Iterative Project Management Processes

𝒀𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝑬𝑺𝑮 𝑹𝒆𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕 𝑰𝒔𝒏’𝒕 𝑩𝒓𝒐𝒌𝒆𝒏. 𝒀𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒆𝒉𝒐𝒍𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝑬𝒏𝒈𝒂𝒈𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑰𝒔 Most companies invest heavily in ESG reporting frameworks, templates, KPIs, dashboards, and disclosure tools. Yet the real backbone of ESG reporting remains the most ignored: stakeholder engagement. Everyone wants better ratings, cleaner audits, higher investor confidence, and smoother compliance. But very few want to do the slow, reputation-heavy, and uncomfortable work of actually listening to stakeholders. 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐊𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 ❓ Because stakeholder engagement is: >Continuous, not annual >Relationship-driven, not template-driven >Difficult to outsource >Capable of exposing blind spots leaders prefer to avoid As a result, ESG reports often reflect what companies believe stakeholders expect, not what stakeholders actually expect. That gap is where credibility collapses. ⚠️ 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐆𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐖𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 When stakeholder voices are missing, companies face: >Misaligned materiality >Weak supply chain compliance >Higher regulatory exposure (CSRD, ESRS, BRSR Core, CBAM) >Poor grievance handling >Reduced investor trust and scrutiny during audits >Reputational leakage at the worst possible times 𝐀 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐩𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐄𝐒𝐆 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 -- 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 📌 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 >With global regulations tightening, stakeholder engagement is no longer optional. >It is now the core evidence behind double materiality, impact measurement, and risk disclosures. 🟢 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐖𝐢𝐧 Are the ones that build: >Continuous listening systems >Transparent decision pathways >Authentic community and employee dialogue >Supplier feedback loops >Governance oversight that treats engagement like a KPI ✅ 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦 𝐋𝐢𝐧𝐞 If your stakeholder engagement isn’t robust, your ESG report can never be credible -- no matter how advanced the tool or how glossy the PDF is.

🎄 Day 14 of the #AdventOfOR 2025! The single biggest mistake in optimization projects? Engaging stakeholders once. Most teams nail the "Early" part (kickoff, problem framing, initial requirements). But then they disappear into complex code. Weeks later, they return with the perfect solution... but trust has eroded. Engagement isn't a single event. It's a continuous cadence: Early AND Often. Why is this continuous interaction essential? 🤝 Maintains trust: Consistent updates prevent the project from becoming a black box. 🎯 Ensures relevance: Requirements shift; regular check-ins keep your model aligned with business reality (just like we got new requirements on Day 12!). 🪡 Drives adoption: Stakeholders own the solution when they help build it. The secret to making it work is lowering the cost of understanding the model's progress. But you don't need to do heavy presentations; do easy, frequent demos with tools that help: 🔹 GAMS MIRO for interactive apps stakeholders can explore 🔹 Streamlit or Taipy for quick Python dashboards 🔹 Nextmv for comparing runs and sharing scenarios When showing progress becomes easy, you'll do it more often. When you do it more often, trust compounds. 🫵 Your turn: What's the single biggest piece of friction that currently stops you from sharing model progress (work-in-progress, not final results) with your stakeholders more often? (e.g., "It takes too long to clean the output," "We lack visualization tools," "I only share final numbers.")

You can’t call it partnership if stakeholders only hear from you once before launch. True engagement isn’t a courtesy email. It’s about making stakeholders 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 from day one to follow-through. 4 shifts that make the difference: 1. Map before you move Not all stakeholders need the same level of attention. Use mapping tools to identify who has influence, what they care about, and how they prefer to engage. 2. Align objectives early Don’t wait until the end to prove impact. Bring stakeholders into planning to set KPIs, success metrics, and business outcomes together. 3. Keep communication alive Use clear, jargon-free updates. Share progress, invite feedback, and celebrate wins. Trust grows when stakeholders feel part of the journey. 4. Champion transfer, not just learning Make managers and sponsors active player, e.g. mentors, accountability partners, and reinforcement leaders. Because learning in the classroom means nothing if it doesn’t show up on the job. When engagement is tailored this way, L&D stops being a service provider… and starts being a strategic driver of business results. A question for you: What’s worked best in your experience: mapping, alignment, communication, or transfer support? _____________ High functioning ≠ high capacity. I consult with L&D teams to turn busyness into business impact.

