Description of:

Stakeholder Issue Analysis, methodological steps.

Train stations drawn by workshop participants as part of exercise to see how people’s perceptions are different/similar

Workshop participants as drawing and writing as part of an exercise.

Title Tool: Stakeholder Issue Analysis, methodological steps.

Purpose This tool will serve as a guideline on how to carry out a stakeholder-issue analysis and to show what to do with the results from such analysis in practice.

Filename ESHA_methodologicalstepsJune 2007 Authors M.I. Poolman, E. Mostert Date June 2007

Martine Poolman, Erik Mostert RBA/Technical University of Delft, the Netherlands

Prepared under contract from the European Commission

Contract no 511179 (GOCE) Integrated Project in PRIORITY 6.3 Global Change and Ecosystems in the 6th EU framework programme

Part of the NeWater project Deliverable no. : D 4.2.3

Table of contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 What is a Stakeholder and Issue Analysis?............................................................................ 1 1.2 Why this analysis in water management? .............................................................................. 1 1.3 Why read this? ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Who is a stakeholder? ............................................................................................................ 2 1.5 When to carry it out ............................................................................................................... 2

2. Methodology (steps)...................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Formulating the topic............................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Identifying stakeholders......................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Inventory of perceptions, goals, interests and resources........................................................ 6 2.4 Prioritizing stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 7 2.5 Determining dynamics ......................................................................................................... 11 2.6 Identifying potentials for collaboration................................................................................ 11 2.7 Drawing-up potential strategies ........................................................................................... 13

3. References.................................................................................................................................... 15

ANNEX Outcome Mapping and Strategy Maps ............................................................................. 17

1

1. Introduction The focus of the tool that lies in front of you is on stakeholder and issue analyses. We call it “enhanced” because it is unlike the general explanation of these analyses which you may find on internet;

a.) we give an explanation as to why the steps described in those general explanations need to be carried out and,

b.) we give suggestions as to how these steps could be carried out by referring to or suggesting tools that have been developed by others.

One will notice that we refer to tools which encourage that the stakeholder-issue analysis is carried out in such a way that collective learning by managers and stakeholders alike is stimulated. We believe that through experiential learning and interaction with each other stakeholders will gain better insight into each others goals, aims, views and interests.

By understanding each other’s points of view and by taking these into account it will thus be possible to design more effective water resources management strategies. Because of this focus one will find that this Enhanced Stakeholder-Issue Analysis tool very much fits in the same scope with tools such as cognitive mapping, group model building and also, to some extent, with multi-actor behavioural simulations and social learning.

Furthermore, part of the enhancement also lies in the inclusion of aspects of the network approach which teaches managers to look not only at a single stakeholder at a time, but at the interaction between stakeholders outside and within the project. The tool gives an overview of existing methods developed by others which will enable managers to identify the network of stakeholders, the interests, the conflicts of interests and the possibilities for working-together. From this knowledge manager can set-up adaptive water management strategies that will have a great chance of being successful.

1.1 What is a Stakeholder and Issue Analysis?

A stakeholder analysis can be defined as the identification of a project's key stakeholders, an assessment of their interests, and the ways in which these interests affect project riskiness and viability. (ODA, 1995). According to the World Bank website a stakeholder analysis is “a methodology used to facilitate institutional and policy reform processes …”

The analysis enables managers to gather information on stakeholders, which includes their interests, their goals, their needs and their capacity to oppose or support policy changes. With this information managers can determine how best to accommodate the stakeholders, thus assuring that adopted policies are realistic and can be implemented.

A stakeholder analysis is a planning tool as well as a communication tool. In the first place it is an assessment of the current socio-economic context in which a project is to be carried out. But it is also an examination of the dynamics of that context. This is why we include the term “issue” to “stakeholder analysis”; we want to emphasize that managers should also take the time and the opportunity during this process of gathering information about stakeholders to uncover other topics that may need to be taken into account.

