Stakeholder analysis matrix

A stakeholder analysis matrix is the governance record that scores every stakeholder on influence and interest, then sets the engagement each one gets. It is signed, dated and owned. Guesswork gets you blocked late in the project by someone nobody briefed.

The grid itself is old and simple: influence on one axis, interest on the other, four boxes. What makes this version different is governance. It is named in the project charter template, versioned, and owned by a person.

That is the line against a live neighbour. Influence mapping reads informal power and who really gets listened to. This matrix is the formal, documented artefact a project is actually run from.

Key takeaways

• Two axes: how much influence someone holds, and how much interest they have.
• Four boxes set the handling, from manage closely down to monitor.
• The matrix is a project record, dated and owned, not a private sketch.
• Its output is an engagement plan, not a list of names.

How it works

List everyone the project affects or needs, score each on influence and interest, then place them in one of four boxes. The box decides how much contact they get, in what form, and from whom.

Score coarsely. High or low on each axis is enough, because arguing whether a director rates a seven or an eight burns the hour you should spend deciding what to do about them.

Influence is formal authority plus the informal kind. The organisation chart gives you the first. The second is about who actually gets listened to, and it rarely matches the chart at all.

Interest is not the same as support. A high interest stakeholder may be your loudest opponent, and the matrix deliberately says nothing about whether a person is for the project or against it.

Add a column most templates leave out: what each stakeholder actually wants from the project. Without it the engagement plan degrades into a mailing list with four tiers of frequency.

The matrix is an input, not an output. It feeds a communication plan project teams can actually run: who hears what, through which channel, and how often.

Promising more influence than you can deliver is the classic failure. The US Environmental Protection Agency’s public participation guide ties the level of participation to potential influence on the decision, and warns a mismatch leaves people dissatisfied.

Where the project changes how people work, pair the matrix with a change impact analysis. One tells you who to talk to — the other tells you what you are about to do to them.

In a larger organisation the project management office owns the template and the review cadence, so every project scores stakeholders the same way and a handover between projects means something.

Public sector projects face a further test. HM Treasury’s Green Book, the appraisal guidance whose current edition is dated 2026, weighs the costs, benefits and risks of options — and it withdrew every earlier edition.

Scores move. Someone who was low interest turns high the week their budget is touched, so rescore at every gate rather than treating the first grid as a permanent record.

Name an owner for each stakeholder. One person holds each relationship, and that name belongs in the grid beside the box, because a quadrant with nobody against it gets no contact at all.

Keep it short enough to use. Twelve to twenty named stakeholders is workable, while a list of eighty is a contact database that nobody will reread before a stage gate.

Examples

Four projects, four uses: an outsourcing transition, a finance system migration, a regulated change in a bank and a multi country consolidation. The grid looks identical; the consequences do not.

A European insurer moving claims administration to Manila. The operations director is high influence and high interest; the works council is low influence and very high interest — briefing it late is what delays the cutover.

A finance system migration. The chief financial officer is manage closely, the external auditors are keep satisfied, and two hundred end users are keep informed through a single weekly note that one named person writes.

A regulated change in a bank. The regulator never appears on the project plan, yet it sits top right of the matrix, because it can stop the work with one letter.

A shared service centre consolidation across three countries. The local finance directors score high on both axes at home and low on both elsewhere — the same job title, three different boxes.

Related terms

• Influence mapping: the informal power read behind the scores you put in the grid.
• Communication plan project: the plan a finished matrix produces.
• Change impact analysis: what the change does to each group the matrix names.
• Business impact analysis: sizes the loss if a process stops; a different question, the same discipline.
• Organizational network analysis: maps who actually works with whom, from survey and system data.

FAQ

What are the four quadrants?

Manage closely, keep satisfied, keep informed and monitor. They come from scoring each stakeholder high or low on influence and high or low on interest.

How is this different from influence mapping?

Influence mapping reads informal power and who is really listened to. The matrix is the formal project record built from those reads, with an owner, a date and an engagement plan attached.

Should the matrix be shared?

No. Circulate the engagement plan it produces and keep the grid restricted, because a document rating a named executive as low interest will eventually leak.

How often should it be redrawn?

At every stage gate, and immediately whenever the sponsor, the budget or the organisation chart changes. A matrix drawn at kickoff and never revisited is the most common version of this artefact, and the least useful one.

Who owns it?

The project manager, with the sponsor signing the first version.

Compare outsourcing partners on Outsource Accelerator before a transition lands in your matrix.