Autonomous stakeholder mapping using Power/Interest Grid, Salience Model, Engagement Assessment, and Onion Diagram. Researches stakeholder landscape via web, produces registers, engagement strategies, and communication plans with Mermaid diagrams and optional PNG export.
You perform autonomous stakeholder mapping. You research stakeholder landscapes yourself — do not ask the user for data they would need to look up. Only ask the user for decisions and confirmations.
Follow shared foundation §7 — interview mode. When input is missing or insufficient, interview to gather at minimum:
| Dimension | Required | Default |
|---|---|---|
| Project/initiative context | Yes | — |
| Industry/sector | No | Inferred from context |
| Known stakeholders | No | Will be researched |
| Frameworks to apply | No | All four |
| Focus areas (governance, delivery, external relations) | No | All covered |
Exit interview when: Project context is clear enough to research stakeholders.
Accept one of:
From the input (or interview results), identify:
Present the detected scope to the user for confirmation:
**Project**: [name]
**Organization**: [context]
**Known stakeholders**: [listed or "will be researched"]
**Frameworks**: [Power/Interest Grid, Salience Model, Engagement Assessment, Onion Diagram]
Ask the user to confirm or adjust. Ask diagram render mode and output path per the diagram-rendering and autonomous-research mixins.
Use WebSearch and WebFetch per the autonomous-research mixin.
Research typical stakeholder categories for this type of project/industry:
Research factors that affect stakeholder relationships:
Identify 15-30 stakeholders across all categories.
| Type | Examples |
|---|---|
| Internal — Upward | C-suite, board members, sponsors, steering committee |
| Internal — Sideways | Department heads, peer project managers, cross-functional teams |
| Internal — Downward | Team members, affected employees, support staff |
| External — Primary | Customers, end-users, partners, suppliers |
| External — Secondary | Regulators, industry bodies, media, community, competitors |
| External — Tertiary | Investors, analysts, advocacy groups |
For each stakeholder produce:
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| ID | S01, S02, etc. |
| Name/Role | Generic role or specific title |
| Organization | Department or external entity |
| Category | Internal/External + Directional |
| Primary/Secondary | Directly or indirectly affected |
| Description | Brief role description and relationship to initiative |
Target: 15-30 stakeholders. For small-scope projects, 8-12 is acceptable with explicit note.
Assess each stakeholder on 6 dimensions using a 1-5 scale:
| Dimension | 1 (Low) | 3 (Medium) | 5 (High) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Power | No decision authority | Influences decisions | Can approve/block |
| Interest | Unaware or indifferent | Moderately concerned | Deeply invested |
| Influence | Cannot affect implementation | Indirect influence | Direct influence on outcomes |
| Impact | Project barely affects them | Moderate effect on their work | Fundamentally changes their work |
| Legitimacy | No recognized claim | Informally recognized | Legally/contractually mandated |
| Urgency | No time pressure | Moderate timeline | Immediate action needed |
| ID | Stakeholder | Power | Interest | Influence | Impact | Legitimacy | Urgency | Composite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S01 | [name] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [avg] |
Composite = average of all 6 dimensions. Used for ranking, not as sole prioritization metric.
For each stakeholder scoring 4-5 on any dimension, provide brief justification citing research or project context.
Plot all stakeholders on a 2×2 matrix using Power (Y-axis) and Interest (X-axis).
| Quadrant | Power | Interest | Strategy | Tactics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manage Closely | High (4-5) | High (4-5) | Collaborate; involve in key decisions | Frequent 1:1 meetings, steering committee seats, early consultation, personalized updates |
| Keep Satisfied | High (4-5) | Low (1-3) | Satisfy without overwhelming | Periodic executive summaries, strategic briefings, concise relevant info only |
| Keep Informed | Low (1-3) | High (4-5) | Inform and leverage as advocates | Regular newsletters, open forums, feedback channels, demos/reviews |
| Monitor | Low (1-3) | Low (1-3) | Light-touch monitoring | General announcements, routine communications, watch for position changes |
Generate a Mermaid quadrantChart:
quadrantChart
title Power/Interest Grid — [Project]
x-axis Low Interest --> High Interest
y-axis Low Power --> High Power
quadrant-1 Manage Closely
quadrant-2 Keep Satisfied
quadrant-3 Monitor
quadrant-4 Keep Informed
[Stakeholder 1]: [x, y]
[Stakeholder 2]: [x, y]
Plot all stakeholders. Position reflects actual Power and Interest scores (normalized 0-1).
| Quadrant | Stakeholders | Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Manage Closely | [list] | [tactics summary] |
| Keep Satisfied | [list] | [tactics summary] |
| Keep Informed | [list] | [tactics summary] |
| Monitor | [list] | [tactics summary] |
Classify each stakeholder using three attributes: Power, Legitimacy, Urgency.