1.2 Why this analysis in water management?

For water managers one of the guiding principles for including stakeholders is one of the Dublin Principles, which states that: “Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach involving users, planners and policy makers at all levels . . .” (Dublin Statement and Conference Report, 1992). In water development and management,

2

this is the guiding principle for participation of stakeholders and leads us to the reason behind why water managers are urged to involve stakeholders. Though there are numerous interpretations of what participation actually entails and how it should be implemented, in broad lines it can be defined as being concerned with:

- building structural relationships between and with stakeholders, - emphasizing the importance of understanding stakeholders capacities and skills, and - establishing methods and techniques whereby stakeholders can be brought to play a

part and to develop a stake in a project. (Poolman et al, 2006)

Implementation of new management strategies, such as that of adaptive water management, will be successful depending on how the various stakeholders take part or are involved in the design of the strategies and in its implementation. However, to be able to involve stakeholders one would first have to know who they are, to what extent they need, want to or must be involved, and this all leads to identifying which approach would be most suitable to get them involved in a project. This is why a stakeholder analysis is of use.

1.3 Why read this?

One reason for reading this document could be to learn more about the steps of a stakeholder analysis. This can be done by reading only the “why this step” parts described in each step. Another reason for reading this document is because in this assessment, managers will become more familiar with why it could be very valuable for strategy making to have identified the following points prior to further project work:

1. the interests of other stakeholders in relation to the problem/project the team wishes to address,

2. the conflicts of interest between stakeholders which will or could effect the project,

3. the relations between stakeholders which can be built up on or will need to be established in order for the project to be successful,

4. the manners in which relation-building could be possible.

However, the analysis is not purely static nor should it be carried out only once at the start of a project. We urge readers to keep in mind that during the course of the project, some form of a stakeholder analysis should be carried out in order to monitor if there have been changes in stakeholders’ interests, conflicts of interests, relations, etc. Adjustments to strategies thus can be, and should, be made accordingly.

1.4 Who is a stakeholder?

In literature one will find many different definitions of “stakeholder.” The broadest definition is that a stakeholder is someone who is affected by or may influence a decision or strategy. This someone could be a group, an individual (either in their job function or personally) or an organisation. Their interest in and their influence on how the decision or strategy is made and carried out is crucial to realisation of the decision or strategy.

1.5 When to carry it out

From the above it should be clear that the stakeholder analysis should be implemented during the assessment of the environment in which a project is to be carried out as well as during the course of such a project.

When we hold this against the decision-making process as defined by the steps shown in Figure 1, the most extensive analysis would take place during the formulation of the problem in order to support the identification, design and screening of possible alternatives. Results

3

of subsequent stakeholder analyses should then be of use especially during comparison and ranking of alternatives and the evaluation of that alternatives analysis.

The subsequent stakeholder analyses, however, do not necessarily have to be as extensive as the first. Instead, they would need to build up on the previous steps taken to identify which changes have taken place and whether these will require other strategies.

Figure 1: Decision-making process (Poolman, et al. 2006)

4

2. Methodology (steps) The enhanced stakeholder-issues analysis tool, does not add new steps to the stakeholder analysis in the traditional set-up of the tool. Instead, we will take those steps and identify where enhanced aspects could be taken into account. We start by giving the overview of the steps once more.

1. Formulate the topic, 2. Identify who the stakeholders are, 3. Make an inventory of the stakeholders’ perception, goals and their interests

towards the topic, 4. Prioritize stakeholders according to interests in proposed project work, 5. Determine the dynamics of the network of stakeholders 6. Identify potentials for collaboration, 7. Draw up potential strategies for obtaining support or reducing obstacles.

Figure 2: Stakeholder Analysis steps

It is suggested that a small group within a management team focus on conducting the analysis, while asking for input from others from time to time. Please note that there are various organisations that have published how to carry out stakeholder analyses that are specific to the issues they represent. These organisations give suggestions to:

ο conduct workshops, focus groups and interviews (WWF, 2005)

ο review background literature and country studies, conduct interviews with local and international experts in the field who are knowledgeable about the issue and the important groups and individuals involved in the policy area. (World Bank 2001)

The difference between the suggestions of these organisations and the information in this document is that we try to show which methods can also be used at specific steps. This does not take away from the fact that some methods are good to be used to walk through all steps. Therefore this document is a guideline and not a prescription.

Nonetheless, we stress that the time spent on the analysis should match the complexity of the project. Therefore it may not be necessary to use all of the offered methods but a combination of a few may be more than sufficient to walk through the stakeholder analysis steps.

2.1 Formulating the topic

Why this step:

A stakeholder analysis is most useful when it is focused on a specific policy or topic (Schmeer, 1999). The basic ideas about this policy or the topics to be addressed will need to be specified and made concise in order to be explained to stakeholders during the process. This does not, however, mean that the policy itself needs to be specified, that should happen based on results from the decision making process, which includes this to-be-carried out stakeholder analysis.

How to:

The water manager will have to spend initial time (either with the project team or a group there within) on isolating the questions or topics involved or that may need to be addressed during the analysis. Further more time should be spent in fixing the context within which the issues are to be resolved and in clarifying the objectives and constrains one would expect

5

with the analysis. It is suggested that in identification of the problem includes a clear and summarizing formulation of the problem in one sentence. However, the manager should be flexible enough to allow for adjustments according to the responses and reactions of the stakeholders during the following steps of the analysis.

For example, stakeholders should be approached with a clear idea of why the analysis is being held, and questions should make clear on what topics you would especially like to hear their views. However, questions should also allow for stakeholders to mention topics managers may not have thought up.

Some tools that can be useful: o quick and small scale interviews o going to the area where one believes the problem is to briefly examine the

surroundings (observation walks, community mapping, transect walk, etc.). o background study (literature study or talking with people with past experience

in similar type of projects)

2.2 Identifying stakeholders

Why this step:

This step is the most important step of the analysis, because if you don’t know who your stakeholders are, how are you going to analyse them?

It should be mentioned, however, that the original list of stakeholders made at the beginning of the project can change as managers and stakeholders learn more about each other and the project. Stakeholders may be added or taken out as the team finds out they need, want or should be involved or not.

How to:

In order to identify stakeholders, water managers can, for example; 1. conduct a brainstorm within the project team (or a group there within) 2. conduct a literature study to identify which types of stakeholders have been

included in previous, similar issues/ projects 3. conduct semi-structured interviews with local or international field experts

who are knowledgeable about the issue.

There are many different questions that could be asked to determine whether the stakeholder list is complete. For example,

1. Can they contribute to decision-making? 2. Are they needed for implementation? 3. Can they block decision-making and implementation? 4. Are they affected by or have interest in the issues at stake?

(From the handbook developed by HarmoniCOP (2005)

The World Bank Sourcebook lists a non-exhaustive set of questions (World Bank, 1996, p.127) which ought to be posed in order to uncover which stakeholders are to be included in the analysis:

1. Who are the "voiceless" for whom special efforts may have to be made? 2. Who are the representatives of those likely to be affected? 3. Who is responsible for what is intended? 4. Who is likely to mobilize for or against what is intended? 5. Who can make what is intended more effective through their participation or less

effective by their non-participation or outright opposition?

6

6. Who can contribute financial and technical resources? 7. Whose behaviour has to change for the effort to succeed?

2.3 Inventory of perceptions, goals, interests and resources

Why this step:

Each stakeholder will have a different perception of the situation at hand. Therefore they will have different goals they want to achieve and different interests in working together with the management team. This is why policy issues are often so complex; there are many people with different opinions and perceptions. Managers need to find out and learn about which of these opinions and perceptions are most valuable in achieving an outcome of the project that will be accepted and achieves the “right” goals.

Thus a study will have to been conducted which determines: - stakeholders’ position on the topic, - the level of influence (power) they hold, - the level of interest they have in the specific topic and - the group to which they belong or can reasonably be associated with.

Thus the perceptions, goals, interests and aims of the stakeholders will have to be made explicit.

How to:

Determining how a stakeholder feels about a topic, firstly, requires the manager to realize that it may be very difficult to come up with their actual perception, goals and interests without talking with them. However, discussing with stakeholders also takes a lot of time, which most managers do not have.

It is therefore recommended to first do a brief brainstorm session with a small project group, whereby a number of questions such as the following may be posed:

- What does the stakeholder possibly consider to be the core of the topic/problem? - What could their perception be towards this topic? - What would they consider the most important causes for the problems? - How could or would they take action with or against the project’s ideas?

Furthermore, to determine the goals and interests of the stakeholder one could

1. apply the Quick and Dirty-method

Goals and interests of the stakeholders can be determined quickly based on review of literature and interviews, etc. The questions that could be asked here are:

- What would the stakeholder want to reach in relation to the project? - Why would the stakeholder want to reach these goals in the project setting? - Which advantages and disadvantages will arise during the project for the

stakeholder? - Which resources do they have that are needed for, or may benefit, the project?

(after Enserink et al 2002)

The results of this examination can be placed into tables and matrices as shown in step the next step.

7

2. Goal-Action Diagram

If one prefers (and has time and resources for) a more structured approach, a goal tree can be used. The information from this can come from interviews held with stakeholders or from the analysis of background information (text, etc.).

On the one hand, the main questions to ask and to literally draw out in a small scheme are: - What is the stakeholder’s goal? - How will the stakeholder try to reach this goal? This means examining the actions a

stakeholder may take, but also with which resources these actions will be carried out.

On the other, the diagram should also be able to help answer why a stakeholder would want to reach a certain goal. One example of such a diagram is shown below.

Figure 3: Goal Action Tree (after Enserink et al. 2002)

A similar goal action tree can be made by (or for) the water manager in the described project. This may help identify potential allies or opponents and stakeholders that had been overlooked. For example, the tree above shows that a real-estate agent may very well be a stakeholder in acquiring a new house.

2.4 Prioritizing stakeholders

Why this step:

The reason that the stakeholders will need to be prioritized is to determine which stakeholders will need to be involved, could be involved, need to be informed or could be informed. The difference between these groups is in their level of inclusion in the work that is to be carried out.

How to:

Often a grid or matrix such as Figure 4 is used to show such representation based on the information that has been gathered. Such grids rate the power or importance of the stakeholder against the interest or influence it has in the project. For example, if its interest and power is high, the stakeholder will have to be engaged closely since it can actively influence how the process continues. It will be important to clearly define the terms used to in the grids beforehand since they are commonly misused or misinterpreted.

8

Figure 4: Stakeholder classification grids (after Hovland, 2005 and ODA 1995)

i. Assess dependencies

An assessment of the dependencies of the project on the stakeholder can be expressed in a table similar to the following figure, thus implying that the interest of the stakeholder in the project needs to be examined as well as the replacibility of the stakeholder in the project context.

Figure 5: Dependency on stakeholders

For example, take my goal to obtain a new house that fulfils my requirements and sub-goals. If the house of my dreams can only be found in one area and if there is only one realtor in the area I want to live in, then I have great interest in establishing a good contact with this realtor and he is difficult to replace, there for in the grid, the realtor will be categorised in the upper right-hand corner (high dependency). The other way of course is also possible, where the stakeholder is highly dependant on the project team to realize certain goals.

ii. Assess network of stakeholders

While the previous steps also take into account certain aspects of the network, one may categorize all that information into a table like the below to gain an overview of the extent to which the project will be dependant of which type of stakeholder.

9

Figure 6: Dedication and perception matrix (After Enserink et al, 2002)

iii. Assess impact of stakeholders

However, to gain a better understanding of the network and its dynamics (see Step 5 in section 2.5 below), it can also be of interest to determine how stakeholders view each other and in what manner they influence or have power over each other.

One tool that has been developed but is in some phases of refinement at the moment of writing is the Influence Network Mapping Tool (Schiffer, 2007). This tool can be used to examine how stakeholders feel other stakeholders influence certain issues. This does require that these issues are defined concisely and the main question posed to the stakeholders refers to a specific goal.

The Influence Network Mapping Tool allows for the following

“In a participatory approach interviewees and interviewers together draw a network map of the actors involved in the policy arena, characterizing the different kinds of links between all actors, and then add “influence towers” made of checkers pieces to transfer the abstract concepts of power and influence into a three dimensional sketch. Finally the interviewee assesses the goal orientation of the different actors (e.g. developmentalist vs. environmentalist or pro and contra a certain intervention).”

(Schiffer, 2007. p. 4)

The results from such a study could be represented in a table similar to Table 1 or in a more graphical representation such as Figure 7 to show which stakeholder appears to have the most influence according to the others.

Stakeholder Involvement

in issue Interest in issue

Influence/ power

Position Impact of issue on stakeholder

1. 2. Table 1: Example A of blank stakeholder analysis table (Hermans, 2005, after Varvasovsky and Brugha, 2000)

10

Figure 7: Node representation of power and influence (Schiffer, 2007)

In this figure 7 the various arrows between the circles (stakeholders) show the direction of the flows of money, advice, information and commands between the stakeholders. It gives a quick picture of which stakeholders have the most connections with others; the WRC at the center bottom and the WVBB, which is more or less in the centre. This figure is a compilation of the results gathered from carrying out the Influence Network Mapping Activity with 17 stakeholders.We have included a PowerPoint presentation provided by the designer of the Influence Networking Mapping Tool.

How to present results Results could be presented in simple tables which identify how much power they have or what their level of interest is or if they have high priority to be informed quickly. For example, the results from the study could be presented in tables similar to the following: Stakeholder Interests Potential project

impact (+ or -) Relative priorities of interests (scale 1 to 5)

1. 2. 3. Table 2: Example B of blank stakeholder analysis table (after Hermans, 2005, after ODA 1995; MacArthur 1997)

Group/stakeholder Group’s/ stakeholder’s Interests in Issue

Resources Resource Mobilization

Position on Issue

11

Capacity 1. 2. Table 3: Example C of blank stakeholder analysis table (after Hermans, 2005, after Crosby, 1992)

2.5 Determining dynamics

Why this step:

A big risk, which was mentioned before, is that the stakeholder issue analysis is carried out at the beginning of a project and not examined anymore. Another risk is that the analysis is used in such a manner which doesn’t take the dynamics of the stakeholder network into account.

In reality, relations between stakeholders change constantly as different events occur, deals are made or broken and goals are re-set. Changes in public policy or business strategy due to world wide politics or economics often cause such changes, but at the lower scale there may be things going on we have not taken into consideration.

Understanding the dynamics of the network of stakeholders will be important during the strategy development phase, since this could already take part of the predicted dynamics into account. For strategies to be sustainable, they must be reasonably flexible to allow for changes in the stakeholder network which also has effect on how stakeholder will continue to support the project or not.

Determination of the dynamics of the stakeholder network will mean having to consider predictable changes, though there are, of course, many unpredictable events and outcomes towards those events.

How to:

One way to identify the dynamics could be through the use of the results from the Influence Network Mapping activity. Another way is to examine which changes in stakeholders that need to be considered could be expected, i.e. due to elections, planned mergers of companies, downsizing activities within large organisations, etc., as well as through an examination of how resources and interests of stakeholders may change. (I.e. due changes to market agreements, changes in policy, availability of resources, availability of technologies, costs of transport, cost of fuels, etc.).

Such examination can be gathered from

- semi-structured interviews (either the ones held already, or from new ones which focus especially on this topic)

- background studies (this could have been the ones conducted already, but also new ones that focus on possible changes in the field of interests of the stakeholders rather than on the stakeholders themselves).

2.6 Identifying potentials for collaboration

Why this step: So far, conducting the steps of the stakeholder analysis has led to:

- a long list of stakeholders - the categorisation of stakeholders - the prioritisation of stakeholders

12

- and a determination of the dynamics of the stakeholder network. There may have already been some interaction with the stakeholders (if not only desk studies have been conducted). This step, however, focuses on more interactive ways to learn about the stakeholders and to understand what the results from these assessments and studies actually tell the managers about the various stakeholders. Thus we step away from identifying only want is “thought” that stakeholders would want but more towards interaction with stakeholders to identify how stakeholders themselves feel they need to be involved. Through interaction the results from this step may be very different from the analyses done previously. Interaction may also lead to changes in opinions of the stakeholders which could be crucial (either positively or negatively) for further project work. Such changes can be monitored through methods such as Outcome Mapping (see 2.7 section below).

How to:

There are many types of interactive participatory approaches which could be applied to identify how support from stakeholders can be gained. However, over the course of the information gathering done in the previous steps, the water management group should have already some idea of the manners in which stakeholders are, or are not willing to join in the project.

Through Role Play Games (of which there are numerous relating to water resources management), Review sessions and open space activities it will be possible to further identify how support can be gained. Further explanation of these tools can be found in, for example:

The HarmoniCOP handbook HarmoniCOP (2005) Learning Together to Manage Together. Improving participation in water management. University of Osnabruck, Institute of Environmental Systems Research. Osnabruck, Germany.

The FAO Resource CD-ROM FAO (2004) ‘Participation: Sharing our resources’ from the Informal Working Group on Participatory Approaches and Methods to Support Sustainable livelihoods and Food Security (Rome: FAO).

The FAO Participation website: www.fao.org/participation

A Field Manual of the IRC IRC, International Water and Sanitation Centre. Keep it Working. A field manual to support community management of rural water supplies. Delft, the Netherlands. IRC. 2001.

A Guide on Approach with suggestions for how to carry them out Rennie, J.K. and Singh N.C. Eds. Participatory Research for Sustainable Livelihoods: a guide for field projects on adaptive strategies. Found on website of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (http://www.iisd.org/casl/CASLGuide/GuideBook-home.htm, last retrieved March 2007) 1995

Please note that many participatory approaches guides tend to focus on carrying out work in developing countries. However, there are many tools described in a number of the field guides that are out there, which could be applicable in non-developing countries as well.

13

2.7 Drawing-up potential strategies

Why this step:

This step is the reason that one will have conducted a stakeholder-issue analysis in the first place, to draw up a strategy in which stakeholders will be included in the project at given times during the project process according to their:

- perceptions, goals, interests, - their power and influence on the project’s goals and each other, - their criticality and dedication, - their (dynamic) position within the network of stakeholders.

All the while the water managers will be taking into account that stakeholders may change views due to (un)predictable changes, thus identifying in their strategies the moments at which (mini)stakeholder issue analyses will have to be conducted again to determine what changes have taken place, why and how the project can deal with this.

How to:

One way to determine what to do is to gather the information from the steps above into a participation spectrum which will help organise and structure how stakeholders will need to be involved (or not) in the future.

Another way in which the information gathered in the described stakeholder analysis steps is used to develop strategies is by looking at how further actions may lead to changes in stakeholder behaviour. Thus a method or strategy will need to be developed on how to monitor behavioural changes and to determine when it is necessary to make some changes in the decision-making steps. Such a methodology could be Outcome Mapping (OM).

i. Participation Spectrum The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) has developed the participation spectrum in order to demonstrate the different types of engagement of the public. Their spectrum has been adjusted slightly to fit our needs in this tool better, see Figure 8. As you move from left to right in the spectrum, the impact of the stakeholder increases and so the techniques to consider change accordingly. These have also been added as an Annex.

Figure 8: Participation Spectrum (After IAP2s Public Participation Spectrum, IAP2 website)

14

From the results gained from the analyses described in the previous steps, it should be possible to determine where along this spectrum stakeholders should be placed. For example, one may look at the promise that a project wants to or will need to make to the stakeholder or you could look at the goal that the project has to determine which techniques could be considered. The techniques listed have been included as an Annex to this document.

ii. Outcome Mapping Outcome Mapping (OM) is a methodology developed by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). The focus of this methodology is on measuring successful development of a programme/project in terms of behavioural change of those involved in the programme. This does not mean that a programme decides, how, when or why partners/stakeholders will change their behaviour. Instead, the methodology focuses on keeping a record of how actions lead to changes in practitioner behaviour and how some actions are take-up into “every-day” practices of those stakeholders. This methodology will help water manager apply the stakeholder and issue analysis especially for monitoring of project-outputs in the long term, since behaviour of stakeholders will not change over night but will be essential in ensuring that adaptive water resources management can be applied.

a. Strategy Maps Strategy Maps are meant to outline the project’s approach in working with the described boundary partner. The maps therefore show which strategies will be undertaken by the project in achieving the Outcome Challenges for each boundary partner. They help pinpoint strategic gaps in the approach and helps in developing the evaluation method that is most appropriate for tracking and assessing the performance of the project. The strategies are divided into three categories:

1. those that are casual; 2. those relying on persuasion; 3. and those that are based on building supportive networks.

Also, the strategies are split into two types: those that are aimed at a specific boundary partners (I); and those that are aimed at the environment in which the boundary partners operate (E). These “E” type strategies are meant to indirectly influence the boundary partners by altering the setting in which they operate.

15

3. References Dublin Statement and Conference Report (1992) The Dublin Statement on Water and

Sustainable Development. Adopted by the participants at the Conference on Water and the Environment (ICWE) in Ireland.

Earl, S., Carden, F. and Smutylo, T. “Outcome Mapping. Building Learning and Reflection

into Development Programs.” IDRC, 2001. 120 pp

Enserink, B., Koppenjan, J. F. M. & Thissen, W. A. H. (2002) Analyse van Complexe Omgevingen, collegediktaat. TB211 (The Netherlands: TU Delft).

HarmoniCOP (2005) Learning Together to Manage Together. Improving participation in

water management. University of Osnabruck, Institute of Environmental Systems Research. Osnabruck, Germany.

Hermans, L.M. (2005) Actor Analysis for Water Resources Management. Phd Dissertation. Technical University of Delft, Delft.

Hovland, I. (2005) Successful Communication. A toolkit for researchers and civil society organisations. Research and Policy in Development Programme, Overseas Development Institute, London. IAP2 (International Association for Public Participation), Practitioner Tools, IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum. Available at http://iap2.org/practitionertools/index.shtml (last retrieved May 2007). Overseas Development Administration, ODA (1995) Guidance Note on How to Do

Stakeholder Analysis of Aid Projects and Programmes. ODA Social Development Department (London: ODA [now known as DfiD]) Available at: http://www.euforic.org/gb/stake1.htm (last retrieved May 2007).

Poolman, M.I. and van de Giesen, N.C. (2006) “Participation; rhetoric and reality. The

importance of understanding stakeholders based on a case study in Upper East Ghana.” International Journal of Water Resources Development, 22(4): 561-573.

Schiffer, E. Waale, D. Birner, R. (2007) Tracing Power and Influence in Networks: Influence

Network Mapping as a tool for research and strategic network planning. Project Integrating Governance and Modeling. Challenge Program on Water and Food Forum.

Schmeer, K. (1999) Guidelines for Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis. Bethesda, MD:

Partnerships for Health Reform, Abt Associates Inc. World Bank (1996) The World Bank Participation Sourcebook. Washington DC: The World

Bank. World Bank (2001) Stakeholder Analysis, Area of program on Governance and Political

Economy. Information on website. Available at:

16

http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/anticorrupt/PoliticalEconomy/stakeholderanalysis.htm (last retrieved May 2007).

World Wildlife Fund, WWF (2005) Cross-Cutting Tool: Stakeholder Analysis. Resources for

Implementing the WWF Standards. Available at: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/1_4_stakeholder_analysis_11_01_05.pdf. (last retrieved June 2007)

ANNEX: Outcome Mapping and Strategy Maps Below, Outcome Mapping will be introduced and a brief introduction given of the development of Strategy Maps (which is part of the OM methodology). These maps are meant to outline the project’s approach in working with the other stakeholders (who referred to as boundary partners in OM terminology are).

Where to find further information Most of the explanatory information that is given in this deliverable comes from the book: Earl, S., Carden, F. and Smutylo, T. “Outcome Mapping. Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs.” IDRC, 2001. 120 pp. and also from information gathered at website of IDRC: www.idrs.ca. At this website one will find the steps of Outcome Mapping described (including an indication of how much time it will take and what resources will be necessary) in greater detail than this document does.

Introduction to Outcome Mapping The methodology establishes a vision of the human, social and environmental betterment to which the program hopes to contribute. Furthermore, it focuses monitoring and evaluation on factors and actors within the program’s sphere of influence. The essence of the methodology is that development is accomplished through changes in the behaviour of people.

Through application of this methodology, the project (program) focuses on the change in processes and outcomes. Therefore, results of the project are expressed as changes in behaviour and relationships of actors with whom the project interacts directly.

The 12 steps of outcome mapping are categorized in three stages as shown in the figure to the left.

1. Intentional Design, 2. Outcome and Performance

Monitoring, and 3. Evaluation Planning.

By focusing monitoring and evaluation activities on the identified boundary partners, the project will be able to obtain feedback from these partners that can help improve performance of the activities. However, some outcome mapping

terms are explained first.

Figure 9: Steps of Outcome Mapping (Earl, et al 2001)

Outcome Mapping Terms

Vision: A description of the development changes (economical, political, social, technological or environmental) that the project envisions to encourage.

Mission: A description of how the project intends to support achievement of the vision. The mission states the areas in which the project will work, but does not list all the activities the project will engage in.

Boundary Partners: Individuals, groups or organizations with which the program interacts directly and on whom the program can anticipate some opportunities for influence.

Outcome Challenge: Description of the ideal changes in the behaviour, relationship, activities and/or actions of a boundary partner. These can be logically linked to a project’s activities although they are not necessarily directly caused by it. The changes are aimed at contributing to specific aspects of human and ecological wellbeing by providing the boundary partners with new tools, techniques and resources to contribute to the development process.

Progress Markers: A set of graduated indicators of changed behaviours for a boundary partner that focus on the depth or quality of change.

Strategy Map: A matrix that categorizes 6 strategy types (causal, persuasive, and supportive) that a program employs to influence the boundary partner. Strategies are aimed at either the boundary partner or the environment in which the boundary partner operates.

Outcome Journal A data collection tool for monitoring the progress of a boundary partner in achieving progress markers over time.

(Earl et al, 2001)

Strategy maps When I-1 and E-1 strategies are employed, primary control and responsibility for the consequences rests with the project. With I-2, I-3, E-2 and E-3 strategies the project tries to facilitate change but the responsibility rests with the boundary partner. In other words, the further the project moves away from causal activities, the less control it has. This, of course, has important implications for the assessment of the achievement of the outcomes. The following table gives and indication of the type of question/strategy that fits within the above described framework:

STRATEGY AND ACTIVITIES AIMED

AT: CAUSAL - 1 PERSUASIVE - 2 SUPPORTIVE - 3

a specific individual or group

(I)

What will be done to produce an immediate

output?

What will be done to build capacity?

How will sustained support, guidance or

mentoring be provided to the boundary

partner? By whom?

an individual or group’s

environment

(E)

What will be done to change the physical or policy environment?

How will you use the media or publications to

promote your work?

What networks/ relationships will be established or used?

Table 4: Questions to ask when designing strategy (Earl et al, 2001)