Engaging Stakeholders in Projects

🧭 How To Manage Challenging Stakeholders and Influence Without Authority (free eBook, 95 pages) (https://lnkd.in/e6RY6dQB), a practical guide on how to deal with difficult stakeholders, manage difficult situations and stay true to your product strategy. From HiPPOs (Highest Paid Person’s Opinion) to ZEbRAs (Zero Evidence But Really Arrogant). By Dean Peters. Key takeaways: ✅ Study your stakeholders as you study your users. ✅ Attach your decisions to a goal, metric, or a problem. ✅ Have research data ready to challenge assumptions. ✅ Explain your tradeoffs, decisions, customer insights, data. 🚫 Don’t hide your designs: show unfinished work early. ✅ Explain the stage of your work and feedback you need. ✅ For one-off requests, paint and explain the full picture. ✅ Create a space for small experiments to limit damage. ✅ Build trust for your process with regular key updates. 🚫 Don’t invite feedback on design, but on your progress. As designers, we often sit on our work, waiting for the perfect moment to show the grand final outcome. Yet one of the most helpful strategies I’ve found is to give full, uncensored transparency about the work we are doing. The decision making, the frameworks we use to make these decisions, how we test, how we gather insights and make sense of them. Every couple of weeks I would either write down or record a short 3–4 mins video for stakeholders. I explain the progress we’ve made over the weeks, how we’ve made decisions and what our next steps will be. I show the design work done and abandoned, informed by research, refined by designers, reviewed by engineers, finetuned by marketing, approved by other colleagues. I explain the current stage of the design and what kind of feedback we would love to receive. I don’t really invite early feedback on the visual appearance or flows, but I actively invite agreement on the general direction of the project — for that stakeholders. I ask if there is anything that is quite important for them, but that we might have overlooked in the process. It’s much more difficult to argue against real data and a real established process that has led to positive outcomes over the years. In fact, stakeholders rarely know how we work. They rarely know the implications and costs of last-minute changes. They rarely see the intricate dependencies of “minor adjustments” late in the process. Explain how your work ties in with their goals. Focus on the problem you are trying to solve and the value it delivers for them — not the solution you are suggesting. Support your stakeholders, and you might be surprised how quickly you might get the support that you need. Useful resources: The Delicate Art of Interviewing Stakeholders, by Dan Brown 🤎 https://lnkd.in/dW5Wb8CK Good Questions For Stakeholders, by Lisa Nguyen, Cori Widen https://lnkd.in/eNtM5bUU UX Research to Win Over Stubborn Stakeholders, by Lizzy Burnam 🐞 https://lnkd.in/eW3Yyg5k [continues below ↓] #ux #design

A PM at Google asked me how I managed 30+ stakeholders. 'More meetings?' Wrong. Here's the RACI framework that cut my meeting load by 60% while increasing influence. 1/ 𝙍𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙫𝙨 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 Most PMs drown because they invite everyone who's "interested." Instead, split your stakeholders into: - R: People doing the work - A: People accountable for success 2/ 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙥 Stop asking for approval from everyone. Create two clear buckets: - C: Must consult before decisions - I: Just keep informed of progress 3/ 𝘿𝙤𝙘𝙪𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 > 𝙈𝙚𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 For "Informed" stakeholders, switch to documented updates. They'll actually retain more than in another recurring meeting. 4/ 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙈𝙖𝙜𝙞𝙘 𝙋𝙝𝙧𝙖𝙨𝙚 "𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂'𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲, 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻. 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲." Use this in every email. Watch the right people emerge. 5/ 𝘼𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙖𝙡 𝘼𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 Build your approval flows around your R&A stakeholders only. Everyone else gets strategic updates. --- This isn't about excluding people. It's about respecting everyone's time while maintaining momentum. If you found this framework helpful for managing stakeholders: 1. Follow Alex Rechevskiy for more actionable frameworks on product leadership and time management 2. Bookmark and retweet to save these tactics and help other PMs streamline their stakeholder management

