ABSTRACT
This research develops the understanding
of project stakeholder management through
examining how stakeholder communication
is facilitated and managed during the different phases of the projects life cycle. By
building on the information processing view
and the stakeholder salience framework, our
study shows how stakeholder communication practices vary among the impersonal,
personal, and group modes of communication. We also show how these practices
depend on stakeholders salience and project life cycle phase. The results indicate that
a dynamic approach is required to understanding stakeholder management; different communication practices are required
over the projects life cycle, which can be
explained by the varying degrees of stakeholder salience.
KEYWORDS: project stakeholder
management; project communication;
information-processing view; stakeholder
salience
74
INTRODUCTION
Focal Concepts
andTheoretical Background
Project Communication
A critical part of project management is
communication (Crane & Livesey, 2003;
Welch & Jackson, 2007). In this research,
communication refers to the patterns of
exchanging information and knowledge
between team members (Greenberg,
1999; Johns & Gratton, 2013). The goal
of communication is, for example, to
generate action or change or to create
common understanding and goal alignment (Faraj, Jarvenpaa, & Majchrzak,
2011; March & Simon, 1958; Mayfield,
2014).
In this study, the information processing view is used to study communication (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Galbraith,
1973). The information processing view
is considered appropriate because it
is the theoretical view that is used the
most often to assess information and
knowledge sharing within and across
organizations. It is also widely used
to understand communication in the
project context (e.g., Adler, 1995; Turkulainen, Kujala, Artto, & Levitt, 2013;
Turkulainen, Ruuska, Brady, & Artto,
75
PAPERS
project conceptualization and planning, (2) project execution, and (3) the
post-project phase, each of which has
significantly different characteristics
(Morris, 1982, p. 156). The first two
phases are sometimes separated (e.g.,
Slevin & Pinto, 1987).
In the project s conceptualization
and planning phases, including strategic feasibility assessment, planning, and
design (Hunsaker & Hunsaker, 2008;
Morris, 1982), communication focuses
on the projects content and plan, in
addition to establishing the rules of
behavior and clarifying the teams purpose (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). In
the project s execution phase , communication focuses on explaining the
goals and objectives and on ensuring
and enhancing motivation (Mukherjee,
Lahiri, Mukherjee, & Billing, 2012). In
the post-project phase, communication
focuses on ensuring that information
exchange is related to documenting the
project activities and results and gathering and storing the lessons learned for
future projects.
Summary: Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 summarizes the theoretical
concepts discussed in the introduction,
thus providing the conceptual framework that guides our research. In this
study, we investigate how and why
Stakeholder
salience
Project
Conceptualization
and planning
Execution
DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Power
Legitimacy
Urgency
Post
project
Stakeholder
communication
Impersonal mode
Personal mode
Group mode
Research Strategy
Because of the lack of theories on stakeholder communication that take into
account the dynamic context of projects,
this research started without precise
hypotheses or propositions. Instead, the
research follows an approach that can
best be described as theory elaboration
(Ketokivi & Choi, 2014; Layder, 1993;
Vaughan, 1992). Compared to testing a
theory or developing a theory, in theory
elaboration the empirical data serve to
illustrate an existing general conceptual
or theoretical framework (Ketokivi &
Choi, 2014; Layder, 1993). In the theory elaboration research approach, the
emphasis is on the empirical context in
which a general theory is elaborated.
Our research builds on and elaborates
on the generic ideas of the information
processing model (Daft & Lengel, 1986;
Galbraith, 1973) in the context of project
stakeholder communication. In doing
so, we illustrate how stakeholder communication is managed over the project
life cycle of a music festival, and provide
explanations for the observed communication modes based on the salience
of the various stakeholders. The outcome of this study can be considered
as middle-range theory (Merton, 1968),
which is different from a generic theory
and defined as theory that generalizes
beyond a particular case but within a
particular context.
Our theory elaboration is based on
the interplay between theory and the
to the experiential goods that are produced (Pan & Huan, 2013). Moreover,
they are inherently dynamic multiorganizational set ups (Lampel et al.,
2000). Thus, they affect and are affected
by a large number of different voluntary
and involuntary stakeholders, ranging
from local people to agents and city officials (Larson, 2011). Determining how
to engage different stakeholders that
also have diverse, mutual dependencies
for the joint good of the project is crucial for the success of cultural projects
(Andersson & Getz, 2010; Larson, 2009).
