How to build a stakeholder map in your first week on a new assignment
On day one you are handed an organisation chart and a list of names. Neither tells you who will block your work, who will quietly rewrite your requirements, or who simply has to say yes before anything ships. A stakeholder map does that job, and you can build a useful first version in a few days.
The example here is a fictional programme at Northgate Bank, replacing a manual settlements process. All names are invented.
Last reviewed: October 2026.
Start with a list, not a grid
Before you plot anyone, write down every person and group who is affected by the work, can influence it, or holds information you need. Get names from four places:
- the project sponsor, in your first conversation
- the programme plan and governance documents
- the people who appear in email threads and meeting invites
- the operational team that does the work today
Include groups that rarely come to meetings. In payments these are usually operations, compliance, finance and the technology teams that run the surrounding systems. People who do the work now are often missing from the sponsor's list.
The register
For each person, record only what you will use. A starter set of columns:
| Name | Role | Interest | Influence | Stance | What they need from you | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priya Nair | Head of Settlements Operations | High | Medium | Supportive, worried about staffing | Evidence the new process will not add manual steps | Walk the current process with her team, Tuesday |
| Daniel Okafor | Programme sponsor | High | High | Supportive | A first view by day 30 | Agree playback date |
| Mei Chen | Compliance Manager | Medium | High | Neutral | Early sight of any change to reporting | Send scope note, ask for the policy owner |
| Tom Ellis | Technology Lead, core ledger | Medium | High | Sceptical about timelines | Clear interface requirements | Book 30 minutes before any estimate |
| Settlements team (8 people) | Daily users | High | Low | Mixed | To be asked, not told | Short interviews, two a day |
"Stance" is your reading and should be treated as a hypothesis. Review it after each conversation. Keep the register somewhere private to you if it contains opinions about colleagues.
Starter, £30 (41 files, discovery to a tested set of requirements) · Complete, £80 (59 files, adds governance and assurance). Prices include UK VAT: Starter £25 + VAT, Complete £66.67 + VAT. Payhip may show the price before VAT. One payment, no subscription.
Sold by Quantum Sphere Consulting Limited; your statutory rights apply.Plotting power and interest
The grid sorts people by how much they can affect the outcome and how much they care. It tells you how much time to spend with each group.
| Row | Low interest | High interest |
|---|---|---|
| High power | Keep satisfied: short, regular updates; no surprises | Manage closely: regular conversation, involve in decisions |
| Low power | Monitor: occasional updates | Keep informed: briefings and a channel for their questions |
For Northgate, Daniel and Tom sit in the top right or near it. Mei is high power with medium interest, so she needs an early heads-up so that a late compliance objection does not arrive from nowhere. The settlements team is low power on paper and high interest. They are also the people who know where the process breaks, so do not leave them in the bottom right with a monthly email.
A grid is a conversation aid, not a verdict. Two people can sit in one square and need very different handling.
The question the grid misses: who actually decides?
Job titles describe authority on paper. Decisions are made elsewhere, so ask it directly for each type of decision you will need:
- Who approves scope?
- Who can change a business rule?
- Who signs off the requirements?
- Who can release budget or people?
- Who must be consulted before anyone can say yes?
- Who could stop the work without being asked?
Then check the answers against what you observe. In Northgate's case, the sponsor formally approved scope. But the cut-off time in the process was set by the scheme rules and interpreted by Mei's team, and the interface was Tom's to change. Three different people each held a veto over a different part. None of them was on the sponsor's list of "key decision makers".
Ways to find the real answer:
- Ask the sponsor: "If this goes wrong, who is asked to explain it?"
- Ask a long-serving team member who they would go to for a quick answer on the process.
- Watch who is copied on emails and who gets the last word in meetings.
- Read the last set of meeting minutes and note who made each decision.
- Look at who was named as approver on the last change request.
Write what you find in a decisions log with the source, for example "per Priya, 12 Oct: interface changes need Tom's sign-off". Mark each entry as confirmed or not yet confirmed.
Keeping it alive
Revisit the map weekly for the first month. People move quadrants. A sceptic becomes an ally once their concern is heard, or a quiet manager becomes important because a regulator has asked a question. Add a column for the date of your last contact, so that you notice who you have not spoken to.
Common mistakes
Mapping only the people on the project board. The affected people are often elsewhere.
Treating stance as fixed. Update it after real conversations.
Sharing the grid. The version with opinions is your working note, not a project document. If the sponsor wants a view, make a clean RACI from it.
Skipping the awkward person. The person you avoid is usually the one with a reason to push back, and you want to hear it early.
What to do this week
List ten names, plot them, and then answer the "who actually decides" questions for scope, rules and sign-off. If you cannot answer one of them, that is your next conversation.
The Starting Out or Returning to BA pack includes a stakeholder map workbook with an automatic power and interest grid.