Multiple stakeholder analysis made easy!
0 likes327 views
This document provides an overview of using Open Space Technology to conduct a stakeholder analysis meeting. The process involves identifying things to improve and having stakeholders privately rate each item on its value to different stakeholder groups. Results are analyzed to get a differentiated view of what creates value for various stakeholders. Analysis can be done within the group or offline to further examine the ratings, such as weighting stakeholders or using additional analysis tools. Facilitators should clarify the instructions, review tips like limiting the number of stakeholder criteria, and focus discussion on the multiple-criteria results table.
![Overview of Ratings “Value by [STAKEHOLDER]”
► Purpose. Get a differentiated view on the value of “things to improve”
for specific (groups of) stakeholders.
► Outcome. A (complex) table which gives a value for each “thing to
improve” for each stakeholder
► “Mean of row” gives the mean value of that item to all stakeholders
► “Mean of column” gives mean value of all items to that stakeholder
► Input. Typically all “things to improve” which were identified for further
consideration (copy topics from prior Discussion)
► Follow-up by
► Further analysis, possibly “weighting” results for specific
stakeholders (use feature ‘calculated columns’ or Excel)
► Analysis of a complex multi-criteria analysis is typically done off-line,
i.e. not in the (full) group](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/facilitationnote-multi-criteriaratingstakeholdervalue-agendamodule-identifythingstoimprove-160330074746/85/Multiple-stakeholder-analysis-made-easy-2-320.jpg)
![Rate
3 min each
Rate
Detailed process of this Rating activity
• Fetch participants*
• Review & clarify
• the instruction
• the rating method
Review
instruction
2 min
*Fetch: Start participants with the “Fetch” option
• Rate items on their
value for each
[STAKEHOLDER]
Rate value • Synchronize screens
• Walk participants
through results
• Do analysis with the
group or off-line
Review
instruction
2 min](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/facilitationnote-multi-criteriaratingstakeholdervalue-agendamodule-identifythingstoimprove-160330074746/85/Multiple-stakeholder-analysis-made-easy-3-320.jpg)
![Tips
► Review and adapt the template to your need
► Review the rating instruction and the scale labels
► Review setting “Host participates in rating” (select “No” if you are a facilitator)
► Adapt variable [STAKEHOLDER] in each Rating’s (a) Title (b) Instruction (c) Criterion (!)
► Add (or delete) Rating sheets for additional stakeholder groups
► Make sure that the participants have understood the instruction!
► Do not rush the participants
You do not want to hear “We did not have the time to give a considered opinion.”
► Bypass single criterion results tables (use only for drill-down)
► Focus on the multiple-criteria results table rather than charts (for once!)
► Limit the number of Stakeholders (criteria)
If you want to analyze this in the group, possibly in order to progress to finding
solutions in that session, they are unlikely to grasp results for more than 5
criteria (stakeholder groups)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/facilitationnote-multi-criteriaratingstakeholdervalue-agendamodule-identifythingstoimprove-160330074746/85/Multiple-stakeholder-analysis-made-easy-4-320.jpg)
More Related Content
Similar to Multiple stakeholder analysis made easy! (20)
More from groupVision | optimizing group collaboration (20)
Multiple stakeholder analysis made easy!
- 1. ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology Multiple stakeholder Analysis with MeetingSphere
- 2. Overview of Ratings “Value by [STAKEHOLDER]” ► Purpose. Get a differentiated view on the value of “things to improve” for specific (groups of) stakeholders. ► Outcome. A (complex) table which gives a value for each “thing to improve” for each stakeholder ► “Mean of row” gives the mean value of that item to all stakeholders ► “Mean of column” gives mean value of all items to that stakeholder ► Input. Typically all “things to improve” which were identified for further consideration (copy topics from prior Discussion) ► Follow-up by ► Further analysis, possibly “weighting” results for specific stakeholders (use feature ‘calculated columns’ or Excel) ► Analysis of a complex multi-criteria analysis is typically done off-line, i.e. not in the (full) group
- 3. Rate 3 min each Rate Detailed process of this Rating activity • Fetch participants* • Review & clarify • the instruction • the rating method Review instruction 2 min *Fetch: Start participants with the “Fetch” option • Rate items on their value for each [STAKEHOLDER] Rate value • Synchronize screens • Walk participants through results • Do analysis with the group or off-line Review instruction 2 min
- 4. Tips ► Review and adapt the template to your need ► Review the rating instruction and the scale labels ► Review setting “Host participates in rating” (select “No” if you are a facilitator) ► Adapt variable [STAKEHOLDER] in each Rating’s (a) Title (b) Instruction (c) Criterion (!) ► Add (or delete) Rating sheets for additional stakeholder groups ► Make sure that the participants have understood the instruction! ► Do not rush the participants You do not want to hear “We did not have the time to give a considered opinion.” ► Bypass single criterion results tables (use only for drill-down) ► Focus on the multiple-criteria results table rather than charts (for once!) ► Limit the number of Stakeholders (criteria) If you want to analyze this in the group, possibly in order to progress to finding solutions in that session, they are unlikely to grasp results for more than 5 criteria (stakeholder groups)