The Qstock music festival, the cultural
project selected as our case study, has
grown rapidly from its beginning in
2003, with a few hundred attendees to
30,000 attendees in 2013. It is currently
the largest music festival in Northern
Finland with a turnover of US$2,673,000
(2013). Qstock s stakeholder network
has grown steadily each year; at present,
it is broad and stable. From the perspectives of the stakeholder network and
communication, the Qstock project is
considered to represent a typical festival
project.
The case study focused on stakeholder communication in the Qstock
festival, which took place in July 2014,
starting from project conceptualization
and planning in September 2013, and
ending with the post-project phase in
August 2014. The Qstock project can
be divided into roughly four phases:
(1) conceptualization and planning; (2)
execution; (3) festival; and (4) postproject. The conceptualization and
planning phase took place from September to April, and followed by the
execution phase. The festival took place
at the end of July, and the project ended
in August with the post-project phase.
The project organization of
the Qstock project is as follows. The
management group consists of four
members: two managers, a festival
coordinator, and a marketing coordinator, all of whom are located in Oulu. The
management group works full time, and
they meet at the office on a daily basis.
The internal stakeholders include the
77
PAPERS
DOI: 10.1002/pmj
79
Customers
Salience: Low
Power: Customers are not perceived to possess much resources or information
that could be used by the management during the planning phase.
Legitimacy: A highly relevant group for the existence of the festival but their
input is not perceived by the management as important during the planning phase.
Urgency: Customers are not experienced to have urgent or critical claims during
the planning phase.
Salience: Medium
Power: Sponsors have monetary resources and brand value that enforce the
attractiveness of the festival; however, they are not critical for the festival
planning phase.
Legitimacy: Sponsors are selected in a manner that they are legitimate in the
eyes of the festival audience.
Urgency: Sponsors make sponsoring decisions related to summer events typically
during the autumn in order to be able to market them at the maximum intensity
during spring.
Personal mode: Intense phone call negotiations with agents to discuss the festival
bookings: artist offers, contracts; Musamedia seminar: various informal discussions
and meetings with the agents for relationship building, learning, and exchanging
rich information. Friends with a lot of agents, but with others interaction is formal;
Finnish rock festivals registered association meetings.
Group mode: Musamedia seminar and meetings; Finnish rock festival registered
association meetings.
Salience: High
Power: Highly powerful, since they are in charge of the calendar and booking
ofthe artists that are a crucial resource for the festival.
Salience
Impersonal mode: Email quotes and exchanging artist offers (Most attractive
artists are booked one and half years in advance.) September to December (final
opportunity to book artists).
Sponsors
Agents
Communication
80
DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Agents
Artist
coordinator;
restaurant
manager;
festival area
manager;
safety
manager; area
coordinator;
communication
coordinator
Salience: Low
Power: During the planning phase, the city officials do not have claims related to
the next years festival.
Legitimacy: City officials input into certain planning solutions could be asked for
at this point, but no permit application processes need to be executed during this
stage.
Urgency: Permit application processes are not time-critical at this point of the
year.
Urgency: It is critical to start planning the visual image and campaign during the
planning phase so that for example, the visual image can be released in liaison
with the Christmas campaign.
Legitimacy: A capable and widely known agency within the marketing scene.
Personal mode: Phone calls to ask questions and to book additional artists during
the early spring.
Urgency: Low in planning phase from the perspective of the organizing of Qstock
and coordinating the external stakeholders.
Legitimacy: Permanent and accepted position as part of the Qfamily due to many
years working relationship with the festival.
Salience: Medium
Urgency: Urgency is low since all the bookings have been made.
(Continued)
Power: All the artists have been booked so power of agents is medium.
Salience: Medium
Impersonal mode: Occasional phone and email quotes to gather data for planning
and concept development.
LinkedIn group discussions to discover good practices (Artist Coordinator). Planning
and applying permits; mainly just exchanging contracts (Festival Area Manager).
Personal mode: Phone calls to gather information for planning and to make
appointments. Social media (private) to stay up to date and to enhance commitment
NHS give the opportunity to be part of the Qfamily.
