UA

Strategic stakeholder engagement

Transforming stakeholder involvement from compliance exercise to competitive advantage

Open any research proposal and you’ll find a stakeholder section. Most feature an impressive list: industry partners, policy makers, patient groups, NGOs, SMEs, and more. Yet evaluators consistently cite weak stakeholder engagement as a major proposal weakness. The problem? Listing stakeholders is not a strategy.

True stakeholder engagement—the kind that strengthens proposals, improves research quality, and maximizes impact—requires systematic planning, genuine involvement, and demonstrable commitment. It’s the difference between checking a box and creating partnerships that transform how research is designed, executed, and applied.

This article explores how to develop stakeholder engagement strategies that evaluators find credible and that actually work throughout project lifecycles.

The Credibility Gap: Why Most Stakeholder Sections Fail

Evaluators read hundreds of proposals. They’ve developed keen instincts for distinguishing authentic engagement from window dressing. Here’s what triggers skepticism:

Red Flags for Evaluators:

  • “We will engage stakeholders through workshops and surveys” (vague, no specifics)

  • Long lists with no indication of who does what, when, or why

  • Stakeholder Advisory Board mentioned but no terms of reference, meeting frequency, or decision-making authority

  • No evidence of prior contact or established relationships

  • Generic descriptions applicable to any project

  • Stakeholders only appearing in dissemination phase, absent from co-design

  • No budget allocated for stakeholder activities

Behind these red flags lies a fundamental misunderstanding: stakeholder engagement is not about informing external parties about your brilliant research; it’s about involving them in ways that shape research to address real needs and ensure results are actually used.

The Fundamental Principle

Core Insight: Stakeholders are not your audience—they are your partners. The quality of engagement determines research relevance, adoption probability, and ultimately, impact. Evaluators assess whether your approach recognizes this reality.

From Mapping to Engagement: The Strategic Framework

Effective stakeholder engagement follows a progression from identification through sustained partnership. Let’s examine each stage:

Stage 1: Comprehensive Stakeholder Mapping

Begin by systematically identifying all parties with an interest in or influence over your research:

Stakeholder Categories

Category

 Examples Primary Interest
End Users Clinicians, farmers, teachers, engineers Practical tools and methods they can apply
Beneficiaries Patients, consumers, citizens, communities Improved outcomes and quality of life
Decision Makers Policy officials, hospital administrators, business executives Evidence for policy/investment decisions
Funders Government agencies, foundations, industry Return on investment, strategic alignment
Regulators Medical device authorities, environmental agencies Safety, compliance, standardization
Industry Companies that might commercialize results Market opportunities, competitive advantage
Civil Society Patient organizations, advocacy groups, NGOs Representation of affected communities
Research Community Academic peers, complementary research groups Scientific advancement, collaboration

For each stakeholder group, document:

  • Specific interest: What do they care about in your project?
  • Influence level: Can they affect project success or adoption?
  • Potential contribution: What expertise, resources, or access can they provide?
  • Engagement needs: What level of involvement is appropriate?

Stage 2: Prioritization and Strategy Selection

Not all stakeholders require the same engagement intensity. The classic power-interest matrix helps prioritize:

Strategic Application:

  • Manage Closely (High Power, High Interest): Core partners deserving intensive engagement—Advisory Board members, consortium partners, key industry collaborators, major beneficiary representatives
  • Keep Satisfied (High Power, Low Interest): Influencers who can affect project success but have limited bandwidth—regulatory authorities, senior policy officials, institutional leadership
  • Keep Engaged (Low Power, High Interest): Enthusiastic supporters valuable for co-design and testing—end user groups, early adopters, professional associations, specialized communities
  • Keep Informed (Low Power, Low Interest): Broader community requiring awareness but not deep involvement—general public, peripheral organizations, distant collaborators

 

Stage 3: Engagement Method Selection

Match engagement methods to stakeholder needs and project phases:

Critical Insight: Different stakeholders may sit at different points on this spectrum simultaneously. Your Advisory Board operates at “Collaborate” level while broader professional community receives “Inform” level engagement. The strategy is in making these choices deliberately and explaining the rationale.

Timing Matters: Engagement Across Project Phases

Credible engagement strategies specify when stakeholders are involved, not just that they will be involved:

Pre-Proposal Phase (Often Forgotten!)

The strongest proposals demonstrate stakeholder involvement before submission:

  • Letters of support from end users confirming problem relevance
  • Industry partner commitment to co-funding or in-kind contributions
  • Patient organization input on research priorities
  • Preliminary user needs assessment
  • Advisory Board members identified and committed

Evaluator Impact: Pre-proposal engagement provides powerful evidence that your project addresses real needs rather than academic curiosity.