Your AI strategy will fail if clinicians are not involved from day one. There will be no use for AI if they are not involved. Most organizations tend to miss this key part,  involving key players early on, and it's hurting your adoption rates. From healthcare professionals to patients, administrative staff to tech providers, each stakeholder plays a crucial role in successful implementation. Here's how to engage them effectively: Healthcare Professionals (Doctors, Nurses, Specialists) 1. Engage early in the decision-making process 2. Gather input on practical requirements and potential challenges 3. Involve in pilot programs to assess usability and integration challenges 4. Provide comprehensive training on new technologies Patients 1. Educate about new technologies and their benefits 2. Screen for digital literacy to identify those who may need extra support 3. Choose user-friendly technologies that don't require logins or downloads 4. Explain how new tools will save time or improve health outcomes Administrative Staff 1. Include in needs assessment to identify inefficiencies in workflows 2. Provide training on new systems and processes 3. Gather feedback on technology effectiveness and areas for improvement Technology Providers 1. Involve in stakeholder discussions to understand healthcare-specific needs 2. Collaborate on pilot programs and validation of technologies 3. Ensure technology is effective for healthcare professionals and interoperable with existing healthcare infrastructure 4. Ensure intuitive navigation in healthcare technology systems to facilitate adoption Organizational Leadership 1. Conduct thorough needs assessments to align technology with organizational goals 2. Develop a strategic plan with SMART goals for digital transformation 3. Establish key success metrics to evaluate technology effectiveness 4. Create a common forum for stakeholder discussions Including the different stakeholders can lead to: 1) Shared vision 2) Trust building 3) Addressing (and avoiding) conflicting interest 4) Improved compatibility 5) Ethical considerations What learnings do you have from implementing new technical tools in your organization?

How do we approach stakeholders - and how do we generate meaninful value for them? Over the last years, working across multiple Horizon Europe projects (e.g. Soil Health Benchmarks, LILAS4SOILS, Project CAFAMORE, TRAILS4SOIL), I’ve spent a lot of time reflecting on how we design and run stakeholder engagement. Across projects and organisations alike, I keep encountering a familiar pattern. We design engagement frameworks. We create checklists. We define participation moments. And still, something often doesn’t quite land. Not because stakeholders are unwilling to engage — but because we often misread or interpret from our perspective what we’re actually hearing. And foremost, projects engage motivated by checklists. Lately, I’ve been exploring this challenge through the lens of epistemic justice (very much as a learner) - not as a theory to apply, but as a practical question: How do we recognise, work with, and value or enable different ways of knowing in stakeholder (needs, expectations, wishes, etc.)? One of the risks, when we don’t, is what is often described as epistemic injustice. The image below captures this quite simply: someone shares experience A, but what gets heard - and acted upon - is B. Not out of bad intent, but because interpretation is guided by existing knowledge structures and decision-making power. For example: in a workshop on regenerative agriculture, a farmer is asked to reflect on “barriers to adoption” using predefined indicators. When he explains that the real challenge is yield volatility, financial risk, and the inability to absorb a bad season, this is translated into labels like “risk aversion” or “lack of incentives”. The farmer is heard - but his framing is reshaped to fit project categories, rather than allowing those categories to adapt. What I’m learning is that this isn’t about adding more empathy workshops or slowing projects down. It’s about epistemic fluency: integrating different kinds of knowledge, coordinating different ways of knowing, and designing engagement processes that adapt with stakeholders, not just to them. In my role advising the Mission Soil Cluster on Stakeholder Engagement and Communication, working with 55+ projects,  I want to explore this more deliberately over the coming year - and I’d genuinely welcome critique or pushback from those who’ve thought about this far longer than I have. Alexandra Robinson Dave Snowden Adrian Wagner Anne Caspari Joshua Stehr How do you see the balance between structured project delivery and epistemic justice e.g. in EU-funded projects that aim to engage stakeholders around diverse understandings of challenges and objectives (e.g. soil health across different regions)?

