Stakeholder Selection for Consensus Processes 7-8-10

Stakeholder Selection for Consensus Processes
by Diana Hopkins
Introduction
When tasked with convening a stakeholder group for consensus decision-making, the first
step is to draw up working definitions concerning the problem that needs to be addressed,
the objectives and intended outputs of the research, the relevant decision makers, and
how the deliverables and other deadlines will be accomplished via an agreed upon action
plan (1,2)
. It is also worthwhile to undertake an initial rapid appraisal to obtain more
information on systems and issues; a system being the relationship between the
stakeholder ‘elements’ and the ‘elements’ of the project at hand. This all forms the
framework for the basic steps of stakeholder convening, selection and analysis as shown
below (1)
.
Clarify objectives of the analysis and the boundaries (1,2)
↓
Place issues in a systems context
↓
Identify decision-makers and stakeholders
↓
Investigate stakeholder interests and agendas
↓
Investigate patterns of interaction and dependence (e.g., conflicts and
compatibilities, trade-offs and synergies (1)
.
↓
Agree on an action plan to meet deliverables and other deadlines
↓
Implementation
What is a Stakeholder?
Stakeholders are those ‘actors’ in the community that are affected by or have a ‘stake’ in
a decision (3)
. In the case of a standards developing organization, this ‘decision’ would be
consensus on the performance criteria, study parameters, level of validation, and
validation protocol for a testing method. A stakeholder can be defined broadly as one
who is (a) affected by or affects a particular problem or issue; (b) and/or is responsible
for problems or issues, (c) and/or has perspectives or knowledge needed to develop good
solutions or strategies, (d) and/or has the power and resources to block or implement
solutions or strategies (4)
. This may include (e) those who have interests, claims or rights
(ethical or legal) to the benefits of the initiative or to some measure are likely to bear its
costs or adverse impacts whatever its overall worth (1)
. )

In voluntary consensus standards development for defense and homeland security
purposes, stakeholders are primarily those in government who have a stake in protecting
the public, and those in industry who provide the tools that are used to protect the public.
It is important to note the potential for a greater number of stakeholders participating in
DHS standards development because the agency’s primary mission is to reach agreement
with all agencies and organizations (hence stakeholders in all agencies and organizations)
that have a stake in protecting and defending the homeland.
Some Considerations When Selecting Stakeholders and Analyzing the
Selection Process
When involving stakeholders and using a consensus-based process, stakeholder
conveners face the challenge of putting together a group of stakeholders that will be seen
as inclusive and representative, and prepared to work effectively together on the problem
(3)
.
For a successful collaborative stakeholder process, these items should be
addressed (3)
:
(a) Clarifying appropriate levels of participation of different groups (i.e., primary vs
secondary vs key stakeholder) and establishing mechanisms for that participation (2,3)
;
(b) Deciding on the composition of the stakeholder group. (Often there is a tension
between the desire to include everyone who wants to be at the table and the need to have
a group that is a reasonable size for decision making. In deciding on the composition of
the group, a number of factors should be considered; (i) keeping the size of the group
manageable – the challenge is to keep the group to a size that allows members to
participate actively and communicate effectively, permits the process to be completed in
a finite time frame, and fosters creativity in seeking solutions (3)
.) (ii) Another factor is
that not all stakeholders may want to be at the table, in which case they may be persuaded
to take part in a more desirable (perhaps less visible) process. In some kinds of
collaborative processes, different stakeholders may be involved at different levels, e.g.,
being an observer of the process, providing input to a representative who is seated at the
table, or providing input in written form or at a public meeting (3)
. Making public the
criteria for participating in the stakeholder project is important both to the perception that
the selection process was fair and to the credibility of the process. This is especially
important when there are more groups who want a specific representative to be a member
of the stakeholder group than there are seats at the table. Publishing the selection criteria
also adds to the credibility of the collaborative decision-making process.
(c) Specifying the desired characteristics of participants in the group. Sometimes it is
helpful for stakeholders to have some guidelines for choosing their representatives. There
are a variety of ways to select representative participants, and a key is to adopt an
approach to select participants who are representative of the wider stakeholder
community, likely to engage constructively in dialog, and are well-known and respected
2

enough to share (non-confidential, chair-approved) information from the stakeholder
group to an appropriately wide community network (4)
. For example, stakeholder groups
might be advised to choose representatives who have the following characteristics: (i)
have the support and confidence of their group; (i) will effectively represent their
interests; (iii) are able to communicate effectively the work and the decisions of the
group; (iv) can make the time commitment to actively participate in the entire process;
(v) are able to listen and work effectively with others who have different styles and/or
interests; (vi) have knowledge relevant to the issue or are willing to acquire the
information required for effective problem solving (3)
.)
(d) Determining which stakeholders affect (determine) a decision or action, and
which are affected (whether positively or negatively) (1)
.
(e) Determining the level of stakeholders’ decision-making authority. Conveners have
a number of choices in the level of stakeholder involvement which might be appropriate
for a specific issue or a specific standard; (a) the convener makes a decision and provides
information to the relevant public, so the stakeholders are convened to be informed; or
(b) the convener solicits input and then makes the decision; or (c) stakeholders are
convened to make a recommendation, but the convener keeps the authority to make the
decision; or finally (d) the convener shares the decision-making role with the
stakeholders (3)
. This last category (d) probably best describes the ‘fit for purpose’
standard in that the stakeholders will determine the performance criteria and level of
validation required, work with validation experts to develop an appropriate validation
protocol, and experts will review the data to determine if the criteria have been met.
(f) Deciding on whether the time available is reasonable for the stakeholder group to
reach consensus on its objectives, or if the group needs more focus on a single issue that
will ensure the deliverable will be met (4)
.
(g) Maintaining a balance of interests. A single stakeholder group might have a number
of interests and several groups might have the same interests. Those planning the process
need to avoid a situation where there is a large number of representatives who care about
some interests and a limited number who care about other interests (3)
.
(h) Identifying decision-makers and stakeholders. Criteria need to be developed to
select those stakeholder groups that are relevant to the initiative being under-
taken(1)
. The primary consideration for selecting stakeholders will be the inclusion of
those groups whose interests, resources, and position of power/authority imply that they
are likely to affect substantially the way in which the initiative will operate or fail to
operate in practice. Who has official decision-making authority on this issue? Begin
with those agencies or individuals who have an official role in the decision: funding
sources, organizational or agency leaders, public officials, etc. (3)
. The selection criteria
may be based on considering all those groups who in some way will be affected by
implementation. This may include those who have interests, claims or rights (ethical or
legal) to the benefits of the initiative or to some measure are likely to bear its costs or
adverse impacts whatever its overall worth (1)
.
3

(i) Discovering who will be implementing the product of the stakeholder group, and
make sure they are at the table (1)
.
(j) Agreeing on the rules of collaboration (2)
. This would include the convening
organization acknowledging its own limitations as a convener, but one with widespread
recognition and neutrality (2)
. This also involves the assumptions a convener makes about
its stakeholders, how it interacts with them, and on what basis it is willing to negotiate
with them (2)
. Often a convener with widespread recognition and neutrality has the
authority to seek out and provide support to stakeholders who otherwise would not be
able to become involved in a particular consensus process. However, after the initial
stakeholder meeting, the role of the convener may be re-defined to some extent by the
stakeholder group it formed (2)
. It is the author’s experience that (1) many stakeholders
do not understand the workings of a consensus process, and (2) almost all stakeholders
are clueless about the principles and detail involved in developing voluntary consensus
standards. Confusion, frustration and suspicion will follow if a stakeholder group is
unclear on the processes that have to be followed to meet deliverables, and it is advisable
to explain processes and procedures clearly at the beginning of the project, and often
thereafter.
A participatory process can only be legitimate and effective if it represents all sides of the
debate, but identifying stakeholders through stakeholder analysis is an iterative, circular
and challenging process at best (4)
. This analysis also involves the relationship between
the stakeholder and the problem, and between the stakeholder and the convener. To the
convener, it has to do with having the power, legitimacy or resources to convene others,
the power to choose or have input into the criteria for inclusion or exclusion of
stakeholders, and the authority to define the reason or theme around which stakeholder
analysis takes place. On the side of the stakeholder, it has to do with “being noticed” or
having a “voice,” which in turn is the result of having attributes such as power,
legitimacy, and urgency in relation to an issue (2)
.
Stakeholder analysis can be defined as a methodology for gaining an understanding of a
system, and for assessing the impact of changes to that system by means of identifying
the key stakeholders and assessing their respective interests (1)
. Stakeholder analysis is
used to identify stakeholders, characterize their interests, evaluate their perceptions of the
process or project, determine the relative influence of different stakeholders and devise
appropriate strategies to obtain (or reduce obstacles to) their support (4)
. Stakeholder
analysts recognize the different interest groups involved in the initiative and provide tools
that help us to identify and resolve tradeoffs and conflicts of interest (1)
. One tool,
developed by Engel and Salomon (1997), and shown as Table II at the end of this
document, is called the RAAKS method, and involves stakeholder participation in the
analysis of stakeholders (2)
.
There are a variety of strategies for data collection and cross-checking on stakeholder
interests and analysis for the various groups that have been identified. Field experience
points in particular to the usefulness of informal, semi-structured interviews (using
4

simple check-lists of key topics) both with individuals representing one stakeholder
group, or with a number of representatives from different stakeholder groups. This may
include the use of intermediates who are respected and deemed impartial by all the parties
involved (1)
. A focus group could be formed by the convener that identifies the
stakeholders and the stakes, and conducts interviews to deepen knowledge about each
stakeholder, to identify current and future drivers of change, frequency of
communications between stakeholders, and to reveal the existence of cliques (4)
. In
keeping with this, the stakeholder’s density of interconnectedness, his centrality or
position within the network, and the stakeholder’s interdependence and important factors
for analysis. Interdependence is key because it involves how a stakeholder will co-exist
with another stakeholder when the project is completed (2)
.
Stakeholder selection involves an analysis of stakeholder power and balance. It is
important to note that where power is concentrated in the hands of an elite, the process of
stakeholder identification and boundary and problem definition will be distorted and
manipulative, and this deserves additional attention when convening stakeholders for
consensus purposes (2)
. When analyzing stakeholder power and balance, the questions to
ask are -- Who would have the power to implement the solution? And who will live with
and implement the product of the stakeholder group (3)
. Which group may organize
opposition to block the implementation of the stakeholders’ decision, and were they
involved up front to ensure their involvement in the process? (3)
. It is also important to
note that many individual members of the public may not have organized themselves into
groups and yet their involvement, support and insight will be crucial to finding a lasting
solution (3)
, in which case the transparency of the process will be tested in its ability to
reveal the less powerful stakes for consideration (2)
. Stakeholder analysts also distinguish
between conflicts and trade-offs. It is also important to keep an eye on conflicts and
power plays and other situations of competition and potential disagreement between two
or more stakeholder groups. A trade-off is the process of balancing conflicting objectives
within a single stakeholder group (1)
, and is another part of stakeholder analysis to keep in
mind. Analysis of trade-offs might require investigating stakeholder sectors and their
decision-making criteria. It could also involve gathering data regarding the actual and
perceived costs and benefits to the stakeholders by following their chosen behavior or
actions, including perceptions of any external costs and benefits of their actions and
decisions (1)
.
An analysis of interests, drawing upon the tools noted above, seeks to identify a number
of key areas of information. For example, information is required upon the actual and
potential conflicts of interest that may exist between stakeholders. Similarly, the use of a
table (see Table I at the end of this document) may reveal the importance of issues to
specific stakeholder groups, the relative importance of stakeholder groups themselves and
their power and influence (1,5)
. In its most salient form, stakeholder analysis is a form of
‘systems thinking’ that encompasses complexities and interrelated parts to understand,
analyze, intervene and resolve complex stakeholder situations (2)
.
5

