IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v34y2011i1p1-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Working with evaluation stakeholders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit

Author

Listed:
  • Bryson, John M.
  • Patton, Michael Quinn
  • Bowman, Ruth A.

Abstract

In the broad field of evaluation, the importance of stakeholders is often acknowledged and different categories of stakeholders are identified. Far less frequent is careful attention to analysis of stakeholders' interests, needs, concerns, power, priorities, and perspectives and subsequent application of that knowledge to the design of evaluations. This article is meant to help readers understand and apply stakeholder identification and analysis techniques in the design of credible evaluations that enhance primary intended use by primary intended users. While presented using a utilization-focused-evaluation (UFE) lens, the techniques are not UFE-dependent. The article presents a range of the most relevant techniques to identify and analyze evaluation stakeholders. The techniques are arranged according to their ability to inform the process of developing and implementing an evaluation design and of making use of the evaluation's findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Bryson, John M. & Patton, Michael Quinn & Bowman, Ruth A., 2011. "Working with evaluation stakeholders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-12, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:34:y:2011:i:1:p:1-12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(10)00063-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John M. Bryson & Philip Bromiley, 1993. "Critical factors affecting the planning and implementation of major projects," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 319-337, July.
    2. John M Bryson, 2004. "What to do when Stakeholders matter," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 21-53, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nam Phong Le & Thi Thu Phuong Nguyen & Dajian Zhu, 2018. "Understanding the Stakeholders’ Involvement in Utilizing Municipal Solid Waste in Agriculture through Composting: A Case Study of Hanoi, Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-32, July.
    2. Wang, Jue & Aenis, Thomas & Hofmann-Souki, Susanne, 2018. "Triangulation in participation: Dynamic approaches for science-practice interaction in land-use decision making in rural China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 364-371.
    3. Camilo Venegas & Andrea C. Sánchez-Alfonso & Crispín Celis & Fidson-Juarismy Vesga & Mauricio González Mendez, 2021. "Management Strategies and Stakeholders Analysis to Strengthen the Management and Use of Biosolids in a Colombian Municipality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-25, November.
    4. Yates, Brian T., 2021. "Toward collaborative cost-inclusive evaluation: Adaptations and transformations for evaluators and economists," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    5. Arellano, Alexandra & Halsall, Tanya & Forneris, Tanya & Gaudet, Cindy, 2018. "Results of a utilization-focused evaluation of a Right To Play program for Indigenous youth," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 156-164.
    6. Kingston, Kylie L. & Furneaux, Craig & de Zwaan, Laura & Alderman, Lyn, 2023. "Avoiding the accountability ‘sham-ritual’: An agonistic approach to beneficiaries’ participation in evaluation within nonprofit organisations," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    7. Lake, G. & Urban, M. & Giblin, F. & French, G. & Farrell, T., 2022. "Making a difference in the real world. User-centred impact evaluation of an eight-country, community-based early childhood programme," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    8. Ullrich-French, Sarah & Cole, Amy N. & Montgomery, Anna K., 2016. "Evaluation development for a physical activity positive youth development program for girls," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 67-76.
    9. Kivits, Robbert & Charles, Michael B., 2015. "Aviation planning policy in Australia: Identifying frames of reference to support public decision making," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 102-111.
    10. Khan, Zaheer & Ludlow, David & Caceres, Santiago, 2013. "Evaluating a collaborative IT based research and development project," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 27-41.
    11. Stella Pfisterer & Rob Van Tulder, 2020. "Navigating Governance Tensions to Enhance the Impact of Partnerships with the Private Sector for the SDGs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, December.
    12. Wendong Wu & Fang He & Taozhi Zhuang & Yuan Yi, 2020. "Stakeholder Analysis and Social Network Analysis in the Decision-Making of Industrial Land Redevelopment in China: The Case of Shanghai," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-27, December.
    13. Esposito, Giovanna & Freda, Maria Francesca, 2015. "Evaluating training context competence of use: Productive and unproductive models of use," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 77-87.
    14. Ovidiu NICOLESCU & Ciprian NICOLESCU, 2020. "Company Relevant Stakeholders’ Responsibility: An Innovative Form Of Responsible Governance," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 14(1), pages 319-334, November.
    15. Weixuan Chen & Ali Cheshmehzangi & Eugenio Mangi & Timothy Heath & Changdong Ye & Ling Wang, 2022. "An Analysis of Residents’ Social Profiles Influencing Their Participation in Community Micro-Regeneration Projects in China: A Case Study of Yongtai Community, Guangzhou," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, May.
    16. Junwen Luo & Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros & Stefan Kuhlmann, 2019. "The balancing role of evaluation mechanisms in organizational governance—The case of publicly funded research institutions," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 344-354.
    17. Gilbert Silvius & Ron Schipper, 2019. "Planning Project Stakeholder Engagement from a Sustainable Development Perspective," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-22, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bert George, 2017. "Does strategic planning ‘work’ in public organizations? Insights from Flemish municipalities," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(7), pages 527-530, November.
    2. Martin Luštický & Martin Musil, 2016. "Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of Tourism Policy Priorities: The Case of the South Bohemian Region," Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2016(3), pages 3-23.
    3. Jolanta MAJ, 2015. "Diversity Management’S Stakeholders And Stakeholders Management," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(1), pages 780-793, November.
    4. Franco-Trigo, L. & Fernandez-Llimos, F. & Martínez-Martínez, F. & Benrimoj, S.I. & Sabater-Hernández, D., 2020. "Stakeholder analysis in health innovation planning processes: A systematic scoping review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1083-1099.
    5. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    7. Christophe Favoreu & David Carassus & Christophe Maurel, 2015. "Strategic management in the public sector: a rational, political or collaborative approach? [Le management stratégique en milieu public : approche rationnelle, politique ou collaborative ?]," Post-Print hal-02152509, HAL.
    8. Sandra Ricart & Antonio M. Rico-Amorós, 2022. "Can agriculture and conservation be compatible in a coastal wetland? Balancing stakeholders’ narratives and interactions in the management of El Hondo Natural Park, Spain," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 589-604, June.
    9. Ashton W. Merck & Khara D. Grieger & Alison Deviney & Anna-Maria Marshall, 2023. "Using a Phosphorus Flow Diagram as a Boundary Object to Inform Stakeholder Engagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-10, July.
    10. Ogunlowo, Olufemi O. & Bristow, Abigail L. & Sohail, M., 2017. "A stakeholder analysis of the automotive industry's use of compressed natural gas in Nigeria," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 58-69.
    11. Austen Agata, 2012. "Stakeholders management in public hospitals in the context of resources," Management, Sciendo, vol. 16(2), pages 217-230, December.
    12. Sandra Ricart & Anna Ribas & David Pavón, 2016. "Qualifying irrigation system sustainability by means of stakeholder perceptions and concerns: lessons from the Segarra‐Garrigues Canal, Spain," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(1-2), pages 77-90, February.
    13. Cathy Macharis & Peter Nijkamp, 2013. "Multi-actor and multi-criteria analysis in evaluating mega-projects," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 11, pages 242-266, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Maciej Dobrzyñski & Krzysztof Dziekoñski & Arkadiusz Jurczuk, 2015. "Stakeholders Mapping - A Case Of International Logistics Project," Polish Journal of Management Studies, Czestochowa Technical University, Department of Management, vol. 11(2), pages 17-26, June.
    15. Szymaniec-Mlicka Karolina, 2016. "Impact of strategic orientation adopted by an organisation on its performance, as shown on the example of public healthcare entities," Management, Sciendo, vol. 20(2), pages 278-290, December.
    16. Carolus, Johannes Friedrich & Hanley, Nick & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Pedersen, Søren Marcus, 2018. "A Bottom-up Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 282-295.
    17. Mingers, John, 2011. "Soft OR comes of age--but not everywhere!," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 729-741, December.
    18. Marco Taliento, 2022. "The Triple Mission of the Modern University: Component Interplay and Performance Analysis from Italy," World, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-24, July.
    19. Isabella M. Lami & Stefano Moroni, 2020. "How Can I Help You? Questioning the Role of Evaluation Techniques in Democratic Decision-Making Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-17, October.
    20. Tsoutsos, Theocharis & Drandaki, Maria & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Iosifidis, Eleftherios & Kiosses, Ioannis, 2009. "Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of Crete," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1587-1600, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:34:y:2011:i:1:p:1-12. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.