Pilot2Service Stakeholder Analysis & RACI
Purpose
Maps stakeholders on a power/interest matrix and assigns responsibilities with RACI.
Anchored in research
- BABOK — stakeholder analysis
- 45ck — raci-matrix / power-interest-grid
Method
- List every stakeholder or stakeholder group touched by the initiative — BABOK's categories are a useful checklist: sponsor, domain SME, end user, operational support, supplier, regulator. Don't stop at the obvious names already in the room.
- Score each stakeholder on power (ability to affect the outcome) and interest (how much the outcome affects them), and place them on the resulting 2×2 grid (Mendelow's power/interest matrix): manage closely (high power/high interest), keep satisfied (high power/low interest), keep informed (low power/high interest), monitor (low power/low interest). The quadrant — not a general impression — determines how much engagement effort each stakeholder gets.
- For each in-scope activity or deliverable, assign RACI roles — exactly one Accountable per item (never zero, never more than one), any number of Responsible, Consulted, and Informed. A RACI with two Accountables, or an item with none, is a design flaw to fix before publishing, not a detail to gloss over.
- Cross-check the RACI against the power/interest grid: a "manage closely" stakeholder who isn't Accountable or Consulted for anything is a signal that something's missing.
- Flag any stakeholder position that's inferred rather than confirmed
(
[assumption — verify]) — stakeholder maps built on the analyst's guess about who actually holds power are a common source of failed buy-in. - Revisit the map at key milestones — power and interest shift as a project moves from planning to delivery, and a map validated once at kickoff goes stale.
What this skill does NOT do
- Doesn't make the final decision for you — it produces a structured draft to support a human decision.
- Doesn't confirm figures, market data, or competitor data from memory — it
uses the inputs you provide, or marks an assumption clearly
(
[assumption — verify]). - Doesn't identify an organization's stakeholders for you without you naming the real actors involved.
Refinement notes
Areas to keep deepening with real practice:
- your own rules of thumb and heuristics for this technique
- concrete templates (into
../../references/) - reference cases / your own examples
- what this skill deliberately does not do (guardrails, common mistakes) — add to the list above
This is an internal working note, not a claim about the skill's current
usability. Track depth privately via the maturity field in
skills_index.json (see
../../../meta/maturity_levels.md).
Don't add new fields to the frontmatter — name and description are
the only ones allowed (see
../../../meta/frontmatter_schema.md).
Continue from here
- Next in this pack:
../assumption-and-evidence-audit/SKILL.md— Tests assumptions and identifies evidence gaps before a recommendation is locked in. - For a public-sector, municipal, or non-profit client: extend this
method with
../../../specialisation-packs/public-sector-ai-service-design/skills/ps-stakeholder-and-political-landscape-mapping/SKILL.md— public-sector stakeholders split across distinct actor types (elected officials, civil servants, unions, oversight bodies) with different veto points that a generic power/interest grid doesn't distinguish on its own. - A ready-made skill chain for this situation: see
../../../playbooks/ - This pack's shared guardrails:
../../CLAUDE.md
References
../../references/— the pack's shared background material../../CLAUDE.md— the pack's shared guardrails