for example, be critical, strategic and
long-term and hence require careful attention. In our sample,
for example, Artto et al. (2008a, 2008b, 2008c) discuss the
1543
risks that arise from different types of subcontractor relation-
ships and that may have a significant effect on business
performance. In their empirical analysis of an IT project and a
construction project, Bourne and Walker (2006) illuminate how
different types of relationships with different types of
requirements may require significant engagement investments
from the project management.
Patterns of relationships among stakeholders also play a
central role in the characterization of stakeholder landscapes.
Rowley (1997) discusses the centrality of focal organizations,
which can be calculated as the number of ties per one
stakeholder. Stakeholders with a high number of connections
are central actors that can typically exert a significant influence
over the network. The existence of central stakeholders,
particularly with diverging goals from those of the project,
increases the challenge of stakeholder management due to the
risk of the influence of such stakeholders (Rowley, 1997) or
because of the risk that stakeholder roles in such positions may
be removed. Stakeholder theory has also identified the
influence of coalitions and cliques within the stakeholder
network for management (Rowley and Moldoveanu, 2003). In
practice, the existence of stakeholder cliques makes it more
challenging for the focal project to control the stakeholder
network. The analyzed articles discuss patterns of relationships
occasionally. For instance, both Beringer et al. (2012) and
Yang et al. (2011) argue that stakeholders' complex interac-
tions and coalitions need to be taken into account in project
portfolio management processes. In the general stakeholder
research stream, both Frooman (1999) and Hendry (2005)
addressed the formation of coalitions and cliques while
discussing stakeholders' influence strategies.
Relationships' internal complexity relates to the complex
relationships among project organization and single stake-
holders. One dyadic relationship between the project and the
stakeholder that features, e.g., high institutional and cultural
distance (Ruuska et al., 2009), challenging co-operation
(Vaagaasar, 2011) or strong controversies (Artto et al., 2008a,
2008b, 2008c) can generate many more challenging stakehold-
er management situations than several rather simple stakeholder
relationships.
External stakeholder relationships are a project's relation-
ships with external stakeholders, i.e., those stakeholders that are
not part of the project coalition but are affected by the project or
can affect it. External stakeholder relationships are discussed
regularly in project stakeholder management research. In
particular, large and complex projects are subject to the effects
of a wider socio-political environment and the demands and
pressures stemming from external stakeholders such as
community groups, local residents, landowners, environmen-
talists, regulatory agencies, and local and national governments
(Aaltonen et al., 2008; Aarseth et al., 2013; Flyvbjerg, 2014).
Recently, for instance, Sallinen et al. (2011, 2013) discussed
the role of government stakeholders in nuclear power plant
projects. Research evidence has also indicated that a project's
exposure to the host country's institutional influences, through
external local stakeholder relationships, may simultaneously
help root the project to the local institutional context but also
1544 K. Aaltonen, J. Kujala / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537–1552
generate unexpected events in international projects (Aaltonen
et al., 2008; Floricel and Miller, 2001; Orr and Scott, 2008).
6. Uncertainty
Uncertainty has been defined in numerous ways in the
literature. Within complexity theory, uncertainty relates to the
current and future states of the elements that form the system
and to the interaction between the elements (Geraldi et al.,
2011). Uncertainty is a central element in the project risk
management literature, where it is tightly coupled to the
concept of risk (Ward and Chapman, 2008). A recent
discussion within project risk management has focused on,
among other themes, the level of unpredictability, including
variation, foreseen uncertainty and unforeseen uncertainty
(Loch et al., 2006).
The fact that the stakeholder landscape's state is emergent
and the interactions are more or less unpredictable creates a
situation for project managers in which there is a gap between
the amount of information required for decision-making and
what is actually available. This gap links to the common
definition of uncertainty within organizational theory as a lack
of information or a lack of agreement over the current and
future situation (Geraldi et al., 2011). From this perspective, the
uncertainty of the stakeholder landscape can be understood as
the emergent nature of the stakeholder system, unpredictable
interactions between stakeholders and the lack of information
that managers face with regard to stakeholders' attributes,
behaviors and interactions. Indeed, uncertainty has been
described as one of the key challenges with regard to project
stakeholder management: There are accounts of the challenges
of collecting relevant stakeholder information and identifying
key stakeholders (Jepsen and Eskerod, 2009; Mok et al., 2014;
Yuan, 2013; Yang et al., 2014), emergent stakeholders and
their behaviors (Aaltonen, 2011), uncertainty related to
stakeholders' requirements (Tang and Shen, 2013), unpredict-
able interactions between stakeholders (Floricel and Miller,
2001) and descriptions of the ambiguous nature of stakeholder-
related information (Aaltonen, 2011).
In addition, we identified in our analysis the experience of
the project manager with regard to stakeholders as one
important determinant of the degree of uncertainty (Aaltonen,
2011; Maylor et al., 2008). For instance, by analyzing project
managers' sensemaking with regard to their stakeholder
landscape, Aaltonen (2011) asserts that project managers'
experience on stakeholder conflicts contributes to the way
sensemaking processes are carried out. Indeed, Mitchell et al.
(1997) argue that managerial characteristics are an important
factor in stakeholder management because managers vary
greatly, for example, in their environmental scanning practices
and values. Hence, the experience of working with stakeholders
and analyzing the stakeholder environment decreases uncer-
tainty (Jepsen and Eskerod, 2009); it is probable that active
approaches towards the stakeholder environment also contrib-
ute to the availability of information on each stakeholder.
Indeed, the process of stakeholder analysis (identification and
classification of stakeholders) can be understood as a highly
effective way to reduce uncertainty related to the stakeholder
landscape.
However, empirical studies have shown that the gathering of
stakeholder environment-related information is challenging in
practice and that managers do not always believe in the
usefulness of the collected information (Jepsen and Eskerod,
2009). Empirical research has also acknowledged the difficul-
ties for an organization to draw boundaries during the process
of stakeholder identification (Achterkamp and Vos, 2008); the
human limitations concerning the existing methods and tools
for identifying stakeholders (Jepsen and Eskerod, 2009) and
difficulties associated with the dynamic and uncertain nature of
the stakeholder environment make environmental analysis
more challenging (Olander and Landin, 2005; Yang et al.,
2011). Furthermore, in some specific institutional environ-
ments, the overall visibility to the stakeholder landscape may be
extremely low, hence restricting the analyzability of the
stakeholder environment that has also been addressed in project
stakeholder management research (Aaltonen, 2011; Jepsen and
Eskerod, 2009). In an empirical analysis of four international
engineering projects, Aaltonen (2011) shows how project
stakeholder environments vary with regard to their analyzabil-
ity from visible stakeholder environments to blurred ones. In
this study, particularly the role of project managements'
beliefs about the analyzability of the environment and their
general intrusiveness and orientation towards the stakeholder
environment was seen to play an important role in how
projects actually collect and process stakeholder-related
information.
Based on our analysis, uncertainty can also be related to the
ambiguous information concerning stakeholders, meaning that
there are various interpretations of the stakeholder landscape
within the project organization (Walker et al., 2014). Further-
more, the level of knowledge, resources and capabilities of the
stakeholders to make themselves heard and engaged contributes
to the uncertainty element. Walker et al. (2014) suggest that
ambiguity with regard to stakeholders' objectives and claims
can be reduced by the use of rich pictures. Stakeholders can
also create ambiguity through their own actions for example by
using double standards in their operations and communications:
Martin (2015) reports how powerful groups can use a variety of
tactics to reduce awareness and concern about their own actions
while raising the alarm about others.
7. Dynamism
Within systems theory, dynamism can be understood as the
system's propensity to change or as volatility. Dynamism is a
fundamental property of complex systems and an important and
acknowledged element of project stakeholder environments
(Artto et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Aaltonen et al., 2015).
However, both Geraldi et al. (2011) and Ramasesh and
Browning (2014) note that despite being widely discussed
and debated, dynamism is a poorly understood concept, and its
attributes are not well characterized in the literature.
Scholars within stakeholder theory and project stakeholder
management fields have called for an increased empirical and
 K. Aaltonen, J. Kujala / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537–1552
theoretical understanding of stakeholder dynamism and its
elements (Yang et al., 2011). Aaltonen et al. (2015) concep-
tualized stakeholder dynamism as the changes in stakeholders'
attributes or position towards the project. For instance, Olander
and Landin (2005) provide an insightful analysis on the
changes' in stakeholders' interests and power over the project
lifecycle. Vaagaasar (2011) and Missonier and Loufrani-Fedida
(2014) show, through in-depth empirical case studies, how
stakeholder relationship dynamics affect project execution, and
De Schepper et al. (2014) provide and in-depth account of how
a PPP setup significantly reinforces stakeholder dynamics.
In projects, dynamism can also be featured through the
emergence of completely new stakeholder groups or new or
changed relationships among stakeholders that has also been
brought up by project management scholars (Missonier and
Loufrani-Fedida, 2014; Sage et al., 2011). Tryggestad et al.
(2013) showed, in their fascinating case study on a construction
project, how frogs emerged as a salient new stakeholder group
during the project lifecycle. Stakeholder dynamism is also
visible in the changes in terms of appropriate ways of engaging
stakeholders, which may be introduced by, for example, new
laws, new regulations and demands. In their studies on
unexpected events on projects Orr and Scott (2008) discuss
how the attitudes within the local environment in terms of
appropriate ways of engaging stakeholders may change
significantly over the project lifecycle.
In addition to the characterizations of stakeholder dynamism,
the drivers of it have also been discussed in the project
stakeholder management literature. In particular, stakeholder
influence strategies (Aaltonen et al., 2008; Beringer et al., 2013),
focal projects' stakeholder management strategies (Aaltonen and
Sivonen, 2009; Savage et al., 1991) and projects' contextual
factors have been identified as salient drivers of stakeholder
dynamism. Furthermore, by adopting the stakeholder mobiliza-
tion theory's perspective (Rowley and Moldoveanu, 2003), the
urgency of the claims for stakeholders and the potential of
stakeholders to mobilize and use influence strategies to change
their position become important (Aaltonen and Kujala, 2010;
Beringer et al., 2013; Purvis et al., 2015). The intensity of
the influence strategies used by stakeholders and the changes
in the stakeholders' influence strategies used, i.e., influence
behavior, can also be considered as key elements of the
dynamism dimension that has been discussed in project
stakeholder management research. For instance, Aaltonen
and Kujala (2010) show through a single case study how
stakeholder's influence strategies may suddenly change from
more passive strategies to intense influence strategies as new
stakeholder coalitions are born. The literature on social
movements also constantly addresses the dynamics of diverse
stakeholder organizations' influence strategies as well as the
dynamics of stakeholder oganizations themselves. For instance
Szulecki et al. (2015) discusses the mobilization and emergence
of environmental issues within environmental movements as well
as highlights the dynamics of influence strategies enacted by the
movements. Dynamism can also be considered to be tightly
related to how stakeholders' concerns are actually taken into
account, engaged and shaped (Miller and Lessard, 2001) by the
1545
project management. Research provides empirical examples of
project cases in which stakeholders have mobilized due to the
ineffective engagement of stakeholders, e.g., informing about
project decisions too late. Here, the experience of project
management from stakeholder engagement becomes important:
More experienced managers may provide stabilizing elements
with regard to the stakeholder environment. The project lifecycle
stage also has a significant influence on the dynamism of the
stakeholder landscape (Zeng et al., 2015): Typically, the early
front-end phase is most turbulent as the stakeholders attempt to
shape their position within the constituting network (Morris,
2013).
8. Institutional context
Projects' interaction with their institutional contexts signif-
icantly influences the way projects are managed (e.g., Orr and
Scott, 2008). Although the institutional environment poses
demands and influences on the project organization to which it
needs to respond, projects may also proactively attempt to
shape their institutional contexts (Miller and Lessard, 2001).
Scott (1995) divides the institutional environment into three
pillars: a set of regulatory, normative and cognitive elements.
With respect to our literature analysis on stakeholder land-
scapes, institutional context dimension can be understood
through the sub-factors of stakeholders' local embeddedness,
formal or informal legitimized structures and processes for
engaging stakeholders, the types of stakeholder behaviors and
influence strategies viewed as acceptable, the multiplicity of
institutional environments, and the complexity of the interpre-
tation process.
The connectedness of the project's stakeholders with the
other actors in the institutional environment that are out of the
sphere of the project's direct control may also influence the
project execution. The concept of stakeholders' local
embeddedness, referring to the number and content of the
relationships between the project's stakeholders and the local
actors, has been suggested as a measure to understand
institutional influence through local stakeholders in projects
(Orr and Scott, 2008). In our sample only one article addresses
stakeholders' local embeddedness. By empirically studying
three international engineering delivery projects, Aaltonen et al.
(2010) show how the connectedness of key stakeholders to
third parties, such as strong local political groups or
environmental NGOs, may in some cases support the
legitimacy of the project through additional institutional
resources and knowledge. However, stakeholders' local
embeddedness may simultaneously pose significant uncer-
tainties for the project, particularly in situations where actors in
the institutional environment that are not directly related to the
project, but have power over its stakeholders, attempt to
promote their own objectives, agendas and goals in the minds
of the stakeholders they can control.
The existence of formal or informal legitimized structures
and processes for engaging stakeholders has also been brought
up in the project stakeholder management literature as a salient
characteristic of the institutional context (e.g. Aaltonen, 2013).
1546 K. Aaltonen, J. Kujala / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537–1552
For example, mandatory social impact assessments in large
projects or formal change-request procedures in NPD projects
provide a legitimized process for engaging stakeholders and a
channel for informing stakeholders. For instance, Sallinen et al.
(2011) discuss the regulatory role of authorities in the building
of the nuclear power plant and the accepted processes and
interaction through which governmental stakeholders should be
engaged in the project. In turn, institutional environments that
lack structures and governance models for effectively engaging
stakeholders or have multiple and changing processes for
stakeholder engagement can be considered more complex
(Shiferaw et al., 2012).
Institutional environments may also vary with regard to
what types of stakeholder behaviors and influence strategies
are viewed as acceptable. For example, in some country
environments, subcontractors' strikes may be viewed as a
legitimized means of influencing the customer, whereas in
other country environments, such practices would be highly
judged (Aaltonen, 2013; Soundain et al., 2009). The multiplic-
ity of institutional environments of a project is also a relevant
factor. Large, international projects typically face multiple
countries' institutional environments or different institutional
environments within one country. For example, pipeline
projects are excellent examples of projects that physically
cross a number of different countries, each with their own set of
regulative, cognitive and normative characteristics in terms of
stakeholder behavior and engagement (Orr and Scott, 2008).
Within these projects, project management has to understand
and take into account the different rules, regulations, permis-
sion procedures and expectations of stakeholders between the
different regions in its operations (Mok et al., 2014). Finally,
based on our analysis, we suggest that factors related to the
complexity of stakeholders' interpretation process by which the
stakeholders make sense and build their perception of the
project and its stakeholder management may also have
implications for the challenge of managing stakeholders
(Aaltonen, 2013; Aarseth et al., 2013; Boonstra, 2006). This
interpretation process is highly sociopolitical, cognitive and
complex in nature. The stakeholder demands and structure of
the institutional environment are typically country, field or
organization specific and therefore vary across environments
(Kostova and Zaheer, 1999).
9. Discussion
Our aim in this study was to conceptualize stakeholder
landscape and to develop understanding of its key character-
istics through synthesis and consolidation of a large body of
knowledge on project stakeholder management. Based on our
analysis we can conceptualize stakeholder landscapes to consist
of all organizations and individuals that can affect or are
affected by a project and of relationships among these
organizations and individuals. Our findings also show how
stakeholder landscapes can be characterized through the
dimensions of complexity (element and relationship), uncer-
tainty, dynamism and institutional context and the various
sub-factors of each of the dimensions. These key findings fill a
gap and make the primary contribution to project stakeholder
management research, since prior literature has paid very
limited attention to systematically defining stakeholder envi-
ronments, their designs and key characteristics. Even though
there has been substantial growth in the research on and interest
in project stakeholder management (Littau et al., 2010; Mok et al.,
2014; Yang et al., 2011), this research has offered insights,
suitable tools and frameworks for analyzing primarily the element
and stakeholder relationship complexity dimensions of our
framework. The value of our novel conceptualization of project
stakeholder landscapes and umbrella framework for project
stakeholder scholars is that it integrates and consolidates different
theoretical approaches, research and concepts inherent in
project stakeholder research into a theoretically grounded and
multi-dimensional framework of project stakeholder landscape.
This understanding is the necessary first step for scholars to be
able to operationalize and later measure the characteristics of
project stakeholder landscapes, build landscape typologies in
different contexts and start theorizing on how projects and
companies strategize in practice with regard to their stakeholders
in different kinds of contexts (Aaltonen et al., 2015; Vaagaasar
and Eskerod, 2014). We also believe that our stakeholder
landscape framework, when developed forward, may provide
important insights and complementary knowledge to the under-
standing of stakeholder contexts within the general stakeholder
research stream (Fassin, 2008), where the concept of stakeholder
environment has been widely neglected. In addition, our
framework may provide novel perspectives and ideas for how to
systematically address and conceptualize the interplay of projects
with their environments (Artto et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2008c) also
outside the field of project stakeholder management research.
Furthermore, the framework and its identified key dimen-
sions bring up various interesting insights and areas that have
not been combined explicitly in previous project stakeholder
studies. The systematic literature review revealed that in
particular, the dimensions of uncertainty, dynamism and
institutional context in our framework have been largely
underpresented in previous accounts of project stakeholder
management, while much of the focus has been addressed to
stakeholders' characteristics and goals (Achterkamp and Vos,
2008; Littau et al., 2010; Mok et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2011).
The identified sub-factors in the uncertainty element of the
stakeholder landscape challenge the existing rationalized
stakeholder analysis approaches and call for making sense
and understanding stakeholders' and their behaviors from
multiple perspectives. The dynamism dimension, in turn,
highlights the temporal and transitory nature of stakeholder
landscapes that is in constant flux. Therefore, the profile of each
element will change over time as the project proceeds
throughout its lifecycle (Geraldi and Aldbrecht, 2007).
Furthermore, although dynamism is frequently used as a
“magic word” in project stakeholder research, apparently very
few studies have attempted to conceptualize it properly. Our
identification of the key factors associated with stakeholder
dynamics, hence, also responds to the recent calls for research
on this area of stakeholder research (Aaltonen et al., 2015; De
Schepper et al., 2014). Finally, our framework also modestly
 K. Aaltonen, J. Kujala / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537–1552
contributes to stakeholder research by making more explicit the
connection of the institutional context and its conceptualization
with stakeholder related phenomena — an area which has
been largely neglected in prior research. The multiplicity of
institutional environments concerning the legitimized and
expected processes for engaging stakeholders (Orr and
Scott, 2008) is a highly relevant challenge in today's multi-
organizational and multi-cultural projects. However, we do not
currently have an adequate understanding of how project
organizations actually respond to the conflicting procedural
requirements, i.e. institutional complexity when organizing
their stakeholder management.
