Build a Stakeholder Map and Influence Plan

Proof required

Submit a stakeholder map covering all identified stakeholders positioned on a power/interest grid, with a one-paragraph profile for each key stakeholder (high power or high interest) documenting their current stance, primary concern, and what they stand to gain or lose from the initiative.

What gets checked

• At least eight stakeholders are identified across internal and external categories — not just the obvious direct participants
• Every high-power stakeholder has a documented current stance based on observation or direct conversation — not assumed
• At least one stakeholder is identified as a potential opponent with their concern documented specifically

Common mistakes

• Identifying only obvious stakeholders and missing the ones who can block the initiative from outside the immediate team
• Assigning stance as 'supportive' for everyone without evidence — the map then provides no strategic information

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask: 'who did you almost miss and how did you find them?' — gaps in the stakeholder list are a common failure mode
• Pick an opponent and ask how their concern was documented — direct conversation, observation, or assumption?
• Challenge the grid positioning: ask why a specific stakeholder is placed in the high-power/low-interest quadrant
• Ask whether any stakeholder categorisation changed after initial mapping and what updated it

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: an engagement plan with quadrant-level strategies and individual-level actions for every high-power or high-interest stakeholder; for each action, document the objective, channel, frequency, owner, and success measure; and a specific influence strategy for at least two opponents or high-risk neutrals.

What gets checked

• Every high-power stakeholder has at least one specific engagement action — not 'keep informed' as a generic default
• Opponent strategy addresses the documented concern specifically, not generic change-management reassurance
• Success measures are observable — 'verbal confirmation of support at steering committee' passes; 'feels better about the project' fails

Common mistakes

• Planning the same engagement approach for all stakeholders regardless of quadrant position
• Opponent strategy that ignores the root concern and focuses only on communication volume

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Pick the most difficult opponent and ask: 'what specifically will you say or do to address their concern?'
• Check success measures: are they observable and time-bound, or vague?
• Ask who owns each engagement action — are responsibilities allocated to specific people or left generic?
• Challenge the neutral conversion strategy: 'what is the most likely reason this person stays neutral and how does your plan address that?'

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: the final stakeholder map and engagement plan; a written review session record with the reviewer's credentials, at least three specific challenges raised, and your written responses; and a revised plan section showing at least one change made based on the review.

What gets checked

• Reviewer has direct experience managing stakeholders in large or politically complex projects — not a theoretical background only
• At least one scenario challenge ('what if this stakeholder blocks you at the steering committee?') was posed and addressed
• The revised section shows a substantive change to engagement strategy, not wording polish

Common mistakes

• Presenting only the clean plan without explaining the stakeholder political context the reviewer needs to assess whether it is realistic
• Choosing a reviewer who has not managed stakeholder resistance personally

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Pose a blocking scenario: 'your highest-power opponent has just escalated to the CEO — what do you do now?'
• Ask how the candidate would know their engagement plan was working at the three-month mark
• Check reviewer credentials: they should have managed a project where stakeholder resistance was a genuine threat, not just a minor inconvenience
• Ask: 'what would you do differently if you were starting this stakeholder analysis again?'

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.