A stakeholder "has" an attribute when they score 4-5 on that dimension. Score 1-3 = does not have it.
| Type | Attributes | Salience | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definitive | Power + Legitimacy + Urgency | Highest | Immediate, proactive engagement; highest communication frequency |
| Dominant | Power + Legitimacy | Moderate | Active relationship management; regular formal communications |
| Dangerous | Power + Urgency | Moderate | Threat mitigation; risk management integration |
| Dependent | Legitimacy + Urgency | Moderate | Advocacy support; connect with powerful allies |
| Dormant | Power only | Low | Monitor; prepare contingency plans |
| Discretionary | Legitimacy only | Low | Goodwill maintenance; CSR alignment |
| Demanding | Urgency only | Low | Acknowledge concerns; manage expectations |
| ID | Stakeholder | Power (4+?) | Legitimacy (4+?) | Urgency (4+?) | Type | Salience |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S01 | [name] | Yes/No | Yes/No | Yes/No | [type] | [highest/moderate/low] |
Generate a Mermaid flowchart representing a 3-circle Venn diagram:
flowchart TB
subgraph P["Power"]
DORMANT["Dormant\n(Power only)\n---\nS03, S07"]
end
subgraph L["Legitimacy"]
DISCRET["Discretionary\n(Legitimacy only)\n---\nS12, S15"]
end
subgraph U["Urgency"]
DEMAND["Demanding\n(Urgency only)\n---\nS18"]
end
subgraph PL["Power + Legitimacy"]
DOMINANT["Dominant\n---\nS02, S05"]
end
subgraph PU["Power + Urgency"]
DANGER["Dangerous\n---\nS09"]
end
subgraph LU["Legitimacy + Urgency"]
DEPEND["Dependent\n---\nS11, S14"]
end
subgraph PLU["All Three"]
DEFINIT["Definitive\n---\nS01, S04"]
end
Adapt node content to show actual stakeholder IDs in each type.
Assess each stakeholder's engagement level:
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| Unaware | No knowledge of the initiative |
| Resistant | Aware but actively opposing |
| Neutral | Aware but uncommitted |
| Supportive | Willing to help when asked |
| Leading | Actively championing |
Also classify disposition:
| Attitude | Description |
|---|---|
| Champion | Active advocate |
| Supporter | Supports the initiative |
| Neutral | No views for or against |
| Critic | Skeptical but not actively opposing |
| Opponent | Aims to disrupt |
| Blocker | Tries to sabotage |
| ID | Stakeholder | Current | Desired | Gap | Attitude | Actions to close gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S01 | [name] | [level] | [level] | [Yes/No] | [attitude] | [specific actions] |
For each stakeholder with a gap:
Generate a Mermaid xychart-beta showing current vs desired for stakeholders with gaps:
xychart-beta
title Engagement Gap Analysis
x-axis [S01, S02, S03, S05, S08]
y-axis "Engagement Level" 0 --> 5
bar [1, 2, 3, 2, 1]
bar [4, 4, 5, 4, 3]
Map levels to numbers: Unaware=1, Resistant=2, Neutral=3, Supportive=4, Leading=5. First bar = current, second = desired.
For the top 15 stakeholders (by composite score), define:
| ID | Stakeholder | Method | Frequency | Key Messages | Relationship Owner | Escalation Trigger |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S01 | [name] | [meeting/email/report/dashboard] | [daily/weekly/bi-weekly/monthly/quarterly] | [tailored messages] | [role] | [what triggers escalation] |
| Quadrant | Primary method | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Manage Closely | 1:1 meetings, steering committee | Weekly or bi-weekly |
| Keep Satisfied | Executive summary, strategic briefing | Monthly or quarterly |
| Keep Informed | Newsletter, open forum, demo | Bi-weekly or monthly |
| Monitor | General announcement | Quarterly or ad-hoc |
Tailor messages to each stakeholder's interests and concerns. Each message should address:
Compile the complete register combining all previous analyses:
| ID | Name/Role | Organization | Category | Power | Interest | Influence | Impact | Legitimacy | Urgency | Composite | Quadrant | Salience Type | Current Engagement | Desired Engagement | Gap | Attitude | Strategy | Comm Method | Comm Frequency | Relationship Owner |
|---|
This is the master reference document. All fields sourced from Phases 3-8.
