Lesson 1.2: Stakeholder Mapping & Engagement

Real-World Examples

See complete stakeholder mapping from real projects with categorization, power-interest analysis, engagement strategies, and actual conversation excerpts demonstrating validation of Problem Tree assumptions.

These examples demonstrate how stakeholder mapping applies across different sectors and contexts. Each example includes stakeholder categorization, power-interest grid placement, engagement approach, and actual insights gained.

Example 1: Youth Economic Participation Project

Context: Building from the Nigeria Youth Livelihood preliminary Problem Tree created in Lesson 1.1 using MCP, this example shows how stakeholder engagement validated and refined initial assumptions.

Stakeholder Identification & Categorization

Stakeholder Category Why This Category
Unemployed youth (18-25) Primary Directly experiencing unemployment & poverty
Parents of youth Primary Financially affected; influence youth decisions
Youth who dropped out of school Primary Experiencing compounded barriers (education + employment)
Local employers (small businesses) Secondary Know skills gaps; potential partners for training
Vocational training providers Secondary Technical expertise on training models that work
Youth ministry officials Secondary Policy influence; access to funding streams
Successful young entrepreneurs Secondary Role models; practical insights on barriers overcome
Community elders/traditional leaders Secondary Cultural gatekeepers; community buy-in essential
International NGOs in youth sector Tertiary Potential future funders; broader network connections
Academic researchers Tertiary Data/studies on youth employment trends

Complete Stakeholder Ecosystem with Power-Interest Positioning

graph TB
    %% ========================================
    %% CORE PROBLEM
    %% ========================================

    PROBLEM["🎯 <strong>CORE PROBLEM</strong><br/><br/>Youth Unemployment<br/>in Rural Nigeria<br/><br/>(From Lesson 1.1 Problem Tree)"]

    %% ========================================
    %% PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS
    %% Directly affected - Pepper Green
    %% ========================================

    PRIMARY["<strong>PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS</strong><br/>(Directly Affected)"]

    P1["<strong>Unemployed Youth (18-25)</strong><br/><br/>📍 Quadrant 1<br/>High Power | High Interest<br/><br/>🎯 Manage Closely<br/>Weekly focus groups<br/>Community center meetings"]

    P2["<strong>Parents of Youth</strong><br/><br/>📍 Quadrant 1<br/>High Power | High Interest<br/><br/>🎯 Manage Closely<br/>Home visits<br/>Evening sessions"]

    P3["<strong>Youth Dropouts</strong><br/><br/>📍 Quadrant 1<br/>High Power | High Interest<br/><br/>🎯 Manage Closely<br/>Safe space conversations<br/>Trauma-informed approach"]

    %% ========================================
    %% SECONDARY STAKEHOLDERS
    %% Influence/Expertise - Leaf
    %% ========================================

    SECONDARY["<strong>SECONDARY STAKEHOLDERS</strong><br/>(Influence & Expertise)"]

    S1["<strong>Youth Ministry Officials</strong><br/><br/>📍 Quadrant 2<br/>High Power | Low Interest<br/><br/>🎯 Keep Satisfied<br/>Formal presentations<br/>Policy alignment"]

    S2["<strong>Training Providers</strong><br/><br/>📍 Quadrant 2<br/>High Power | Low Interest<br/><br/>🎯 Keep Satisfied<br/>Curriculum partnerships<br/>Implementation role"]

    S3["<strong>Local Employers</strong><br/><br/>📍 Quadrant 3<br/>Low Power | High Interest<br/><br/>🎯 Keep Informed<br/>Quarterly roundtables<br/>Skills input"]

    S4["<strong>Young Entrepreneurs</strong><br/><br/>📍 Quadrant 3<br/>Low Power | High Interest<br/><br/>🎯 Keep Informed<br/>Role model interviews<br/>Design workshops"]

    S5["<strong>Community Elders</strong><br/><br/>📍 Quadrant 3<br/>Low Power | High Interest<br/><br/>🎯 Keep Informed<br/>Cultural guidance<br/>Community buy-in"]

    %% ========================================
    %% TERTIARY STAKEHOLDERS
    %% Indirect Interest - Gray
    %% ========================================

    TERTIARY["<strong>TERTIARY STAKEHOLDERS</strong><br/>(Indirect Interest)"]

    T1["<strong>International NGOs</strong><br/><br/>📍 Quadrant 4<br/>Low Power | Low Interest<br/><br/>🎯 Monitor<br/>Email updates<br/>Future partnerships"]

    T2["<strong>Academic Researchers</strong><br/><br/>📍 Quadrant 4<br/>Low Power | Low Interest<br/><br/>🎯 Monitor<br/>Data sharing<br/>Validation support"]

    %% ========================================
    %% FLOW CONNECTIONS
    %% ========================================

    %% Problem to categories
    PROBLEM --> PRIMARY
    PROBLEM --> SECONDARY
    PROBLEM --> TERTIARY

    %% Primary stakeholders
    PRIMARY --> P1
    PRIMARY --> P2
    PRIMARY --> P3

    %% Secondary stakeholders
    SECONDARY --> S1
    SECONDARY --> S2
    SECONDARY --> S3
    SECONDARY --> S4
    SECONDARY --> S5

    %% Tertiary stakeholders
    TERTIARY --> T1
    TERTIARY --> T2

    %% ========================================
    %% FESTA DESIGN SYSTEM COLORS
    %% ========================================

    %% Core Problem - Gray (neutral starting point)
    style PROBLEM fill:#9CA3AF,stroke:#6B7280,stroke-width:4px,color:#1F2937,font-weight:bold

    %% Primary Stakeholder Category Header - Pepper Green
    style PRIMARY fill:#10B981,stroke:#059669,stroke-width:4px,color:#fff,font-weight:bold

    %% Primary Stakeholder Nodes - Pepper Green (Q1 - Critical partnership)
    style P1 fill:#D1FAE5,stroke:#10B981,stroke-width:3px,color:#064E3B
    style P2 fill:#D1FAE5,stroke:#10B981,stroke-width:3px,color:#064E3B
    style P3 fill:#D1FAE5,stroke:#10B981,stroke-width:3px,color:#064E3B

    %% Secondary Stakeholder Category Header - Leaf
    style SECONDARY fill:#72B043,stroke:#5A8F36,stroke-width:4px,color:#fff,font-weight:bold

    %% Secondary Stakeholder Nodes - Varied by quadrant
    style S1 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F59E0B,stroke-width:2px,color:#78350F
    style S2 fill:#FEF3C7,stroke:#F59E0B,stroke-width:2px,color:#78350F
    style S3 fill:#ECFCCB,stroke:#72B043,stroke-width:2px,color:#365314
    style S4 fill:#ECFCCB,stroke:#72B043,stroke-width:2px,color:#365314
    style S5 fill:#ECFCCB,stroke:#72B043,stroke-width:2px,color:#365314

    %% Tertiary Stakeholder Category Header - Gray
    style TERTIARY fill:#9CA3AF,stroke:#6B7280,stroke-width:4px,color:#fff,font-weight:bold

    %% Tertiary Stakeholder Nodes - Gray (Q4 - Monitor only)
    style T1 fill:#E5E7EB,stroke:#9CA3AF,stroke-width:2px,color:#374151
    style T2 fill:#E5E7EB,stroke:#9CA3AF,stroke-width:2px,color:#374151

Engagement Strategies Applied

Manage Closely (High Power + High Interest)

Unemployed Youth: Weekly focus groups + one-on-one interviews. Met at community center they already frequent.

Parents: Home visits + evening meetings. Used local language, offered childcare during sessions.

Keep Informed (Low Power + High Interest)

Local Employers: Quarterly roundtables to share findings and solicit input on skills needed.

Young Entrepreneurs: Individual interviews + invited to validate program design workshops.

Keep Satisfied (High Power + Low Interest)

Youth Ministry: Formal presentations of findings. Aligned project with national youth policy priorities.

Training Providers: Invited to contribute curriculum ideas; positioned as implementation partners.

Monitor (Low Power + Low Interest)

International NGOs: Email updates with findings summaries. Potential future partnership opportunities.

Researchers: Shared preliminary results; invited to review final Problem Tree for accuracy.

Validating Problem Tree Assumptions

The preliminary Problem Tree created using AI-assisted research in Lesson 1.1 included several assumptions (tagged with "A"). Here's how stakeholder engagement validated or refined them:

✅ Assumption VALIDATED: "Family migration expectations limit local employment pursuit (A)"

"My parents keep asking when I'll move to Lagos like my older brother. They think there's no future here in the village." — Samuel, 23, unemployed youth

Result: Confirmed as major root cause. Added to Theory of Change as assumption to address through community awareness campaign.

🔄 Assumption REFINED: "Limited startup capital access (A)"

"It's not just about money. We tried to get a loan from the bank, but the paperwork was impossible. And they wanted collateral we don't have." — Blessing, 24, attempted entrepreneur

Result: Expanded to "Limited startup capital access + complex loan requirements + lack of financial literacy". Split into 2 root causes.

⚠️ Assumption CHALLENGED: "Gender norms limiting participation (A)"

"Actually, young women in our community are starting more businesses than men. The problem is they're all in the same saturated markets—hairdressing, tailoring. They need training in other sectors." — Community Elder

Result: Reframed from "gender norms as barrier" to "lack of diverse vocational options for young women". Changed intervention approach entirely.

❌ Assumption REJECTED: "Limited internet connectivity prevents remote work (A)"

"Internet? We have it on our phones now. The problem is we don't know what jobs we could do online, or how to find them. And employers don't trust us without degrees." — Chidi, 22, secondary school graduate

Result: Removed from Problem Tree. Replaced with "lack of digital skills + remote work awareness + credentialing barriers".

New Insights Discovered Through Engagement

Stakeholder conversations revealed root causes NOT identified in the preliminary AI-assisted analysis:

  • Peer influence networks: Youth make career decisions based on what friends are doing, not market research
  • Seasonal employment patterns: Rural youth prefer flexible work that accommodates farming calendars
  • Trust deficit with government programs: Previous failed initiatives created skepticism about new training programs
  • Mental health impacts: Prolonged unemployment leading to depression and reduced job-seeking motivation

Example 2: Maternal Health Project

Context: Improving maternal health outcomes in rural health centers

Stakeholder Identification & Categorization

Stakeholder Category Engagement Method
Pregnant women & new mothers Primary Home visits + women's group discussions
Traditional birth attendants Secondary Respectful partnership meetings
Community health workers Secondary Focus groups + training needs assessment
Clinic nurses & midwives Secondary Individual interviews + observation
District health officials Secondary Formal consultations + data sharing

Example Conversation Excerpt: Validating Assumptions

Assumption from preliminary research: "Women delay seeking care due to cost of transportation (A)"

Conversation with Amina, pregnant mother of 3

Facilitator: "Can you walk me through what happens when you need to visit the clinic?"

Amina: "First I have to get permission from my husband. Then I need to find someone to watch my children. The transport costs 500 naira each way, but honestly, that's not the biggest problem."

Facilitator: "What is the biggest problem?"

Amina: "The clinic is only open when I'm supposed to be at the farm. If I miss a day of work, we lose that day's harvest. And last time I went, I waited four hours to see the nurse for ten minutes. I can't afford to lose a whole day for that."

💡 Insight: Transportation cost is real but secondary. Primary barriers are: (1) Childcare access, (2) Husband's permission, (3) Clinic hours incompatible with farming schedules, (4) Long wait times. This completely changed the intervention design.

Impact of Stakeholder Engagement on Project Design

❌ Original Plan (Based Only on Desk Research)

  • • Provide transport vouchers for clinic visits
  • • Build new clinic closer to villages
  • • Hire more doctors
  • • Focus on medical equipment upgrades

✅ Revised Plan (After Stakeholder Input)

  • • Extend clinic hours to evenings/weekends
  • • Train community health workers for home visits
  • • Partner with traditional birth attendants (not replace them)
  • • Provide on-site childcare at clinics
  • • Create women's health groups for peer support
  • • Include husbands in maternal health education

Key Patterns Across Examples

1. Primary Stakeholders Always Surprise You

In every example, conversations with people directly affected revealed nuances that desk research couldn't capture. Budget extra time for deep engagement with this group.

2. Cultural Context Shapes Everything

Gender dynamics, community hierarchies, traditional practices, and social norms profoundly affect both problem manifestation and solution feasibility. Engage cultural gatekeepers early.

3. Secondary Stakeholders Validate Feasibility

Service providers, government officials, and experts help you understand what's realistic, what's been tried before, and where institutional support exists.

4. Assumptions Rarely Survive Contact with Reality

Expect 30-50% of your preliminary Problem Tree assumptions to be refined, reframed, or rejected after stakeholder engagement. This is a sign of effective validation, not failure.

5. Relationships Matter More Than Data

The trust and partnerships built through stakeholder engagement become assets for implementation. Extractive consultation damages these relationships and undermines long-term success.

Integration with Lesson 1.3

Now that you've seen how stakeholder engagement generates rich qualitative insights, the next lesson will teach you to synthesize all this data (Problem Tree + stakeholder conversations) using Affinity Diagrams. You'll learn to organize quotes, observations, and findings into themes that inform your Theory of Change.

Ready to Synthesize Your Data?

In Lesson 1.3, you'll learn to organize all your research findings and stakeholder insights into clear patterns that guide project design.

Next Lesson: Synthesize Data → Back to Lesson Overview ←