Combining the dimensions of complexity, uncertainty,
dynamism and institutional context into a single stakeholder
landscape framework offers the potential to explicitly start
addressing the interconnections of the dimensions. In other words,
not only do projects represent a combination of these dimensions,
but the dimensions are also highly interdependent. For instance, a
high degree of element and relationship complexity may lead to
increased levels of dynamism: e.g. stakeholders' capacity to
form coalitions with each other is associated with changes in their
attributes and position. In addition, increased levels of stakeholder
dynamism may decrease the analyzability of the stakeholder
landscape, and, hence contribute to increased levels of stakeholder
landscape uncertainty. Furthermore, the increased complexity of
the institutional context may be associated with increased levels of
stakeholder landscape uncertainty. For example, when the level of
stakeholders' local embeddedness increases it becomes more
challenging for the managers to foresee and anticipate local
stakeholders' behaviors. Clearly more work is needed looking at
the interdependencies in the future.
The developed framework also contributes to the increasing
stream of studies that are defining, conceptualizing, synthesiz-
ing and making sense of project complexity and its implications
for project management (Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2011; Geraldi
and Adlbrecht, 2007; Geraldi et al., 2011; Maylor et al., 2008;
Shenhar, 2001; Shenhar and Dvir, 1996; Vidal and Marle,
2008). Although resonating with many of the previous findings
on project complexity, the distinctive feature of our framework
is that it is tightly focused on the characteristics of the project
stakeholder landscape. As such, our framework provides an
extended portrayal of particularly project stakeholder related
complexities that complements prior project complexity
research.
10. Conclusions
As today's projects navigate in increasingly complex
stakeholder landscapes, understanding their salient key dimen-
sions and diagnosing challenges that stakeholders may pose is
vital for scholars and practitioners. As an answer to our
research question we conceptualize stakeholder landscapes to
consist of all organizations and individuals that can affect or are
affected by a project and of relationships among these
organizations and individuals. In addition, as a result of our
systematic literature review we suggest that the key dimensions
of project stakeholder landscapes are complexity (element and
1547
relationship), uncertainty, dynamism and institutional context
and the various sub-factors of each of the dimensions. The
conceptualization of project stakeholder landscape and the
developed integrative framework with four key dimensions will
provide project management academics and practitioners with a
shared model to make sense of what types of project
stakeholder landscapes exist, to categorize projects based on
their stakeholder landscapes and to start evaluating what kinds
of implications different types of landscapes have for managing
both stakeholders and projects. The primary contribution of this
study is made to project stakeholder management research
through introducing and conceptualizing the concept of project
stakeholder landscape and through synthesizing, elaborating
and developing further research on a project's stakeholder
environment. In addition to filling a gap in the project
stakeholder management literature, our analysis brings up key
gaps and areas for further research on project stakeholder
management. The most promising avenues include research
that would take into account managerial cognition and its role
in managing uncertainty inherent in stakeholder landscapes,
research that would produce in-depth empirical examinations
on project stakeholder dynamics, and research that would
increase our knowledge of how the institutional complexity of
the stakeholder landscape is interpreted, addressed and
managed in different types of projects.
10.1. Managerial implications
In practice, the developed framework can be utilized by
managers to analyze, assess and identify their projects and to
categorize them based on their stakeholder landscape features.
Furthermore, applying the developed framework to the analysis
of a project provides managers with a starting point for
assessing what types of challenges the different dimensions
may pose for a project and what types of managerial
approaches would be most appropriate. Clearly, the four
dimensions of the framework have the propensity to increase
the challenge of managing stakeholders and may also explain
the probability of stakeholder conflicts in projects. For
example, as the degree of stakeholder complexity increases, it
becomes more challenging for the project management to build
win-win solutions and balance between stakeholders' claims,
which, in turn, may increase the probability of stakeholder
conflicts. We believe that the developed framework could be
particularly valuable in the evaluation of the stakeholder
landscape during the early front-end phases of projects, when
many far-reaching strategic decisions concerning the objec-
tives, processes and organizing of the project need to be made
(Aaltonen et al., 2015). Initial assessments of stakeholder
landscapes at this point would support managers when making
decisions on the engagement of stakeholders, on the potential
shaping activities related to the stakeholder landscape and on
the overall strategy of the project (Artto et al., 2008a, 2008b,
2008c). Naturally, the stakeholder landscape framework can
also be used to support project stakeholder analysis work and
stakeholder related decision making throughout the whole
project lifecycle. We believe that the framework would be
1548 K. Aaltonen, J. Kujala / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537–1552
particularly useful and valuable for managers, when used as a
tool for the identification of transition points of the project
stakeholder landscape profiles during the project life-cycle.
Paying more attention to the transition periods would support
project managers in their attempts to be more proactive towards
stakeholders (Turkulainen et al., 2015).
The framework also supports managers in project-based
firms in the overall decision making concerning the design,
organizing and resourcing of projects. First, by categorizing
projects based on the challenges that their stakeholder
landscape poses, project-based organizations can allocate right
types of project personnel resources to projects. A project with
a highly complex stakeholder landscape may require extra
resources and competence development in terms of stakeholder
management activities and a heavyweight project manager with
experience in various types of stakeholder and engagement
processes (Bosch-Rekveldt et al., 2009; Geraldi et al., 2011;
Remington and Pollack, 2007; Thomas and Mengel, 2008).
Furthermore, project stakeholder management processes may
be tailored and adapted based on the assessment results: For
instance, projects with complicated stakeholder landscapes may
require a more intensive and detailed focus on stakeholder
identification, analysis and engagement in comparison with
projects with simpler landscapes. In line with complexity
theory, chaotic stakeholder landscapes, however, would not
benefit from detailed approaches; in such environments simple
rules have been found to be more effective to deal with the
emergent phenomena. Different project performance indicators
and success criteria may also be used in projects with different
types of stakeholder landscapes.
