The Missing Link Between Problems and Impact
Why This Matters More Than You Think
Most consultants identify problems like this:
“The customer onboarding process is inefficient and takes too long.”
Client reaction:
- “Okay, but how does this affect us day-to-day?”
- “Who cares about this?”
- “Is this really a priority?”
- “Why should we invest in fixing this?”
No emotional connection. No urgency. No action.
Smart consultants identify problems like this:
“The onboarding problem affects 8 Customer Success reps daily (interrupts their workflow 3-4 times per day), impacts 24 new customers per month who wait an average of 35 days to get value from their $50K purchase, creates 2 hours/week of firefighting for the CS Manager, causes 15 Implementation team escalations per month, generates 6-8 executive escalations per quarter, and results in an estimated 8.6 excess customer churns per year at $25K lifetime value each.”
Client reaction:
- “Holy shit, this is affecting way more people than I realized.”
- “That’s why Implementation is always overwhelmed!”
- “That explains the customer complaints!”
- “We need to fix this NOW.”
Emotional connection established. Urgency created. Coalition building enabled. Action inevitable.
What “Affected Stakeholders and Frequency” Actually Means
This is the systematic mapping of:
- WHO is affected by this problem (every person, every role, every department)
- HOW they’re affected (specifically what happens to them)
- HOW OFTEN they’re affected (daily? weekly? per occurrence?)
- HOW MUCH it costs them (time, money, frustration, opportunity)
- HOW MUCH they care (priority level from their perspective)
This analysis transforms an abstract “problem” into a concrete organizational reality with faces, names, and real human impact.
It’s the bridge between:
- Problem identification → Impact quantification
- Individual pain points → Organizational cost
- Department-level issues → Cross-functional systemic problems
- Vague complaints → Specific coalition-building opportunities
The Stakeholder Mapping Framework
Layer 1: Stakeholder Identification
You need to identify EVERY person/role affected, organized in concentric circles of impact.
The Stakeholder Circle Model
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ PROBLEM: CUSTOMER ONBOARDING DELAYS │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
┌───────────────────────────────────────┐
│ PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS │
│ (Direct daily impact) │
│ │
│ • Customer Success Reps (8 people) │
│ • CS Manager (1 person) │
│ • Implementation Specialists (3) │
│ • New Customers (24/month) │
│ │
└──────────┬────────────────────────────┘
│
┌──────────▼────────────────────────────┐
│ SECONDARY STAKEHOLDERS │
│ (Frequent indirect impact) │
│ │
│ • Sales Team (6 people) │
│ • Implementation Manager (1) │
│ • Support Team (4 people) │
│ • Product Team (receives feedback) │
│ │
└──────────┬────────────────────────────┘
│
┌──────────▼────────────────────────────┐
│ TERTIARY STAKEHOLDERS │
│ (Occasional impact) │
│ │
│ • VP Customer Success │
│ • VP Sales │
│ • CFO (delayed revenue recognition) │
│ • CEO (customer escalations) │
│ • Board (metrics/reporting) │
│ │
└──────────┬────────────────────────────┘
│
┌──────────▼────────────────────────────┐
│ EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS │
│ (Downstream effects) │
│ │
│ • Prospective customers (referrals) │
│ • Investors (growth metrics) │
│ • Partners (co-selling impact) │
│ • Market perception │
│ │
└───────────────────────────────────────┘
The circles represent proximity to the problem, not importance.
A tertiary stakeholder (CEO) might care more than a primary stakeholder (one CSR), but they’re affected less frequently.
Layer 2: Stakeholder Impact Analysis
For EACH stakeholder identified, document the detailed impact.
Primary Stakeholder Analysis Template
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STAKEHOLDER IMPACT ANALYSIS
Problem: Customer Onboarding Delays
Stakeholder: Customer Success Representatives (CSRs)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STAKEHOLDER PROFILE:
Role: Customer Success Representative
Number of people: 8 CSRs
Reporting to: CS Manager (Jessica Martinez)
Tenure: Mix of 6 months to 4 years
Location: 6 in HQ office, 2 remote
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
HOW THEY'RE AFFECTED (Specific Impacts):
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
IMPACT 1: Manual Coordination Burden
What happens:
- Must manually track each onboarding across 6-8 tools
- Spend 45-60 minutes per day switching between systems
- Create personal tracking systems (Google Docs, spreadsheets)
- No single source of truth for customer status
Frequency: Daily, every onboarding
Time cost: 45 min/day × 5 days × 8 CSRs = 30 hours/week team-wide
Annual cost: 30 hrs/week × 52 weeks × $50/hr = $78,000/year
Evidence:
- Direct observation (shadowed 3 CSRs)
- Interview quotes: "I spend half my day just trying to figure out
where things stand"
- Time study: Averaged 47 minutes/day on coordination activities
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
IMPACT 2: Reactive Firefighting vs. Proactive Work
What happens:
- Customers email asking for status updates (no self-service portal)
- CSRs interrupted 3-4 times per day with status inquiries
- Cannot plan their day due to constant interruptions
- Spend time on low-value work instead of strategic customer success
Frequency: 3-4 interruptions per CSR per day
Time cost: 15 min per interruption × 3.5 interruptions × 8 CSRs =
7 hours/day team-wide
Annual cost: 7 hrs/day × 250 workdays × $50/hr = $87,500/year
Evidence:
- CSR calendar analysis: 40% of time is reactive
- Email analysis: Average 12 "what's my status?" emails per CSR per week
- Workshop feedback: 7 of 8 CSRs cited this as top frustration
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
IMPACT 3: Context Switching Between Onboardings
What happens:
- Average CSR manages 8-12 concurrent onboardings
- Each onboarding has unique status, blockers, next steps
- Mental overhead of remembering context for each customer
- Errors occur when details confused between customers
Frequency: Daily, throughout day
Quality impact:
- 15% of customer records have errors
- 8% of onboardings have missed steps requiring backtracking
- Estimated 2 hours rework per error × 12 errors/month = 24 hrs/month
Annual cost: 24 hrs/month × 12 months × $50/hr = $14,400/year
Evidence:
- Error rate analysis in CS tool
- CSR interviews: "I'm constantly worried I'm forgetting something"
- Manager observation: More errors correlated with higher concurrent load
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
IMPACT 4: Lack of Template/Standardization
What happens:
- Every CSR has own approach to onboarding
- New CSRs take 2-3 months to develop their own system
- When covering for colleagues, can't find information
- Customer experience varies by which CSR assigned
Frequency: Continuous (affects every onboarding)
Efficiency impact:
- New CSR takes 12 hours per onboarding vs. 8 hours for experienced
- 50% longer ramp time for new hires
- Coverage during vacation adds 20% overhead
Cost:
- New CSR inefficiency: 4 extra hrs × 3 CSRs × 15 customers each =
180 hrs/year = $9,000
- Coverage overhead: ~$8,000/year estimated
- Training time for new CSRs: $12,000/year
Annual cost: $29,000/year
Evidence:
- Onboarding time tracking by CSR tenure
- Manager: "It takes 3 months before new CSRs are productive"
- Different CSRs have wildly different templates (reviewed 5 different ones)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
IMPACT 5: Emotional Toll and Burnout
What happens:
- High stress from juggling many concurrent onboardings
- Anxiety about dropping balls or missing deadlines
- Frustration with broken processes they can't control
- Low job satisfaction despite liking customer interaction
Frequency: Continuous
Morale impact:
- 3 of 8 CSRs actively looking for new jobs (37.5% turnover risk)
- Exit interview from departed CSR: Cited onboarding chaos as #2 reason
- Engagement survey: CS team scores 15% below company average
Turnover cost:
- 1 CSR quit in last 12 months (cited onboarding as factor)
- Replacement cost: $45,000 (recruiting, training, ramp-up)
- Risk: 3 more CSRs may leave in next 12 months = $135,000 potential cost
Annual impact: $45,000 realized + $135,000 risk = $180,000
Evidence:
- Exit interview data
- Anonymous engagement survey results
- 1-on-1 conversations with manager: "Team morale is suffering"
- Glassdoor review from ex-CSR mentions "chaotic onboarding process"
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TOTAL IMPACT ON CSRs:
Time waste: 165,500 hours/year = $208,900/year
Quality issues: $14,400/year
Inefficiency: $29,000/year
Turnover: $180,000/year (realized + risk)
TOTAL ANNUAL COST: $432,300/year
Plus unmeasured impacts:
- Reduced capacity (could handle 30% more customers with better process)
- Opportunity cost (not doing strategic CS work)
- Customer relationship degradation (stressed CSRs = worse customer experience)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PRIORITY LEVEL (from CSR perspective):
Critical Priority (9/10)
Quotes:
"This is the #1 thing that makes my job hard." - Senior CSR
"If we could fix onboarding, it would change everything." - CSR Team Lead
"I love helping customers but I hate the broken process." - CSR
All 8 CSRs rated onboarding process as top 3 pain point in workshop.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
COALITION POTENTIAL:
HIGH - CSR team is highly motivated to support solution
- Will participate in design and testing
- Will advocate to management
- Will adopt new system enthusiastically
- Natural champions for change
Key influencer: Sarah Chen (Senior CSR, 4 years tenure, respected by team)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
You create this detailed analysis for EVERY stakeholder group.
