Simplified Stakeholder Analysis A Demonstration Nisha Narayanan, PRMPS Stephen Ndegwa, PRMPS Goals • • • • • Demonstration, preliminary use Simple, user-friendly and portable model Transparent calculations and assumptions Scenario building over prediction Accessible charts and grids as guides for potential options/targets for policy dialogue Data Collection • As with other models, extensive and reliant on field interviews • Depending on government or policy area openness, data can be collected by two methods: • Interviews with specialists or experts and/or • Interviews with actual stakeholders Data Attributes The data consists of five attributes associated with stakeholders: Group These are sectors in which stakeholders share similar characteristics and often common objectives. Specific strategies can be applied to stakeholders according to their group. Position This value describes the initial level of reform the stakeholder is willing to accept. Salience This value indicates the level of importance and priority the stakeholder attaches to the issue. Influence This value represents the level of resources and power the stakeholder has relevant to this issue. This can take the form of money, contacts, access and/or other resources. *Effective This value represents how effective the stakeholder can be in Power protecting (or promoting?) its position. *Annex 1: New Effective Power equation Sample Data Marketing Stakeholder MoyAg100 SecGenAg DirVeg ONICL MP ChamCereales UGTM SCAMS MediaDroite PJD APMS CDT Roi MinAg ImportCer PM ConsRoi MediaGauche UMT FAO MoyAgPoss FinMin USFP Consom Mondiale EU Group Position Civil 0 Govt 5 Govt 5 Govt 5 Parl 5 Civil 5 Labor 7 Civil 10 Civil 10 Parl 40 Civil 40 Labor 50 Palace 60 Govt 60 Civil 62 Govt 65 Palace 75 Civil 75 Labor 75 Exterieur 75 Civil 80 Govt 90 Parl 90 Civil 100 Exterieur 100 Exterieur 100 Salience Influence Effective Power 95 20 42.5 55 10 23.5 55 30 37.5 95 40 56.5 95 58.75 69.625 80 50 59 70 75 73.5 95 80 84.5 80 15 34.5 50 100 85 60 50 53 50 70 64 75 100 92.5 75 80 78.5 50 100 85 55 100 86.5 75 20 36.5 80 10 31 45 100 83.5 40 3 14.1 30 25 26.5 75 70 71.5 60 100 88 40 5 15.5 90 80 83 70 80 77 Policy Continuum A ORIGINAL POLICY CONTINUUM 0 Status Quo 5 Begin study of SCAMS 40 Introduce a standard cereals marketing contract and a dispute resolution procedure 60 Begin process of developing a private industry body and decide future of ONICL 65 75 80 Restructure or "divest" SCAMs Develop financial instruments, e.g. forw ard contracting insturment or price risk insurance scheme Develop a market oriented cereals storage and finance system 100 Continue development of a private industry body New Policy Continuum B (#) = Effective Power ChamCereals (60) UGTM (74) FinMin (72) Demand 2A 0 Demand 1A 25 50 Demand 1B Com plete study of SCAMS 100 Demand 2B MediaDroite (35) SecGenAg (24) Status Quo 75 MoyAgPoss (27) Initiate privatization w ith standard contracts and procedures Restructure SCAMS and finance system Continue privatization of industry Effective Power/Position Matrix Identifies stakeholder position and their relative power -- how hard reform will be 100 A2 B1 B2 to influence With simple rule -- movement within quadrant/subset -- allows setting goals A1 Roi 90 PJD SCAMS USFP PM ImportCer UMT Mondiale MinAg 80 EU UGTM FinMin MP 70 CDT Effective Power 60 ChamCereals ONICL APMS 50 C1 C2 D1 D2 MoyAg100 40 DirVeg ConsRoi MediaDroite MediaGauche 30 MoyAgPoss SecGenAg 20 Consom FAO 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Position 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Scenarios: Governing Assumptions • Stakeholders can only move within their policy preference sector, or minimally into next one • Strategy may then be to: – Move stakeholders with low policy reform preferences to the right or diagonally upwards by increasing information – Empower stakeholders with higher policy reform preferences to move up and to the right by increasing effective power Influence-Salience Matrix Identifies the stakeholders by their level of salience and influence (color-coded on policy reform preference) Information on stakeholder attributes allows setting intervention strategy and coalition building Policy Range 0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 100 LI/HS MoyAg100 (0) MP (5) ONICL (5) Mondiale (100) 90 MediaGauche (75) ChamCereal (5) MediaDroite (10) 80 FinMin (90) ConsRoi (75) UGTM (7) 70 MinAg (60) Roi (60) EU (100) APMS (40) 60 Salience HI/HS SCAMS (10) SecGenAg (5) USFP (90) DirVeg (5) PM (65) DEFENDERS PROMOTERS APATHETICS LATENTS 50 CDT (50) PJD (40) ImportCer (62) UMT (75) FAO (75) Consom (100) 40 30 MoyAgPoss (80) 20 10 LI/LS 0 0 HI/LS 10 20 30 40 50 Influence 60 70 80 90 100 Specific Examples in response to influence-salience profile of opponents • • • • Promoters - counter or compromise Defenders - suppress potential action Latents – Increase salience Apathetics - Ignore Specific Examples in response to influence-salience profile of proponents • Promoters - Build coalitions with low preference stakeholders-common interests • Defenders - Provide resources to promote position • Latents - Provide information and incentives to increase saliency and preference for reform • Apathetics – Ignore New Policy Continuum B (#) = Effective Power ChamCereals (60) UGTM (74) FinMin (72) Demand 2B 0 Demand 1A 25 50 Demand 1B Com plete study of SCAMS 100 Demand 2B MediaDroite (35) SecGenAg (24) Status Quo 75 MoyAgPoss (27) Initiate privatization w ith standard contracts and procedures Restructure SCAMS and finance system Continue privatization of industry Improvements/Simplifications • Adds detailed stakeholder “reservation price” to policy continuum • Clarifies “effective power” equation • Focuses on creating scenarios in lieu of predictions to promote policy • Uses maps to identify and assess stakeholder positions and potential movement for dialogue and goal-setting Conclusion • Simpler model – Portable, cost effective – Excel-based – WB team executed (data/scenarios/dialogue) • Transparent assumptions – Informed by Task team – country/issue knowledge – Theoretically valid, methodologically reliable • Organic scenarios over precise/debatable predictions Annex 1: Effective Power Equation (.70)*I + (.30)*S = Effective Power • Effective Power is the weighted sum of 70% Influence and 30% Salience • Influence is weighted more than Salience because those with higher influence have a higher ability to block reform • Eg. A stakeholder with 80 (I) and 20 (S) has more power to veto a policy than a stakeholder with 20 (I) and 80 (S) More Information • On Sentia’s Model, Other Models used elsewhere, Bank Pilots, and Simplified Model, please contact: – Stephen Ndegwa/Nisha Narayanan Ed Campos/Shilpa Pradhan (PRMPS) – Barbara Nunberg/Amanda Green (EASPR) – Jennie Litvack/Nabil Chaherli (MNSED)