Strategy Survival Guide

Effectively engaging with stakeholders
In Practice 1: SU GM Crops Project
The GM crops project learned some tough lessons in stakeholder engagement. Despite the team having
drawn up a stakeholder management plan, the initial scoping document - heavily reliant on internal work
and comments from other government departments - was widely and severely criticised by many external
stakeholder groups.
In response to the criticism, the GM crops team opted for a much more extensive level of stakeholder
engagement. All interim papers (including the criticisms of the scoping note) were published, and the
team arranged stakeholder seminars to design the scenarios for the project and to draw up some
illustrative "shocks and surprises". Repeat meetings with key stakeholders were organised, and many key
stakeholders were involved in “Expert Groups” which had the opportunity to provide input to work in
progress. A long list of contacts was kept informed of key developments in the project, and at the end of
the project, a post-publication event provided stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the report
and the methodology.
Whilst most stakeholders were interested mainly in the content of the report, the degree of engagement in
the process was widely welcomed. NGOs in particular appreciated the feeling of being used as a source
of valuable information, rather than just another group to tick off a list. The ability of the team to respond
and re-plan in the light of criticisms was also seen as positive. Overall, the project achieved a surprising
degree of consensus, with most groups feeling that their viewpoint had been listened to and reflected in
the report.
Effectively engaging with stakeholders
In Practice 2: SU Fisheries Project
The Fisheries Project set up two bodies to mediate formal contact with external stakeholders. The team
invited a ‘Red Team’ of fishing industry experts to act as critical friends of the project. They provided
constructive criticism of the team’s thinking at key stages of the project. In addition, the Stakeholder
Advisory Group brought together representatives from all sectors of the fishing industry along with
environmentalists and other stakeholders. Two meetings were held during the course of the project.
These were structured to allow the team to communicate key findings and for the Stakeholder Advisory
Group to input to the team’s work.
The consultation paper, launched after the first couple of months of analysis, had several purposes. It
provided an opportunity for gathering data that could not be found by other means. It gave individual
stakeholders and organisations the opportunity to feed into the team’s work through a formal process. It
also provided the team with the opportunity to present some of the initial analysis in a form that
challenged preconceived notions and asked some searching questions. This was useful in preparing the
ground for consideration of reform of the fisheries sector.
The team also held a Stakeholder Event after the bulk of the analysis had been done. The team invited
over sixty stakeholders; people met during the course of the project and a number of respondents to the
consultation exercise. The Stakeholder Event allowed the team to ‘truth test’ its findings with a crosssection
of stakeholders, continue the process of challenging received wisdom and provide stakeholders
with ‘early warning’ of the likely terrain of the final report. The Stakeholder Event used outside facilitation
and innovative technology to allow structured participation from attendees. This meant that all participants
were able to comment on the team’s work.
The use of a mixture of conventional and innovative tools for stakeholder engagement, combined with a
commitment to transparency, encouraged constructive engagement and allowed the team to access
resources and knowledge that were invaluable to gaining an understanding of a highly complex field.
Strategy Survival Guide – Strategy Skills
Page 81