Ochieng, J A and Chileshe, N (2016) Engagement strategies and challenges for adoption of stakeholder management approaches (SMA) in South Australian construction industry: Preliminary observations. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
While there is extensive research on stakeholder management (SM), there is a paucity of studies in relation to external stakeholders and in particular, South Australia. More so, the majority of the SM issues have focused on the significance of the internal stakeholder. In order to bridge that knowledge gap, the purpose of this paper is to investigate the perception of project management practitioners on the engagement strategies and challenges affecting the external stakeholders in adopting stakeholder management approaches (SMAs). A mixed methods approach was employed for data collection.A review of literature identified 21 engagement strategies and 9 challenges associated with deployment of SMAs. This comprised collection of primary preliminarily data from 19 construction professionals working with clients (private and public), consultants and contractor, and 5 semi-structured interviews within the South Australian construction industry. Quantitative data was subjected to descriptive statistics such as frequency and ranking analysis. Coding of the interview transcripts was used to identify recurring themes. From the descriptive statistics, the following were identified as most critical SMAs engagement strategies: (1) stakeholder identification; (2) well defined communication strategy and plan; (3) stakeholder expectations are understood; and (4) leadership. The least critical were: (1) open information sharing; and (2) delegating responsibility to the stakeholder. The following three challenges were identified as critical: (1) conflicting agendas; (2) scare resources; and (3) power conflicts. In contrast, the least ranked challenges were: (1) subversive stakeholders; (2) passive involvement of stakeholders; and (3) low turn out to meetings. In contrast, strategies identified from the interviews included identifying stakeholders as early as the design phase of the projects to harmonize the project performance standards with the stakeholder expectations. Despite the limited sample size, this study provides insights and raises awareness on the engagement strategies and challenges for the effective adoption of stakeholder management approaches.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | South Australia; construction industry; stakeholder management; challenges; engagement strategies; mixed methods; descriptive statistics |
| Index terms: | interview, mixed method, strategy, sample size, construction professional, project performance, design phase, practitioner, information sharing, stakeholder identification, stakeholder management, external stakeholder, statistics, construction industry, project management, South Australia |
| Subjects: | practitioner, data collection methods, mathematical modelling, research design and methodology, professional practice, participation process, professional development, project management theory and practice, management, physical geography and landforms, data exchange, industry analysis, sociology |
| Topics: | Information Management, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here