10.2. Limitations and areas for further research
This study has some key limitations. Using systematic
literature review as a method of analyzing and searching
literature in order to build conceptual understanding and
framework has naturally disadvantages. The employed method
results in a sample where the data for the analysis contain
diverse ontological and epistemological starting points. More-
over, the developed framework is not suggested to present a
complete and exhaustive list of all factors relevant in
characterizing project stakeholder landscapes, but because it is
based on a systematic literature review, it is focused on the
findings from existing studies. Furthermore, we purposefully
decided to limit the sample to three leading project manage-
ment journals which may have omitted some key contributions
on project stakeholder landscapes in field-specific journals such
as construction management journals. A further aspect is that
the degree of the operationalizability of the presented
sub-factors is also currently varying: It is rather straightforward
to measure the number of stakeholder organizations, but it is
more challenging to start measuring precisely, for instance, the
complexity of the interpretation processes of stakeholders.
Further work is clearly needed with the operationalization of
the constructs to be able to profile and measure stakeholder
landscapes in future work.
Obviously, there is a need to examine and validate the
framework in practice in focused future empirical work.
Evidently, engaging in data collection based on the dimensions
and applying the framework in real-life projects would provide
us with better insights on the applicability of the framework, on
the practical needs and requirements for developing the
conceptualization of factors, and on the potential new
sub-factors that are missing. The empirical work would also
equip us with better capabilities to start forming different types
of stakeholder landscape profiles and typologies determined by
the combinatory profiles of different dimensions. This could,
for example, first be done by analyzing selected case projects
from the perspective of how their managers and members
perceive and interpret the salient characteristics of their
stakeholder landscapes in practice, and how the developed
conceptual framework fits with their ideas on stakeholder
landscapes. Further analysis of how different projects and their
managers actually address stakeholder landscape complexities
in practice and make decisions related to them would also offer
grounds for theorizing about the appropriate managerial
responses in different types of stakeholder landscapes. Ideally
in this kind of research the actual decision making processes
would be closely observed and the research design would
employ ethnographic methods. Conducting empirical work in
different project contexts, such as delivery projects, new
product development projects, and organizational change
projects in different industries, would also shed light on the
peculiarities and implications of different project types and
industries on project landscape characteristics. Ideally, the
developed framework will allow us in later stages to connect
knowledge and research results that have accumulated in
different environments, such as engineering, information
technology and new product development projects and to start
theorizing on the effects of the stakeholder environment on
various project-related phenomena.
In addition to forthcoming empirical inquiries, we are aware of
the potential pathways for deepening and extending our
systematic literature analysis. The categorizing and coding of
the literature could also be extended by including evidence,
indicators and ideas from prior studies regarding what types of
managerial approaches have been and could be employed for
managing stakeholder landscapes in different empirical and
theoretical studies included in our sample. Furthermore, widen-
ing the systematic literature analysis approach to include the
general stakeholder literature would make our examination even
more convincing. Taken together, the framework equips us with a
starting point to start reflecting and theorizing on how the key
dimensions are associated with the challenge of managing
stakeholders, stakeholder conflicts and unexpected events and
on the way managers should manage stakeholders effectively in
different types of landscapes. Different types of project
typologies and profiling of projects may also be developed
based on the four key dimensions.
A number of other areas for further research on project
stakeholder management emerged from our analysis. By using
the analysis framework during the different stages of the project
lifecycle, we could start to understand how stakeholder landscape
 K. Aaltonen, J. Kujala / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537–1552
profiles and patterns change and evolve during the project and
how managers actually make sense of and accommodate these
changes. Second, as mentioned above, the framework provides us
with relevant characteristics of project stakeholder environments
that can help us determine what criteria managers particularly
emphasize when making deliberate choices on project structures
and how managers attempt to shape their stakeholder landscapes
into simpler ones. Third, because almost all projects are currently
implemented in some type of inter-organizational setting, there is
a need to examine how stakeholder landscapes are assessed and
negotiated in interactions of many focal project organizations
Appendix 1
Table 1
Elements characterizing stakeholder landscape from literature sources.
Complexity (element complexity)
• Number of project stakeholders
• Variety of project stakeholders and their goals
• Stakeholders' internal complexity
Complexity (relationship complexity)
• Number of relationships among stakeholders
• Variety of relationships
• Patterns of relationships
• Relationships' internal complexity
• External stakeholder relationships
Uncertainty
• Lack of information related to stakeholders and their relationships
• Project management's experience with respect to stakeholders
and stakeholder analysis
• Analyzability of the stakeholder environment
• Ambiguous information concerning stakeholders
Dynamism
• Changes in stakeholders' attributes
• Changes in stakeholders' position
• Changes in relationships among stakeholders
• Emergent stakeholders and relationships
• Changes in appropriate ways of engaging stakeholders
• Changes in stakeholders' influence strategies
Institutional context
• Stakeholders' local embeddedness
• Legitimized structures and processes for stakeholder engagement
• The nature of stakeholders' legitimized influence strategies
• Multiplicity of institutional environments
• Complexity of stakeholders' interpretation process
1549
that jointly form the core of the whole project. Finally, the
interaction patterns of the different dimensions of the framework
should be on the research agenda. We also believe that our
framework may support scholars in identifying what types of
dimensions and factors they should take into account when
conducting empirical research on project stakeholder manage-
ment and in characterizing their case environments: Indeed, the
current challenge of theorizing on extant project stakeholder
management research is that different studies tend to bring up
random facts about the project stakeholder context where the
research is conducted.