When there are a large number of stakeholders with very different and contrasting
interests, stakeholder analysis is aimed precisely at dealing with such complex situations.
Experience indicates that matrices can be a useful analytical tool for identifying and
assessing the significance of conflicts of interest and cooperation between different
stakeholder groups. Cross-checking mechanisms, e.g., asking stakeholders about their
perceptions of the activities and attitudes of others, are also important. Interactions
between differing groups of stakeholders will be partly a function of the degrees of power
and influence that groups have, including key individuals (1)
, and it is important to keep in
mind that often after a stakeholder group forms, alliances change as other opportunities
come to light (2)
.
As well as identifying patterns of interaction, stakeholder analysis also can reveal the
reasons behind conflicts and cooperation, both to increase understanding of a specific
situation and to be able to draw general lessons about what factors are likely to lead to
conflict or successful collaboration. A provisional check-list of such factors would
include: (a) the nature of power and authority relationships between stakeholder groups;
(b) socio-cultural relationships between groups; many situations of conflict are
encouraged or strengthened by ethic, religious or culture divisions and consequent ill-
feeling between the groups; (c) historical contexts – cooperative action between
different local communities, or between local communities and government official, is
more likely to occur over a new issue if there has been a history of cooperation over other
issues in the past. Conversely, if there is a history of conflict between two stakeholder
groups, the emergency of shared interests over a particular issue may not be enough to
overcome that history(1)
.
Stakeholder analysis involves a need for cross-checking stakeholder views. Stakeholders
can be asked about their view on other stakeholders and on other stakeholder views, and
how he or she interacts with other stakeholders. The issues to be covered in discussions
with stakeholders are likely to include the following: What do they know about the
initiative, the accuracy of this understanding, and what don’t they know? What are the
actual and perceived costs and benefits to the stakeholder. Who is seen to win, and who is
to lose (1)
?
Whichever approach is used, there is a need to verify or test the initial set of stakeholders
that has/have been identified. Each of the stakeholders/stakeholder groups should be
questioned as to whom they perceive the other main stakeholders to be, and what the
relations between different stakeholders are, this will also help to gain an idea of their
interests in the issue in question. Groups can then be categorized in order to select only
those with a significant interest in the objective of the research (1)
.
There are a variety of tools which can be used to analyze stakeholder groups, including
those used for the rapid appraisal undertaken to develop an understanding of issues
within a systems context : (a) information from key informants (1)
; (b) information from
focus groups, i.e., form a focus group to identify a stakeholder group that is clearly of
importance to the issue to be research, and then to work with that group of eight to
identify others (1,4)
; (c) secondary data, i.e., such information can be used at a rather
6

generalized level to identify groups, e.g., in terms of age, gender, activities, geographic
region, etc. (1)
.
It is also important to note that selecting relevant stakeholders may be challenging
because certain stakeholder groups may be historically marginalized from management
decision, and may therefore be difficult to identify or involve. This reveals two common
situations: one where stakeholders share enough consensus around an issue to
collaborate, and another where conflict is a given reality and stakeholders may not be
certain about the value of joint decision-making or negotiation (2)
.
Different Ways to Initiate the Stakeholder Selection Process
It is most important to spend the time to make sure that key stakeholder groups are
represented at the table. It will lend credibility if everybody believes that their interests
are adequately represented (3)
, and if they are invited to join following a formal protocol
and in a professional manner.
Often a focus group is formed by the convener that identifies the stakeholders and the
stakes, and conducts interviews to deepen knowledge about each stakeholder, to identify
current and future drivers of change, frequency of communications between stakeholders,
and to reveal the existence of cliques (4)
.
Other ways to initiate the stakeholder selection process follow:
(a) Stakeholder groups select their own representation. Once stakeholder groups have
been identified, they can create or be provided a list of characteristics for stakeholder
representatives and be asked to select their representatives. A neutral facilitator is
sometimes helpful in this process;
(b) The convener can appoint a steering committee of representatives of key stakeholder
groups and the steering committee selects all other stakeholder group participants. Often
a steering committee is established to assist with selecting stakeholder representatives
and with designing the process. Typically the steering committee will be composed of
people who are closely identified with key interests related to the issue and who also are
considered credible in the community;
(c) The convener selects the representatives by identifying key interests and
representatives of those interests and invites them to participate in the group;
(d) Attendees at an open public meeting select representatives to participate in the
decision-making process. This strategy is often used when it is difficult to identify
organized groups representing different stakeholder interests. Interests can be identified
at the meeting and then those with similar interests can select representatives;
(e) Use the first meeting of the stakeholder group to explore whether any key interest is
not represented. This is often the best sources of info about whether there are stakeholder
7

gaps in the group. Time at the initial meeting can be set aside for this discussion and then
the group can agree on ways to get representatives of any missing interests, and
(f) Consider adding representatives as the process proceeds. Although the identification
and selection of stakeholders is required at an early stage to allow the rest of the
stakeholder analysis to proceed, it is emphasized that verification and possible revision of
the list of groups included should be kept in mind throughout the process(1)
.
Conclusion
Great emphasis should be placed on the front end of consensus management involving
stakeholder analysis and selection, and collaborative management. The upfront time is
well worth the effort, however, as time and again stakeholders are seen to shift from
individual “positions”, “rights”, and “power” to “common interests” and ultimately reach
consensus on those interests.
8

