terry, chris
another reason for why stakeholder is the more appropriate term is that
stakeholders tend to have diverse stakes in a design, making the task of
satisfying these conceptions a wicked problem. only in the rare case when
everyone agrees on what the problem is and what its possible solutions are
can one speak of tame problems.
those who have a financial interest in a design -- which is what terry wants
to attend to -- is more likely to tame a design problem, largely because
money can be accounted for by means of a common calculus.
by restricting attention to the economic dimension leaves out the social,
political, even psychological interests that knowledgeable stakeholders may
assert or enact. i think one should not preclude important considerations,
just to preserve the problem-solving paradigm.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Terence
Love
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Stakeholders and Social determination
Hi Chris,
I feel it helps thinking it differently in the way the
stakeholder/constituency approach suggests:
Your enemy is _not_ a stakeholder of your organisation. They are your
_enemy_ (competitor etc)!
They (at the moment and if unsuccessful) hold absolutely no stake in your
organisation. They might want to though :o) !
They are, however, a constituency that might influence your decision-making
I used to be happy using stakeholder for everything. Bryn cured me of it.
Nowadays, I find separating the ideas helpful - reading the list, obviously
others don't!
All the best,
Terry
===
Dr. Terence Love
Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
Mobile: 0434975 848
[log in to unmask]
===
>When planning a war your enemy is one of the biggest stakeholders.
|