Participatory Evaluation and Research Participatory research and evaluation (PR&E) shifts the traditional power dynamic of inquiry by treating "subjects" as co-researchers. Rather than conducting research on a community, it is conducted with them to ensure the findings lead to direct social action or organizational improvement. ## Core Principles of Participatory Approaches The foundation of this methodology is the belief that those experiencing a reality are the best equipped to analyze it. * Shared Ownership: Stakeholders are involved in every stage, from designing the evaluation questions to data collection and analysis. * Capacity Building: The process is designed to leave participants with new skills, such as interviewing techniques or data literacy. * Action-Orientation: The primary goal is not just "knowledge for knowledge's sake," but using evidence to solve local problems or influence policy. * Democratization of Knowledge: It validates "lay knowledge" or lived experience as being just as significant as academic or "expert" data. ## Common Methodologies PR&E often utilizes qualitative or mixed-methods approaches that facilitate group dialogue and collective reflection. (See attached) ## The Participatory Evaluation Matrix When designing a participatory framework, the following matrix helps define the level of engagement: * Design Phase: Do stakeholders help define what "success" looks like? * Data Phase: Are community members trained as enumerators or peer interviewers? * Analysis Phase: Do participants help interpret the results to ensure they aren't being misrepresented by external evaluators? * Dissemination Phase: Are findings shared in accessible formats (town halls, radio, infographics) rather than just technical reports? ## Key Challenges to Consider While empowering, these methods require significant time and ethical rigor: * Power Imbalances: Dominant voices within a group may silence marginalized members during participatory sessions. * Time Intensity: Building trust and consensus takes much longer than standard survey-based evaluations. * Objectivity vs. Subjectivity: Critics often question the "bias" of participatory data, though proponents argue that all research has inherent bias and PR&E is simply more transparent about it.

In many projects, stakeholders know they have a problem but aren’t clear about the solution. As Business Analysts, it’s our job to turn that uncertainty into clarity. Here’s how I approached it in a report automation project: 🎯 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭: The organization manually prepared monthly financial and operational reports using Excel. The process was tedious, error-prone, and delayed decision-making. Leadership knew they wanted “automation” but couldn't articulate what exactly they needed. 🛠️ 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐈 𝐇𝐞𝐥𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬: Start with Business Outcomes, Not Solutions → I asked, "What decisions are delayed today due to slow reporting?" and "What’s the impact of late or incorrect reports?" → This shifted the discussion from "build a dashboard" to "we need accurate reports within 3 days after month-end to improve decision speed." 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐬 → I organized sessions where stakeholders walked me through the current report generation steps. → Outcome: Identified bottlenecks like manual data consolidation from multiple systems, version control issues, and formula errors. 𝐔𝐬𝐞 𝐕𝐢𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐢𝐝𝐬 → I mapped the As-Is report preparation process on a whiteboard: data sources → manual steps → approvals → final report. → Stakeholders immediately saw inefficiencies they hadn’t verbalized before. 𝐄𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭 𝐏𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐏𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧-𝐄𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 → Instead of asking, "What features do you want?", I asked: "What’s the most frustrating part of preparing these reports?" "What do you wish was faster or easier?" → Answers revealed that data reconciliation and last-minute formatting were major pain points. 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐒𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞𝐬 → I created quick mockups (even in Excel or Power BI) of how an automated report could look. → This gave stakeholders something tangible to react to, sparking more specific feedback and helping refine the requirements iteratively. Facilitate Prioritization Workshops → Stakeholders often have a wishlist once they start seeing possibilities. I conducted MoSCoW prioritization sessions to separate “must-have” automation (data refresh, error checks) from “nice-to-haves” (fancy dashboards). 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐖𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 → Statements like, "We need to make reports faster" were converted into clear specs: Data from 3 systems consolidated automatically. Standardized templates in Power BI. Report availability by the 3rd business day. 💡 𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐁𝐀𝐬: When stakeholders are unclear, they don't need immediate solutions — they need discovery. Our role is to: ✔️ Focus on outcomes. ✔️ Walk the current journey. ✔️ Ask powerful open-ended questions. ✔️ Show possibilities visually. ✔️ Translate pain points into structured requirements. BA Helpline