Artto et al., 2008a; Artto et al., 2008b; Davies and Mackenzie, 2014; Martinsuo
and Lehtonen, 2009;
Achterkamp and Vos, 2008; Bourne and Walker, 2006; Bourne and Walker,
2008; Chang et al., 2013; ; El-Gohary et al., 2006; Eskerod and Huemann,
2013; Li et al., 2011; Locatelli et al., 2014; Maylor et al., 2008; McKenna and
Metcalfe, 2013; Metcalfe and Sastrowardoyo, 2013; Mok et al., 2014; Pérez
et al., 2010; Soudain et al., 2009; Van Os et al., 2015; Walley, 2013; Yang,
2014; Yang et al., 2014; Zeng et al., 2015;
Aaltonen et al., 2010; Eskerod and Vaagaasar, 2014; Legris and Collerette,
2006; Sutterfield et al., 2006
Aaltonen and Sivonen, 2009; Aaltonen et al., 2010; De Schepper et al., 2014;
Maylor et al., 2008; Mok et al., 2014; Yang, 2014; Yang et al., 2011
Aaltonen et al., 2010; Aaltonen and Sivonen, 2010; Bourne and Walker, 2006;
Bourne and Walker, 2008; Maylor et al., 2008; Soudain et al. 2009; Yuan,
2013
Aaltonen et al., 2008; Beringer et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2011
Artto et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Soudain et al. 2009; Vaagaasar, 2011
Aaltonen et al., 2008; Aarseth et al., 2013; Davies and Mackenzie, 2014;
Sallinen et al., 2011; Sallinen et al., 2013
Aaltonen, 2011; Jepsen and Eskerod, 2009; Mok et al., 2014; Tang and Shen,
2013; Turner and Zolin, 2012; Yang et al., 2014; Yuan, 2013
Aaltonen, 2011; Bourne, 2008; Jepsen and Eskerod, 2009; Maylor et al., 2008
Aaltonen, 2011; Jepsen and Eskerod, 2009
Aaltonen, 2011; Walker et al., 2014
Bourne and Walker, 2006; Maylor et al., 2008; Olander and Landin, 2005
Boonstra, 2006; De Schepper et al., 2014; Missonier and Loufrani-Dedida,
2014; Tryggestad et al., 2013; Zeng et al., 2015
Aaltonen et al., 2008; Eskerod and Vaagaasar, 2014; Missonier and
Loufrani-Fedida, 2014; Vaagaasar, 2011; Van Os et al., 2015
Missonier and Loufrani-Fedida, 2014; Tryggestad et al., 2013; Sage et al., 2011
Aaltonen et al., 2008; Aaltonen, 2013
Aaltonen et al., 2008; Beringer et al., 2013; Purvis et al., 2015
Aaltonen et al., 2010; De Schepper et al., 2014; Shiferaw et al., 2012; Zeng
et al., 2015
Aaltonen, 2013; Aaltonen and Sivonen, 2009; Heravi et al., 2014; Sallinen
et al., 2011; Shiferaw et al., 2012; Youker, 1992; Zeng et al., 2015
Aaltonen, 2013; Soudain et al., 2009
Aaltonen, 2013; Mok et al., 2014;Yuan, 2013
Aaltonen, 2013; Aarseth et al., 2013; Boonstra, 2006
1550 K. Aaltonen, J. Kujala / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537–1552
References
Aaltonen, K., 2010. Stakeholder management in international projects. Doctoral
Dissertation. Aalto University, School of Science and Technology,
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management. Doctoral Disser-
tation Series 2010/13. Espoo, p. 119.
Aaltonen, K., 2011. Project stakeholder analysis as an environmental
interpretation process. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29 (2), 165–183.
Aaltonen, K., 2013. The establishment of legitimacy: the case of international
projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6 (1), 13–35.
Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., 2010. A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder
influence strategies in global projects. Scand. J. Manag. 26 (4), 381–397.
Aaltonen, K., Sivonen, R., 2009. Response strategies to stakeholder pressures in
global projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27 (2), 131–141.
Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., Oijala, T., 2008. Stakeholder salience in global
projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (5), 509–516.
Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., Lehtonen, P., Ruuska, I., 2010. A stakeholder network
perspective on unexpected events and their management in international
projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 3 (4), 564–588.
Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., Havela, L., Savage, G., 2015. Stakeholder dynamics
during the project front-end. Proj. Manag. J. 46 (6), 15–41.
Aarseth, W., Rolstadås, A., Andersen, B., 2013. Managing organizational
challenges in global projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 7 (1), 103–132.
Achterkamp, M.C., Vos, J.F.J., 2008. Investigating the use of the stakeholder
notion in project management literature, a meta-analysis. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 26 (7), 749–757.
Ackermann, F., Eden, C., 2011. Strategic management of stakeholders: theory
and practice. Long Range Plan. 44, 179–196.
Artto, K., Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., 2008a. Subcontractors's business
relationships as risk sources in project networks. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus.
1 (1), 88–105.
Artto, K., Kujala, J., Dietrich, P., Martinsuo, M., 2008b. What is project
strategy? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (1), 4–12.
Artto, K., Martinsuo, M., Dietrich, P., Kujala, J., 2008c. Project strategy:
strategy types and their contents in innovation projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj.
Bus. 1 (1), 49–70.
Bakker, R., 2010. Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: a systematic
review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 12, 466–486.
Beringer, C., Jonas, D., Gemünden, H.G., 2012. Establishing project portfolio
management: an exploratory analysis of the influence of internal
stakeholders' interactions. Proj. Manag. J. 43 (6), 16–32.
Beringer, C., Jonas, D., Kock, A., 2013. Behavior of internal stakeholders in
project portfolio management and its impact on success. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
31 (6), 830–846.
Boonstra, A., 2006. Interpreting an ERP-implementation project from a
stakeholder perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24 (1), 38–52.
Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Jongkind, Y., Mooi, H., Bakker, H., Verbraeck, A., 2011.
Grasping project complexity in large engineering projects: the TOE
(technical, organizational and environmental) framework. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 29 (6), 728–739.
Bourne, L., 2008. Advancing theory and practice for successful implementation
of stakeholder management in organisations. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 1 (4),
587–601.
Bourne, L., Walker, D.H., 2005. Visualizing and mapping stakeholder
influence. Manag. Decis. 43 (5), 649–660.
Bourne, L., Walker, D.H.T., 2006. Visualizing stakeholder influence–two
Australian examples. Proj. Manag. J. 37 (1), 5–21.
Bourne, L., Walker, D.H.T., 2008. Project relationship management and the
stakeholder circle™. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 1 (1), 125–130.
Chang, A., Chih, Y., Chew, E., Pisarski, A., 2013. Reconceptualizing mega
project success in Australian defence: recognizing the importance of value
co-creation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (8), 1139–1153.
Choi, T., Dooley, K.J., Rungtusanatham, M., 2001. Supply networks and
complex adaptive systems: control versus emergence. J. Oper. Manag. 19,
351–366.
Clarkson, M.E., 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating
corporate social performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (1), 92–117.
Cleland, D.I., 1986. Project stakeholder management. Proj. Manag. J. 17 (4), 36–44.
Cleland, D.I., 1998. Stakeholder Management. Project Management Handbook.
pp. 55–72.
