Who or what really counts? The application of BASEClass for stakeholder evaluation and classification

被引:2
|
作者
Khedmatgozar, Hamid Reza [1 ]
Namdarian, Leila [2 ]
Rasuli, Behrooz [2 ]
机构
[1] Iranian Res Inst Informat Sci & Technol IranDoc, Informat Technol Res Dept, Tehran, Iran
[2] Iranian Res Inst Informat Sci & Technol IranDoc, Informat & Soc Res Dept, Tehran, Iran
关键词
Theory of stakeholder identification and salience (TSIS); Stakeholder analysis; Stakeholder communication; Stakeholders classification; Stakeholders evaluation; Stakeholders prioritization; BASEClass; PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT; SALIENCE; IDENTIFICATION; DYNAMICS; QUALITY; LIKERT; MODEL; PRIORITIZATION; PERSPECTIVE; EXTENSION;
D O I
10.1108/MD-06-2022-0805
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
PurposeThe purpose of this study is to develop a framework for categorizing and evaluating stakeholders that addresses the key five constraints of The Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience (TSIS), including (1) binary attributes, (2) heterogeneous stakeholders in each category, (3) ignoring stakeholder-organization relationship, (4) ignoring stakeholders' communication frequency and (5) ignoring fringe stakeholders.Design/methodology/approachIn the first step, a set of solutions for the limitations and constraints of TSIS was extracted by holding three rounds of the Delphi method with the participation of 42 senior and middle Iranian managers in various organizations and based on it, "Basic Analysis for Stakeholder Evaluation and Classification" (BASEClass) was developed as an enhanced theoretical and empirical framework for stakeholder analysis. In the second Step BASEClass is validated by conducting an empirical study in an organization with the participation of 46 managers, experts and specialists.FindingsBASEClass is an enhanced theoretical and methodological framework for classifying stakeholders based on the three primary attributes of legitimacy, power and urgency, and also the communication quantity as a complementary attribute in a 3D cubical schema, prioritizing stakeholders in several cubes based on one of the multi-criteria group decision-making methods. Originality/valueBASEClass effectively reduces the mentioned limitations and constraints of TSIS and as a result can improve the effectiveness of strategies for dealing with different stakeholders.
引用
收藏
页码:1966 / 1997
页数:32
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Outcome predictors for status epilepticus—what really counts
    Raoul Sutter
    Peter W. Kaplan
    Stephan Rüegg
    Nature Reviews Neurology, 2013, 9 : 525 - 534
  • [32] Microlearning for faculty development: Concentrate on what really counts
    Teichgraeber, Ulf
    Ingwersen, Maja
    Ehlers, Claudia
    Spreckelsen, Cord
    MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2023, 57 (08) : 771 - 772
  • [33] Who Counts as Well as What Counts: the desire to be 'world class' in Australia
    Yates, Lyn
    EUROPEAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL, 2007, 6 (03): : 298 - 302
  • [34] What Counts as a Laser Accident, and Who Is Counting?
    Barat, Ken
    Photonics Spectra, 2022, 56 (07): : 67 - 68
  • [35] Rare diseases: who pays what counts?
    Trajman, Anete
    CADERNOS DE SAUDE PUBLICA, 2019, 35 (09):
  • [36] Who decides what counts as effective teaching?
    Harrison, Liz
    INDEPENDENT JOURNAL OF TEACHING AND LEARNING, 2008, 3 : 23 - 30
  • [37] Mathematical Language in Early Childhood Settings: What Really Counts?
    Rudd, Loretta C.
    Lambert, Matthew C.
    Satterwhite, Macy
    Zaier, Amani
    EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION JOURNAL, 2008, 36 (01) : 75 - 80
  • [38] Counting what really counts? Assessing the political impact of science
    A. Gaunand
    L. Colinet
    P.-B. Joly
    M. Matt
    The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2022, 47 : 699 - 721
  • [39] Outcome predictors for status epilepticus-what really counts
    Sutter, Raoul
    Kaplan, Peter W.
    Rueegg, Stephan
    NATURE REVIEWS NEUROLOGY, 2013, 9 (09) : 525 - 534
  • [40] Patient Comfort in Modern Computed Tomography: What Really Counts
    Niehoff, Julius Henning
    Heuser, Andreas
    Michael, Arwed Elias
    Lennartz, Simon
    Borggrefe, Jan
    Kroeger, Jan Robert
    TOMOGRAPHY, 2022, 8 (03) : 1401 - 1412