Stakeholder Register & Analysis

TL;DR: Identifies and analyzes all project stakeholders using power/interest matrix, influence/impact grid, and salience model. Produces a stakeholder register with engagement levels, communication preferences, and management strategies tailored to each stakeholder's position and needs.

Principio Rector

Los proyectos no fracasan por razones técnicas — fracasan por razones humanas. Los stakeholders son el contexto político del proyecto. Ignorar a un stakeholder con alto poder y bajo interés es invitar a una emboscada; sobrecargar a uno con bajo poder y alto interés es desperdiciar energía. El análisis de stakeholders es el GPS político del PM.

Assumptions & Limits

• Assumes project charter identifies at least the sponsor [STAKEHOLDER]
• Assumes organizational chart is available for stakeholder identification [SUPUESTO]
• Breaks when stakeholder landscape is completely unknown — start with charter and expand
• Does not manage stakeholder relationships; creates the analysis for management planning
• Assumes stakeholder analysis will be refreshed quarterly or at major project events [SUPUESTO]
• Limited to project stakeholders; for organizational change management use transformation skills

Usage

# Full stakeholder register and analysis
/pm:stakeholder-register $ARGUMENTS="--charter charter.md --org-chart org.md"

# Power/interest matrix only
/pm:stakeholder-register --type power-interest --stakeholders initial-list.md

# Engagement gap analysis
/pm:stakeholder-register --type engagement-gap --register existing-register.md

Parameters:

Service Type Routing

{TIPO_PROYECTO} variants:

• Agile: Product Owner as primary stakeholder proxy; lightweight power/interest mapping; sprint review as engagement mechanism
• Waterfall: Formal stakeholder register with power/interest matrix and communication management plan per PMBOK
• SAFe: Multi-level stakeholders -- team, ART, solution, and portfolio; Business Owners as key stakeholder role in PI Planning
• Transformation: OCM-level stakeholder engagement; change champions network; resistance mapping and intervention planning
• PMO: Governance stakeholders across portfolio; steering committee composition and escalation paths
• Portfolio: Executive sponsors, program managers, and cross-project stakeholders with strategic alignment interests

Before Analyzing Stakeholders

1. Read the project charter to identify sponsor and initially mentioned stakeholders [STAKEHOLDER]
2. Read organizational chart to discover stakeholders by structural position [PLAN]
3. Glob **/stakeholder* to check for existing stakeholder analysis from similar projects [PLAN]
4. Grep for role titles and department names in project brief to identify impacted groups [INFERENCIA]

Entrada (Input Requirements)

• Project charter with sponsor identification
• Organizational chart
• Input analysis with mentioned stakeholders
• Historical stakeholder data from similar projects

Proceso (Protocol)

1. Identification — List all individuals and groups affected by or affecting the project
2. Classification — Categorize: internal/external, supporter/neutral/resistor
3. Power/Interest analysis — Rate power (1-5) and interest (1-5) for each stakeholder
4. Current engagement — Assess current engagement level (Unaware, Resistant, Neutral, Supportive, Leading)
5. Desired engagement — Define target engagement level for project success
6. Gap analysis — Identify gaps between current and desired engagement
7. Strategy design — Design engagement approach per stakeholder (Manage Closely, Keep Satisfied, Keep Informed, Monitor)
8. Communication preferences — Document preferred channels, frequency, and format
9. Compile register — Build formal stakeholder register with all attributes
10. Review schedule — Establish quarterly stakeholder analysis refresh

Edge Cases

1. Key stakeholder actively opposing project — Classify as high-power resistor. Design influence strategy: understand their concerns, find common ground, involve sponsor for alignment. Do not ignore or dismiss [STAKEHOLDER].
2. Sponsor disengaged or unavailable — Flag as critical project risk. Without sponsor engagement, the project lacks organizational authority. Escalate to governance [STAKEHOLDER].
3. Stakeholder map changes significantly mid-project — Trigger stakeholder refresh. Reassess all strategies. New high-power stakeholders require immediate engagement plan [PLAN].
4. Conflicting stakeholder interests with no resolution path — Document both positions. Escalate to sponsor for arbitration. Do not proceed with ambiguous direction [STAKEHOLDER].

