Skip to main content

Stakeholder Management: Proposal for Research—Do Successful Project Managers Employ ‘Interest-Based Negotiation’ to Create Successful Project Outcomes?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Sustainable Ecological Engineering Design

Abstract

Increasingly the management of stakeholders is reported, by research on the management of projects, as being critical to the successful development of projects. Current research into the management of stakeholders charts a move from: classifying who stakeholders might be, to one of determining whether and how to manage them, to one of recommending ‘engagement’. Stakeholders are seemingly important players in the project’s environment because they are able to both significantly influence the project’s delivery and because they may well be the arbiters of whether the project can be considered successful or not. This latter point indicates the role that stakeholders and those stakeholders that are beneficiaries of the project can have in determining how ‘value’ is interpreted. This research proposal identifies a gap in existing literature; that gap is in the final process of stakeholder management. Aligned to a risk management process, stakeholder management ends with the idea that the stakeholder will be managed. As writers show that ‘engagement’ might be beneficial, then ‘interest-based negotiation’ (IBN) allows for a project manager to engage with these groups through IBN. Anecdotal evidence shows that elements of IBN might be unconscious components of successful project managers’ interactions with stakeholders. This paper proposes a study design that will allow for the hypothesis H1 ‘Successful stakeholder engagement can be correlated with project managers employing elements of interest-based negotiation’ to be tested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aaltonen, K., & Kujala, J. (2010). A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26, 381–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achterkamp, M. C., & Vos, J. F. J. (2008). Investigating the use of the stakeholder notion in project management literature, a meta-analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 26, 749–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association for Project Management. (2006). APM body of knowledge (5th ed.). Princes Risborough: Association for Project Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baarveld, M., Smit, M., & Dewulf, G. (2015). Negotiation processes in urban redevelopment projects: Dealing with conflicts by balancing integrative and distributive approaches. Planning Theory & Practice, 16(3), 363–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2003). Business research methods (Vol. 539). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (1995). Management research: An introduction. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, C. W., & Cooper, D. R. (1991). Business research methods. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with Differences: Dramas of Mediating Public Disputesby Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsen, J. T. (2008). Forming relationships with stakeholders in engineering projects. European Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2, 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S., & Wang, L. (2014). Understanding the impact of risks on performance in internal and outsourced information technology projects: The role of strategic importance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1494–1510. Elsevier Ltd.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell et al. (1997). The Conspicuous lCorporationBusiness, Public Policy, and Representative Democracy University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, P. W. (2013). Reconstructing project management. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Murtoaro, J., & Kujala, J. (2007). Project negotiation analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 722–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murtoaro, J., Kujala, J., & Artto, K. (2005). Negotiations in project sales and delivery process: An application of negotiation analysis. Espoo, Helsinki University of Technology, Laboratory of Industrial Engineering and Management, Report 2005/3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polit, D.F., and Beck, C.T. (2012), Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice 9. Reference and Research Book News, Vol. 26(3).Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, J. (2007). The changing paradigms of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 266–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt and Rubin (1986). Pruitt, D. G. and Rubin, J. Z. 1986. Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, settlement, New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L., Mnookin, R. H., Rozdeiczer, L., & Fuller, B. (2005). What we have learned about teaching multi-party negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 21(3), 395–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L. (2011). The mind and heart of the negotiator. Upper Side River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R, (2009). A Model of project complexity: distinguishing dimensions of complexity from severity. In International Research Network of Project Management Conference (IRNOP), 2009-10-11-2009-10-13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R., & Zolin, R. (2012). Forecasting success on large projects: Developing reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time frames. Project Management Journal, 43(5), 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rijswick, M., & Salet, W. (2012). Enabling the contextualization of legal rules in responsive strategies to climate change. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 18.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Heathcote .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Heathcote, J., Butlin, C., Kazemi, H. (2020). Stakeholder Management: Proposal for Research—Do Successful Project Managers Employ ‘Interest-Based Negotiation’ to Create Successful Project Outcomes?. In: Scott, L., Dastbaz, M., Gorse, C. (eds) Sustainable Ecological Engineering Design. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44381-8_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44381-8_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-44380-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-44381-8

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics