# Stakeholder Register and Engagement Plan: [Project name]

> Register of the people and groups who affect or are affected by the
> project, with their interest, influence and attitude, and a plan for
> moving their engagement from where it is to where it needs to be. Based on
> common project management practice. Replace every `[bracketed]` value and
> every row marked *Example*.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Start at initiation and revisit at every stage gate; stakeholders change as the
  project moves from design to rollout.
- Record observable facts and agreed assessments, not personal opinions. The register
  may be read by the people in it, so keep wording professional.
- The register is personal data in many jurisdictions: limit access and keep only
  what the project needs.
- Every high-power stakeholder with a gap between current and desired engagement
  needs a named action and owner.
-->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document ID | [SR-PROJECT-001] |
| Project | [Project name] |
| Version | [0.1] |
| Owner | [@project-manager] |
| Access | [Restricted to core team] |
| Review cadence | [Monthly and at each stage gate] |
| Last reviewed | YYYY-MM-DD |

## 1. Identification method

<!-- Guidance: Explain how stakeholders were found so gaps can be spotted. Common mistake: listing only senior managers and forgetting end users, regulators and suppliers. -->

Stakeholders were identified through [a charter review, an organisation chart walkthrough, interviews with the sponsor and workstream leads, and a review of similar past projects]. The list covers decision makers, delivery teams, affected users, support functions, suppliers and external bodies.

## 2. Assessment scales

<!-- Guidance: Define scales once so assessments are comparable. -->

Each stakeholder is assessed on the scales below.

| Attribute | Scale |
|---|---|
| Interest | High / Medium / Low: how much the outcome affects them |
| Influence (power) | High / Medium / Low: ability to change direction, resources or acceptance |
| Attitude | Champion / Supportive / Neutral / Sceptical / Opposed |
| Engagement level | Unaware / Resistant / Neutral / Supportive / Leading |

Current engagement is marked **C** and desired engagement **D** in the engagement matrix.

## 3. Stakeholder register

<!-- Guidance: One row per stakeholder or homogeneous group. Keep the "key concerns" column specific: what they want to protect or gain. -->

The register lists each stakeholder with their role, assessment and key concerns.

| ID | Stakeholder | Role / organisation | Interest | Influence | Attitude | Key concerns | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STK-01 | *Example:* Chief operating officer | Sponsor | High | High | Champion | Cost per onboarding, regulator view | [@pm] |
| STK-02 | *Example:* Branch network managers (12) | Operations | High | Medium | Sceptical | Staff workload during rollout, loss of customer contact | [@change-lead] |
| STK-03 | *Example:* Compliance officer | Second line of defence | Medium | High | Neutral | KYC evidence and audit trail | [@ba] |
| STK-04 | *Example:* IT operations | Service owner after go-live | Medium | Medium | Supportive | Supportability, on-call load | [@tech-lead] |
| STK-05 | *Example:* Identity verification vendor | Supplier | Medium | Medium | Supportive | Volume commitments, integration timeline | [@procurement] |
| STK-06 | [Stakeholder] | [Role] | [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] | [Attitude] | [Concerns] | [@owner] |

## 4. Power and interest grid

<!-- Guidance: Place stakeholders in quadrants to decide the engagement approach. Revisit placements when influence shifts. -->

The grid groups stakeholders by influence and interest; the quadrant sets the default engagement approach.

| | Low interest | High interest |
|---|---|---|
| **High influence** | Keep satisfied: STK-03 Compliance officer | Manage closely: STK-01 COO, STK-02 Branch managers |
| **Low influence** | Monitor: [stakeholders] | Keep informed: STK-04 IT operations, STK-05 Vendor |

The same grid is shown as a diagram for presentations.

```mermaid
flowchart TB
  subgraph KS["Keep satisfied (high influence, low interest)"]
    S3["STK-03 Compliance"]
  end
  subgraph MC["Manage closely (high influence, high interest)"]
    S1["STK-01 COO"]
    S2["STK-02 Branch managers"]
  end
  subgraph MO["Monitor (low influence, low interest)"]
    S6["STK-06 Facilities"]
  end
  subgraph KI["Keep informed (low influence, high interest)"]
    S4["STK-04 IT operations"]
    S5["STK-05 Vendor"]
  end
```

## 5. Engagement assessment matrix

<!-- Guidance: Mark current (C) and desired (D) engagement. The gap drives the plan. -->

The matrix shows the engagement gap that the plan must close.

| Stakeholder | Unaware | Resistant | Neutral | Supportive | Leading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STK-01 COO | | | | C | D |
| STK-02 Branch managers | | C | | D | |
| STK-03 Compliance officer | | | C | D | |
| STK-04 IT operations | | | | C D | |
| [Stakeholder] | | | | | |

## 6. Engagement plan

<!-- Guidance: For each gap, define a concrete action, the message, timing and how you will know it worked. -->

Actions are scheduled to move each stakeholder from current to desired engagement.

| Stakeholder | Objective | Actions | Key message | Timing | Success indicator | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STK-02 | *Example:* Resistant to supportive | Co-design workshop; pilot in two branches; share pilot results | Fewer manual checks, more time for customer advice | Weeks 3 to 10 | Pilot managers present results to peers | [@change-lead] |
| STK-03 | *Example:* Neutral to supportive | Early review of KYC evidence design; sign-off checkpoint | Audit trail is stronger than the paper process | Design stage | Compliance sign-off at G2 without conditions | [@ba] |
| [ID] | [Objective] | [Actions] | [Message] | [Timing] | [Indicator] | [@owner] |

## 7. Communication preferences

<!-- Guidance: Capture how each stakeholder likes to receive information. This feeds the communication plan. -->

Preferences are recorded so communication reaches people in the form they actually use.

| Stakeholder | Preferred channel | Frequency | Level of detail | Language / accessibility needs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STK-01 COO | One-page summary by email, monthly meeting | Biweekly | Headline and decisions | None |
| STK-02 Branch managers | Team call plus intranet page | Weekly during rollout | Practical impact on staff | [Local language] |
| STK-03 Compliance officer | Formal review documents | At design milestones | Full detail | None |
| [Stakeholder] | [Channel] | [Frequency] | [Detail] | [Needs] |

## 8. Review and change log

<!-- Guidance: Record each review and what changed, so trends in engagement are visible. -->

The register is reviewed [monthly]; changes are summarised below.

| Date | Reviewed by | Changes |
|---|---|---|
| YYYY-MM-DD | [@pm, @change-lead] | *Example:* STK-02 moved from Resistant to Neutral after pilot workshop |
| YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | [Changes] |

## Standard and licence note

Based on common project management practice for stakeholder
identification, analysis and engagement planning. This template is
original text written for this collection. Template licence: MIT.