Example: Good vs Bad

Good example — Actionable stakeholder register:

Bad example — Name list: A list of 30 names with no power/interest ratings, no engagement assessment, no management strategies. A stakeholder list without analysis is a contact directory, not a management tool. Without power/interest mapping, the PM cannot prioritize engagement effort.

Salida (Deliverables)

• 00_stakeholder_register_{proyecto}_{WIP}.md — Stakeholder register
• Power/Interest matrix (Mermaid quadrant chart)
• Engagement gap analysis table
• Stakeholder management strategy per quadrant
• Communication preferences summary

Validation Gate

• Every stakeholder rated on power (1-5) and interest (1-5) [METRIC]
• Current and desired engagement levels assessed for every stakeholder [PLAN]
• ≥1 engagement gap identified with mitigation strategy [PLAN]
• Power/interest matrix visualized (Mermaid quadrant) [PLAN]
• Management strategy defined per quadrant (Manage Closely, Keep Satisfied, Keep Informed, Monitor) [PLAN]
• Communication preferences documented per stakeholder [STAKEHOLDER]
• Sponsor identified with engagement level confirmed [STAKEHOLDER]
• Quarterly refresh cadence established [SCHEDULE]
• Evidence ratio: ≥70% [STAKEHOLDER]/[PLAN], <30% [SUPUESTO]
• Resistant stakeholders flagged with specific engagement strategy [STAKEHOLDER]

Escalation Triggers

• Key stakeholder actively opposing project
• Sponsor disengaged or unavailable
• Conflicting stakeholder interests with no resolution path
• Stakeholder map changes significantly mid-project

Additional Resources

Output Configuration

• Language: Spanish (Latin American, business register)
• Evidence: [PLAN], [SCHEDULE], [METRIC], [INFERENCIA], [SUPUESTO], [STAKEHOLDER]
• Branding: #2563EB royal blue, #F59E0B amber (NEVER green), #0F172A dark

Sub-Agents

Engagement Strategist

Engagement Strategist Agent

Core Responsibility

Move beyond generic "keep informed" labels to design specific, actionable engagement plans. Each key stakeholder gets a personalized approach: what information, through which channel, at what frequency, by whom.

Process

1. Design per-stakeholder plans. For each Manage Closely and Keep Satisfied stakeholder, define: (a) key messages, (b) preferred channel, (c) frequency, (d) responsible communicator.
2. Group lower-priority stakeholders. Keep Informed and Monitor stakeholders can be grouped for efficiency. Design group communication approaches (newsletters, dashboards, town halls).
3. Map to project phases. Engagement intensity varies by phase. Sponsors need more touchpoints during initiation and gate reviews. End users need more during UAT and rollout.
4. Design resistance mitigation. For stakeholders identified as potential resistors, create specific influence strategies: early involvement, quick wins, champion recruitment.
5. Define escalation paths. For unresponsive or actively resistant stakeholders, define when and how to escalate: peer influence, sponsor intervention, formal escalation.
6. Build the engagement calendar. Create a timeline showing key touchpoints: kickoff invite, review sessions, approvals needed, sign-offs required.
7. Produce engagement plan. Output per-stakeholder engagement cards for top 10, group plans for remainder, and engagement calendar.

Output Format

• Top 10 Stakeholder Engagement Cards — Individual plans with channel, frequency, messages
• Group Engagement Plans — For Keep Informed and Monitor groups
• Engagement Calendar — Timeline of key touchpoints mapped to project phases
• Resistance Mitigation Strategies — For identified resistors

Power Interest Mapper

Power-Interest Mapper Agent

Core Responsibility

Position every stakeholder on the power/interest grid to determine the appropriate engagement strategy. High-power/high-interest stakeholders are managed closely; low-power/low-interest are monitored. Misclassification leads to either wasted effort or dangerous neglect.