Project Design Phase (Months 1-6)

  • Formal establishment of Stakeholder Advisory Board with Terms of Reference
  • User requirements workshops to refine specifications
  • Baseline stakeholder assessment and needs analysis
  • Co-design sessions for key project outputs
  • Establishment of stakeholder communication channels

Implementation Phase (Ongoing)

  • Regular Advisory Board meetings (typically quarterly) with documented outcomes
  • Iterative user testing and feedback incorporation
  • Stakeholder validation of interim results
  • Pilot implementations with early adopters
  • Periodic stakeholder surveys assessing satisfaction

Translation Phase (Final Year)

  • Stakeholder workshops on implementation barriers and solutions
  • Co-development of training materials and guidance
  • Industry partner engagement on commercialization pathways
  • Policy stakeholder briefings on recommendations
  • End-user community building for sustainability

Post-Project Sustainability

  • Transition of Advisory Board to permanent structure or network
  • Handover of results to stakeholder organizations for continued use
  • Stakeholder-led dissemination in their networks
  • Alumni network maintenance for future collaboration

Making It Real: Specific Engagement Mechanisms

Move from abstract concepts to concrete mechanisms evaluators can visualize:

Stakeholder Advisory Boards (SABs)

Nearly every competitive proposal includes an SAB. Here’s how to make yours credible:

Elements of a Credible SAB:

  • Specific composition: Name the organizations (and ideally individuals) who have committed
  • Clear mandate: Define what decisions SAB influences vs. what is advisory only
  • Terms of Reference: Document membership, meeting frequency, decision-making processes
  • Meeting schedule: Specific timeline (e.g., Months 3, 9, 15, 21, 30, 36)
  • Budget allocation: Travel costs, facilitation, documentation
  • Output specification: Meeting minutes, annual recommendation reports
  • Diversity: Balance of sectors, perspectives, geographies, demographics

Good Example: “Our Stakeholder Advisory Board comprises 12 members representing patient organizations (3), clinical practitioners (3), health system managers (2), payers (2), and regulators (2). Confirmed participants include [specific named organizations]. The SAB meets quarterly (Months 3, 9, 15, 21, 27, 33) via video conference with one annual in-person strategic session (Month 18, €15,000 budgeted). SAB provides input on user requirements (M3), validation of clinical protocol (M9), interim results assessment (M15, M21), implementation strategy (M27), and exploitation recommendations (M33).”

Bad Example: “We will establish a Stakeholder Advisory Board including representatives from relevant sectors who will be consulted regularly to provide guidance on project direction.”

Co-Creation Workshops

Particularly powerful for user-centered design:

  • Design workshops: Multi-stakeholder sessions to define requirements, prioritize features
  • Prototype feedback: Structured testing with target users, documented findings
  • Implementation planning: Joint sessions addressing barriers, resources, training needs
  • Scenario building: Stakeholders develop use cases and adoption pathways

Keys to credibility:

  • Specify participant numbers, selection criteria, facilitation methods
  • Describe how outputs influence project
  • Budget for participant time
  • Plan for 2-3 iterations showing responsive design

User Testing and Validation

Systematic validation with target users:

  • Alpha testing: Small group of sophisticated users, structured feedback
  • Beta testing: Broader user group, real-world conditions
  • Pilot implementations: Full deployment in controlled settings with evaluation
  • Living labs: Real-world testbeds with continuous stakeholder involvement

Community of Practice

Building sustained stakeholder communities:

  • Online platforms for ongoing exchange
  • Regular webinars or seminars (monthly or quarterly)
  • Annual conferences bringing together stakeholders
  • Working groups on specific themes
  • Mentorship programs

Evidence of Engagement in Proposals

Evaluators need proof that your engagement strategy is more than aspiration. Provide:

1. Letters of Support and Commitment

Not generic endorsements, but specific commitments:

  • “We commit to providing 30 patient participants for usability testing”
  • “Our organization will contribute €50,000 in-kind through staff time”
  • “We agree to pilot the resulting intervention in 5 of our facilities”
  • “We will designate a senior staff member for quarterly Advisory Board participation”

2. Evidence of Prior Engagement

  • Results of preliminary surveys or focus groups
  • Documented stakeholder workshops that shaped research questions
  • Existing collaborations with these stakeholders
  • Advisory Board members already identified and approached

3. Detailed Engagement Plan

Create a stakeholder engagement matrix:

Stakeholder Interest Engagement Method Frequency

Responsible Partner

Success Indicator
Patient Organizations Patient perspectives Advisory Board, co-design Quarterly SAB, 3 workshops WP2 Lead 90% attendance, feedback incorporated
Hospital Administrators Implementation feasibility Interviews, workshops M6, M18, M30 WP5 Lead Barriers documented, mitigation plans
Regulatory Authority Compliance pathway Consultation meetings M12, M24, M30 Coordinator Strategy approved, no issues

4. Budget Allocation

Dedicate visible budget to stakeholder engagement:

  • Advisory Board meetings: travel, accommodation, facilitation
  • Workshop organization: venues, catering, materials
  • Participant compensation: honoraria, per diems
  • Communication: platforms, events, materials
  • User testing: recruitment, incentives

Typical allocation: 2-5% of total budget

Measuring Stakeholder Engagement Success

Define metrics that demonstrate engagement quality:

Quantitative Indicators

  • Advisory Board meeting attendance rates (target: >80%)
  • Workshop participant numbers and diversity
  • Survey response rates
  • Website/platform engagement metrics
  • Co-authored publications with stakeholders
  • Pilot site participation rates

Qualitative Indicators

  • Documented influence on project decisions
  • Stakeholder satisfaction surveys
  • Case studies of stakeholder contribution
  • Testimonials on engagement value
  • Evidence of stakeholder ownership

Impact Indicators

  • Accelerated adoption
  • Stakeholder-led dissemination
  • Follow-on collaborations secured
  • Policy citations attributed to stakeholder advocacy
  • Commercial partnerships emerging

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Pitfall 1: Tokenism

Problem: Including stakeholders superficially without genuine influence Solution: Document specific examples where stakeholder input changed project direction

Pitfall 2: Late Engagement

Problem: Involving stakeholders only for dissemination after research complete Solution: Front-load engagement in design phase. Co-create research questions

Pitfall 3: One-Size-Fits-All

Problem: Same engagement method for all stakeholder types Solution: Differentiate approaches based on power-interest matrix

Pitfall 4: Lack of Resources

Problem: Ambitious engagement plan with no dedicated budget Solution: Budget realistically. Designate specific staff for coordination

Pitfall 5: Unrealistic Expectations

Problem: Expecting busy professionals to donate extensive time Solution: Respect stakeholder time. Provide honoraria where appropriate

Pitfall 6: No Sustainability Plan

Problem: Engagement infrastructure disappears when funding ends Solution: Design communities that outlive the project

Pitfall 7: Insufficient Diversity

Problem: Stakeholders dominated by usual suspects Solution: Actively recruit diverse perspectives. Address barriers to participation

Special Considerations for Different Research Types

Clinical/Health Research

  • Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) essential
  • Ethical considerations and informed consent
  • Diversity imperative in patient representatives
  • Appropriate compensation for patient time

Technology/Innovation Research

  • Balance IP protection with collaborative development
  • User-centered design throughout
  • Identify and engage early adopters
  • Early regulatory engagement

Policy/Social Science Research

  • Multi-level engagement (local, national, international)
  • Timing sensitivity with policy windows
  • Evidence synthesis for policy consumption
  • Partner with advocacy organizations

Environmental/Sustainability Research

  • Community engagement with affected populations
  • Multi-stakeholder platforms
  • Long-term relationship building
  • Participatory methods and citizen science

Digital Tools Supporting Stakeholder Engagement

Tool Type Examples Best For
Collaboration Platforms Microsoft Teams, Slack Ongoing communication, document sharing
Survey Tools SurveyMonkey, Qualtrics Feedback collection, needs assessment
Virtual Meeting Zoom, Microsoft Teams Advisory Board meetings, workshops
Co-design Tools Miro, Mural Interactive workshops, collaborative design
Community Platforms LinkedIn Groups, Discourse Communities of practice
Project Websites WordPress, Webflow Public updates, resource sharing

The Horizon Europe Context

Horizon Europe explicitly elevates stakeholder engagement importance:

  • Mission-oriented approach: Requires stakeholder involvement in defining challenges
  • Open Science: Transparency and inclusive participation
  • Citizen engagement: Explicit requirement for participatory approaches
  • Impact pathway: Clear articulation of stakeholder contribution
  • Ethics and inclusion: Stakeholder diversity assessed

Evaluation Reality: “We assess whether proposals demonstrate genuine stakeholder partnerships or superficial name-dropping. Evidence of prior engagement, specific commitments, and realistic plans distinguish excellent from mediocre proposals. Stakeholder letters that merely say ‘this is interesting’ versus ‘we commit to X’ make a substantial difference in scoring.”

Conclusion: From List to Strategy

Stakeholder engagement transforms from weakness to competitive advantage when treated strategically. The difference lies not in whether you engage stakeholders—every proposal claims to—but in how you demonstrate:

  • Systematic planning: Who, what, when, why, how—with specificity
  • Prior commitment: Evidence that stakeholders are already invested
  • Appropriate methods: Engagement intensity matching stakeholder roles
  • Genuine influence: Stakeholders shape research, not just receive updates
  • Adequate resourcing: Budget and personnel allocated
  • Measurable quality: Metrics for assessing effectiveness
  • Sustainability: Mechanisms persisting beyond funding

Projects that excel in stakeholder engagement don’t just score better—they produce more relevant research, achieve faster adoption, generate greater impact, and create lasting partnerships.

Strategic Takeaway: Your stakeholder section shouldn’t read like a list or an afterthought—it should read like evidence that your project is already a partnership before funding arrives. Evaluators fund projects, but they fund partnerships with confidence. Show them yours is real.

In an era where impact matters as much as excellence, stakeholder engagement capability may be the differentiator between projects that get funded and projects that change the world. The choice is yours: check the box, or build the bridges.

 

Share the Post: