stakeholder-mapping

What this skill does

# Stakeholder Mapping

You perform autonomous stakeholder mapping. You research stakeholder landscapes yourself — do not ask the user for data they would need to look up. Only ask the user for decisions and confirmations.

## Phase 1 — Setup

### Input handling

Follow shared foundation §7 — interview mode. When input is missing or insufficient, interview to gather at minimum:

| Dimension | Required | Default |
|---|---|---|
| **Project/initiative context** | Yes | — |
| **Industry/sector** | No | Inferred from context |
| **Known stakeholders** | No | Will be researched |
| **Frameworks to apply** | No | All four |
| **Focus areas** (governance, delivery, external relations) | No | All covered |

**Exit interview when**: Project context is clear enough to research stakeholders.

### 1. Collect input

Accept one of:
- A project or initiative description
- A file path to a business case document
- Pasted business case content
- No input or vague input → enter interview mode

### 2. Detect scope

From the input (or interview results), identify:
- **Project/initiative**: What is being planned or executed
- **Organization context**: Industry, size, structure
- **Known stakeholders**: Any explicitly mentioned
- **Frameworks**: Which to apply (default: all four)
- **Strategic context**: Why the mapping is needed

### 3. Confirm scope

Present the detected scope to the user for confirmation:

```
**Project**: [name]
**Organization**: [context]
**Known stakeholders**: [listed or "will be researched"]
**Frameworks**: [Power/Interest Grid, Salience Model, Engagement Assessment, Onion Diagram]
```

Ask the user to confirm or adjust. Ask diagram render mode and output path per the `diagram-rendering` and `autonomous-research` mixins.

## Phase 2 — Research

Use WebSearch and WebFetch per the `autonomous-research` mixin.

### 2a. Industry stakeholder patterns

Research typical stakeholder categories for this type of project/industry:
- Internal stakeholder roles and their typical interests
- External stakeholder categories relevant to the domain
- Regulatory and compliance stakeholders specific to the industry
- Common stakeholder dynamics and coalition patterns

### 2b. Domain-specific context

Research factors that affect stakeholder relationships:
- Industry regulations and governance requirements
- Typical organizational structures in this domain
- Known best practices for stakeholder engagement in similar initiatives
- Common failure patterns related to stakeholder management

## Phase 3 — Stakeholder Identification

Identify 15-30 stakeholders across all categories.

### Categories

| Type | Examples |
|---|---|
| **Internal — Upward** | C-suite, board members, sponsors, steering committee |
| **Internal — Sideways** | Department heads, peer project managers, cross-functional teams |
| **Internal — Downward** | Team members, affected employees, support staff |
| **External — Primary** | Customers, end-users, partners, suppliers |
| **External — Secondary** | Regulators, industry bodies, media, community, competitors |
| **External — Tertiary** | Investors, analysts, advocacy groups |

### Stakeholder identification table

For each stakeholder produce:

| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| **ID** | S01, S02, etc. |
| **Name/Role** | Generic role or specific title |
| **Organization** | Department or external entity |
| **Category** | Internal/External + Directional |
| **Primary/Secondary** | Directly or indirectly affected |
| **Description** | Brief role description and relationship to initiative |

Target: 15-30 stakeholders. For small-scope projects, 8-12 is acceptable with explicit note.

## Phase 4 — Attribute Assessment

Assess each stakeholder on 6 dimensions using a 1-5 scale:

| Dimension | 1 (Low) | 3 (Medium) | 5 (High) |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Power** | No decision authority | Influences decisions | Can approve/block |
| **Interest** | Unaware or indifferent | Moderately concerned | Deeply invested |
| **Influence** | Cannot affect implementation | Indirect influence | Direct influence on outcomes |
| **Impact** | Project barely affects them | Moderate effect on their work | Fundamentally changes their work |
| **Legitimacy** | No recognized claim | Informally recognized | Legally/contractually mandated |
| **Urgency** | No time pressure | Moderate timeline | Immediate action needed |

### Assessment table

| ID | Stakeholder | Power | Interest | Influence | Impact | Legitimacy | Urgency | Composite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S01 | [name] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [avg] |

Composite = average of all 6 dimensions. Used for ranking, not as sole prioritization metric.

### Assessment evidence

For each stakeholder scoring 4-5 on any dimension, provide brief justification citing research or project context.

## Phase 5 — Power/Interest Grid (Mendelow)

Plot all stakeholders on a 2×2 matrix using Power (Y-axis) and Interest (X-axis).

### Quadrant strategies

| Quadrant | Power | Interest | Strategy | Tactics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Manage Closely** | High (4-5) | High (4-5) | Collaborate; involve in key decisions | Frequent 1:1 meetings, steering committee seats, early consultation, personalized updates |
| **Keep Satisfied** | High (4-5) | Low (1-3) | Satisfy without overwhelming | Periodic executive summaries, strategic briefings, concise relevant info only |
| **Keep Informed** | Low (1-3) | High (4-5) | Inform and leverage as advocates | Regular newsletters, open forums, feedback channels, demos/reviews |
| **Monitor** | Low (1-3) | Low (1-3) | Light-touch monitoring | General announcements, routine communications, watch for position changes |

### Power/Interest Grid diagram

Generate a Mermaid quadrantChart:

```mermaid
quadrantChart
    title Power/Interest Grid — [Project]
    x-axis Low Interest --> High Interest
    y-axis Low Power --> High Power
    quadrant-1 Manage Closely
    quadrant-2 Keep Satisfied
    quadrant-3 Monitor
    quadrant-4 Keep Informed
    [Stakeholder 1]: [x, y]
    [Stakeholder 2]: [x, y]
```

Plot all stakeholders. Position reflects actual Power and Interest scores (normalized 0-1).

### Quadrant summary table

| Quadrant | Stakeholders | Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Manage Closely | [list] | [tactics summary] |
| Keep Satisfied | [list] | [tactics summary] |
| Keep Informed | [list] | [tactics summary] |
| Monitor | [list] | [tactics summary] |

## Phase 6 — Salience Model (Mitchell/Agle/Wood)

Classify each stakeholder using three attributes: Power, Legitimacy, Urgency.

### Threshold

A stakeholder "has" an attribute when they score 4-5 on that dimension. Score 1-3 = does not have it.

### Seven stakeholder types

| Type | Attributes | Salience | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Definitive** | Power + Legitimacy + Urgency | Highest | Immediate, proactive engagement; highest communication frequency |
| **Dominant** | Power + Legitimacy | Moderate | Active relationship management; regular formal communications |
| **Dangerous** | Power + Urgency | Moderate | Threat mitigation; risk management integration |
| **Dependent** | Legitimacy + Urgency | Moderate | Advocacy support; connect with powerful allies |
| **Dormant** | Power only | Low | Monitor; prepare contingency plans |
| **Discretionary** | Legitimacy only | Low | Goodwill maintenance; CSR alignment |
| **Demanding** | Urgency only | Low | Acknowledge concerns; manage expectations |

### Salience classification table

| ID | Stakeholder | Power (4+?) | Legitimacy (4+?) | Urgency (4+?) | Type | Salience |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S01 | [name] | Yes/No | Yes/No | Yes/No | [type] | [highest/moderate/low] |

### Salience Venn Diagram

Generate a Mermaid flowchart representing a 3-circle Venn diagram:

```mermaid
flowchart TB
    subgraph P["Power"]
        DORMANT["Dormant\n(Power only)\n---\nS03, S07"]
    end
    subgraph L["Legitimacy"]
        DISCRET["Discretionary\n(Legitimacy only)\n---\nS12, S15"]
    en