Managing Stakeholders in Megaprojects.The MS Working Group Report

Managing Stakeholders in Megaprojects The MS Working Group Report Edited by: Paul Littau Authors: Paul Littau,Ivana Burcar Dunović,Louis-Francois Pau, Mauro Mancini, Ana Irimia Dieguez, Carmen Medina-Lopez, Konrad Spang, Agnese Travaglini, Raffaello Colombo, Maja-Marija Nahod, Agnieszka Lukasiewicz 2 COST – European Cooperation in Science and Technology is an intergovernmental framework aimed at facilitating the collaboration and networking of scientists and researchers at European level. It was established in 1971 by 19 member countries and currently includes 35 member countries across Europe, and Israel as a cooperating state. COST funds pan-European, bottom-up networks of scientists and researchers across all science and technology fields. These networks, called ‗COST Actions‘, promote international coordination of nationally-funded research. By fostering the networking of researchers at an international level, COST enables break-through scientific developments leading to new concepts and products, thereby contributing to strengthening Europe‘s research and innovation capacities. COST‘s mission focuses in particular on: + Building capacity by connecting high quality scientific communities throughout Europe and worldwide; + Providing networking opportunities for early career investigators; + Increasing the impact of research on policy makers, regulatory bodies and national decision makers as well as the private sector. Through its inclusiveness, COST supports the integration of research communities, leverages national research investments and addresses issues of global relevance.  Every year thousands of European scientists benefit from being involved in COST Actions, allowing the pooling of national research funding to achieve common goals. As a precursor of advanced multidisciplinary research, COST anticipates and complements the activities of EU Framework Programmes, constituting a ―bridge‖ towards the scientific communities of emerging countries. In particular, COST Actions are also open to participation by non-European scientists coming from neighbour countries (for example Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Russia, Syria, Tunisia and Ukraine) and from a number of international partner countries. COST‘s budget for networking activities has traditionally been provided by successive EU RTD Framework Programmes. COST is currently executed by the European Science Foundation (ESF) through the COST Office on a mandate by the European Commission, and the framework is governed by a Committee of Senior Officials (CSO) representing all its 35 member countries. More information about COST is available at www.cost.eu © University of Leeds Published by the University of Leeds, April 2015 ISBN 978-0-9576805-2-4 While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission. 3 Content I. Content............................................................................................................... 3 1. Managing Stakeholders ..................................................................................... 4 2. Research Methods ............................................................................................. 5 3. Results ………………………………………………………………………………18 4. Interpretation & Summary ................................................................................ 22 5. Recommendations ........................................................................................... 24 References .............................................................................................................. 28 4 Managing Stakeholders Aim & Background of the Working Group Stakeholder management (SM) in megaprojects was established as one of four working groups within the Megaproject COST-Action. The critical importance of stakeholder management in megaprojects was identified in the first phase of the COST-Action‘s research by case studies. It was obvious that stakeholder have huge impact on the performance of megaprojects. Thus, this working group started with the focus on this specific aspect of megaproject management. Thereby, the focus was aligned with the overall aim of the COST- Action: "…to understand how megaprojects can be designed and delivered more effectively to ensure their effective commissioning within Europe. Effective design and delivery means not only insuring that the megaproject is delivered on-time and to budget but that it satisfies the societal and commercial needs that motivated its creation and that it continues to do so throughout its entire life-cycle" Thus, two guiding questions were developed for this working group: 1. What are the problems that occur with stakeholders in megaprojects? 2. How to manage those problems and stakeholders? To answer these questions different methods have been applied – all based on a case study approach which was the data foundation of this COST-Action. The methods applied and the results reached will be presented in this report in the following pages. There were various ways possible to the group to choose of how to work together: group meetings, ―small‖ meetings, short term scientific missions (STSMs), conferences, student projects, etc.! 5 Research Methods The Interdepence between the different methods To address the research question properly, different methods have been applied to cover different aspects of the problem. A general approach was developed and contained two methodological ways in order to understand how stakeholders impact megaproject performance. The first methodology way focused to uncover how project context und culture influence stakeholders‘ behavior whereas the second addressed stakeholder interactions and thus used network analysis. Furthermore, a framework was needed to measure stakeholder impact on megaproject performance. The Figure 1 explains the connection between the clustering of stakeholders according cultural context, stakeholder network analysis and megaproject impact. This is in line with the more detailed framework presented in Figure 2. Clustering of stakeholders according cultural context Methodology (Pau, L-F, Njaa, O., Langeland, A., 2014) Departing from traditional project management, this work focuses on cultural and localized differences and influences on a specific project activity, and furthermore on the specific influences on large important critical projects (also called ―megaprojects‖). It analyzes relevant methodologies, theories and results from other disciplines such as micro-behaviors influenced by local cultures, socio-cultural theories, cultural synergy processes and hybrid institutions, physioeconomics as well as different practices in contracting. It is shown that the very definitions of the concept of ―megaproject‖ are diverse in the world, and details are given. A scaled gap analysis Cluster of megaprojects with consistent cultural & contextuals attributes Stakeholder networks Project performance and impact How project context & culture influence stakeholders‘ behavior? How the stakeholders interact? How the stakeholders impact the project? Figure 1: The methodological approach used in this research. 6 tool is proposed, rooted in the above theories and results, aiming at identifying cultural differences between megaprojects from a set of qualitative measures. To further allow for causal analysis, a set of cultural impact measures is proposed, and the same sample of international megaprojects is assessed correspondingly. Taking thereafter the viewpoint of characterizing a given regional culture, it is shown that Scandinavian project management practices evidence a specific combination of cultural influence measures relying on hybrid governance and communications, unique work culture and tools, as well as an approach to adaptation. The conclusions shows that, despite the fact that, to apprehend cultural factors in general is a very complex endeavor; the limited set of cultural influence measures identified in this research allows to characterize cultural impact on megaprojects. Megaprojects can be clustered or contrasted by cultural influences, by management styles, thus serving concrete needs in megaproject management. Data Analysis (Pau, L-F, 2014a) The general tool mentioned above, with its specific megaproject cultural attributes, has allowed to analyze a sample of 18 documented international megaprojects on 5 continents. It is very important to point out that for 15 of these projects, their respective project management heads were the one‘s grading the cultural gap attribute values as well as the qualitative project outcome values. This data acquisition was carried out in a separate project from the COST Action Megaprojects. Three Megaprojects (out of 18) had data collected inside the WG. The taxonomy of the cultural attributes and causal impacts allows to group the megaprojects by clusters of similar culturally driven management styles, irrespective of implementation countries. Cluster analysis refers to a diversity of algorithms which allow to group together samples characterized by N vector attributes, and possibly to determine a reduced space of dimension M<N preserving most of their mutual properties. In supervised cluster analysis, a separate sample set from the same population with known group assignments is used. When such prior categorizations are not known, only unsupervised cluster analysis can be used, relying on metric, statistical and/or semantic similarity measures between samples. As the megaprojects have not yet any prior categorization, only unsupervised cluster analysis can be used. The similarity measures are however totally independent from the population distribution. But, the choice of similarity measure may affect the clustering outcomes, and small-sample effects apply. By choosing as attribute vector only the cultural gap attributes, or the cultural gap attributes AND impact attributes, one can group megaprojects by contextual aspects only, or by contextual aspects and project impact. 7 The algorithms which have been tested on the cultural attributes include: simple kmeans clustering, extreme value analysis from centroid distances, decision tree inference by PART, MakeDensityBasedClusterer, LVQ, Hierarchical clusterer, and principal components analysis. The characterization of cultural factors affecting the 16 megaprojects provides a sharp divide into two groups linked to governance styles inside the projects in response to external factors. The groupings are not country or sector dependent. More refined interpretations can be derived from projection of megaprojects onto principal axis; five combined attributes only can explain over 50 % of the differences in cultural aspects and outcome. Only one cultural attribute (style of execution and control of a megaproject) shows some cross-correlation with three other cultural attributes. In Table 1 an overview of the 15 other megaprojects is given which were analyzed by another group than the stakeholder working group but has been build upon in this research. Megaproject Country Sector 1. Victoria Australia Civil engineering 2. Daocheng Yading Airport China Transport 3. ARJ21 C919 COMAC Aircraft China Aerospace 4. Metroselskabet Copenhagen Denmark Transport 5. Copenhagen Ringsted rail connection Denmark Transport 6. Anholt Offshore Wind farm Denmark Energy 7. Oresunds bridge Denmark/Sweden Civil Engineering 8. Celtel / Zain Group East Africa Telecommunication 9. Yme Norway Offshore oil 10. Hardanger Bridge Norway Civil engineering 11. ROGFAST tunnel Norway Civil engineering 12. RYFAST tunnel Norway Civil engineering 13 Taipeh 101 Taiwan Construction 14. Apple Headquarters USA Construction 15. Hudson Yards USA Construction Table 1: Overview of megaprojects analyzed (Pau, L-F, Njaa, O., Langeland, A., 2014) • Cluster I : 4 megaprojects (Torrevaldaglia, Hardanger, Rogfast, Ryfast) • Cluster II: 14 megaprojects (Victoria, Daocheng, Nuremberg, ARJ21, Metroselskabet, Ringsted, Anholt, Oeresund, Celtel, Yme, Taipeh, Sevilla, Apple, Hudson) 8 Stakeholder Impact and performance measurement framework Starting from a research framework which will be explained in the following, a questionnaire was developed to conduct the case studies. Four European megaprojects were selected and interviews were conducted by direct contact to project managers of the respective megaprojects. Based on the widely accepted multi case study approach (Yin, R., 2003), the comparison of such data is highly relevant and reliable. Though, the data is based only on four cases, it represents 52 stakeholders and thus is a good number to draw some conclusions. Furthermore, four cases are recognized as the minimum in multi case study research (Eisenhardt, 1995). Thus, this approach allows identifying attributes of 52 stakeholders in four different megaproject settings. The framework for this research was inspired by two facts and influenced from literature on construction projects: Achieving sustainability-related targets in (construction) projects is increasingly becoming a key performance driver (Bal et al., 2013). Gibson‘s thesis is that sustainability concerns should be embedded in stakeholder theory rather than being treated as a marginal issue (Gibson, 2012). Sustainability assessment process, if appropriately designed could be the ideal process through which the benefits of stakeholder engagement within a project can be maximized and the sustainability agenda be pursued (Mathur et al., 2008). Based on previous analysis, the most appropriate sustainability model for megaproject analysis is the 5P model. It enables to capture interest and impact together. Stakeholders by definition have interest in project. It is our proposition that their interest in megaproject must be measured using sustainability measures. Their impact, on the other hand, have broader spectrum, and for that we need 5P model. 5P model is suitable to separate internal and external impact on stakeholders. Internal impact is considered to be process and product, and external are social, ecological and economical aspect of megaproject. To understand how stakeholders are influencing the megaproject we need to know how their actions were with respect to project and how their influence affected the project. The first part is analysed through the first and second P (process and product), their interest is measured by ―the triple bottom P‘s‖ and impact are measured with two sets of measures: the ―iron triangle‖ (budget, time, scope) named as ―side effects‖ and the ―the triple bottom P‘s‖. When stakeholder interests were analysed, the hypothesis was made that each of them can have personal and/or global interest in project. 9 Figure 2: Stakeholder impact on Megaproject performance and sustainability. Based on this understanding, the framework (Figure 2) and the following questionnaire was developed for data gathering. For this research data was collected by direct interviews with project managers. They were asked to: 1. Identify stakeholders, their role and type, internal or external, 2. Rate different type of stakeholder POWER as the ability to change the process: political, legal, social and business, and GRADE OF INTEREST as willingness to engage and ATTITUDE towards the project 3. Assess the type and rate the level of interactions/relationships between the stakeholders 4. For each identified stakeholder state (in words) and rate their INTEREST in the project with respect to 3P sustainability 5. For each identified stakeholder rate their IMPACT on project 6. For each identified stakeholder explain in words how they IMPACTED the project 7. Stakeholder involvement: When was stakeholder management strategy developed? When was consensus with stakeholder reached? When were external stakeholder‘s representatives involved in regular meetings? Is public consultations part of legal framework? Is public consultations part of good practice? 16 Figure 3: Stakeholders & their impact on megaproject success Concerning the impact on megaproject success and managing the stakeholders, it is obvious that impact has two main dimensions: power and interest. Stakeholders have different interest in (mega) projects, but the impact on (mega) projects depends on the power by which this interest is engage in project success. Furthermore, if we succeed to measure those characteristics, we could better understand the weight of stakeholders in achieving and managing the megaproject success. A new model of stakeholders‘ behavior is, would have three main purposes:  to increase the knowledge and understandings of a system and its dynamics under various conditions, as in collaborative learning (Lynam et al, 2010) and  to identify and clarify the impacts of solutions to a given problem, usually related to supporting decision making, policy, regulations of management.  To find the relationship between interests & impact, through power and interaction as position in the social network analyses of stakeholder system. The proposed model for stakeholder analysis is described in Figure 3. Stakeholders in megaprojects are not as simple as in other projects. The main differences are related to their quantity and complexity. Stakeholders are defined by their impact on a project. If it is so, than it is necessary to find the way to measure this impact as well as to find the causes of certain impacts. The most suitable system to achieve this is to look at the stakeholders as entities with their power, interests and dynamics of their relationships. Combination of it such as ―map‖ or ―color‖ determines the particular impact on project. In this way, stakeholders are grouped into groups of different entities that show impact on megaproject. 17 There are two possible references for considering the impact of stakeholders to project success:  by impact on the project success, which consisting of project management success and the impact on product as a result of the project  by impact on sustainability, which consist of impact on Profit, Planet, People. Stakeholders have their power and interest. Those two characteristics together with relationships between them form ―a map‖ that is specific and gives particular impact on project. The model presented in Error! Reference source not found. must be calibrated as it is in the reality, where interests strive to become impact, which depends on power and network position. Calibration involves finding the model constants (values) that make the model generate behavior cuvres that best fit the real world data. Using optimization, system dynamics will automatically vary the constants of our choice and look for the best fit between the simulation and real world data. IN = Interest; G = Global; P = Particular; IM = Impact; P1,..P4 = Power Net wo rk Im pac t Figure 4: Proposed model 18 Results Results from analysis After classifying all the stakeholders identified in the interviews according to the Winch‘s framework, it was possible to evaluate, on a quantitative basis, the average classes attributes (power, interest and attitude) and classify them as shown in figure 2, in which the positioning has been calculated according to power and interest and the bubbles diameters represent their attitude (circles represent negative attitudes). According to this three-dimensional matrix we could identify the stakeholders having the highest potential to influence the projects. Figure 4: Megaproject Stakeholder Power-Interest-Attitude A three dimensional grid is certainly more difficult to be drawn but it maps out everything which need to be considered and provides some descriptive labels that can be checked out during the overall process of stakeholder analysis and subsequent ongoing stakeholder management. Stakeholder roles classification is reported in Table including some basic conclusions about how to approach them. Stakeholder class Megaproject Stakeholders Managerial Approach Saviours Clients, Client‘s Owners, Project Teams, Financiers and National Governments These are key players the project manager should pay attention to and keep on project side. Saboteurs Environmentalists Their power derives from other stakeholders like Media or Governments. Project manager may change their attitude providing voice to their claims 19 and using clear and transparent communication. If this is not deemed possible, managers should gain other players support to reduce their power. Friends Interested Parties and Principal Contractors Project managers should use them as confidants. Irritants Local Residents Interested in social and environmental aspects, clear and transparent communication, together with attention to safety issues is essential. Sleeping Giants Media and Regulatory Agencies Media are ―sleeping‖ till other actors, normally negative ones, ―awake‖ them for having their claims considered. Managers should act proactively to engage them for supporting the project. Acquaintances Trade Contractors, Suppliers, Professional Associations, Public Agencies, Client‘s Customers Keep them informed with a transmitonly communication style. Table 5: Stakeholder classes and managerial approaches The previous power-interest-attitude framework should be used by managers as a proxy to understand possible future stakeholder‘s impacts. Power is a proxy of the impact a stakeholder may cause if it undertakes some actions, interest is a proxy of the probability of such actions and attitude a proxy of the direction of action and therefore impact towards positive or negative for the project. Despite previous matrix positioning gives insights on how a stakeholder could move during the project, it does not provide the certainty that the most powerful and interested stakeholder is the most impacting on the project. Moreover the same stakeholder having a positive attitude towards the project may cause both positive and negative impacts in different performance areas. Therefore the correlation between matrix positioning and overall impacts caused should not be taken for granted but rather analysed considering the real impacts each stakeholder caused despite its positioning. During interviews project managers were asked to rate the real stakeholder impacts on the five-Ps of project sustainability and on the ―Iron Triangle‖ performance of time, cost and quality. Rearranging these different impact dimensions, the following impact categories can be defined:  Project execution (PE) impact: it is the overall impact on the project execution process and the final delivered product; 20  3P impact or sustainability impact: it is the overall impact on project sustainability performance, including planet (or environmental), people (or social), and profit (or economical);  Project management success (PMS) impact: it is the overall impact the stakeholder caused to time, cost and quality performance; The classification of project stakeholders on the basis of their positive and negative impacts on project has been provided in Table . Impact Class Positive Stakeholders Negative Stakeholders Extreme 1. Total Impact Client, Project Team, Client‘s Owners, National Government, Financiers, Local Government, Principal Contractors Regulatory Agencies, Principal Contractors High 2. PMS, PE Impact Regulatory Agencies Client, National Government 3. PMS, 3P Impact Suppliers Local Residents, Environmentalists 4. PE, 3P Impact _ Local Governments, Interested Parties Medium 5. PMS Impact Public Agencies Trade Contractors 6. PE Impact Professional Associations Media, Suppliers 7. 3P Impact Client‘s Customers _ Low 8. Little Impact Local Residents, Trade Contractors, Media, Environmentalists, Interested Parties Client‘s Customers, Project Team, Client‘s Owners, Professional Associations, Public Agencies, Financiers Table 6: Megaproject Stakeholder Impacts Classification Positive stakeholders causing high or extreme impacts include stakeholders which should really be engaged with the aim of increasing the probability (interest) and impact (power) through different stakeholder management and communication techniques, like empowerment and participation in project team decisions of few representatives. Negative stakeholders causing high or extreme impacts are the critical stakeholders to which attention should be paid. These should be monitored; communication should aim at defeating negative views if present and help, in case of errors, provided. In case negative views cannot be defeated, and this could be the case of environmentalists, stakeholder management should aim at decreasing power or interest in the project. For testing the validity of the previous model some tests of the correlation between stakeholder power and interest and their real impacts on the project have been 21 conducted. Same way the correlations between stakeholder attitude, positive and negative impacts on a project. Based on the correlation tests and a Spearman test which helped to understand the relations between impacts on a more detailed level. The results show that all impacts, with few exceptions, are correlated with all types of impacts. For interpreting these measures we consider impacts on process and product as independent variables which influence all other types of impacts. In this way a stakeholder whose interest is to improve project‘s sustainability performance will intrude in the project delivery phase to have its claims considered and will improve the project final deliverable, causing ―side effects‖ on project management success. What have been stated explains also the resulting correlation between sustainability impacts and ―side effects‖. The previous impact model is therefore considered valid to the extent that there is a cause-effect relationship between impacts on process and products and all the other variables.1 1 For more details see for Dunovic, I.B., Colombo, R., Mancini, M., Littau, P. (2015) 22 Interpretation & Summary General results / findings: In the following general results and findings will be listed in a short way. For more information the papers and reports are recommended which are listed under references and are produced by the group members at different stages of this research project.  A structured SM-approach to use in megaprojects and is necessary in order to assure the consideration of all relevant and important stakeholders. Especially all the private NGO-stakeholders play more and more a decisive role in megaprojects because of their huge impact on the society and the environment. It has to start in the early planning phase and to be continued until its completion. The project team needs to be very sensitive for the concerns of the stakeholders, even when they have no (more) formal rights. It seems to be very useful to have a professional PR-group. A structured method has been developed by the research group, which may be very useful for further megaprojects.  Natural language analysis allows to induce stakeholder interactions from the descriptions of their dealings and values (L-F Pau, 2012).  The analysis, using gap analysis, and the cultural attributes which have been designed and tested out, allow to capture largely the cultural factors affecting megaprojects (Pau, L-F, Njaa, O., Langeland, A., 2014; Pau, L-F, 2014a).  It has been shown (Jääskeläinen, K., Pau, L-F, 2009) that social network analysis applied to the interactions between internal stakeholders in large projects, allows altogether to identify power nodes in their interaction graph, and thus to link the conceptual governance style with the actual conduct of stakeholder interactions.  A related effort (Pau, L-F, 2014b) has shown that dynamic stakeholder interaction analysis suggests that some common behaviours exist over time to describe the adjustments in the business flows between stakeholders.  In summary, four families of tools and methods have been designed from outside traditional project management, allowing to analyse cultural, external and internal stakeholder relations, and who all point at 23 the importance of governance styles in assessing the impact of these relations onto project performances.  Stakeholder impact can be distinguished in Project execution impact, 3P impact or sustainability impact and project management success impact.  Dynamic stakeholder analysis needs to be conducted often, and therefore a degree of flexibility must be built into the project plans. To allow this important procedure and to allow project changes guided by dynamic stakeholder analysis, the project plans need to have a high degree of flexibility.  Megaprojects are characterised by high need for learning which can be achieved by regular reviews (internal and external) and by the use of modern tools of the stakeholder management analysis. The history of megaprojects is strewn with problems, therefore they have high intrinsic margins of improvement. Stakeholder management has a big role in this direction, in fact its modern tools and techniques adoption reduces the probabilities of project failure. 24 Recommendations Checklist as eye-opener Practitioners and academics agree that stakeholder management is a complex task, crucial for the success of the project. The following recommendations, obtained from both the work developed in this action and the previous literature, should to be taken into account for Project Management:  Stakeholder satisfaction should be managed as a key project objective. (PMI, 2013)  Megaprojects should be focused on providing a variety of services to the stakeholders, not just a means of transport, a building, a bridge…). Megaprojects should be managed for the benefit of all its stakeholders. Their rights be ensured, and, further, the groups must participate in decisions that substantially affect their welfare. (Aapaoja & Haapasalo, 2014; Newcombe, 2003)  Identify the stakeholders in the front-end and review and update regularly this initial assessment. A comprehensive SM model covering the entire project lifecycle shall facilitate effective stakeholder communication and engagement in subsequent project stages. (Mok et al., 2015; PMI, 2013)  Project managers bear a fiduciary (trustee) relationship to the stakeholders and to the project as an abstract entity. They must act in the interests of both the stakeholders (as their agent), and the project (to ensure its survival). (Newcombe, 2003)  Project managers should apply interpersonal skills to manage stakeholders’ expectations: building trust, resolving conflicts, active listening, and overcoming resistance to change.  Consider the diverse cultural organization of both stakeholders and PM organization.  Tools for SM: e.g. Stakeholder analysis, expert judgement (interviews, focus group, surveys, etc.), profile analysis meetings, workshops meetings, social networks, web pages, newsletter.  Identifying stakeholders, understanding their relative degree of influence on a project, balancing their demands, needs, and expectations, and analyzing and documenting relevant information regarding their interests, in- 25 volvement, interdependencies, influence, and potential impact on project success, are critical to the success of the project. (PMI, 2013)  Project managers need to assess stakeholders’ probability to act and express their interest in project decisions and how they are likely to react or respond in various situations (e.g. by a sensitivity analysis), in order to plan how to influence them to enhance their support and mitigate potential negative impacts. Since their interests may be positively or negatively affected by the execution or completion of the project, PM should balance their interests and ensure that the project team interacts with stakeholders in a professional and cooperative manner. (Aapaoja &Haapasalo, 2014; PMI, 2013)  Stakeholders should be divided into groups that better reflect stakeholders‘ roles in order to be managed efficiently and systematically. Identifying formal groupings of stakeholders is relatively easy; identifying informal groupings is much more difficult. These informal groupings are likely to have a changing membership with ad hoc coalitions springing up in response to specific events. (Aapaoja & Haapasalo, 2014; Newcombe, 2003)  When establishing the risk management plan and the procurement management plan, the influence of stakeholders must be considered. (Bourne & Walker, 2005)  By anticipating people‘s reactions to the project, proactive actions can be taken to win support or minimize negative impacts. Active management of stakeholder involvement decreases the risk of the project failing to meet its goals and objectives. (PMI, 2013)  In the planning and designing phases, the public has to be taken in full confidence that their involvement will influence the decision making process. The public‘s concerns in these phases will usually focus on long-term issues and can be of any kind depending on local conditions. (El-Gohary et al., 2006; Stanford, 2000)  In the construction phase, all stakeholders are involved, but the way of involvement is different. Local and regional stakeholders are concerned with the influence of construction activities on their daily routine activities and life style. On the other hand, global stakeholders may be interested in monitoring and evaluating project impacts related to their particular field to make sure that the impact is not greater than what was considered in the planning phase. (Ernzen & Woods, 2001; El-Gohary et al., 2006)  Establish a communication plan which allows stakeholders to understand the current state of the project; the steps taken; and budget, schedule, and scope forecasts. Feedback from stakeholders should be facilitated. Infor-