| Course | MGT 646 Project Management Organizational Framework |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | MBA stakeholder engagement plan |
| Length | About 1,030 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGT 646 Module 2
Who Has a Stake in a Speaker That Listens? Identifying and Engaging SmartSync's Stakeholders
Student Name
Master of Business Administration, Aspen University
MGT 646: Project Management Organizational Framework
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Who Has a Stake in a Speaker That Listens? Identifying and Engaging SmartSync's Stakeholders
SmartSync is a speaker with microphones that sits in kitchens and bedrooms and controls front door locks. That makes it a product many people care about, and the charter's privacy constraint, that no audio leaves the device by default, exists because of them. This paper identifies the project's stakeholders, analyzes their interests and plans engagement. Case details not in the course file are the writer's assumptions.
Analysis as Interpretation
Aaltonen (2011) studied how project managers carry out stakeholder analysis and argued that it is best understood as a process of interpreting the environment. Managers scan for stakeholders, make sense of their interests and claims and learn from how they react, and these interpretations shape which stakeholders get attention. Because interpretation depends on the analyst, two teams can analyze the same project and see different stakeholders. The implication is to be explicit about how the analysis was done and to repeat it as the project changes.
For SmartSync, the team used three sources: a workshop with NexTech's product, engineering, legal and sales leads; interviews with two retail buyers and the chip supplier; and a review of public complaints and news coverage about existing voice assistants. The review surfaced privacy advocates and households with security concerns, groups the internal workshop had not named.
Upward, Outward and Down
Bourne and Walker (2005) argued that project managers need to manage in several directions. Downward management of the team is the familiar part. Upward management of senior executives secures resources and support. Outward management deals with clients, suppliers and others beyond the organization, and sideways management works with peers who compete for the same resources. They found that projects fail when managers neglect the upward and outward directions while focusing on the team.
| Stakeholder | Main interest | Engagement |
|---|---|---|
| Chief product officer (sponsor) | Launch on time; brand reputation | Weekly one-on-one; gate reviews |
| NexTech board | Return on $14 million; risk | Quarterly update through the sponsor |
| Engineering leads | Feasible scope; clear decisions | Sprint reviews; architecture forum |
| Chip supplier | Volume commitment | Monthly call; shared forecast |
| Contract manufacturer | Stable design; firm orders | Gate participation from design validation |
| Retail buyers | Margin, returns, shelf appeal | Samples at design validation; launch plan in month 12 |
| Lock and thermostat makers | Compatibility; their customers' trust | Integration program; test devices |
| Beta households | A product that works and respects privacy | 200 recruited in month 6; feedback every sprint |
| Privacy advocates and researchers | No hidden data collection | Invited testing before launch; published data policy |
| Federal Communications Commission | Wireless equipment rules | Certification through an accredited lab |
Mapping Influence
Bourne and Walker (2005) also proposed a way to make the analysis visible. Their Stakeholder Circle rates each stakeholder on power, closeness to the project and urgency, then draws them as segments of concentric rings, so the size and position of each segment show relative influence at a glance. The point of the picture is to keep the project team's attention on the stakeholders who matter most at a given moment, and to show executives why time is being spent on groups they may not have considered. The SmartSync team will draw the circle at each gate. At concept stage, the sponsor, the chip supplier and the engineering leads dominate it. By design validation, retail buyers, beta households and privacy researchers will loom larger, because their reactions decide whether the product sells.
Engaging Stakeholders as Partners
Eskerod et al. (2015) reviewed project stakeholder research and described a move from managing stakeholders, treating them as forces to be handled for the project's benefit, toward engaging them, treating their interests as legitimate and seeking outcomes that are fair to them. This shift matters for SmartSync. A defensive approach to privacy critics would wait for complaints after launch. An engaging approach invites them in. The plan gives two independent privacy researchers prototype units at design validation and publishes the data policy they review.
The Engagement Plan
Upward engagement centers on the sponsor, who meets the project manager weekly and represents the project to the board quarterly. Outward engagement is led by named owners: the hardware lead for the chip supplier and manufacturer, the sales director for retail buyers, the partnerships manager for device makers and the product owner for beta households. Beta households join in month six, after engineering validation, and give feedback through the app every sprint. The partnerships manager runs a small integration program with two lock makers and one thermostat maker, giving their engineers early firmware builds so compatibility problems surface while they are still cheap to fix. Sideways engagement covers NexTech's other product line, which shares firmware engineers; the two project managers agree on staffing monthly.
Risks in the Stakeholder Plan
Engagement creates its own risks. Inviting privacy researchers to test prototypes means they may publish findings before launch; the project accepts this because a problem found early costs less than one found by customers, and the agreement gives NexTech thirty days to respond before publication. Beta households may share photos of the unreleased device, so they sign a short confidentiality agreement. The chip supplier may favor larger customers when supply is tight, which is why the hardware lead shares a rolling forecast every month.
A Communication Rhythm
Each group receives information in a form and at a pace it can use. Engineering leads see the sprint board daily. The sponsor receives a one-page status note every Friday covering progress, decisions needed and the top three risks. Retail buyers receive a short launch update monthly from month ten. Beta households hear from the product owner in the app after every sprint, including which of their suggestions were adopted, because volunteers who never hear back stop giving feedback. Partner device makers receive integration test results each quarter through the partnerships manager.
Keeping the Analysis Current
The stakeholder table is revisited at every hardware gate. New stakeholders are likely: a second retail partner, a regulator if privacy rules change and reviewers near launch.
Conclusion
Aaltonen's interpretive view, Bourne and Walker's directions of management and the shift toward engagement described by Eskerod and colleagues produce a plan that reaches beyond the team to the people a listening device most affects.
References
Aaltonen, K. (2011). Project stakeholder analysis as an environmental interpretation process. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 165-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.02.001
Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2005). Visualising and mapping stakeholder influence. Management Decision, 43(5), 649-660. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740510597680
Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., & Savage, G. (2015). Project stakeholder management, past and present. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21555
MGT 646 Module 2 instructions, in plain terms
Module 2 of Aspen's MGT 646 usually moves the SmartSync project from charter to people, asking who has a stake in the device, what each party wants and how much sway it holds, and how the project will work with each. Your course's Module 2 page and case file set the details; this example assumes some case facts. Identify internal and external stakeholders. Analyze each group's interests and influence. Explain the analysis method and its limits. Plan engagement by group, including when and how often. Show how the plan responds to the project's main sensitivity, here privacy. Cite stakeholder research in APA 7 form and keep the plan consistent with the Module 1 charter. Note the risks that engagement itself may create and how the plan handles them.
How the MGT 646 Module 2 example is put together
The paper identifies stakeholders including NexTech's chief product officer, engineering leads, the board, the chip supplier, a contract manufacturer, retail buyers, smart lock and thermostat makers, beta households, privacy advocates and the Federal Communications Commission for wireless equipment. Aaltonen's International Journal of Project Management article treats stakeholder analysis as interpretation that shapes what managers notice. Bourne and Walker's Management Decision article describes managing upward, outward and sideways. Eskerod, Huemann and Savage's Project Management Journal review traces the shift toward engaging stakeholders as partners. A table lists each group's interests and engagement methods. The plan recruits 200 beta households in month six and invites two privacy researchers to test the device before launch.
MGT 646 Module 2 rubric: what earns full marks
Stakeholder plans earn their marks when the analysis is specific to the project and the engagement plan says who will do what, when. This example identifies stakeholders beyond the obvious, uses Aaltonen to treat the analysis as ongoing interpretation and Bourne and Walker to plan upward and outward engagement. Eskerod, Huemann and Savage justify engaging privacy advocates and households as partners. The table is concrete, and the plan explains how it will be revisited at each gate. Grading also tends to reward a clear link between the stakeholder plan and the charter, along with honest treatment of the risks that engagement creates, such as early publication by outside testers or leaks from beta users.
Common MGT 646 Module 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Stakeholder papers often produce a long grid of names without saying how the project will act on it. Turn each group's interests into engagement steps with owners and timing. Another weakness is overlooking stakeholders outside the company, such as regulators, partners and critics. Explain the analysis method and admit that it rests on judgment. Plan upward engagement with executives, not only downward with the team. Revisit the analysis as the project changes. Finally, connect the engagement plan to the project's biggest sensitivity, and say how you will know whether engagement is working, for example through beta feedback rates or the tone of outside reviews.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More MGT 646 and Master of Business Administration sample papers
- MGT 646 Module 1: Initiating SmartSync
- MGT 646 Module 3: Scope and WBS
- MGT 646 Module 4: Sequencing and Schedule
- MGT 646 Module 5: Cost and Budget
- MGT 646 Module 6: Risk Assessment
- MGT 646 Module 7: Execution and Quality
- MGT 646 Module 8: Monitoring and Launch Readiness
- MGT 570 Module 3: Internal Resources and Capabilities
- MGT 645 Module 3: The Project Team
- MGT 530 Module 1: Leadership and Its Major Theories
- MGT 505 Module 3: The Nature of Software Projects
MGT 646 Module 2 questions, answered
What does MGT 646 Module 2 usually ask for?
Aspen's MGT 646 commonly asks for a stakeholder identification and engagement plan for the SmartSync case in this module. Read your classroom prompt.
Is stakeholder analysis done once?
Aaltonen argued it is an ongoing process of interpreting the project's environment, so the analysis should be revisited as the project changes.
What does managing upward mean?
Bourne and Walker's term for project managers engaging senior executives and the organization's power structure, not only directing their teams.
Where can I find a free MGT 646 Module 2 sample paper?
The example above identifies SmartSync's stakeholders and plans engagement, including beta households and privacy advocates.
Who are SmartSync's external stakeholders?
In this example they include retail buyers, partner device makers, a chip supplier, a contract manufacturer, beta households, privacy advocates and regulators.