Stakeholder Map: Definition, Axes and How It Is Used
A stakeholder map is a view of everyone affected by or able to affect a project, positioned so that engagement effort can be allocated. Most maps plot influence against interest, or influence against current attitude. The output is not the picture but the decision it drives: who is engaged how often, by whom, and about what.
What it contains
The grid is the visible part. Behind it sits a register, and the register is what actually gets used.
| Field | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Name and role | Individuals, not departments. Departments do not hold opinions |
| Influence | How much they can affect the outcome, including informally |
| Interest | How much the outcome affects them |
| Current attitude | Supportive, neutral, sceptical, opposed — as it is now, not as hoped |
| Required attitude | What position is needed for the project to proceed |
| Owner of the relationship | Who actually speaks to them. Frequently not the project manager |
| Engagement approach | Frequency, channel and what they need to hear |
| Last contact | The field that reveals the stakeholder nobody has spoken to since kickoff |
How it is used
Position on the grid determines effort. High influence and high interest means direct, frequent, individual engagement. High influence with low interest means keeping them informed enough that they do not become interested at the wrong moment. Low influence with high interest means consultation and clear communication, since this group is usually where the operational detail lives. Low on both means periodic broadcast.
The gap between current and required attitude is the part that generates work. A sceptical stakeholder with high influence over a business readiness decision is an open action, not an observation. Tracking that over time is what the stakeholder tracker is built for — power, current attitude, and who is actually speaking to them. The same register feeds the comms plan in the charter and kickoff pack, since the engagement approach and the comms schedule are the same information viewed twice.
At programme level the map has a second use: it identifies who has to be represented in governance. A stakeholder with authority over a decision the programme needs, who sits on no board, is a governance gap. That structural question is covered in programme governance, and the seats it produces feed the pack described in the steering committee report guide.
Where it goes wrong
- Built once at kickoff. People change roles, opinions move, and new stakeholders appear when the change becomes visible. A map from month one is wrong by month six.
- Mapping teams instead of people. "Finance" is not supportive or opposed. A named director is.
- Optimistic attitude ratings. Recording the attitude you would like reduces the map to decoration and hides the work.
- No relationship owner. Where nobody is named, engagement with senior stakeholders defaults to whoever happens to see them, which is nobody.
- Influence read off the org chart. The person who can stop the project is often not the most senior person in the room.
- Circulated widely. A document rating named individuals as opposed is not a document to attach to an all-hands email.
Related terms
RACI matrix — allocates responsibility for work, where the stakeholder map allocates engagement. Communications plan — the schedule that follows from the map. Sponsor — normally the highest-influence entry, and the one whose engagement is most often taken for granted. Steering committee — the formal forum for the highest-influence group.
Questions
What axes should a stakeholder map use?
Influence against interest is the most common. Influence against current attitude is more useful once delivery is under way, because it shows where engagement effort will change an outcome.
How often should a stakeholder map be reviewed?
At each stage boundary as a minimum, and whenever a key role changes hands. On a long programme, a monthly review alongside the RAID log keeps it current.
Should the stakeholder map be shared?
The register with attitude ratings is normally kept within the core team and the sponsor. The engagement plan derived from it can be shared more widely.
What is the difference between a stakeholder map and a RACI?
The map is about interest, influence and engagement — who needs managing. The RACI is about work — who does, decides, is consulted and is informed for each activity.