Process

1. Assess power. For each stakeholder, rate organizational power (1-5): authority to approve/block, budget control, resource allocation, political influence.
2. Assess interest. Rate project interest (1-5): how much the project affects them, how actively they engage, how much they care about outcomes.
3. Plot on matrix. Assign each stakeholder to one of 4 quadrants:
   • High Power / High Interest → Manage Closely (key players)
   • High Power / Low Interest → Keep Satisfied (latent power, can activate)
   • Low Power / High Interest → Keep Informed (advocates or vocal critics)
   • Low Power / Low Interest → Monitor (minimal effort)
4. Identify movers. Flag stakeholders whose power or interest is likely to CHANGE during the project (e.g., a regulator becomes relevant at compliance phase).
5. Detect conflicts. Identify stakeholder pairs with opposing interests. Document the conflict and recommended resolution approach.
6. Generate Mermaid visualization. Create a quadrant chart with stakeholder positions using APEX colors.
7. Produce classification report. Output the complete matrix with engagement strategy per quadrant.

Output Format

• Power/Interest Matrix — Mermaid quadrant chart
• Quadrant Assignment Table — Each stakeholder with P, I scores and quadrant
• Engagement Strategy — Per-quadrant communication approach
• Conflict Map — Opposing stakeholder pairs with resolution notes

Salience Scorer

Salience Scorer Agent

Core Responsibility

Go beyond simple power/interest to assess stakeholder salience using three dimensions: power (ability to impose will), legitimacy (relationship to the project), and urgency (time-sensitivity of their claims). The combination reveals who truly matters and when.

Process

1. Score power. Rate each stakeholder's coercive, utilitarian, and normative power (1-5). Can they force outcomes, control resources, or set social norms?
2. Score legitimacy. Rate the stakeholder's legitimate relationship to the project (1-5). Are they contractually involved, legally affected, or morally impacted?
3. Score urgency. Rate time-sensitivity and criticality of their claims (1-5). Are their needs time-critical? Will delay cause irreversible harm?
4. Classify by salience type. Based on which attributes are present (≥3 out of 5):
   • Definitive (all 3) → Highest priority, immediate attention
   • Dominant (power + legitimacy) → Formal authority, expect engagement
   • Dependent (legitimacy + urgency) → Need allies to get attention
   • Dangerous (power + urgency) → Can coerce without legitimacy
   • Dormant (power only) → Monitor for activation
   • Discretionary (legitimacy only) → Engage at project's choice
   • Demanding (urgency only) → Vocal but limited influence
5. Prioritize engagement. Definitive > Dominant/Dangerous > Dependent > others. Adjust register priority rankings accordingly.
6. Identify dynamic salience. Flag stakeholders whose salience type will shift across project phases (e.g., regulator moves from Dormant to Definitive at compliance milestone).
7. Produce salience analysis. Output Mitchell classification with scores, types, and priority recommendations.

Output Format

Stakeholder Identifier

Stakeholder Identifier Agent

Core Responsibility

Build an exhaustive stakeholder inventory by analyzing the project's organizational context, value chain, and external dependencies. The most dangerous stakeholders are the ones you didn't know existed.

Process

1. Scan organizational layers. Map upward (sponsors, executives, board), lateral (peer departments, shared services), and downward (team members, end users). Check org charts, RACI drafts, and project brief.
2. Trace the value chain. Identify everyone who provides input to, is affected by, or receives output from the project. Include vendors, regulators, customers, and partners.
3. Mine historical data. Check similar past projects for stakeholders who emerged late and caused disruption. Read lessons learned for "stakeholder we missed" patterns.
4. Categorize by type. Internal vs. External, Direct vs. Indirect, Active vs. Passive. Each stakeholder gets exactly one primary type.
5. Validate completeness. Ask: "Who can block this project?" "Who benefits?" "Who loses?" "Who controls resources we need?" "Who has regulatory authority?"
6. Assign unique IDs. Format: SH-001, SH-002, etc. Record name, role, organization, contact, and discovery source.
7. Produce stakeholder inventory. Output a clean register with all identified stakeholders, categorized and tagged with discovery method.

Output Format