Stakeholder mapping: the power-interest grid and how to manage each group

Every project has people who can help it, people who can block it, and people who will simply be affected by it. Projects often stall because someone important was surprised, ignored or brought in too late.

Stakeholder mapping is the habit of listing those people and deciding, on purpose, how much time to give each one. The most widely used tool is the power-interest grid, often called Mendelow’s matrix. This guide explains how to build one, what to do with each group, and how a RACI chart complements it once the work starts.

What the power-interest grid is

The grid plots each stakeholder on two axes: how much power they have over the project, and how interested they are in it. The Open University’s course material on stakeholder analysis credits the matrix to Mendelow (1991) and labels the four quadrants that result:

The Wikipedia article on stakeholder analysis notes other versions of the same idea, such as an influence-interest grid and the former Office of Government Commerce’s power-impact grid. The labels differ but the logic is the same: spend your limited attention where it changes outcomes.

How to manage each group

Manage closely

These are the people who can make or break the project. Maria Rosala’s stakeholder analysis guide for Nielsen Norman Group advises engaging them closely and trying to turn them into advocates. In practice that means early one-to-one conversations, a say in key choices, and no surprises in group meetings.

Keep satisfied

Rosala describes this group as “latents”: not engaged yet, but able to step in if the work affects them. A finance director or a regional head often sits here. Find out what they care about, check proposals against it, and keep updates short.

Keep informed

Front-line staff and specialist teams are often highly interested but have little formal power. Keep them updated, and invite them to research sessions and reviews. They often know where the real problems are, and their support matters when changes go live.

Monitor

Spend little effort here, but look again from time to time. Positions change.

Building a stakeholder map in six steps

1. List everyone. Include people inside and outside the organisation who care about the project or whose work you need. Ask who controls budget, approvals, data and people.
2. Rate power. Consider formal authority, control of resources, expertise and informal influence. The Open University notes that power is harder to judge than interest, and that small groups with little power on their own can become influential when they act together.
3. Rate interest. How much will the project affect them, and how much do they care? Interest can shift over time, so treat today’s rating as provisional.
4. Plot and add attitude. Rosala recommends marking each person as positive, neutral or negative, or as champion, supporter or critic. A powerful critic is usually your first priority.
5. Talk to them. Short interviews show what each person cares about and how they prefer to be updated. Generic quadrant advice is a starting point, not a plan.
6. Write a communication plan. For each stakeholder or group, record who owns the relationship, the channel and how often. Review it at each milestone.

RACI: the companion for who does what

The grid tells you how much attention each person needs. It does not tell you who does the work or who signs it off. A responsibility assignment matrix, usually called RACI, fills that gap. Tasks or deliverables go down the side, roles go across the top, and each cell holds one letter:

• Responsible: does the work. At least one per task.
• Accountable: answerable for the result and signs it off. Some project management approaches insist on exactly one per task.
• Consulted: gives input before the work is finished. Two-way communication.
• Informed: told about progress or the outcome. One-way communication.

The two tools fit together. Your “manage closely” stakeholders are often the Accountable people for major deliverables. “Keep informed” stakeholders usually appear as I. If someone sits in “keep satisfied” but has no letter anywhere in your RACI, check whether you have missed a sign-off.

An example (illustration only)

A consultant is helping a 120-person logistics firm replace its warehouse management software.

The map shows a risk straight away: the IT manager has high power and a negative attitude. The consultant books an early meeting, learns the concern is a past failed migration, and adds a test migration to the plan. The RACI then names the IT manager as Accountable for data migration, which turns a critic into an owner.

Common mistakes

• Building the map once. Rosala warns that power and interest shift, especially after leadership changes. Review it at each milestone.
• Confusing interest with support. A highly interested stakeholder may be your strongest opponent. Track attitude separately.
• Ignoring the “monitor” group entirely. Low-power groups can gain influence when they unite.
• Rating power by job title alone. The person who controls the data or the schedule may matter more than a senior name.
• Giving a RACI task two Accountable people. When two people own a decision, it tends to stall.
• Circulating the map. Labels such as “critic” can damage relationships if shared. Keep it as a working tool for the core team.

When to use it, and when not

Use the grid at the start of any engagement that involves more than one team, and again before major decisions or go-live. It is most useful when change affects people who did not ask for it. For a small piece of work with one client contact, a short list of names may be enough. Where legitimacy and urgency matter as much as power, such as public consultations, look at richer models like the salience model described in the Wikipedia article, which adds urgency and legitimacy to power.