Design & theoryIdentifying stakeholdersPower analysisParticipatory planningEvaluation designMapping
Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder Analysis
Also known as: Stakeholder analysis、Stakeholder mapping
Identify people affected by the program or evaluation and consider engagement suited to their interests, roles and influence. Include people whose voices are seldom heard, as well as decision-makers. [1]
- Difficulty
- Introductory
- Cost
- Low
- Duration
- Illustrative estimate (adjust for scale and staffing): half a day to 1 day (workshop format)
Content updated: 2026-09-13Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examples
How it works at a glance
Stakeholder analysis identifies people and organizations involved in a program and those affected by evaluation findings. It clarifies their interests, intended uses, relationships and roles in evaluation. [1]
Mapping influence and interest helps plan engagement. Low influence does not mean low importance. Consider participation in information gathering and decision-making by beneficiaries, non-users and people with opposing views. [1]
- List stakeholders
- Organize stakeholder characteristics
- Map power and interest
- Develop engagement strategies
- Focus on vulnerable and marginalized groups
- Periodic review
When to use it and when it is unsuitable
When to use it
- Identifying whose perspectives and needs should inform evaluation questions early in design
- Before selecting participants for participatory or community evaluation
- Understanding roles and interests in programs involving multiple agencies and sectors
- Planning who should receive evaluation findings and how they should be communicated and used
When it is unsuitable
- Small projects with few, clearly identified stakeholders; direct discussion may suffice without formal analysis
- Politically sensitive contexts for analyzing power structures; handling findings requires careful judgment
Participants, roles, and deliverables
Participants and roles
Evaluation officers, program managers and frontline staff. Involving outside experts can reduce bias. A workshop of 4–8 people is an illustrative plan.
Main deliverables
- Stakeholder list (characteristics, interests and influence)
- Power–interest matrix
- Engagement strategy notes
Implementation steps
- List stakeholdersAsk who influences or is affected by this program or evaluation, and comprehensively list individuals, groups and organizations. Deliberately include people unable to speak out, such as children and marginalized groups.
- Organize stakeholder characteristicsBriefly describe each stakeholder’s role, position, main concerns, intended uses of findings and relevant evaluation questions.
- Map power and interestPlace interest in the program or evaluation on the horizontal axis and influence (power) over it on the vertical axis. Locate each stakeholder in the 4 quadrants.
- Develop engagement strategiesChoose engagement by quadrant. High power × high interest: collaborate closely. High power × low interest: maintain satisfaction and trust. Low power × high interest: actively provide information and participation opportunities. Low power × low interest: monitor circumstances.
- Focus on vulnerable and marginalized groupsEven for people mapped as low power × low interest, consider separate ways to hear their views to ensure fairness in evaluation.
- Periodic reviewStakeholders’ positions, interests and relationships change as a program progresses. Update the analysis at each evaluation stage.
Strengths and limitations
Strengths
- Clarifies reasons for selecting participants and informants, strengthening evaluation legitimacy
- Makes potential resistance and conflicts visible early so they can be managed
- Provides a basis for defining whose purposes the evaluation serves
Limitations
- Provides a static snapshot that must be updated as stakeholders’ positions change
- Describing power relationships may create political sensitivities
- Mapping may become an end in itself without informing engagement strategies
Common pitfalls
- Forgetting beneficiaries (people whose circumstances the program ultimately seeks to change), or dismissing them as low-interest, low-power stakeholders
- Restricting analysis to organizations and agencies and missing differing positions and interests within them, including gender, ethnicity and age
- Keeping findings internal without sharing or checking them with stakeholders
Conditions of use and evidence
- Identify opponents as well as supporters and people who become relevant as a result of evaluation. [1]
Including non-users’ voices in evaluation design
The following fictional example identifies stakeholder engagement approaches before evaluating a resident counseling service.
Scroll horizontally to view the table
| Stakeholder name / group | Role and position | Main concerns | Influence over evaluation (high / medium / low) | Interest in evaluation (high / medium / low) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Service users | People receiving support | Confidentiality and ease of seeking advice | Low | High |
| Non-users | People who may not be reached by support | Can they seek advice without others finding out? | Low | Medium |
| Budget manager | Decides whether to continue the program | Resource allocation and outcomes | High | High |
| Partner service | Referral destination | Referral workload and intake capacity | Medium | High |
Common errors in judgment
Common mistake
Excluding non-users with little influence
How to revise
Consider ways to involve them as sources on why the program has not reached them
ReasonDecision-making authority and the importance of experience are different.
Common mistake
Treating the secretariat’s assumptions as a person’s established interests
How to revise
Distinguish hypotheses from confirmed information in the analysis and check with the person
ReasonA person’s interests cannot be determined from their position alone.
Organize your thinking by writing
Stakeholder analysis worksheet
A practical template is available to fill in and print on A4 paper.
Open worksheetRelated methods
References and checked sections
- Stakeholder mapping and analysisBetterEvaluation
- Section consulted
- Main text; Advice for using this method
- How it relates to the text
- Identify opponents as well as supporters and people who become relevant as a result of evaluation.
Editorial and checking information
How to cite this page
EvalCompass Editorial Team. “Stakeholder Analysis”. EvalCompass, updated 2026-09-13. https://evalcompass.jun-nakatani.com/en/methods/stakeholder-analysis/
Add the date you accessed the page. Text created by this site is available under CC BY 4.0. Quotations, external materials, and bundled fonts have their own terms of use. When reusing content, credit the source, link to the license, and indicate any changes.
Change history
- — Updated explanations to correspond to the sources and added method-specific fictional completed examples, judgment examples and a change log.