Example: Secondary Stakeholder Analysis
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STAKEHOLDER IMPACT ANALYSIS
Problem: Customer Onboarding Delays
Stakeholder: Sales Team
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STAKEHOLDER PROFILE:
Role: Account Executives
Number of people: 6 AEs
Reporting to: VP Sales (David Kim)
Quota: $1.2M ARR per AE
Comp structure: 60% base, 40% commission
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
HOW THEY'RE AFFECTED:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
IMPACT 1: Post-Sale Customer Escalations
What happens:
- Customer buys, onboarding is slow/chaotic
- Customer emails AE: "Nobody's contacted me" or "This is taking forever"
- AE must stop prospecting to handle CS escalations
- AE perceived by customer as only one who cares
Frequency: 30-40% of deals result in at least one escalation to AE
- 6 AEs × 24 deals/year = 144 deals total
- 144 × 35% = 50 escalations/year
- Per escalation: 30-60 min to investigate, coordinate with CS, reassure customer
Time cost: 50 escalations × 45 min average = 37.5 hours/year
37.5 hrs × $75/hr loaded cost = $2,812/year
Opportunity cost: 37.5 hours of selling time
- At $1.2M quota, each hour worth ~$600 in pipeline
- Opportunity cost: 37.5 × $600 = $22,500/year
Evidence:
- Sales team interviews: All 6 AEs mentioned post-sale escalations
- Email analysis: Average 8 post-sale escalation emails per AE per quarter
- VP Sales: "My team shouldn't be doing CS's job"
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
IMPACT 2: Prolonged Sales Cycle (Referrals Lost)
What happens:
- Unhappy onboarding experience = no referrals from new customers
- Sales relies on referrals for 25% of pipeline
- Delayed positive case studies and testimonials
Frequency: Continuous (affects all deals)
Impact:
- Referral rate from new customers: 15% vs. 30% industry benchmark
- Lost referrals: 144 customers × (30% - 15%) = 21.6 lost referrals/year
- Average deal size: $50K
- Lost revenue: 21.6 × $50K × 25% close rate = $270,000/year
Evidence:
- Referral tracking data
- Customer satisfaction correlation: Lower onboarding CSAT = fewer referrals
- Sales VP: "We're leaving referrals on the table"
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
IMPACT 3: Commission Delays (Deal at Risk)
What happens:
- Poor onboarding experience leads to early cancellations
- Some commission plans have clawback if customer cancels in first 90 days
- AEs feel financial risk from CS execution problems
Frequency: 5% early cancellation rate vs. 2% benchmark
- Excess cancellations: 144 deals × 3% = 4.3 deals/year
- Average deal: $50K
- AE commission per deal: ~$5,000
- Lost commission: 4.3 × $5,000 = $21,500/year
Evidence:
- Churn data analysis: First 90-day churn elevated
- Sales comp plan has 90-day clawback provision
- AE interviews: "I close the deal but worry CS will blow it"
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
IMPACT 4: Friction Between Sales and CS
What happens:
- CS blames Sales for incomplete handoff
- Sales blames CS for slow/poor execution
- Finger-pointing instead of collaboration
- Team morale affected
Frequency: Ongoing cultural issue
Impact:
- Harder to collaborate on account strategy
- Information silos deepen
- Unable to execute account-based selling effectively
Cost: Difficult to quantify, but meaningful
- Estimates: ~$15,000/year in lost collaboration efficiency
Evidence:
- Workshop sessions revealed tension
- Slack messages show blame-shifting
- Both teams cited other team as problem in interviews
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TOTAL IMPACT ON SALES TEAM:
Direct time cost: $2,812/year
Opportunity cost: $22,500/year
Lost referral revenue: $270,000/year
Lost commission: $21,500/year
Collaboration friction: $15,000/year
TOTAL ANNUAL COST: $331,812/year
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PRIORITY LEVEL (from Sales perspective):
Medium-High Priority (6/10)
Nuance:
- Sales cares, but it's not their top priority (they have quota to hit)
- VP Sales cares more than AEs (sees strategic impact)
- Willing to support solution but won't lead the charge
Quotes:
"I just want customers to stop emailing me after I close the deal." - AE
"The handoff to CS is broken but I don't have time to fix it." - AE
"This is costing us referrals and repeat business." - VP Sales
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
COALITION POTENTIAL:
MEDIUM - Sales will support but not champion
- VP Sales is strong advocate (recognizes revenue impact)
- AEs somewhat engaged but busy with quota
- Need to frame solution as "less work for you" not "more work"
Key influencer: David Kim (VP Sales) - has exec credibility
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Example: Tertiary Stakeholder Analysis
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STAKEHOLDER IMPACT ANALYSIS
Problem: Customer Onboarding Delays
Stakeholder: CFO
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STAKEHOLDER PROFILE:
Role: Chief Financial Officer
Person: Jennifer Rodriguez
Tenure: 2 years at company
Reports to: CEO
Priorities: Revenue growth, margin improvement, investor reporting
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
HOW THEY'RE AFFECTED:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
IMPACT 1: Delayed Revenue Recognition
What happens:
- Company uses ASC 606 revenue recognition
- Revenue not recognized until customer is "live and using product"
- 35-day onboarding delay = 35 days of delayed revenue recognition
- Affects quarterly financial reporting
Frequency: Every customer, every quarter
Impact:
- 24 customers/month × $50K average = $1.2M/month in bookings
- At 35-day onboarding, ~$1.4M in deferred revenue at any given time
- If onboarding reduced to 15 days, could recognize $700K sooner
Cash flow impact: Modest (customers prepay)
P&L impact: Timing issue, affects quarterly smoothness
Investor perception: "Why is deferred revenue so high?"
Annual impact: Difficult to quantify as pure cost, but affects:
- Quarterly revenue predictability
- Investor/board confidence
- Financial planning accuracy
Evidence:
- Deferred revenue balance review
- CFO interview: "Onboarding delays show up in our metrics"
- Board questions about "time to revenue recognition"
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
IMPACT 2: Customer Churn Affects LTV Metrics
What happens:
- Elevated first-90-day churn (5% vs. 2% benchmark)
- Reduces customer lifetime value (LTV)
- Affects LTV:CAC ratio that investors scrutinize
- Makes customer acquisition less efficient financially
Frequency: Continuous
Impact:
- Excess churn: 144 customers × 3% = 4.3 customers/year
- LTV impact: 4.3 × $25,000 = $107,500/year lost LTV
- LTV:CAC ratio: Currently 3.2:1, could be 3.5:1 with better onboarding
- Investor perception: "Why is retention lower than competitors?"
Evidence:
- Financial model analysis
- Investor deck: LTV:CAC is key metric
- Board meeting minutes: Retention questioned
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
IMPACT 3: Inability to Scale Efficiently
What happens:
- Current onboarding process doesn't scale
- To grow revenue 50% (strategic goal), would need to hire 4 more CSRs
- Manual process limits growth without proportional headcount
- Affects operating margin targets
Frequency: Strategic planning cycle
Impact:
- To hit $20M ARR target (from $13M current), need 350 new customers/year
- Current capacity: 288 customers/year (24/month)
- Gap: 62 customers/year
- Would require: 2-3 additional CSRs × $120K fully loaded = $240K-360K
With efficient process:
- Current team could handle 350 customers (30% more capacity)
- Avoid hiring 2 CSRs = $240,000/year savings
Evidence:
- CFO strategic plan: "Revenue growth with margin improvement"
- Current CS team at capacity
- CFO: "We can't just throw people at this problem"
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
IMPACT 4: Reporting and Metrics Challenges
What happens:
- CFO can't accurately report onboarding cycle time to board
- No system data, relies on CS Manager's manual tracking
- Board asks: "How long does onboarding take? What's trending?"
