Managing Project Complexity and Uncertainty through Dynamic and Systemic Stakeholder Modeling

doi:10.1017/9781009322737.007

Chapter 5 - Managing Project Complexity and Uncertainty through Dynamic and Systemic Stakeholder Modeling

from Part I - Guiding Principles

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 November 2025

Fran Ackermann

Edited by

Lavagnon A. Ika and

Jeffrey K. Pinto

Show author details

Lavagnon A. Ika: Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Jeffrey K. Pinto: Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Effective stakeholder management is seen as a critical element of project management, and yet, despite the growing body of literature projects still experience stakeholder challenges. Why is this the case? In seeking to answer this question, this chapter commences with an exploration of three key questions – a) who the project stakeholders are, b) how to effectively manage them within the contest of their social networks, and c) when to manage them. Based on the exploration, the chapter then considers complexities associated with stakeholder management processes (that is the socio-political considerations), content (the myriad views on interconnected and potentially competing values and issues) and the inherent dynamic nature of the stakeholder landscape (reflecting relationships, churn, and norms). The chapter concludes by reflecting on four emergent and interconnected paradoxes using the three complexity lenses to provide recommendations for management.

Keywords

Stakeholder Engagement project complexity uncertainty stakeholder dynamics

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Cambridge Handbook of Project Behavior , pp. 84 - 96

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009322737.007 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aapaoja, A., and Haapasalo, H. (2014). A framework for stakeholder identification and classification in construction projects. Open Journal of Business and Management, 2(1), 43–55.10.4236/ojbm.2014.21007CrossRef Google Scholar

Ackermann, F., and Alexander, J. (2016). Researching complex projects: Using causal mapping to take a systems perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 891–901.10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.04.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Ackermann, F., and Eden, C. (2011). Strategic management of stakeholders: Theory and practice. Long Range Planning, 44(3), 179–196.10.1016/j.lrp.2010.08.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., Havela, L., and Savage, G. (2015). Stakeholder dynamics during the project front-end: The case of nuclear waste repository projects. Project Management Journal, 46, 15–41.10.1002/pmj.21549CrossRef Google Scholar

Amadi, C., Carrillo, P., and Tuulie, M. (2018). Stakeholder management in PPP projects: External stakeholders’ perspective. Built Environment and Project Asset Management 8(4), 403–414.10.1108/BEPAM-02-2018-0048CrossRef Google Scholar

APM (2019). APM body of knowledge, 7th ed., Murray-Webster, R. and Dalcher, D. (eds.). Association of Project Management.Google Scholar

Baxter, L. (2004). A tale of two voices: Relational dialectics theory. Journal of Family Communication, 4 ( 3–4), 181–192.10.1207/s15327698jfc0403&4_5CrossRef Google Scholar

Bourne, L., and Walker, D. H. T. (2006). Visualizing stakeholder influence – two Australian examples. Project Management Journal, 37(1), 5–21.10.1177/875697280603700102CrossRef Google Scholar

Bracken, L. J., Bulkeley, H. A., and Whitman, G. (2015). Transdisciplinary research: Understanding the stakeholder perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(7), 1291–1308.10.1080/09640568.2014.921596CrossRef Google Scholar

Brady, T., and Maylor, H. (2010). The improvement paradox in project contexts: A clue to the way forward? International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 787–795.10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.08.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Bryson, J. M., Ackermann, F., and Eden, C. (2016). Discovering collaborative advantage: The contributions of goal categories and visual strategy mapping. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 912–925.10.1111/puar.12608CrossRef Google Scholar

Bryson, J. M., Barberg, B., Crosby, B. C., and Patton, M. Q. (2021). Leading social transformations: Creating public value and advancing the common good. Journal of Change Management, 21(2), 180–202.10.1080/14697017.2021.1917492CrossRef Google Scholar

Cha, J., and Maytorena, E. (2019). Prioritising project management competences across the software project lifecycle. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 12(4), 961–978.10.1108/IJMPB-11-2017-0145CrossRef Google Scholar

Chinyio, E., and Olomolaiye, P. (2010). Introducing stakeholder management (pp. 1–12). In Chinyio, E. and Olomolaiye, P. (eds.). Construction stakeholder management. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Chow, V., and Leiringer, R. (2020). The practice of public engagement on projects: From managing external stakeholders to facilitating active contributors. Project Management Journal, 51(1) 24–37.10.1177/8756972819878346CrossRef Google Scholar

Christensen, D., and Walker, D. H. T. (2003). Vision as a critical success factor to project outcomes. 17th World Congress on Project Management, Moscow, Russia, June 3–6.Google Scholar

Cleland, D. I. (1986). Project stakeholder management. Project Management Journal, 17(4), 36–44.Google Scholar

Dalcher, D. (2020). In whose interest? Repositioning the stakeholder paradox, advances in project management series, PM World Journal, 9(9), 1–9.Google Scholar

De Gooyert, V., Rouwette, E., Van Kranenburg, H., and Freeman, E. (2017). Reviewing the role of stakeholders in operational research: A stakeholder theory perspective. European Journal of Operational Research, 262(2), 402–410.10.1016/j.ejor.2017.03.079CrossRef Google Scholar

Donaldson, T., and Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.10.2307/258887CrossRef Google Scholar

Eden, C. (1990). The unfolding nature of group decision support: Two dimensions of skill (pp. 48–52). In Eden, C. and Radford, J. (eds.). Tackling strategic problems: The role of group decision support. Sage.Google Scholar

Eden, C., and Ackermann, F. (2021). Modelling stakeholder dynamics for supporting group decision and negotiation: Theory to practice. Group Decision and Negotiation, 30(5), 1001–1025.10.1007/s10726-021-09745-yCrossRef Google Scholar

Edkins, A. J., Kurul, E., Maytorena-Sanchez, E., and Rintala, K. (2007). The application of cognitive mapping methodologies in project management research. International Journal of Project Management, 25(8), 762–772.10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.04.003CrossRef Google Scholar

Eskerod, P., and Huemann, M. (2013). Sustainable development and project stakeholder management: What standards say. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(1), 36–50.10.1108/17538371311291017CrossRef Google Scholar

Eskerod, P., and Vaagaasar, A. L. (2014). Stakeholder management strategies and practices during a project course, Project Management Journal, 45(5), 71–85.10.1002/pmj.21447CrossRef Google Scholar

Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., and Ringhofer, C. (2015a). Stakeholder inclusiveness: Enriching project management with general stakeholder theory. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 42–53.10.1002/pmj.21546CrossRef Google Scholar

Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., and Savage, G. (2015b). Project stakeholder management – past and present. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 6–14.10.1002/pmj.21555CrossRef Google Scholar

Fisher, R., and Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in, 1st ed. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Freeman, R. E. (1984). StrategimManagement: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.Google Scholar

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., and Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Freeman, R. E., Parmar, B. L., and Martin, K. (2020). The power of and: Responsible business without trade-offs. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Gaim, M., Clegg, S., and Cunha, M. P. (2022). In praise of paradox persistence: Evidence from the Sydney Opera House project. Project Management Journal, 53(4), 397–415.10.1177/87569728221094834CrossRef Google Scholar

Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 53–73.10.2307/3857592CrossRef Google Scholar

Goodpaster, K. E., Maines, T. D., and Rovang, M. D. (2002). Stakeholder thinking: Beyond paradox to practicality. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 7, 93–111.10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2002.au.00009CrossRef Google Scholar

Gramberger, M., Zellmer, K., Kok, K., and Metzger, M. J. (2015). Stakeholder integrated research (STIR): A new approach tested in climate change adaptation research. Climatic Change, 128(3), 201–214.10.1007/s10584-014-1225-xCrossRef Google Scholar

Green, S. D., and Sergeeva, N. (2019). Value creation in projects: Towards a narrative perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 37(5), 636–651.10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.12.004CrossRef Google Scholar

Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 315–327.10.1007/s10551-007-9509-yCrossRef Google Scholar

Hautz, J., Seidl, D., and Whittington, R. (2017). Open strategy: Dimensions, dilemmas, dynamics. Long Range Planning, 50(3) 298–309.10.1016/j.lrp.2016.12.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Jarzabkowski, P, Bednarek, R, Chalkias, K, et al. (2019). Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: Methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 120–132.10.1177/1476127018805345CrossRef Google Scholar

Jepsen, A. L., and Eskerod, P. (2009). Stakeholder analysis in projects: Challenges in using current guidelines in the real world. International Journal of Project Management, 27(4), 335–343.10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.04.002CrossRef Google Scholar

Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., and Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.10.1177/0149206308324322CrossRef Google Scholar

Lehtinen, J., and Aaltonen, K. (2020). Organizing external stakeholder engagement in inter-organizational projects: Opening the black box. International Journal of Project Management, 38, 85–98.10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.12.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Lehtinen, J., Aaltonen, K., and Rajala, R. (2019). Stakeholder management in complex product systems: Practices and rationales for engagement and disengagement. Industrial marketing management, 79, 58–70.10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.08.011CrossRef Google Scholar

Lim, C., and Mohamed, M. Z. (1999). Criteria of project success: An exploratory re-examination. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 243–248.10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00040-4CrossRef Google Scholar

Littau, P., Jujagiri, J., and Adlbrecht, G. (2010). 25 years of stakeholder theory in project management literature (1984–2009). Project Management Journal, 41(4), 17–29.10.1002/pmj.20195CrossRef Google Scholar

Luedicke, M. K., Husemann, K. C., Furnari, S., and Ladstaetter, F. (2017). Radically open strategizing: How the premium cola collective takes open strategy to the extreme. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 371–384.10.1016/j.lrp.2016.07.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Lupton, D. (1993). Risk as moral danger: The social and political functions of risk discourse in public health. International Journal of Health Services, 23(3), 425–435.10.2190/16AY-E2GC-DFLD-51X2CrossRef Google Scholar

Luscher, L. S., and Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.10.5465/amj.2008.31767217CrossRef Google Scholar

Mack, D. Z., and Szulanski, G. (2017). Opening up: How centralization affects participation and inclusion in strategy making. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 385–396.10.1016/j.lrp.2016.08.004CrossRef Google Scholar

Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., and Niemiec, R. M. (2017). Using public crowds for open strategy formulation: Mitigating the risks of knowledge gaps. Long Range Planning 50(3), 397–410.10.1016/j.lrp.2016.06.004CrossRef Google Scholar

Maytorena, E., Winch, G. M., Freeman, J., and Kiely, T. (2007). The influence of experience and information search styles on project risk identification performance. IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, 54(2), 315–326.Google Scholar

Mendelow, A. (1981). Environmental scanning: The impact of stakeholder concept. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information Systems, December.Google Scholar

Meynhardt, T., Chandler, J. D., and Strathoff, P. (2016). Systemic principles of value cocreation: Synergetics of value and service ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2981–2989.10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.031CrossRef Google Scholar

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., and Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.10.2307/259247CrossRef Google Scholar

Moffat, K., Lacey, J., Zhang, A., and Leipold, S. (2016). The social licence to operate: A critical review. Forestry. An International Journal of Forest Research, 89(5), 477–488.10.1093/forestry/cpv044CrossRef Google Scholar

Morris, B. (2011). Interview with Bob Morris. Bobmorris.biz. https://Bobmorris.Biz/Warren-g-Bennis-an-Interview-by-Bob-Morris.Google Scholar

Newton, A., and Elliott, M. (2016). A typology of stakeholders and guidelines for engagement in transdisciplinary, participatory processes. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3, 230.10.3389/fmars.2016.00230CrossRef Google Scholar

Olander, S., and Lander, A. (2005). Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, 23, 321–328.10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.02.002CrossRef Google Scholar

Pasquier, U., Few, R., Goulden, M. C., Hooton, S., He, Y., and Hiscock, K. M. (2020). “We can’t do it on our own!” – integrating stakeholder and scientific knowledge of future flood risk to inform climate change adaptation planning in a coastal region. Environmental Science & Policy, 103, 50–57.10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.016CrossRef Google Scholar

Perez, L., Hunt, V., Samandari, H., Nuttall, R., and Biniek, K. (2022). Does ESG really matter – and why? McKinsey Quarterly, August, 1–9.Google Scholar

Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Doubleday and Company.Google Scholar

Puranam, P. (2017). When will we stop studying innovations in organizing, and start creating them? Innovation, 19, 5–10.10.1080/14479338.2016.1272420CrossRef Google Scholar

Raisch, S, Hargrave, T. J., and van de Ven, A. H. (2018). The learning spiral: A process perspective on paradox. Journal of Management Studies, 55(8), 1507–1526.10.1111/joms.12397CrossRef Google Scholar

Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., and Pidgeon, N. (2005). Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? Public debate about transgenic crops. Public Understanding of Science, 14(4), 331–352.10.1177/0963662505056611CrossRef Google Scholar

Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 887–910.10.2307/259248CrossRef Google Scholar

Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., et al. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 5–64.10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422CrossRef Google Scholar

Silvius, A. J. G., and Schipper, R. P. J. (2014). Sustainability in project management: A literature review and impact analysis. Social Business, 4(1), 63–96.10.1362/204440814X13948909253866CrossRef Google Scholar

Simon, H. A. (1977). The New science of management decision, 3rd rev. ed.; 1st ed. (1960). Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Smith, J., and Love, P. E. D. (2004). Stakeholder management during project inception: Strategic needs analysis. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 10(1), 22–33.10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(2004)10:1(22)CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.Google Scholar

Sutterfield, J. S., Friday-Stroud, S. S., and Shivers-Blackwell, S. L. (2006). A case study of project and stakeholder management failures: Lessons learned. Project Management Journal, 37(5) 26–35.10.1177/875697280603700504CrossRef Google Scholar

Tung, A. (2020). Design and analysis of stakeholder-oriented critical paths for offshore decommissioning projects in the United Kingdom and Australian landscape using mixed-methods. Offshore Technology Conference, May.10.4043/30539-MSCrossRef Google Scholar

Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.10.1126/science.185.4157.1124CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

van Leeuwen, J., Raakjaer, J., van Hoof, L., van Tatenhove, J., Long, R., and Ounanian, K. (2014). Implementing the marine strategy framework directive: A policy perspective on regulatory, institutional and stakeholder impediments to effective implementation. Marine Policy, 50, 325–330.10.1016/j.marpol.2014.03.004CrossRef Google Scholar

Wensing, E. (2021). The destruction of Juukan Gorge: Lessons for planners and local governments. Australian Planner, 56(4): 241–248.10.1080/07293682.2020.1866045CrossRef Google Scholar

Winch, G. M. (2004). Managing project stakeholders (pp. 321–339). In Morris, P. W. G. and Pinto, J. K. (eds.). The Wiley guide to managing projects. Wiley.10.1002/9780470172391.ch14CrossRef Google Scholar

Winch, G. M. (2017). Megaproject stakeholder management (pp. 339–361). In Flyvbjerg, B. ed. The Oxford handbook of megaproject management. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The PDF of this book conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.