Monitoring Stakeholder Involvement

Project Monitoring and Control (PMC) Specific Practice (SP) 1.5 states "Monitor stakeholder involvement against the project plan." Our organization has chosen to implement this practice by creating a Stakeholder Management Plan (SMP) for each project. The SMP lists each stakeholder, their involvement, the monitoring method, and other pertinent information. Stakeholder involvement is checked during each activity and we do not see any value to having an overt and separate check of the SMP activities by the Project Manager (PM).

1. PMC SP 1.5 specifies that a periodic review of the status of stakeholder involvement. How often should this review occur?
2. What are examples of Direct and Indirect Evidence for PMC SP 1.5 that can be used to help us develop the PMC PIID?

The purpose of PMC is to provide an understanding of the project’s progress so that appropriate corrective actions can be taken when the project’s performance deviates significantly from the plan. Since the Stakeholder Management Plan is one of the components of the project plan, it must be monitored, controlled, and managed on a regular basis in order to take appropriate corrective action. As PMC is normally a PM’s responsibility, it is expected that the PM is regularly monitoring the SMP and its use, but this responsibility can be delegated.

As the stakeholders specified in the SMP are involved in different activities and at different times throughout the project’s life cycle, specifying a fixed monitoring frequency for the entire plan may not provide a lot of value to the PM and the project. It may make more sense to monitor stakeholder involvement against the SMP on an individual activity basis. One method for implementing this type of monitoring would be to specify in the SMP the monitoring frequency for each stakeholder activity, the person responsible for monitoring each activity and stakeholder involvement, and the mechanism for documenting and communicating the monitoring results for each activity. Providing this information in the SMP would then indicate what would be appropriate Direct and Indirect Evidence for a SCAMPI appraisal.

Confusion regarding Project Montoring and Control

I have some confusion regarding Project Monitoring and Control (PMC) Specific Practice (SP) 1.2 Monitor Commitments and SP 1.5 Monitor Stakeholder Involvement. In my mind the intent of both practices are logically the same and the type of evidence produces should also be the same (eg. schedule, minutes of meeting/action file, and status reports). I think these are two duplicate practice. Kindly let me know your view regarding this issue.

This is an excellent question. There could be some overlap between Project Monitoring and Control (PMC) Specific Practice (SP) 1.2 “Monitor commitments against those identified in the project plan” and SP 1.5 “Monitor stakeholder involvement against the project plan.” The primary difference concerns commitment vs. stakeholder involvement. Commitments include such things as delivery dates, specific deliverables, requirements, etc. Commitments are those things that everyone agrees to and they must be documented to ensure a consistent mutual understanding. Documenting the commitments indentifies the responsibilities of those involved with the project (stakeholders).

Monitoring the commitments is not the same thing as monitoring stakeholder involvement. For example group A produces an interface specification needed by group B so they can perform their assigned activities. The commitment that group A has made to group B is that group A will deliver the interface specification on Friday Oct 31, 2008. Monitoring the commitment in this case is periodically checking to see if the interface specification will be delivered early, on time, or late. If the specification will be early or late, then some type of corrective action may be necessary. In contrast, the intent of SP 1.5 is to use a stakeholder involvement plan or matrix to ensure that all of the relevant stakeholders who are supposed to be involved in producing, reviewing, and accepting the interface specification are performing their roles as identified and planned. If not, then some type of corrective action may be necessary.

Granted you may have the same evidence for both practices but the evidence demonstrates different purposes and use.

Stakeholder Invovlement Question

Our organization has project stakeholders whose only project involvement is as a decision maker in an end-of-phase meeting. What is expected of the stakeholders (e.g., training and project involvement) if they are outside of our process, as far as the appraisal interviews are concerned?

In the case described, the stakeholder is NOT outside the process.

The “plan for stakeholder involvement” defines the expected role of the stakeholder in the project, or process. This, in turn, defines the scope of training required. In the case described, the stakeholder would minimally need training in the conduct of end-of-phase meetings. However, if decision making required knowledge of work products produced by the project team, orientation to those products might also be required. Training in Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR) may also be required, depending upon whether or not the decisions meet the criteria for initiating the DAR process.

Note that training may take many forms, including orientation or briefings on required topics. The expectation is that the stakeholder knows enough to credibly perform the responsibilities described in the project plan or process description.

In the case described, the stakeholder might be selected for an appraisal interview.

Stakeholder Involvement Question

Would you please explain the differences between monitoring stakeholder involvement (PMC) and managing stakeholder involvement (IPM)?

The difference is, at the core, the difference between a Maturity Level 2 organization and a Maturity Level 3 organization.

Monitoring stakeholder involvement basically means watching the involvement of the stakeholders. If a stakeholder is supposed to perform some activity or attend a meeting, did the stakeholder in fact do these things? And if the stakeholder does not perform their activity, did this lack result in a significant deviation in project performance? If so, then the Project Manager would take a corrective action to address the deviation.

Managing stakeholder involvement builds on the monitoring aspect by being proactive in ensuring that the stakeholder does perform their agreed to and assigned activities. For example, if a stakeholder is supposed to attend a meeting, managing their involvement might be to ensure that they are invited to the meeting, to ensure that they acknowledged the invitation, to ensure that they sent an appropriate substitute to the meeting if he or she could not attend, and to ensure that the stakeholder actively participated in the meeting to fulfill their role and responsibility as opposed to merely attending the meeting. If the Project Manager determines through these checks and balances that the stakeholder is not involved as agreed to, then the Project Manager does the necessary actions to ensure that the lack of stakeholder involvement is mitigated in the meeting, for example.

Please read my other blog "Query on ML 3 and ML 4" for a brief description of the characteristics of each Maturity Level.