Cova, B., Salle, R., 2005. Six key points to merge project marketing into project
management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23 (5), 354–359.
Crossan, M.M., Apaydin, M., 2010. A multi-dimensional framework of
organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. J. Manag.
Stud. 47 (6), 1154–1191.
Davies, A., Mackenzie, I., 2014. Project complexity and systems integration:
constructing the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics games. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 32 (5), 773–790.
De Schepper, S., Dooms, M., Haezendonck, E., 2014. Stakeholder dynamics
and responsibilities in public–private partnerships: a mixed experience. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 32 (7), 1210–1222.
Donaldson, T., Preston, L.E., 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation:
concepts, evidence and implications. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (1), 65–91.
El-Gohary, N.M., Osman, H., El-Diraby, T.E., 2006. Stakeholder management
for public private partnerships. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24 (7), 595–604.
Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., 2013. Sustainable development and project
stakeholder management: what standards say? Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6
(1), 36–50.
Eskerod, P., Vaagaasar, A.L., 2014. Stakeholder management strategies and
practices during a project course. Proj. Manag. J. 45 (5), 71–85.
Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., Savage, G., 2015. Project stakeholder management —
past and present. Proj. Manag. J. 46 (6), 6–14.
Fassin, Y., 2008. Imperfections and shortcomings of the stakeholder model's
graphical presentation. J. Bus. Ethics 80, 879–888.
Floricel, S., Miller, R., 2001. Strategizing for anticipated risks and turbulence in
large-scale engineering projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 19 (8), 445–455.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2014. What you should know about megaprojects and why: an
overview. Proj. Manag. J. 45, 6–19.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Pitman,
Boston.
Frooman, J., 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 (2),
191–205.
Geraldi, J.G., Adlbrecht, G., 2007. On faith, fact and interaction in projects.
Proj. Manag. J. 38 (1), 32–43.
Geraldi, J., Maylor, H., Williams, T., 2011. Now, let's make it really complex
(complicated): a systematic review of the complexities of projects. Int.
J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 31 (9), 966–990.
Hendry, J.R., 2005. Stakeholder influence strategies: an empirical exploration.
J. Bus. Ethics 61 (1), 79–99.
Jacobs, M.A., Swink, M., 2011. Product portfolio architectural complexity and
operational performance: incorporating the roles of learning and fixed
assets. J. Oper. Manag. 29 (7–8), 677-69.
Jawahar, I., McLaughlin, G.L., 2001. Toward a descriptive stakeholder
theory: an organizational life cycle approach. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26 (3),
397–414.
Jensen, C., Johansson, S., Löfström, M., 2006. Project relationships—a model
for analyzing interactional uncertainty. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24 (1), 4–12.
Jepsen, A.L., Eskerod, P., 2009. Stakeholder analysis in projects: challenges in
using current guidelines in the real world. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27 (4),
335–343.
Jones, T.M., Wicks, A.C., 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 24 (2), 206–221.
Kitchenham, B., Pretorius, R., Budgen, D., Brereton, O.P., Turner, M., Niazi,
M., Linkman, S., 2010. Systematic literature reviews in software
engineering — a tertiary study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51 (1), 7–15.
Kostova, T., Zaheer, S., 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of
complexity: the case of the multinational enterprise. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24 (1),
64–81.
Legris, P., Collerette, P., 2006. A roadmap for it project implementation:
integrating stakeholders and change management issues. Proj. Manag. J. 37
(5), 64–75.
Li, Y., Yang, M., Klein, G., Chen, H., 2011. The role of team problem solving
competency in information system development projects. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 29 (7), 911–922.
Littau, P., Jujagiri, N.J., Adlbrecht, G., 2010. 25 years of stakeholder theory in
project management literature (1984–2009). Proj. Manag. J. 41 (4), 17–29.
 K. Aaltonen, J. Kujala / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537–1552
Locatelli, G., Mancini, M., Romano, E., 2014. Systems engineering to improve
the governance in complex project environments. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (8),
1395–1410.
Loch, C.H., DeMeyer, A., Pich, M.T., 2006. Managing the unknown: A new
approach to managing high uncertainty and risk in projects. Hobooken.
John Wiley & Sons, NJ.
Martin, B., 2015. How activists can challenge double standards. Interface 7 (2),
201–213.
Martinsuo, M., Lehtonen, P., 2009. Project autonomy in complex service
development networks. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2 (2), 261–281.
Maylor, H., Vidgen, R., Carver, S., 2008. Managerial complexity in project-
based operations: a grounded model and its implications for practice. Proj.
Manag. J. 39 (1), 15–26.
McKenna, A., Metcalfe, M., 2013. The linguistic turn in project conceptual-
ization. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (8), 1154–1162.
Metcalfe, M., Sastrowardoyo, S., 2013. Complex project conceptualization and
argument mapping. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (8), 1129–1138.
Miller, R., Hobbs, B., 2006. Managing Risks and Uncertainty in Major
Projects in the New Global Environment. In: Cleland, D.I., Gareis, R.
(Eds.), Global Project Management HandbookPlanning, Organizing, and
Controlling International Projects, 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York,
p. 9-1.
Miller, R., Lessard, D., 2001. Understanding and managing risks in large
engineering projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 19 (8), 437–443.
Missonier, S., Loufrani-Fedida, S., 2014. Stakeholder analysis and engagement
in projects: from stakeholder relational perspective to stakeholder relational
ontology. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (7), 1108–1122.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really
counts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 (4), 853–886.
Mok, K.Y., Shen, G.Q., Yang, J., 2014. Stakeholder management studies in
mega construction projects: a review and future directions. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 33 (2), 446–457.
Morris, P.W., 2013. Reconstructing Project Management. John Wiley & Sons.
Neville, B.A., Menguc, B., 2006. Stakeholder multiplicity: toward an understanding
of the interactions between stakeholders. J. Bus. Ethics 66 (4), 377–391.
Olander, S., Landin, A., 2005. Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the
implementation of construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 23 (4), 321–328.
Oliver, C., 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 16 (1), 145–179.
Orr, R.J., Scott, W.R., 2008. Institutional exceptions on global projects: a
process model. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 39 (4), 562–588.
Pérez, P.B., González-Cruz, M.C., Pastor-Ferrando, J.P., 2010. Analysis of
construction projects by means of value curves. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28 (7),
719–731.
PMI, 2013. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. 5th ed.
