2.2 Design Methods, Design Thinking and Strategic Design Management
2.2.6 Stakeholder Mapping
Previous studies shows that the design thinking approach has been applied in product design, branding design, service design and other areas such as information systems design (Brown &
Katz, 2011) (Vetterli et al., 2016) (Trischler et al., 2019). According to the firm IDEO, leading practitioners of the design thinking process mentioned that it is a system of overlapping spaces.
The design thinking process is not a sequence of orderly steps. A system of overlapping spaces includes inspiration, ideation and implementation. The function of inspiration space is to find alternate solutions for a problem. The ideation process is all about generating, developing and testing ideas. Implementation is to launch the ideas and solutions into peoples’ lives. The design thinking process is iterative that loops back through the inspiration, ideation and implementation spaces. Hence, these are mentioned as spaces rather than sequentially orderly steps. The design thinking approach can generate new and innovative products, services and systems based on these studies.
Design thinking is a well-tested approach that enables organizations to see the world through the eyes of their customers (Vetterli et al., 2016). A human-centered design toolkit, which is a field guide developed by IDEO. It aid public sector organizations, who could adapt design thinking to their problem-solving activities (Trischler et al., 2019). Liedtka (2011) identified essential tools and practices of the design thinking approach and demonstrated the two managers’ cases; managers who are, in effect, successful design thinkers. Micheli et al. (2019) addressed the most influential applied models of design thinking. The design thinking model developed by IDEO includes inspiration, ideation and implementation. The design thinking model developed by Stanford Design School includes empathy, define, ideate, prototype and test. The design thinking model developed by IBM consists of understanding, explore, prototype and evaluate. The models mentioned above tend to start from initial exploration to understand the problem to be clarified. Then move onto an ideation stage to generate possible alternatives. In closing, all conclude with an implementation and testing phase based on prototyping and iteration.
for any project of an organization is an essential step in strategic analysis (Freeman et al., 2010).
The quality of a system is improved by the selection and involvement of appropriate stakeholders. Selecting and involving the appropriate stakeholder plays a significant role in improving the development and quality of a system. Hujainah et al. (2018) mentioned that stakeholder identification in the project development is a reason for producing a successful system (Hujainah et al., 2018).
In PSS literature, the terminology used to refer to the stakeholders are viz. partner(s), actor(s), a player(s), network(s), customers/users, government and local providers, society and service provider (Fernandes et al., 2019). In general, stakeholders are broadly classified into internal stakeholders and external stakeholders. Therefore, the designation of stakeholders in the PSS literature is not homogeneous. The studies on the PSS design and development process significantly includes the identification of stakeholders. For example, Morelli (2006) developed a design exploration process for an early PSS design and development incorporating stakeholders. It mainly focused on understanding and combining service networks. In particular, Actor-Network Map illustrating stakeholders involved in a system along with direct and indirect relationships. Ginige et al. 2018 explored broadly and categorized stakeholders in the context of societal challenges. These stakeholders are grouped into national and local governments, international organizations, community, civic society, private and corporate sectors, academic and professional associations. The purpose of exploring stakeholders in their study is to identify how individuals/organizations influence, benefit or effects societal challenges (Ginige et al., 2018).
Kim et al. (2011) discussed the design support tools for PSS. Their study considered stakeholder activity design in the lifecycle analysis for stakeholders’ identification and relations. Stakeholder activity design can be generated by independent design tools such as stakeholder modelling (Kim et al., 2011). Tan and McAloone (2006) identified strategies that could be used in the development of PSS. These strategies are based upon the continuous lifecycle improvements of tangible products and intangible services. Actor-Network Map utili ed to understand the stakeholders’ involved in the emerging SS. As with the design and development of SS, stakeholders’ context, needs and value, the social and technological possibilities guide an organization in creating a good PSS solution (Tan & McAloone, 2006).
Gilles and Christine (2016) investigated the identification of stakeholders in developing a PSS solution for the showerhead case study. The stakeholders identified in their case study were
regarding security, traceability and maintenance, and economic and social issues (Gilles &
Christine, 2016). In the context of healthcare, Yip et al. (2014) identified and grouped stakeholders based upon different levels in the operations of a PSS. These levels are business environment, system, product and service delivery. Stakeholder identification and mapping support integrated solutions, i.e. PSS is based on partnerships among organizational networks (Yip et al., 2014).
To sum up, the stakeholder system map benefits the visualization of stakeholders involved in the design and emphasizes interrelations. Stakeholder analyses are essential because of the increasingly interconnected nature of the world (Ginige et al., 2018). Stakeholder’s analysis or mapping would aid in designing specific knowledge of who has a stake and why. Selecting and involving the appropriate stakeholders are considered one of the significant factors for producing a successful system. Accordingly, to succeed in a project, one has to identify stakeholders with their power, influence and interest, followed by prioritization of the essential stakeholders in the system. Finally, mapping of each stakeholder in the power versus interest matrix has to be carried out to recognize what motivates them from the system.
220.127.116.11 Stakeholders Identification and Mapping methodology
Bryson (2004) presented fifteen stakeholder identification and analysis techniques and grouped them into four categories, such as viz. (i) organizing participation (ii) creating ideas for strategic interventions (iii) building a winning coalition around proposal development, review and adoption (iv) implementing, monitoring and evaluating strategic interventions. With the specific to project management, Missonier and Loufrani-Fedida (2014) investigated stakeholder analysis and engagement. Further states that what to observe in the stakeholder network, how and when to observe them (Missonier & Loufrani-Fedida, 2014). In their conceptual approach, stakeholder analysis is comprised of five stages and three stages of stakeholder engagement. The five stages of stakeholder analysis are viz. (i) identifying and analyzing stakeholder relationships (ii) identifying stakeholders’ interests (iii) assessing stakeholders influence (iv) identifying controversies and (v) analyzing the effects of controversies on stakeholder networks. Problematization, mobilization, interest and enrolment are the three stages of engagement.
Stakeholder mapping determines who have a positive and negative influence on an effort. In addition, who is most affected by an effort. To summarize the characteristics of stakeholders, Ginige et al. (2018) mentioned that tables or charts aid in the group or prioritize the
stakeholders. Stakeholder analysis is conducted employing power vs interest or influence vs importance matrix or grid. Figure 2.13 depicts the stakeholder mapping in terms of power vs interest.
Figure 2.13: Power – Interest matrix
Stakeholder management researchers used the power vs. interest matrix for several objectives.
For example, Bryson (2004) used a power vs. interest matrix in determining the stakeholders’
interest and power to address the issue, stakeholders’ coalition encouragement or discouragement and information on how to convince stakeholders perspectives (Bryson, 2004).
Freeman et al. (2010) used a power vs. interest matrix to understand the company’s environment. Ackermann and Eden (2011) used a power vs. interest matrix for enabling managers to manage stakeholders. The stakeholder mapping of power vs. interest represents stakeholders concerning the power (low or high) and their interest (low or high) in the project (Ackermann & Eden, 2011). The type of relationship with stakeholders that needs to establish is shown in Figure 2.13. For instance, stakeholders having high power and high interest, the relationship would be of closely managing the stakeholders. Identified stakeholders in the project activities with low power and high interest must be kept informed about the project decisions. This matrix provides a strategy for effective communication between various stakeholders.