📣 Pleased to share our new paper in Environmental Science & Policy, "Rethinking Stakeholder Engagement: A Multidimensional Framework Inspired by Meta-Synthesis of Food, Energy, and Water Research," with Paula Williams, Leah Jones-Crank, @Alyssa Thomas, Erin Cortus, Erich Seamon, and @Andrew Kliskey. ➡️ Link to paper: https://lnkd.in/gGed9wjm ❇️ We reviewed 483 #FEWS publications and found that meaningful stakeholder engagement remains the exception, not the norm. ❇️ A few reflections: 🔹 Only about 18% of papers engaged stakeholders at any level, and the dominant mode was data extraction (surveys, questionnaires) rather than collaboration or co-production. 🔹Fewer than 4% (18/483) of papers actually proposed or implemented solutions. The gap between nexus 'thinking' and nexus 'doing' remains wide. 🔹 We found a statistically significant relationship between the diversity of stakeholder types engaged and whether research actually produced implementable solutions. It is not just about engaging, but about who is at the table. 🔹 Stakeholder engagement cannot be an afterthought added onto a project midstream. It needs to be designed, resourced, and evaluated from the start. We propose a six-dimension framework to help researchers plan engagement as an integrated process rather than a checkbox. 🔹 Funders have a role too. If grant calls do not explicitly require, resource, and reward robust engagement, we should not be surprised when it remains shallow. ➡️ Ultimately, it is stakeholders and communities who implement solutions to resource challenges, not researchers. If FEWS research is going to deliver on its promise of integrated, actionable outcomes, we need to be deliberate on how we engage people into the process.

PMOs don’t win hearts with templates; they win them by understanding customers and stakeholders in the real world. 👀 I just published a new article: “Ethnography for PMO Stakeholder Engagement: where science meets practice.” It shows how to use field observation, contextual interviews, and shadowing to design a service-oriented PMO that people actually want to work with. Inside the article: ➡️A crisp synopsis of why ethnography fits PMO work ➡️A practical 5-step stakeholder cycle (frame → fieldwork → sense-making → co-design → measure) ➡️How to turn insights into a PMO Service Catalog + SLAs ➡️Metrics that matter (engagement & service performance) ➡️A 12-week starter roadmap you can run with on Monday (tomorrow) If you lead or support a PMO—and you care about trust, adoption, and value realization—this is for you. 🔗 Read the article: See below 🧠 Stay sharp: subscribe to the PMO IQ Newsletter for monthly plays, metrics, and case notes: Subscribe on LinkedIn https://lnkd.in/eFGVbxPS #PMO #ProjectManagement #PortfolioManagement #BusinessAgility #ServiceDesign #Governance #StrategyExecution #PMOBP #StakeholderEngagement #DigitalTransformation #Leadership

Having the wrong stakeholders will definitely kill your project. When your main contact is too low in the organization? You watch your work get filtered through layers of hierarchy before reaching the real decision-maker. Most agencies have rigor around account management (selling new projects) and product delivery… …but not around true partnership. The solution is not complicated, but it requires structure. 💡 First, we use RACI charts to map every stakeholder's role precisely: - R (Responsible): Who handles the day-to-day decisions? - A (Approver): Who makes the final call? (usually the CEO or senior leader) - C (Considered): Who needs to be consulted? - I (Informed): Who just needs updates on outcomes? Then, we put a ton of structure around engaging these different tiers to ensure we are not wasting time. Understanding an approver's vacation schedule in March might seem trivial… but it prevents project slowdowns in July. And here is what most people miss: The agenda and note-taking are the unsung heroes of successful project management. They help us capture everything about our stakeholders' mindset and write the history of the project. Not just their project goals, but the full picture: - How are they looking at the bigger picture? - What other dynamics are happening in their business? - What decisions need to be made? - Who is accountable by when? When we document and understand these details, we can present work in the exact context they need for success. By engaging proper stakeholders at all levels directly, everything runs smoother. We use engagement mapping to make this happen: - Creative directors talk to creative directors - Marketing directors talk to project managers - Executive sponsors talk to C-level stakeholders Because if you are the CEO, you do not you need to be talking to someone with context of the project and the business. That is why we always try to present our work ourselves. So we can: - Hear the feedback directly - Address it immediately - Drive conversations forward - Ask follow up questions for context We are listening for different things than someone internally would. While big agencies might take clients to basketball games and focus on building friendships… We focus on what matters: Overdelivering every metric and keeping laser-focused on business objectives. Because true partnership is not about being friends. It is about delivering value in every single interaction.