1 / 25

Using stakeholder analysis to analyse decision making in the water sector

Using stakeholder analysis to analyse decision making in the water sector. An overview of methods and an illustration on a Philippine case. Leon Hermans. Presentation for Watertime Stakeholder Workshop. 11 April 2003, University of Greenwich, London.

Faraday
Download Presentation

Using stakeholder analysis to analyse decision making in the water sector

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using stakeholder analysis to analyse decision making in the water sector An overview of methods and an illustration on a Philippine case Leon Hermans Presentation for Watertime Stakeholder Workshop 11 April 2003, University of Greenwich, London Faculty of Tecnology, Policy and Management - Policy Analysis Section

  2. Stakeholder analysis in the water sector • Introduction to stakeholder analysis • How to do a stakeholder analysis? • Approaches and methods • Illustration of a (far away) case application • Relevant lessons for WaterTime

  3. Stakeholder analysis and decision making • Decision makers operate in a political arena • Arenas consist of different stakeholders • Stakeholders behave strategically • Analysing decision making therefore requires: • Understanding political arena • Understanding the role of stakeholders

  4. What to analyse? • Political arena can be characterized as a network • Stakeholders, relations and rules • Institutions, culture • Stakeholders in networks: strategic behaviour • Objectives, resources, perceptions • Interests, influence, knowledge • Networks influence stakeholders; context for action • Stakeholders’ actions shape networks • Dynamic interrelated concepts

  5. Example of an analytical framework

  6. How to do a stakeholder analysis? • Three general approaches: • Theoretical analysis approach • Pragmatic analysis approach • (most reported approach for “stakeholder analysis”) • In-between analysis approach: theory-based methods

  7. Theoretical analysis approach • Theoretical approach • theory-driven: applying and extending existing theories for in-depth scientific case studies • Policy network theory, stream model, advocacy coalition framework, Actor Network Theory, etc. • Some strengths and weaknesses: • Framework and explanatory power of theory • Time consuming - operationalisation and observation of theoretical concepts • High demands on theoretical expertise

  8. Pragmatic analysis approach • Pragmatic approach • mapping key aspects in matrices or graphs to support strategic management • Classical stakeholder analysis, e.g. mapping interests and influence, cooperation and importance (ODA, USAID, World Bank) • Some strengths and weaknesses (“Quick and dirty”): • Can be done in relatively short period of time • Focus on key aspects • Relatively easy to apply and to learn • Limited theoretical basis: Analyst’s interpretation central • Limited transparency, more difficult to check validity

  9. In between: Theory-based methods • Methods that are theory-based but that have been used before for stakeholder analysis • Theoretical base improves transparency • Operationalisation by method helps to guide analyst • You get analytical rigor, at the expense of broadness and room for “pragmatic freedom” • Choice of method defines focus

  10. Classifying methods and approaches • Note that: • - objectives are not in a separate column • - methods and approaches may cover more than one column

  11. Overview of theory-based methods • Perceptions • Cognitive analysis (cognitive maps, soft systems) • Discourse analysis (public debate, arguments) • Resources (strategic behaviour) • Conflict analysis (game theory) • Transactional analysis (social theory) • Networks (relation between stakeholders) • Social Network Analysis (sociometry) Three types of methods supplement each other

  12. Illustrative case: Water management in the Philippines • Water resources management in the Philippines • Explore the stakeholder environment of a starting research project aimed at supporting decision making

  13. Sketch of existing situation • Rapid industrial and commercial development in Metro Cebu area: “Ceboom”. • Increasing pressure on existing groundwater resources • Degradation of inland watersheds threatens soil quality and water recharge • Metro Cebu needs more water but cannot control watershed population or other areas on Cebu island

  14. Stakeholder analysis design • Supporting a starting water management research project • Analysis design: • Questions to be answered by analysis • Time and people available for analysis • Available information and access to stakeholders • Using theory-based methods; the in-between approach • Argumentative analysis (discourse analysis) • Analysis of options (conflict analysis)

  15. Argumentative analysis

  16. Analysis of options - a simple example

  17. Analysis of options

  18. Analysis of options

  19. Analysis of options

  20. Stakeholder analysis execution • Short preparatory literature study (1-2 weeks) • Interviews with selected stakeholders (4 weeks): • Representative sample (network and stakeholders) • “Friends” easier to access than others • Selected methods guide type of interviews needed • Common language, different culture; especially important for argumentative analysis • At least some interviews seem required for any stakeholder analysis to “get the feeling” • Analysis of data, workshop and reporting (3 weeks) • Methods provide structures for interpretation and presentation of results

  21. Main outcomes of Philippine case • Focal points in broad range of project issues • Additional expertise and elements to include in project • Ways to understand positions of stakeholders: three basic views on water management, linked with interests and options of actors

  22. Watertime relevant lessons and guidelines • Decision making can be analysed through different approaches for stakeholder analysis with varying levels of thoroughness and underlying theoretical basis • Each approach contains variety of methods • What is appropriate for Watertime? • Position on SA classification-matrix: what is the purpose of stakeholder analysis in research and how important is it as part of the work? • Are there methods that (some) project partners are familiar with? What is their focus?

  23. WaterTime relevant lessons and guidelines (continued) • If possible, theoretical approach or theory-based methods would have advantages for WaterTime: • They help to gain and communicate insights that go beyond the obvious • Underlying theory provides starting point for developing a decision making model • Important factors for stakeholder analysis: • Available input data (incomplete, inaccurate, dissimilar) • Validity of results (also due to quality input data) • Efficiency (efforts required and expected quality of results)

  24. Thank you for your attention! For questions or references to literature feel free to ask: Leon Hermans Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management Delft University of Technology P.O. Box 5015 2600 GA Delft The Netherlands Email: l.m.hermans@tbm.tudelft.nl Tel: ++31-15-2785493 Fax: ++31-15-2786439

More Related