soc-stakeholder

asgard-ai-platform ｜ 規劃與釐清 ｜ 原文 ｜ MIT

用權力與利益矩陣盤點利害關係人，替每一類設計參與策略

---
name: "soc-stakeholder"
description: "用識別、權力—利益矩陣分類和影響策略擬定，進行利害關係人分析。使用者需要為專案描繪利害關係人、處理互相衝突的利益、排定溝通的優先順序，或建立利害關係人參與計畫時使用，就算他們說的是「這需要誰核准」、「我要怎麼取得支持」或「誰可能擋下這個專案」也一樣。"
metadata:
  category: "WP-18 社會科學院"
  tags: ["social-science", "stakeholder-analysis", "project-management"]
---

# 利害關係人分析

## 概述

利害關係人分析會找出所有影響某個決策、或受其影響的人，依權力和利益把他們分類，並為每個群體設計參與策略。它能避免因為忘了某些利害關係人而出狀況，並讓力氣集中在最重要的關係上。

## 框架

```
IRON LAW: Map ALL Stakeholders Before Engaging Any

Identify the full stakeholder landscape FIRST. Engaging one powerful
stakeholder before understanding the others' positions can create
unintended alliances against you. A stakeholder you forgot to include
becomes your biggest risk.
```

### 權力—利益矩陣

| | 低利益 | 高利益 |
|---|---|---|
| **高權力** | **讓他滿意（Keep Satisfied）**：監控、主動告知，不要拿細節煩他 | **密切管理（Manage Closely）**：積極參與、定期溝通、讓他參與決策 |
| **低權力** | **監控（Monitor）**：投入最少心力，留意權力或利益的變化 | **保持知情（Keep Informed）**：定期更新、回應疑慮、借力成為擁護者 |

### 分析步驟

1. **找出**所有利害關係人（內部與外部）
2. **評估**每個人的權力（影響結果的能力）和利益（關切的程度）
3. **分類**到四個象限
4. **了解**每個利害關係人的立場：支持、中立或抗拒
5. **設計**依象限和立場而定的參與策略
6. **監控**權力或利益隨時間產生的變化

### 依立場區分的參與策略

| 立場 | 策略 |
|----------|---------|
| **支持者** | 賦權給他們，提供資訊讓他們能替你發聲 |
| **中立者** | 說明效益、降低他們感受到的風險、及早回應疑慮 |
| **抗拒者** | 深入了解他們的疑慮、找出共同點、讓他們參與設計 |

### 衝突管理

當利害關係人的利益互相衝突時：
1. 找出具體的衝突點
2. 把立場（他們說自己想要什麼）和利益（他們為什麼想要）分開
3. 找出能處理雙方底層利益的解決方案
4. 談判失敗時才升級，而且要升級到對雙方都有權力的利害關係人

## 輸出格式

```markdown
# Stakeholder Analysis: {Project/Decision}

## Stakeholder Map
| Stakeholder | Role | Power | Interest | Position | Quadrant |
|-------------|------|-------|----------|----------|----------|
| {name/role} | {relationship} | H/M/L | H/M/L | Support/Neutral/Resist | {strategy} |

## Power-Interest Matrix
| | Low Interest | High Interest |
|---|---|---|
| **High Power** | {names} | {names} |
| **Low Power** | {names} | {names} |

## Engagement Plan
| Stakeholder | Strategy | Frequency | Channel | Key Message |
|-------------|---------|-----------|---------|-------------|
| {name} | {approach} | {weekly/monthly/ad-hoc} | {meeting/email/report} | {tailored message} |

## Conflict Points
| Conflict | Stakeholders | Resolution Approach |
|----------|-------------|-------------------|
| {issue} | {A vs B} | {proposed resolution} |
```

## 範例

### 正確的應用
**情境：** 在一家中型公司導入新 CRM 系統的利害關係人分析
| 利害關係人 | 權力 | 利益 | 立場 | 策略 |
|-------------|-------|----------|----------|----------|
| CEO | 高 | 低 | 中立 | 讓他滿意：每月摘要，聚焦 ROI |
| 業務副總 | 高 | 高 | 支持者 | 密切管理：共同設計、擔任推動者 |
| IT 主管 | 高 | 高 | 抗拒（擔心整合問題） | 密切管理：及早讓他參與、回應技術疑慮 |
| 業務人員 | 低 | 高 | 抗拒（不想換工具） | 保持知情：訓練、展示省下的時間、回應疑慮 |
| 財務 | 中 | 低 | 中立 | 監控：需要時再告知預算 |

關鍵洞察：IT 主管是高權力 + 抗拒 = 最大的風險。在專案被擋下之前，先處理整合的疑慮 ✓

### 錯誤的應用
- 只描繪了內部的利害關係人，忘了 CRM 供應商、既有工具的供應商（可能會抗拒），以及關鍵客戶（會受到轉換影響）也都是利害關係人。違反鐵律：要描繪「所有」利害關係人。

## 注意事項

- **權力會轉移**：今天低權力的利害關係人，可能會獲得權力（升遷、組織變動）。每季重新評估。
- **隱藏的利害關係人**：執行助理、董事會成員的顧問、工會代表，也就是有非正式但真實影響力的人。
- **不要在低權力的利害關係人身上投入過度**：很容易把時間花在最大聲的批評者身上，但如果他們權力低，他們的抗拒擋不了你。要把精力集中在高權力的象限。
- **抗拒 ≠ 敵人**：抗拒的利害關係人通常有正當的疑慮。他們的意見可以改善專案。把抗拒當成資料，不是對立。
- **利害關係人疲乏**：對每個人過度溝通，既浪費他們的時間，也浪費你的。要讓溝通頻率配合所在的象限。

