Post #1991413
2026-04-21 07:03 UTC
@arclight @johannab
> "unacknowledged stakeholders"
As soon as you'd define that in a design, you acknowledge them though. It is just part of the design process to break down who they are in more detail and how they are affected by the solution, and how that can be accounted for better.
"External stakeholders" may be better.
If a client comes to a creator and says "I want to build a festival park that is totally free for everyone. People need to have these places, to unwind, be social together, be happier".
All good. Bunch'a direct stakeholders to account for, including a breakdown of "The People" i.e. everyone for which the parc is open and free.
That is all solution scope.
But down-wind, when it comes from the West, is a neighborhood of houses where people live their daily life. And they get mad by the noise and the repetitive songs of carnival attractions.
External stakeholders. Outside solution scope. Yet affected. Per saldo for them net negative in this case.
Replies (1)
-
@johannab@cosocial.ca 2026-04-21 09:03
@smallcircles @arclight better, but not exactly what my vibe is either. You’re quite right that “unacknowledged stakeholders” is contradictory the instant they are identified *in the design*. But my encounters were often reactive/ forensics, identifying those, like the neighbourhood downwind of the amusement park, who were neglected in being unseen as part of, or affected by, the system. They SHOULD be external stakeholders! But they were left out. “Unidentified”?