Table I. Example of a Stakeholder Analysis Table
Stakeholder Nature of Potential Relative Impor- Importance Influence
Group Interest Impact tance of Interest of Group of Group
______________________________________________________ to Leader____-Power_______
Primary
Stakeholders
DHS Consensus Hi Hi Hi Med
CDC Public
Safety;
Turf Hi Hi Hi Hi
Secondary
Stakeholders
FDA Public
Safety Lo Lo Lo Lo
NIST Standards;
1st
Resp Lo Lo Lo Lo
Source: Adapted from ODA, 1995 (5)
9

Table II. The RAAKS Method for Stakeholder Analysis Involving Stakeholder
Input (2)
The RAAKS method is relevant in that stakeholder analysis is done systematically and from a number of
perspectives. For each step, several tools or “windows” are proposed: some are analytical, some help in
synthesis, others are useful in designing options and making choices. The choice of windows or tools for
each step is discussed and agreed upon by the group involved in implementing the RAAKS exercise.
Phase A: Defining the problem
1. Appraise objective(s)
2. Identify relevant actors
3. Diverse missions
4. Define environment
5. Clarify–redefine the problem
Phase B: Analysis of constraints and opportunities
1. Impact
2. Actors
3. Knowledge networks
4. Integration
5. Tasks
6. Coordination
7. Communication
8. Understanding the social organization for innovation
Phase C: Strategy–action planning
1. Knowledge management
2. Actor potential — who can do what?
3. Strategic commitments to an action plan
Conditions suggesting that the odds of a successful collaboration are poor
• The conflict is rooted in basic ideological differences;
• One stakeholder has power to take unilateral action;
• Constitutional issues are involved, or legal precedents are sought;
• A legitimate convener cannot be found;
• Substantial power differences exist, or one of more groups of stakeholders cannot establish
representation;
• The issues are too threatening because of historical antagonisms;
• Past interventions have been repeatedly ineffective;
• Parties are experiencing perceptual or informational overload and need to withdraw from the
conflict; and
• Maintenance of interorganizational relationships represents substantial costs to the partners.
10

Phases of collaboration
Phase 1: Problem setting
• Common definition of a problem
• Commitment to collaborate
1. Will the present situation fail to serve my interest?
2. Will collaboration produce positive results?
3. Is it possible to reach a fair agreement?
4. Is there parity among the stakeholders?
5. Will the other side agree to collaborate?
• Identification of stakeholders
• Legitimacy of stakeholders
• Disputes over legitimacy
• Necessary trade-offs
• Differing levels of participation
• Legitimacy within stakeholder groups
• Convener characteristics
• Insider or outsider
• Convening power
• Legitimate authority
• Skills — capacity to propose a process, identifying additional stakeholders, often by bringing in a
third party; having a sense of timing
• Identification of resources
Phase 2: Direction setting
• Establishing ground rules, namely roles of representatives, deadlines, handling confidential
information, handling media and publicity, reimbursement for expenses incurred, record of
proceedings, determining consensus
• Agenda setting
• Organizing subgroups
• Joint information search
• Searching for “the facts”
• Managing complex and controversial data
• Role of third parties in information search
• Exploring options
• Reaching agreement and closing the deal
Phase 3: Implementation
• Dealing with constituencies
• Building external support
• Structuring, depending on
o Whether the collaboration leads to information exchange or decision-making
o How much organizational change is required
o Who has the resources to accomplish the change
o Whether the agreements are self-structuring or not
• Monitoring the agreement and ensuring compliance
11

Engel and Salomon (1997)
References
(1) Grimble, R., (1998) Socio-Economic Methodologies in Natural Resource
Management, Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich.
(2) Buckles, D. (ed.) (1999); Cultivating Peace – Conflict and Collaboration in Natural
Resource Management; Chapter 5.
(3) ODA (1995) Guidance Note on Indicators for Measuring and Assessing Primary
Stakeholder Participation (July), London: Social Development Department, Overseas
Development Administration.
(4) Choosing Stakeholders – A Key Step in a Collaborative Process (2002);
Corder/Thompson & Associates.
(5) Hubacek et al. (2006) Stakeholder selection as a precondition for successful
participatory processes; Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and
Environment, University of Leeds.
12

Stakeholder Selection for Consensus Processes 7-8-10

More Related Content

Similar to Stakeholder Selection for Consensus Processes 7-8-10 (20)

More from Diana Hopkins (8)

Stakeholder Selection for Consensus Processes 7-8-10