How I manage stakeholders as a Project Manager without saying "no" Stakeholder management is one of the most underestimated skills in project delivery. And one of the trickiest parts is pushback. I’ve seen it time and time again: "Can we add this feature last minute?" "Can we deliver sooner?" "Can we skip UAT? "😅 Saying a direct “no” might feel assertive, but in many corporate environments, especially in matrixed organisations, it’s not always productive. It can cause friction, defensiveness, and damage relationships you need to maintain. So here is how I manage stakeholders without actually saying “no”: ✅ I reframe Instead of saying, "No, that’s out of scope," I say: "Let’s revisit the priorities and see where this fits in. If we bring this in, what are we okay to move out?” ✅ I ask questions Often people just want to feel heard. Instead of shutting down ideas, I ask: "What’s the driver behind this request?" "What would success look like if we included it?" This either de-escalates the urgency or helps me build a case for change. ✅ I make trade-offs visible I use timelines and impact visuals. "We can do that - here’s what happens if we do." Let the facts speak. Most reasonable stakeholders respond well to transparent data. ✅ I bring them into the process When stakeholders feel involved, they’re more likely to accept decisions, even tough ones. This approach helped me deliver projects on time while maintaining trust across business, tech, and delivery teams. Of course, sometimes you have to say “no”, but in most cases, it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. Do you also navigate difficult stakeholder requests without being the “bad cop”? What strategies work for you? 👇

Stop wasting meetings! Too many meetings leave people unheard, disengaged, or overwhelmed. The best teams know that inclusion isn’t accidental—it’s designed. 🔹 Here are 6 simple but powerful practices to transform your meetings: 💡 Silent Brainstorm Before discussion begins, have participants write down their ideas privately (on sticky notes, a shared document, or an online board). This prevents groupthink, ensures introverted team members have space to contribute, and brings out more original ideas. 💡 Perspective Swap Assign participants a different stakeholder’s viewpoint (e.g., a customer, a frontline employee, or an opposing team). Challenge them to argue from that perspective, helping teams step outside their biases and build empathy-driven solutions. 💡 Pause and Reflect Instead of jumping into responses, introduce intentional pauses in the discussion. Give people 30-60 seconds of silence before answering a question or making a decision. This allows for deeper thinking, more thoughtful contributions, and space for those who need time to process. 💡 Step Up/Step Back Before starting, set an expectation: those who usually talk a lot should "step back," and quieter voices should "step up." You can track participation or invite people directly, helping create a more balanced conversation. 💡 What’s Missing? At the end of the discussion, ask: "Whose perspective have we not considered?" This simple question challenges blind spots, uncovers overlooked insights, and reinforces the importance of diverse viewpoints in decision-making. 💡 Constructive Dissent Voting Instead of just asking for agreement, give participants colored cards or digital indicators to show their stance: 🟢 Green – I fully agree 🟡 Yellow – I have concerns/questions 🔴 Red – I disagree Focus discussion on yellow and red responses, ensuring that dissenting voices are explored rather than silenced. This builds a culture where challenging ideas is seen as valuable, not risky. Which one would you like to try in your next meeting?  Let me know in the comments! 🔔 Follow me to learn more about building inclusive, high-performing teams. __________________________ 🌟 Hi there! I’m Susanna, an accredited Fearless Organization Scan Practitioner with 10+ years of experience in workplace inclusion. I help companies build inclusive cultures where diverse, high-performing teams thrive with psychological safety. Let’s unlock your team’s full potential together!