## 參考資料

- 與抗拒的利害關係人談判的技巧請看 `references/negotiation-tactics.md`

---
name: "soc-stakeholder"
description: "Conduct stakeholder analysis using identification, Power-Interest matrix classification, and influence strategy development. Use this skill when the user needs to map stakeholders for a project, manage conflicting interests, prioritize communication, or build a stakeholder engagement plan — even if they say 'who needs to approve this', 'how do I get buy-in', or 'who might block this project'."
metadata:
  category: "WP-18 社會科學院"
  tags: ["social-science", "stakeholder-analysis", "project-management"]
---

# Stakeholder Analysis

## Overview

Stakeholder analysis identifies everyone who affects or is affected by a decision, classifies them by power and interest, and designs engagement strategies for each group. It prevents surprises from forgotten stakeholders and focuses effort on the relationships that matter most.

## Framework

```
IRON LAW: Map ALL Stakeholders Before Engaging Any

Identify the full stakeholder landscape FIRST. Engaging one powerful
stakeholder before understanding the others' positions can create
unintended alliances against you. A stakeholder you forgot to include
becomes your biggest risk.
```

### Power-Interest Matrix

| | Low Interest | High Interest |
|---|---|---|
| **High Power** | **Keep Satisfied** — Monitor, inform proactively, don't bore with details | **Manage Closely** — Active engagement, regular communication, involve in decisions |
| **Low Power** | **Monitor** — Minimal effort, watch for changes in power or interest | **Keep Informed** — Regular updates, address concerns, leverage as advocates |

### Analysis Steps

1. **Identify** all stakeholders (internal and external)
2. **Assess** each on Power (ability to influence outcome) and Interest (degree of concern)
3. **Classify** into the four quadrants
4. **Understand** each stakeholder's position: supportive, neutral, or resistant
5. **Design** engagement strategy per quadrant and position
6. **Monitor** for shifts in power or interest over time

### Engagement Strategies by Position

| Position | Strategy |
|----------|---------|
| **Supporter** | Empower them, give them information to advocate on your behalf |
| **Neutral** | Educate about benefits, reduce perceived risk, address concerns early |
| **Resistant** | Understand their concerns deeply, find common ground, involve in design |

### Conflict Management

When stakeholders have conflicting interests:
1. Identify the specific points of conflict
2. Separate positions (what they say they want) from interests (why they want it)
3. Find solutions that address underlying interests of both parties
4. Escalate only when negotiation fails — and escalate to a stakeholder with power over both

## Output Format

```markdown
# Stakeholder Analysis: {Project/Decision}

## Stakeholder Map
| Stakeholder | Role | Power | Interest | Position | Quadrant |
|-------------|------|-------|----------|----------|----------|
| {name/role} | {relationship} | H/M/L | H/M/L | Support/Neutral/Resist | {strategy} |

## Power-Interest Matrix
| | Low Interest | High Interest |
|---|---|---|
| **High Power** | {names} | {names} |
| **Low Power** | {names} | {names} |

## Engagement Plan
| Stakeholder | Strategy | Frequency | Channel | Key Message |
|-------------|---------|-----------|---------|-------------|
| {name} | {approach} | {weekly/monthly/ad-hoc} | {meeting/email/report} | {tailored message} |

## Conflict Points
| Conflict | Stakeholders | Resolution Approach |
|----------|-------------|-------------------|
| {issue} | {A vs B} | {proposed resolution} |
```

## Examples

### Correct Application
**Scenario:** Stakeholder analysis for implementing a new CRM system at a mid-size company
| Stakeholder | Power | Interest | Position | Strategy |
|-------------|-------|----------|----------|----------|
| CEO | High | Low | Neutral | Keep Satisfied — monthly summary, focus on ROI |
| Sales VP | High | High | Supporter | Manage Closely — co-design, champion role |
| IT Director | High | High | Resistant (worried about integration) | Manage Closely — involve early, address technical concerns |
| Sales reps | Low | High | Resistant (don't want to change tools) | Keep Informed — training, show time savings, address concerns |
| Finance | Medium | Low | Neutral | Monitor — inform about budget when needed |

Key insight: IT Director is high-power + resistant = biggest risk. Address integration concerns before the project gets blocked ✓

### Incorrect Application
- Only mapped internal stakeholders, forgot that the CRM vendor, existing tool vendor (who might resist), and key customers (who'll be affected by the transition) are also stakeholders. Violates Iron Law: map ALL stakeholders.

## Gotchas

- **Power shifts**: A stakeholder who's low-power today may gain power (promotion, organizational change). Reassess quarterly.
- **Hidden stakeholders**: Executive assistants, board members' advisors, union representatives — people with informal but real influence.
- **Don't over-engage low-power stakeholders**: It's tempting to spend time on the most vocal critics, but if they have low power, their resistance won't block you. Focus energy on the high-power quadrants.
- **Resistance ≠ enemy**: Resistant stakeholders often have legitimate concerns. Their input can improve the project. Treat resistance as data, not opposition.
- **Stakeholder fatigue**: Over-communicating with everyone wastes their time and yours. Match communication frequency to the quadrant.

## References

- For negotiation techniques with resistant stakeholders, see `references/negotiation-tactics.md`