Group mode: Pre-Christmas party and other team building events to generate ideas
to develop festival concept. Facebook group for information sharing (restaurant
team, safety team).
Salience
Power: Capabilities and knowledge to plan and design an effective marketing
campaign and visual image of the festival. However, the marketing agency is
easily changeable and the management group has expertise in planning the
campaigns themselves.
Salience: Medium
City officials
Marketing
agency
Communication
PAPERS
The Qstock Festival Case
81
City officials
Power: Not much power in terms of the festival image during the execution
phase.
Marketing
agency
Group mode: Relationship building meeting with the authorities. Meeting at the
festival site to inspect the festival areas condition.
Personal mode: Phone calls to make appointments and discuss permit application,
procedures, and unexpected events.
Impersonal mode: Email to apply for a permit to organize a festival and to set up
a date for area inspections. Festival permits set high importance and pressure on a
festival, as there are not alternative plans.
Salience: Low
Urgency: During the project execution phase, the urgency and time-criticality is
on a high level due to the permit application process.
Salience: High
Urgency: During the project execution phase, the urgency and time-criticality is at
a low level as the marketing campaign has already been planned.
Legitimacy: A capable and widely known agency within the marketing scene.
Urgency: Customers urgency is at its highest during the project execution phase
particularly during the actual festival when communication requirements come up.
Legitimacy: A relevant and legitimate group particularly during the actual festival
weekend.
Salience: Medium
Urgency: During the project execution phase, the urgency of the sponsors
increases particularly when their promotion campaigns and visibility at the festival
site is planned.
Legitimacy: Sponsors are selected in a manner that they are legitimate in the
eyes of the festival audience.
Power: Sponsors have monetary resources and brand value that enforce the
attractiveness of the festival.
Customers
Salience: Medium
Salience
Sponsors
Communication
82
Agents
Artist
coordinator;
restaurant
manager;
festival area
manager;
safety
manager; area
coordinator;
communication
coordinator
DOI: 10.1002/pmj
(Continued)
Salience: Medium
Power: Powerful because they are in charge of the calendar and booking of the
artists. At this point, all the popular artists have been booked and festival artist
portfolio is supplemented with more low-profile artists.
Legitimacy: Legitimate actors in the scenerepresentatives of the artists.
Urgency: Urgency decreases significantly during spring, in April almost all of the
most popular artists are booked.
Internet conversation groups. Private Facebook groups (safety and restaurant teams
separately). Facebook group discussions for planning and sharing tasks with external
stakeholders.
Weekly status meetings at the office (formal 1 hr min and informal part 1 hr
optional). Informal meetings in other festivals (Provissirock, Rotuaari Piknik, Sziget in
Hungary) for benchmarking, networking, and team building. Meetings with external
stakeholders at the office. Recruitment meetings.
Group mode: Management group organizes a spring break party and kick off
meeting to enhance team spirit and motivation.
Phone calls to security team, door attendants, area manager, first aid (Akuutti apu)
(Safety manager).
Salience
Salience: High
Legitimacy: High urgency (Highly urgent and critical from the perspective of
organizing Qstock and coordinating external stakeholders).
Power: Highly powerful group, since they have rich information about organizing the
event, the contacts, and the information is mainly in the form of tacit knowledge.
Legitimacy: High.
Urgency: (Highly urgent and critical from the perspective of organizing Qstock and
coordinating external stakeholders).
Replacing internal stakeholders in this group in execution phase would be highly
challenging.
Impersonal mode: Email quotes and phone calls to external stakeholders. Most
communication to volunteers is in email (restaurant manager). Emails for recruiting and
selecting employees and volunteers for the festival. Mass emails to internal and external
stakeholders and to Qtv to make marketing material, editing Qstock magazine, information
letters to media and to local businesses (Communication coordinator). Guidelines and
information are stored on memory sticks. Web page is established for sharing information
and guidelines. Facebook advertising for recruiting volunteers start in April.
Communication
PAPERS
The Qstock Festival Case
83
Legitimacy: Sponsors are selected in a manner that they are legitimate in the
eyes of the festival audience.
Legitimacy: A capable and widely known agency within the marketing scene.
Group mode: Meeting at the festival site to inspect the festival area after event.
Informal sauna event. Analysis from the audiences feedback after lessons-learned
event.
Group mode: Meeting with the management group and internal stakeholders to
discuss about the feedback and to generate ideas for the next festival.
Salience: Low
Urgency: During the post-project phase discussions and solving possible conflicts
of interests about the feedback is crucial for the event next year.
Salience: Medium
Impersonal mode: Email to set up a date for inspections and to discuss about the
feedback.
Urgency: During the post-project phase, occasional feedback from the marketing
agency may be required.
Salience: Medium
Power: Power of the agency is low.
Urgency: As the festival has ended, there are no urgent customer claims.
Impersonal mode: Feedback collected from the festival audience and processed by Salience: Medium
the college students. Analysis is made by the management team. Email responses
Power: Customers are perceived to possess knowledge related to the festival
to customer feedback.
experience.
Salience: Medium
Power: Sponsors with monetary resources may be used in next years festivals
and their knowledge and experience on this years festival is discussed.
Salience
Table 1: Communication in the festival project Qstock over its life cycle.
Artist
coordinator;
restaurant
manager;
festival area
manager;
safety
manager; area
coordinator;
communication
coordinator
City officials
Marketing
agency
Customers
Sponsors
Communication
PAPERS
Well the agents are really challenging to deal with and communication
with them is intensive in the planning
phase: emails, phone calls, and meetings in an informal setting. Many of
them are my friends. (Manager A)
DOI: 10.1002/pmj
The feedback was collected, analyzed, discussed, and stored on a network drive; some members created
documents and lists, whereas others
preferred informal discussions. In the
post-project phase, the communication
mainly facilitated the lessons learned
from the project in order to enhance the
festival:
Lessons learned meeting is organized because we want to know how
to make the festival work nicer and
easier. We discuss what we could we
do better, what havent we noticed
and how could we enhance their job
satisfaction as a whole? (Manager A)
85
PAPERS
DOI: 10.1002/pmj
87
PAPERS
DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Conclusion
In this article, we reported a study on
project stakeholder communication
over a projects life cycle by elaborating
on the information processing model
in the context of project stakeholder
management. Our empirical findings
are based on the case study of the music
festival Qstock and the management of
stakeholder communication during the
festival projects life cycle. Our study
bridges project stakeholder management and communication and also contributes to the contingency approach to
project management, and research on
cultural projects. The main conclusion
drawn from our study is that stakeholder communication during a project
evolves through the project s phases
and can be explained by the perceived
salience of the focal stakeholder in each
phase of the project. In addition, the
mode of communication (i.e., impersonal, personal, and group modes) can
be explained by the perceived salience
of the stakeholder. Communication
References
Aaltonen, K. (2010). Stakeholder
management in international projects
(Doctoral dissertation, Aalto University
School of Science and Technology,
Department of Industrial Engineering
and Management, Espoo, Finland,
Doctoral dissertation series 2010/13).
Aaltonen, K. (2011). Project stakeholder
analysis as an environmental
interpretation process. International
Journal of Project Management, 29(2),
165183.
Aaltonen, K., & Kujala, J. (2010).
A project lifecycle perspective on
stakeholder influence strategies in
global projects. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 26(4), 381397.
Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., & Oijala, T.
(2008). Stakeholder salience in global
projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 26(5), 509516.
Achterkamp, M. C., & Vos, J. F. (2008).
Investigating the use of stakeholder
influence strategies in global projects.
International Journal of Project
Management, 26(7), 509516.
Adler, P. S. (1995). Interdepartmental
interdependence and coordination:
The case of the design/manufacturing
interface. Organization Science, 6(2),
147167.
Andersson, T., & Getz, D. (2010). Festival
stakeholders: Exploring relationships
and dependency through a four-country
comparison. Journal of Hospitality/
Tourism Research, 34(4), 531556.
Beringer, C., Jonas, D., & Gemnden,
H.G. (2012). Establishing project
portfolio management: An exploratory
analysis of the influence of internal
stakeholders interactions. Project
Management Journal, 43(6), 1632.
Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2005).
Visualizing and mapping stakeholder
.eu/culture/policy/strategic-framework/
growth-jobs_en.htm
89
PAPERS
Pan, B., & Huan, T.-C. (2013). New perspectives on festival and events research.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism
and Hospitality Research, 7(2), 115117.
DOI: 10.1002/pmj
91