- Description
- Mégaphone en bois sculpté d'origine congolaise, dont l'embouchure figure une gueule dentée.
- Source
- auteur non indiqué · original page
- Licence
- CC0 Public domain
Stakeholders and Communication (PAR)
A project succeeds or fails just as much in the minds of those waiting for it, funding it, using it, or enduring it. A forgotten stakeholder (operations, security, support, legal…
Level: 🟢→🔴 · Code: PAR · Matrix: PI
Why this theme#
A project succeeds or fails just as much in the minds of those waiting for it, funding it, using it, or enduring it. A forgotten stakeholder (operations, security, support, legal, end users) comes back at the worst possible time: the day before production release. Excessive or poorly targeted communication drowns information; communication that is too infrequent turns every delay into a surprise. The maturity criterion is simple: no one hears bad news from a third party.
What this theme measures#
- Axis: from on-demand information to lasting trust.
- Key indicator: share of identified stakeholders receiving the expected information at the right pace; surprise level (events announced too late).
- Unit: % coverage; number of surprises per quarter; satisfaction score /5.
The five levels#
| Level | Short name | Promise | Typical indicator (orders of magnitude) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | On demand | We inform when asked; some people learn things late or by chance. | Several surprises per quarter |
| 2 | Regular check-ins | The sponsor and main users get regular updates; we know who to contact. | 1 surprise per quarter; updates at least monthly |
| 3 | Communication plan | Stakeholders are mapped; each knows what they will receive, when, through which channel; the status message is unique and readable. | Coverage ≥ 90%; < 1 surprise per quarter |
| 4 | Measured feedback | Satisfaction and communication effectiveness are measured; expectations are managed before becoming conflicts. | Satisfaction ≥ 4/5; rare and analyzed surprises |
| 5 | Trust and partnership | Stakeholders co-build the project; bad news travels faster than good news; trust is an asset. | Proactive escalations; zero surprises outside external events |
Milestones by level#
| ID | Milestone | Verifiable evidence |
|---|---|---|
| PI-PAR-1.1 | The sponsor is identified and reachable. | Name, role, and contact in the project sheet. |
| PI-PAR-1.2 | Main users are known by name or group. | List of reference users. |
| PI-PAR-1.3 | A major delay is announced to the sponsor before its deadline. | A recent example of an alert message. |
| PI-PAR-2.1 | A regular check-in (at least monthly) with the sponsor. | Calendar and meeting notes. |
| PI-PAR-2.2 | A single status page is shared with the same structure every time. | Three consecutive status updates identical in format. |
| PI-PAR-2.3 | Users are kept informed of changes affecting them (new features, outages). | Release notes or messages sent. |
| PI-PAR-3.1 | Stakeholders are mapped (influence, interest, expectations), including operations and security. | Up-to-date mapping table. |
| PI-PAR-3.2 | A communication plan describes who, what, when, channel, owner. | Written plan; sent messages match it. |
| PI-PAR-3.3 | Decisions and their rationale are communicated along with the change. | Shared decision notes. |
| PI-PAR-3.4 | Critical stakeholders (operations, support, legal, security) are consulted before production release. | Sign-offs or consultation minutes. |
| PI-PAR-3.5 | A shared glossary exists (business terms, indicators). | Reference document used in discussions. |
| PI-PAR-4.1 | Stakeholder satisfaction is measured (short survey, interview). | Results over ≥ 2 cycles. |
| PI-PAR-4.2 | Surprises are logged and analyzed (who knew, when, why too late). | Surprise log. |
| PI-PAR-4.3 | Expectations are made explicit and reviewed at each milestone. | Dated, revised expectations sheet. |
| PI-PAR-4.4 | Channels are adjusted based on usage (what is not read is removed). | Read rates or feedback; removed channels. |
| PI-PAR-5.1 | Users participate in reviews and tests; their feedback changes the product. | Tracked changes resulting from their feedback. |
| PI-PAR-5.2 | Risks and bad news are escalated spontaneously, without waiting for deadlines. | Early alert messages; no punishment. |
| PI-PAR-5.3 | The sponsor advocates for the project to their management using shared elements. | Interview with the sponsor; shared materials. |
| PI-PAR-5.4 | Communication is assessed and simplified annually. | Communication plan review with removals. |
Detailed reading by level#
Level 1. Signs: “nobody told me anything”; crisis meetings. Benefit: no overhead. Does not guarantee trust. Difficulty: 1/5. Effort: 1/5.
Level 2. Signs: a monthly check-in, a status update in the same format. Benefit: the sponsor is not blind. Does not guarantee coverage of all stakeholders (operations and security are often forgotten). Difficulty: 2/5. Effort: 1/5.
Level 3. Signs: we know who to inform for each topic; production release was prepared with operations. Benefit: fewer late blockers. Does not guarantee that information is understood. Difficulty: 3/5. Effort: 2/5.
Level 4. Signs: we ask whether communication is working, we remove useless channels. Benefit: attention better used, expectations adjusted. Does not guarantee deep trust. Difficulty: 4/5. Effort: 3/5.
Level 5. Signs: bad news rises on its own, users participate. Benefit: faster adaptation, support when things get tough. Does not guarantee agreement on strategy. Difficulty: 5/5. Effort: 4/5.
Partial achievement and rating#
Common rule: see README.
- 0.5: communication is planned but feedback is not collected; mapping exists but is not updated.
- 1: asking two stakeholders (one close, one distant) confirms the practice.
- A partial 5: satisfaction survey, surprise log, and users involved in reviews, but no annual plan review. Score ≈ 4.7.
The datamart changes the definition of a visit indicator (for example, “completed visit” becomes “visit with report”). Figures drop by 8% at delivery. Without a decision note and without informing area managers, the figure is perceived as an anomaly; with a note and one month of dual display, it becomes a managed topic. See also Adoption and Change Management.
Communication avalanche. Symptom: 40 emails per week, no one reads. Cause: transmission is confused with understanding. Remedy: a one-page status, one channel, one cadence; remove what is not read (PI-PAR-4.4).
Goodhart: if you measure the number of communications sent, it explodes. Measure surprise level and understanding (“what did you retain?”).
A silent stakeholder is not a stakeholder who agrees. Go see them before the committee, never during it.
Moving to the next level#
Possible means (optional)
- 1 → 2: check-in calendar, one-page status template.
- 2 → 3: mapping (influence/interest matrix), communication plan, operations consultation; see Project Management Fundamentals and Scrum in Practice (sprint review).
- 3 → 4: short satisfaction survey, surprise log, dashboards (Project Metrics and Reporting).
- 4 → 5: users in reviews, active sponsor, annual simplification.
Useful for summarizing discussions, adapting a message to an audience, preparing release notes; limit: a flawless message does not replace the relationship, and automated sending of unreviewed status updates puts your credibility on the line. See AI for Project Management (General, Then Data).
See also#
- Related themes: 01 Scoping · 02 Governance · 06 Team · 09 Delivery.
- Other matrices: Adoption and Change Management (data) · Accessibility and Multilingual Support (BI) · Operations and Support (data).
- Practice: Project Management Fundamentals · Scrum Framework (Scrum Guide 2020) · Project Management Pitfalls and Best Practices (Cross-Cutting Summary) · Glossary.
✻ Written by Claude Sonnet 5.5