📲 Even the most perfect GRC architecture fails when engineers ignore your requests. Introducing the HUMAN API: the missing interface between your GRC program and engineering teams. Your technical systems might be well-designed, but if engineers see your compliance requests as interruptions rather than priorities, you're building security on quicksand. In this week's GRC Engineer newsletter, I break down: - How to design standardised communication protocols that engineers actually respond to - Building translation layers that convert compliance-speak into engineering language - Creating feedback loops that drive continuous improvement - Implementing through "human middleware" – the people who bridge technical divides - Measuring success through relationship metrics (like NPS), not just compliance checkboxes - Transforming adversarial interactions into collaborative problem-solving - Designing interface specifications that balance structure with engineering flexibility The most sophisticated GRC program in the world is worthless if you can't get engineers to implement controls effectively. Your human interfaces matter just as much as your technical ones. This week's entry is packed with insights and practical steps to amend your relationships with engineers and it's dropping TODAY. Subscribe now to get the full breakdown: https://lnkd.in/epvcr3R3 Huge shoutout to SecurityScorecard for being this week's lead sponsor! What communication challenges do you face with engineering teams? Drop your thoughts below 👇 #GRCEngineering #HumanAPI #StakeholderManagement

What works—and what doesn’t—in efforts to address land degradation in Africa? A recent study in Sustainability Science identifies key success factors and lessons learned. Efforts to reverse land degradation and improve human well-being in Africa succeed when they manage to balance competing demands and engage local stakeholders effectively. The most successful projects share key characteristics: 💵 Economic incentives matter: Tangible benefits, such as increased income or resource security, keep communities motivated and invested in long-term success. 🤝 Engaging communities is essential: Inclusive governance structures that empower local populations, including women and marginalized groups, build legitimacy and trust. 🫴 External support is crucial: Financial aid, technical expertise, and material resources reduce the risks associated with adopting new practices, particularly in low-income settings. 🌍 Governance must be adaptive: Community-based management (CBM), backed by external guidance, often delivers better outcomes than top-down interventions, which can alienate local stakeholders. 🌈 Short-term gains and long-term goals must align: Addressing immediate needs, such as food security, while building toward broader ecological and social improvements ensures sustained engagement. 💪 Commitment and flexibility are key: Projects must maintain long-term support and adapt strategies as circumstances evolve, ensuring that initial successes are not squandered. However, the path to sustainability is littered with missteps. Projects stumble when: ⚠️ Incentives are unclear: Without tangible benefits, enthusiasm wanes, and participation falters. ⚠️ Communities are excluded: Top-down approaches, conceived in distant capitals, often fail to resonate with those most affected. ⚠️ Resources are insufficient: Inadequate funding or technical support shifts the burden to impoverished communities, stalling progress. ⚠️ Local dynamics are overlooked: Ignoring traditional governance systems or social structures undermines legitimacy and fuels resistance. ⚠️ Short-termism takes hold: Premature withdrawal of funding or oversight leaves projects vulnerable to collapse. ⚠️ Risk aversion prevails: In poverty-stricken contexts, populations are understandably hesitant to adopt new practices without guaranteed benefits. ⚠️ Political instability disrupts progress: Conflicts, as seen in Tigray and Burkina Faso, can undo decades of work in a matter of months. ⚠️ One-size-fits-all solutions fail: Projects that ignore the complexities of local contexts rarely achieve lasting success. The lessons are clear: sustainable development requires patience, pragmatism, and a commitment to long-term adaptation. Striking the right balance between immediate needs and future benefits is the only way to achieve resilience in Africa’s varied and challenging landscapes. Ruth Kamnitzer reports for Mongabay News: https://mongabay.cc/STkZpj

𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: 𝐌𝐞𝐞𝐭 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐀𝐫𝐞 Enterprise Architecture abhors a vacuum—it thrives on stakeholder engagement. Often, architects jump into collaboration without first assessing one critical factor: • 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞, 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐄𝐀? Before strategy, frameworks, or roadmaps, 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬, 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 and 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. This will shape how you approach, gain buy-in, and drive outcomes. Here are 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐬 for aligning EA with stakeholders: 𝟏 | 𝐆𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐞 𝐄𝐀 𝐀𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 EA means different things to people, how can you align? Approach: * 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞. What do leaders think EA does? What experiences shape their view? * 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐄𝐀 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞. If a product saw EA as 'overhead,’ shift the conversation to ‘rapid decision-making.’ * 𝐓𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. Finance, operations, and IT leaders have different concerns. Meet them on their terms. 👉 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞: When you shape EA’s role based on their reality, it becomes relevant, not theoretical. 𝟐 | 𝐀𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐄𝐀 𝐭𝐨 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 EA isn’t all architecture, it’s solving business problems. Approach: * 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐊𝐏𝐈𝐬. Growth? Efficiency? Risk? Align EA contributions to what leadership interests. * 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭. Show architecture driving go-to-market, savings, or agility—over compliance. * 𝐀𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐞/𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐬. If EA was a bottleneck, demonstrate accelerated decision-making instead. 👉 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞: EA is a strategic enabler, not afterthought. 𝟑 | 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐄𝐀 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 EA works best in collaboration, not isolation. Approach: * 𝐄𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. Decision-making improves when EA is a proactive presence. * 𝐒𝐡𝐢𝐟𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 ‘𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐄𝐀’ 𝐭𝐨 ‘𝐜𝐨-𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.’ Stakeholders engage when architecture is a tool for their success. * 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞-𝐨𝐟𝐟. EA isn’t a pitch—it’s a dialog evolving with business. 👉 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞: EA shaping decisions early rather than reacting later. 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠. Before pushing frameworks or models, assess 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐄𝐀 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲—and how to reshape that narrative to unlock its full potential. How do align EA stakeholders? Let’s discuss.👇 --- ➕ 𝐅𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 Kevin Donovan 🔔    👍 Like | ♻️ Repost | 💬 Comment    🚀 𝐉𝐨𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬’ 𝐇𝐮𝐛 👉 https://lnkd.in/dgmQqfu2

Since its founding in 2020, Transformers Foundation has established a body of work demonstrating that suppliers have not been meaningfully included in the creation of sustainability strategies – whether they pertain to cotton, climate action, chemical management, and beyond. This is not only unjust, it's ineffective. This begs the question: if a key reason sustainability strategies fail is because the actors primarily responsible for enacting those strategies – suppliers – have not been meaningfully included in their creation, then where do sustainability strategies come from? Which stakeholder group(s) have defined the problems we seek to solve? How do solutions that reflect a particular - as opposed to shared - understanding of the problem end up so ubiquitous? These questions were the catalyst for Transformers Foundation’s latest report – which looks at supplier inclusion and exclusion in fashion’s multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) - and was authored by Elizabeth Cline. The report reveals that suppliers tend to perceive MSIs as having developed or supported strategies, standards, tools, and assessments that are enacted solely by the supply chain for the benefit of brands and retailers without their full participation or buy-in. The report’s conclusion supports and echoes Ilishio Lovejoy’s call to adapt and apply the organizational management theory of fair process to transform MSIs and enhance stakeholder engagement. Fair process is founded on three key principles:  👉Acknowledgment and reduction of bias: We call for non-biased decision-making that involves participants' perceptions of justice within a process. Organizations should acknowledge the role of bias and work to ensure that stakeholders feel they are being treated fairly in relation to others.  👉Equitable engagement and decision-making. We aren’t just calling for suppliers to have a seat at the table; they must have a meaningful voice in decision-making. We advocate equitable engagement and decision-making, which would address the power differentials and barriers suppliers face to engagement. 👉Transparency around the process -  Transparency is key to building trust and buy-in in solutions. We advocate for clear rules and reporting concerning who makes decisions, how members can and cannot influence decisions, clear communication of final decisions, and how and why decisions were reached.   The term “fair process” sounds like a tidy, technical solution, but, in my view, it's pretty radical: it's a set of rules for rule-making – and rules can never be neutral. They always have a point of view on how power is distributed. 👉Download the report and register for the launch webinar on 14 November where we'll be joined by Tricia Carey Alberto De Conti Elizabeth Cline Ilishio Lovejoy: https://lnkd.in/e2-5ayme This report was such a collective effort, but particular thanks to Marzia Lanfranchi Ani Wells Cam-Ly Nguyen.

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗕𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗗𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗦𝗶𝗹𝗼𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: (𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀-𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀) Ever notice how Quality, R&D, Regulatory and Marketing teams seem to speak completely different languages? This disconnect isn't just frustrating, it's costing your medical device company time, money, and potentially regulatory approval In my personal experience, I've seen how departmental friction can derail even the most promising innovations 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝗶𝗹𝗼𝘀 👉 Delayed submissions and market entry 👉 Regulatory surprises late in development 👉 Documentation rework and compliance gaps 👉 Increased development costs 👉 Team frustration and burnout Here's how to create seamless collaboration across your MedTech organization: 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟭: 𝗘𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗖𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀-𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 Create a development council with representatives from Quality, Regulatory, R&D, Manufacturing, Marketing and Clinical. Meet bi-weekly with a structured agenda (top tip keep the minutes to use towards management reviews). 𝗘𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲: A Class II device manufacturer implemented this model and reduced their development timeline by 30%, if not more, by identifying regulatory concerns during concept phase rather than pre-submission. 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟮: 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲-𝗚𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 Don't move to the next development phase without formal sign-off from every department. This prevents costly backtracking 𝗘𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲: During a stage-gate review (Design Review), a clinical specialist identified that the intended claims presented by the regulatory team would require further clinical data. By catching this early, the company adjusted their development plan rather than facing a surprise 6-month+ delay come submission time 𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝟯: 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 Develop a glossary of terms that bridges departmental jargon. This prevents miscommunication that leads to rework. 𝗘𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲: One client I worked with created a “MedTech Translation Guide” with input from each department. Not only did it reduce confusion, but it also built mutual respect engineers finally understood what the regulatory team meant by “intended use” and marketers stopped using terms that could trigger a knock on the door by Competent Authorities 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗼𝗺 𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗲? When this is done right, it accelerates development, strengthens compliance, and builds a more engaged team ✅ Faster to market ✅ Fewer compliance surprises ✅ Less internal friction If you're building your next-gen device and struggling with internal disconnects, it’s time to rethink how your teams work 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 💬 I'd love to hear: How does your team keep cross-functional collaboration on track? #MedTech  #MedicalDevice #ProductDevelopment

Requirements Engineering aligns your data project with stakeholder needs. Here’s how you can effenciently gather requirements: 1. 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀: Begin with in-depth interviews to understand business objectives and the challenges stakeholders are facing. Document their specific needs and expectations, ensuring alignment with the project's goals.     2. 𝗖𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗢𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀: Translate stakeholder insights into clear, actionable objectives. Define what "success" looks like and how it will be measured. Having a strong objective framework helps prevent scope creep later.     3. 𝗦𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Clearly outline the project scope by identifying what data will be used, the analysis techniques required, and the expected deliverables. Ensure all stakeholders are on the same page about what will (and won’t) be included.     4. 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Not all requirements hold equal weight. Work with stakeholders to prioritize the most critical objectives first, balancing them against time, resources, and technical constraints.     5. 𝗜𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: Requirements are rarely static. Build flexibility into the process to refine and adjust as new insights emerge. Regularly revisit requirements to ensure they remain aligned with evolving business needs.     6. 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗙𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸: Regularly validate that the project's outcomes are meeting stakeholders' expectations. Incorporate their feedback into iterative improvements and adjust your analysis as necessary.     7. 𝗗𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Maintain comprehensive documentation of the requirements, analysis process, and key decisions. This ensures continuity across teams and provides a reference for future projects. By implementing these requirements engineering principles, you can significantly enhance the clarity, focus, and impact of your data projects. Aligning technical work with clear business needs ensures that insights translate directly into actionable business decisions. What challenges have you faced in translating stakeholder requirements into data analysis projects? ---------------- ♻️ Share if you find this post useful ➕ Follow for more daily insights on how to grow your career in the data field #dataanalytics #datascience #businessintelligence  #requirementsengineering #stakeholdermanagement