An MBA 687 Module 2 memo explaining the significance of stakeholder analysis in organizational change, with a salience map of eight stakeholder groups, their gains and losses, and three changes to the plan that the analysis produces. Searches like "mba 687 module 2 assignment", "mba687 module 2 stakeholder analysis memo" and "mba 687 module 2 example" land here.
The MBA 687 Module 2 example, in full
Memorandum
To: General Manager and Branch Leadership Team, Veritane US (composite)
From: [Student Name], HR Consultant
Date: [Date]
Re: Significance of stakeholder analysis for the One Platform program, with an initial map
Summary
The One Platform program will move all 38 of our enterprise clients off U.S. custom code and onto the parent company's global configurable platform over 18 months, and it will reorganize branch engineering into squads shared with Singapore. Before we announce it, we need a clear view of who the change affects, how much influence each group has and what each stands to gain or lose. The customer system rollout two years ago skipped this step, and its designers never learned what the sales and support teams needed until those teams had already walked away from it. A stakeholder analysis is the cheapest point in a change to find out who can stop it.
Why the Analysis Matters
Stakeholder analysis identifies the people and groups who can affect or are affected by a change, and it asks what they care about and how they are likely to respond. Bryson (2004) argued that attention to stakeholders is essential in the early stages of any effort because it shows whose support is needed, whose opposition must be managed, and which interests the plan must respect to be seen as legitimate. It also forces leaders to look past the organization chart. Formal authority is only one source of influence; an engineer whom clients call directly, or an account manager with a long relationship at our largest customer, may have more power over this change than a director.
The analysis has three practical uses for us. It shapes the plan's sequence, since groups with high power and high loss should be engaged first. It shapes communication, since each group needs to hear a different part of the story. And it gives us an early warning system: if we know which groups are likely to resist and why, we can watch for the signs and respond before resistance hardens.
Method
I used the salience model of Mitchell et al. (1997), which rates stakeholders on three attributes: power, the ability to influence the outcome; legitimacy, a recognized right to have a say; and urgency, how pressing and time-sensitive their claim is. Groups with all three are definitive stakeholders who require active engagement. Ratings below come from interviews with 16 branch employees, a review of client contracts and the parent company's program charter.
Initial Stakeholder Map
Table 1 rates eight groups and summarizes what each stands to gain or lose.
Table 1
Salience Ratings and Stakes for the One Platform Program
| Stakeholder group | Power | Legitimacy | Urgency | Main gain or loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enterprise clients on custom code (38) | High | High | High | Lose tailored features; gain faster updates |
| Implementation consultants (30 in customer teams) | Medium | High | High | Lose custom build work; role shifts to configuration |
| Senior engineers who maintain custom code (11) | High | High | Medium | Lose rare expertise and client access |
| Other branch engineers (41) | Medium | High | Medium | Gain global projects; lose local autonomy |
| U.S. sales and account managers (34) | High | High | High | Fear lost deals; gain a simpler product story |
| Operations, finance and HR staff (24) | Low | High | Low | Modest process changes |
| Singapore platform leadership | High | High | Medium | Gain one code base; need U.S. adoption |
| New U.S. general manager | High | High | High | Credibility depends on the outcome |
Note. Composite ratings from interviews and document review. Group sizes are headcounts where relevant.
Who Loses Most
Three groups stand out. The 11 senior engineers who maintain custom code are the branch's most valued technical staff, and clients know them by name. The program makes their specialized knowledge less valuable and moves design decisions to shared squads led partly from Singapore. They have high power because clients trust them and because migration depends on their knowledge of what each custom feature does. If they leave, the migrations slow sharply.
The implementation consultants lose the work that most of them enjoy, building client-specific solutions, and gain a role configuring a standard product. Some will see it as a demotion. Their daily contact with clients means their tone will shape how clients hear the change.
The enterprise clients are the most powerful group of all, since several have contract terms that guarantee their custom features. They will judge the program by whether they lose anything they use. Their reaction will in turn shape the sales team's view, since account managers worry that migration will open the door to competitors.
None of this makes these groups obstacles. Ford et al. (2008) argued that what leaders label resistance is often a reasonable response to how a change is communicated and managed, and that objections can improve a plan when they are taken seriously. The engineers' questions about which features clients truly depend on, for example, are exactly the questions the migration plan needs answered. Treating these groups as sources of information rather than problems to be overcome is the practical value of mapping them early.
How the Analysis Changes the Plan
First, the senior engineers should be engaged before the announcement, not after. I recommend inviting them to form the migration design group that decides which custom features become standard platform options, giving their knowledge a new, visible purpose.
Second, client migration should begin with a small number of clients who have the fewest custom features and good relationships with us, so that early successes can be shown to more demanding clients. The account managers for the largest clients should be involved in deciding the order.
Third, the implementation consultants need a defined future role, with training in platform configuration and a career path that recognizes client-facing expertise, announced at the same time as the program. Leaving their future vague would repeat the silence that followed the customer system rollout.
The map is a starting point. Salience changes as a program moves forward: a group with low urgency today can become urgent when its migration date arrives. I recommend reviewing the map at each phase gate.
References
Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030410001675722
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193235
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.2307/259247
How this MBA 687 Module 2 example is structured
The memo states its argument first: analysis before announcement prevents the mistakes of the branch's last change. It defines the method briefly, then presents the map as a single table so the reader can compare groups. Discussion focuses on the groups that lose most, because they decide whether the change holds, and the memo ends with concrete adjustments to the plan.
Get MBA 687 Module 2 written to your instructions
Send your MBA 687 Module 2 memo instructions and rubric along with your organization or case. A stakeholder analysis memo with a salience map and plan changes comes back within 24 to 48 hours; the first is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.
MBA 687 Module 2 questions, answered
What does the MBA 687 Module 2 memo cover?
The Module 2 memo usually asks students to explain the significance of stakeholder analysis in leading organizational change, identify key stakeholders for the course scenario and describe how their interests should shape the change approach.
What are power, legitimacy and urgency?
These are the three attributes in a well-known model of stakeholder salience. Power is the ability to impose one's will, legitimacy is a recognized right to a say, and urgency is how time-sensitive and important a claim is. Groups with all three demand the most attention.
Why focus on stakeholders who lose from a change?
People who lose status, skills value or control have the strongest reasons to resist, and they often have informal influence that an organization chart does not show. Identifying their losses early allows leaders to address them honestly rather than discover them through resistance.