Purvis, R.L., Zagenczyk, T.J., McCray, G.E., 2015. What's in it for me? Using
expectancy theory and climate to explain stakeholder participation, its
direction and intensity. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (1), 3–14.
Ramasesh, R.V., Browning, T.R., 2014. A conceptual framework for tackling
knowable unknown unknowns in project management. J. Oper. Manag. 32,
190–204.
Remington, K., Pollack, J., 2007. Tools for Complex Projects. Gower Publishing,
Ltd.
Rowley, T.J., 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of
stakeholder influences. Acad. Manag. Rev. 22 (4), 887–910.
Rowley, T.I., Moldoveanu, M., 2003. When will stakeholder groups act? An
interest-and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 28 (2), 204–219.
Ruuska, I., Artto, K., Aaltonen, K., Lehtonen, P., 2009. Dimensions of distance
in a project network: exploring Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant project. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 27 (2), 142–153.
Sage, D., Dainty, A., Brookes, N., 2011. How actor-network theories can help
in understanding project complexities. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 4 (2),
274–293.
Sallinen, L., Ahola, T., Ruuska, I., 2011. Governmental stakeholder and project
owner's views on the regulative framework in nuclear projects. Proj.
Manag. J. 42 (6), 33–47.
1551
Sallinen, L., Ruuska, I., Ahola, T., 2013. How governmental stakeholders
influence large projects: the case of nuclear power plant projects. Int.
J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6 (1), 51–68.
Savage, G.T., Nix, T.W., Whitehead, C.J., Blair, J.D., 1991. Strategies for
assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Executive 5 (2), 61–75.
Scott, W.R., 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Shenhar, A.J., 2001. One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical
contingency domains. Manag. Sci. 47 (3), 394–414.
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., 1996. Toward a typological theory of project
management. Res. Policy 25 (4), 607–632.
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., 2007. Reinventing Project Management: the Diamond
Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation. HBS Press Book, Boston, MA.
Shiferaw, A.T., Klakegg, O.J., Haavaldsen, T., 2012. Governance of public
investment projects in Ethiopia. Proj. Manag. J. 43 (4), 52–69.
Simon, H.A., 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 10
(6), 467–482.
Soudain, L.L., Deshayes, P., Tikkanen, H., 2009. Positioning of the stakeholders in
the interaction project management–project marketing: A case of a coconstructed
industrial project. Proj. Manag. J. 40 (3), 34–46.
Sutterfield, J.S., Friday-Stroud, S., Shivers-Blackwell, S., 2006. A case study of
project and stakeholder management failures: lessons learned. Proj. Manag.
J. 37 (5), 26–35.
Szulecki, K., Borewicz, T., Waluszko, J., 2015. A brief green moment: the
emergence and decline of the Polish anti-nuclear and environmental
movement. Interface 7 (2), 27–48.
Tang, L., Shen, Q., 2013. Factors affecting effectiveness and efficiency of
analyzing stakeholders' needs at the briefing stage of public private
partnership projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (4), 513–521.
Thomas, J., Mengel, T., 2008. Preparing project managers to deal with
complexity—advanced project management education. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
26 (3), 304–315.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for
developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of
systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 14 (3), 207–222.
Tryggestad, K., Justesen, L., Mouritsen, J., 2013. Project temporalities: how
frogs can become stakeholders. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6 (1), 69–87.
Turkulainen, V., Aaltonen, K., Lohikoski, P., 2015. Managing project
stakeholder communication: the QStock festival case. Proj. Manag. J. 46
(6), 74–91.
Turner, R., Zolin, R., 2012. Forecasting success on large projects: developing
reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over
multiple time frames. Proj. Manag. J. 43 (5), 87–99.
Vaagaasar, A.L., 2011. Development of relationships and relationship
competencies in complex projects. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 4 (2), 294–307.
Vaagaasar, A.L., Eskerod, P., 2014. Stakeholder management practices during a
project course. Proj. Manag. J. 45 (5), 71–85.
Van Os, A., Van Berkel, F., De Gilder, D., Van Dyck, C., Groenewegen, P.,
2015. Project risk as identity threat: explaining the development and
consequences of risk discourse in an infrastructure project. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 33 (4), 877–888.
Vidal, L., Marle, F., 2008. Understanding project complexity: implications on
project management. Kybernetes 37 (8), 1094–1110.
Vuori, E., Mutka, S., Aaltonen, P., Artto, K., 2013. That is not how we brought
you up: how is the strategy of a project formed? Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6
(1), 88–105.
Walker, D., Steinfort, P., Maqsood, T., 2014. Stakeholder voices through rich
pictures. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 7 (3), 342–361.
Walley, P., 2013. Stakeholder management: the sociodynamic approach. Int.
J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 6 (3), 485–504.
Ward, S., Chapman, C., 2008. Stakeholders and uncertainty management in projects.
Constr. Manage. Econ. 26 (6), 563–577.
Waxenberger, B., Spence, L., 2003. Reinterpretation of a metaphor: from stakes
to claims. Strateg. Chang. 12, 239–249.
Winch, G.M., 2004. Managing Project Stakeholders. In: Morris, P.W.G., Pinto,
J.K. (Eds.), The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Wiley, New Jersey.
Wolfe, R.A., Putler, D.S., 2002. How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder
groups? Organ. Sci. 13 (1), 64–80.
1552 K. Aaltonen, J. Kujala / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 1537–1552
Yang, R.J., 2014. An investigation of stakeholder analysis in urban development
projects: empirical or rationalistic perspectives. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (5),
838–849.
Yang, J., Shen, G.Q., Ho, M., Drew, D.S., Xue, X., 2011. Stakeholder
management in construction: an empirical study to address research gaps in
previous studies. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29 (7), 900–910.
Yang, R.J., Wang, Y., Jin, X., 2014. Stakeholders' attributes, behaviors, and
decision-making strategies in construction projects: importance and
correlations in practice. Proj. Manag. J. 45 (3), 74–90.
Youker, R., 1992. Managing the international project environment. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 10 (4), 219–226.
Yuan, H., 2013. Critical management measures contributing to construction waste
management: evidence from construction projects in China. Proj. Manag. J. 44
(4), 101–112.
Zeng, S.X., Ma, H.Y., Lin, H., Zeng, R.C., Tam, V.W.Y., 2015. Social
responsibility of major infrastructure projects in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
33 (3), 537–548.