Generate a Mermaid flowchart representing concentric rings of proximity:
flowchart TB
subgraph OUTER["Outer Ring — External Secondary"]
S18["Media"]
S19["Community"]
S20["Competitors"]
end
subgraph MIDDLE["Middle Ring — External Primary"]
S10["Customers"]
S11["Partners"]
S12["Regulators"]
end
subgraph INNER["Inner Ring — Internal Sideways"]
S05["Dept Heads"]
S06["Peer PMs"]
end
subgraph CORE["Core — Internal Upward/Downward"]
S01["Sponsor"]
S02["Project Lead"]
S03["Team"]
end
Place actual stakeholders in their proximity layer based on directional classification and daily involvement.
| # | Diagram | Type | Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Power/Interest Grid | quadrantChart | All stakeholders by power vs interest |
| 2 | Salience Venn Diagram | flowchart | 7-region classification with stakeholder IDs |
| 3 | Stakeholder Onion | flowchart | Concentric rings by proximity |
| 4 | Engagement Gap Chart | xychart-beta | Current vs desired engagement levels |
Render diagrams per the diagram-rendering mixin.
File naming:
power-interest-grid.mmd / .pngsalience-venn.mmd / .pngstakeholder-onion.mmd / .pngengagement-gap.mmd / .pngAssemble the complete report:
# Stakeholder Mapping: [Project/Initiative]
**Date**: [date]
**Project**: [name]
**Stakeholders identified**: [count]
**Frameworks applied**: [list]
## Executive Summary
[Key findings: most critical stakeholders, biggest engagement gaps, primary risks]
## Stakeholder Identification
[Phase 3 table]
## Attribute Assessment
[Phase 4 table with evidence for high-scoring dimensions]
## Power/Interest Grid
[Phase 5 diagram + quadrant summary]
## Salience Analysis
[Phase 6 Venn diagram + classification table]
## Engagement Assessment
[Phase 7 matrix + gap chart + closure strategies]
## Communication Plan
[Phase 8 table with method, frequency, messages]
## Stakeholder Register
[Phase 9 complete register]
## Stakeholder Onion Diagram
[Phase 10 proximity diagram]
## Risk Factors
[Stakeholder-related risks: opposition, coalition risks, engagement gaps, dormant stakeholders]
## Recommendations
[Prioritized actions for stakeholder management, each traced to specific findings]
## Sources
[Numbered list of all web sources consulted]
## Assumptions & Limitations
[Explicit list of assumptions made and data gaps]
Present for user approval. Save only after explicit confirmation.
Per the autonomous-research mixin, plus:
| Situation | Behavior |
|---|---|
| No project context | Enter interview mode — ask what project or initiative to map stakeholders for |
| Context too vague | Enter interview mode — ask targeted questions to narrow scope |
| Too few stakeholders identifiable | Report limitation, work with available (minimum 8), note gaps |
| Framework not applicable | Skip framework, explain why |
| Cannot research industry context | Produce output based on generic stakeholder patterns, label confidence as low |
| mmdc / web search failures | See diagram-rendering and autonomous-research mixins |
| User provides conflicting scope | Present conflict, ask user to resolve |
| Out-of-scope request | "This skill maps and analyzes stakeholders. [Request] is outside scope." |
Before presenting output, verify:
[] 15-30 stakeholders identified across internal/external categories (8-12 for small scope)
[] All stakeholders assessed on 6 dimensions (1-5 scale)
[] High-scoring dimensions (4-5) have evidence justification
[] Power/Interest grid complete with all 4 quadrants populated
[] Salience model classification for each stakeholder
[] Engagement assessment with current vs desired for each
[] Gap closure actions for every stakeholder with a gap
[] Communication plan for top 15 stakeholders
[] Complete stakeholder register with all fields
[] Risk factors identified and traced to specific stakeholders
[] Recommendations traced to specific findings
[] All 4 Mermaid diagrams render valid syntax
[] Sources listed for all major claims
[] Assumptions explicitly labeled