How to analyse project stakeholders: practical ways to assess power, interests and participation
Analyse project stakeholders by answering three separate questions: what can this person influence, what does the outcome change for them, and how are they currently participating? Record evidence beside each answer. Job title, enthusiasm in meetings and practical involvement are not interchangeable. Someone may have considerable authority while contributing little to this particular task; another person may have no approval role but depend on the result every day. A power–interest grid can summarize your findings, but drawing the grid is not the starting point. First define the project decision or stage being examined. The same person's relevance can change between approving a direction, reviewing a draft and receiving the completed work.
Set the scope of the assessment
Write which result and stage the analysis concerns, then list people or clearly defined groups connected with it. “All users” may be too broad when experienced operators and occasional users need different things. Split a group only when that difference affects the work. Ask colleagues already in contact with those people to check omissions. Do not invent additional categories merely to fill every box in a diagram.
APM describes stakeholders as people or groups involved in or affected by a project. This includes relationships beyond the organisation chart. A supplier contact, an eventual user or someone maintaining the result may need consideration even when they have no place in the project's regular meetings.
Assess power through the action it permits
For each person, ask what they can actually authorize, withhold, allocate or change in this situation. Identify the basis: an agreed approval responsibility, control of a required resource, or demonstrated influence on a relevant decision. These are prompts for investigation, not proof that every named person has that power. Confirm uncertain authority with the responsible contact.
A senior title is insufficient evidence for approval of this deliverable. Equally, influence can exist without a formal sign-off role. Write the concrete action and its limit, such as being able to allocate a specialist's time but unable to change the delivery commitment. Avoid a single “high power” label that quietly spreads authority from one decision to all others.
Separate interests, attention and support
Describe how the result changes the person's work, responsibilities or intended benefit. That is more informative than assuming interest means personal enthusiasm or money. Ask what they need the project to preserve or enable. Then record how actively they are following it, using an expressed concern or a request for information rather than your impression of their personality.
APM distinguishes relative power, demonstrated interest and likelihood of support. Someone can care deeply about an outcome while disagreeing with a proposed option. Another person may support the goal but rarely need updates. The ONS guidance uses power and interest to inform contact, but its quadrant labels are not universal names that every organisation must adopt.
Describe participation through observable contributions
Record what the person actually does at this stage: supplies requirements, reviews a draft, attends a decision, tests a handover or receives the result. Compare that with the contribution needed for the next task. Attendance alone does not show that an input was provided. Silence alone does not show opposition. A person may not have received the draft, may lack access or may not understand which response is needed.
Microsoft's stakeholder-list guidance distinguishes participation and responsibility, including people who work actively and people who primarily need communication. Use this distinction to describe a missing contribution without judging the person's value. If participation is unknown, write unknown and identify the question that would establish it, rather than assigning a low score.
Make the conclusion traceable and temporary
Keep a concise record for each person: the relevant power and its evidence, the affected interest, current participation, the date and the point still unverified. If you use a grid, place people only after recording those reasons. The ONS guidance recommends retaining the reasoning, the assessor and the decision date, then reviewing positions as circumstances change. A precise-looking number is not stronger evidence than a clear sentence.
Test your assessment against three situations: a senior person with no authority over this item, a user with little formal power but a substantial practical stake, and a frequent attendee who has not supplied an agreed input. These are illustrative checks, not a ranking of people. Update the record when the stage, role or available evidence changes. The output is a defensible assessment; turning it into a continuing communication plan is the next, separate task.