Getting Stakeholder Management Right

When key stakeholders change roles or leave the organisation, transformation projects can suffer as decisions stall, strategic direction drifts and organisational knowledge walks out the door.  This can lead to priorities being constantly reset and teams struggling to meet ever-changing goals.

 

Recommendation: Establish a robust project governance framework that reduces dependency on any single individual, and where possible, assign primary and backup stakeholders for critical roles. Document decisions and their rationale in a central project log and ensure thorough handover processes are built into project plans. Most importantly, business and technology priorities must be regularly reviewed to ensure that the overall project team is aligned on strategic priorities.

 

More voices do not always lead to better decisions. When too many stakeholders share overlapping responsibilities, decision making can slow to a crawl and accountability becomes diluted. Unclear escalation paths can lead to inefficiencies and delay resolution times. In addition, scope creep becomes a near-constant threat, as competing business and technology interests pull transformation projects in different directions – this is often a result of the initial scope not being fully understood from the outset.

 

Recommendation: Right-size the stakeholder group as not every interested party needs a seat at the decision-making table. Implementing a RACI framework can help clarify roles, distinguishing between those who are consulted, those who are informed, and those who hold genuine accountability.  Before any keyboard is touched, all stakeholders should be in lockstep on a project charter: What are we doing? How are we doing it? And who is doing it?

 

By limiting operational discussions to relevant stakeholders only, organisations can establish core decision-making groups and escalation paths. This ultimately can improve the velocity and trajectory of projects, while reducing the risk of conflicting direction.

 

Managing both project deliverables and day-to-day operational responsibilities is a constant juggling act. This can be especially common when business users are seconded onto projects, which can result in business as usual (BAU) demands coming into conflict with project commitments. When BAU takes priority, project timelines slip. When project work takes over, operational performance suffers. The tension between the two is real and often underestimated.

 

Recommendation: Be explicit about capacity allocation from the outset to define dual ownership for project and BAU responsibilities Where possible, organisations should ring-fence dedicated project time for key contributors and work to backfill operational duties during intensive project phases. Through clear communication and the use of capacity and resource allocation tools, organisations can identify pressure points before they become crises.

 

Misalignment between business and technology teams remains one of the most persistent sources of friction. Business stakeholders often prioritise speed, commercial outcomes, and user experience, while tech teams focus on stability, security, and technical standards. Without a shared vision, the result is slower delivery and the risk of solutions that neither side fully endorses.

 

Recommendation: Alignment across the whole organisation is essential – here a top-down approach works well, meaning that projects aren’t seen solely as business or IT programmes.  Invest in early and ongoing alignment sessions that bring business and technology leads together around shared objectives. Joint ownership of the project roadmap, rather than separate business and technical workstreams, can foster greater collaboration and shared accountability. Here establishing cross-functional governance boards and a Centre of Expertise can act as the bridge between both business and tech teams.