- CFO doesn't have confident answers
Frequency: Quarterly board meetings
Impact:
- CFO credibility with board
- Data-driven decision making limited
- Can't identify trends or problems early
Time cost:
- CFO spends 3-4 hours per quarter compiling onboarding metrics manually
- 15 hours/year × $200/hr = $3,000/year
Reputational cost: Difficult to quantify but meaningful
Evidence:
- Board deck review: Onboarding metrics section is thin
- CFO interview: "I don't have good data on this"
- Board member feedback: "We need better operational metrics"
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TOTAL IMPACT ON CFO:
Revenue recognition timing: (Neutral to P&L, affects metrics)
LTV degradation: $107,500/year
Inability to scale: $240,000/year opportunity cost
Reporting overhead: $3,000/year
TOTAL ANNUAL COST: ~$350,500/year
Plus strategic impacts:
- Investor confidence
- Board relationships
- Financial planning accuracy
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PRIORITY LEVEL (from CFO perspective):
Medium Priority (6/10)
Context:
- CFO has many priorities (fundraising, margin improvement, etc.)
- Onboarding not her #1 concern but meaningful
- Recognizes connection to growth and margin goals
- Will support solution if ROI is clear
Quote:
"Improving onboarding supports our growth and margin goals.
If we can demonstrate clear ROI, I'll fund it." - CFO
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
COALITION POTENTIAL:
MEDIUM-HIGH - CFO is rational decision-maker
- Needs strong financial case (which we can build)
- Will approve budget if ROI demonstrated
- Can influence CEO and board
- Wants data and metrics to improve
Key lever: Show how onboarding improvement enables growth without
proportional headcount increase (margin improvement)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Layer 3: Frequency Analysis
“How often” is as important as “how much.”
A $10 problem that happens 1000 times is a $10,000 problem.
Frequency Categorization Framework
For each impact on each stakeholder, classify frequency:
CONTINUOUS (Ongoing, all the time)
- Examples:
- “CSR is constantly juggling multiple onboardings” (always happening)
- “Customer has no visibility into status” (persistent state)
- “Manual process overhead” (embedded in daily work)
DAILY (Multiple times per day or once daily)
- Examples:
- “CSR interrupted with status inquiry” (3-4× per day)
- “Implementation specialist checks email for new requests” (5-6× per day)
- “CSR switches between systems” (20-30× per day)
WEEKLY (Multiple times per week or once weekly)
- Examples:
- “Sales escalation from unhappy customer” (2-3× per week team-wide)
- “Manager compiles status report” (1× per week)
- “Onboarding falls through cracks” (1-2× per week)
MONTHLY (Multiple times per month or once monthly)
- Examples:
- “CFO reports to board on onboarding metrics” (1× per month in board deck prep)
- “Customer churns during onboarding” (4-5× per month)
- “New CSR onboarding/training” (0.5× per month average)
QUARTERLY (Seasonal, periodic)
- Examples:
- “Board questions about retention metrics” (4× per year)
- “Strategic planning identifies capacity constraints” (4× per year)
ANNUAL (Once per year or less)
- Examples:
- “CSR quits citing onboarding chaos” (1× per year realized, 3× risk)
- “External audit of customer satisfaction” (1× per year)
PER OCCURRENCE (Happens each time the process runs)
- Examples:
- “Manual data entry when new customer onboarded” (24× per month = 288× per year)
- “Configuration error requiring rework” (10% × 288 = 29× per year)
- “Customer waits for first contact” (288× per year)
Frequency Multiplication: The Compounding Effect
This is where small problems become big problems.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
FREQUENCY MULTIPLICATION ANALYSIS
Problem: Customer Onboarding Delays
Impact: Manual data entry between systems
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
BASE IMPACT (Per Occurrence):
- CSR must manually copy customer info from Salesforce to CS tool
- Time per occurrence: 20 minutes
- Error rate: 15%
FREQUENCY:
- Occurrences: 24 new customers per month = 288 per year
- Affected people: 8 CSRs (distributed across team)
MULTIPLICATION:
- Annual time: 288 customers × 20 minutes = 5,760 minutes = 96 hours
- Annual cost: 96 hours × $50/hr = $4,800/year in direct labor
ERRORS:
- Errors: 288 × 15% = 43 errors per year
- Correction time: 15 minutes per error
- Error cost: 43 × 15 min × $50/hr = $537.50/year
- Downstream impact of errors: Customer frustration, support tickets
TOTAL ANNUAL COST: $5,337.50/year
ADDITIONAL IMPACTS:
- Context switching: 288 interruptions to CSR workflow
- Quality risk: Wrong data affects entire onboarding
- Morale: "Why am I doing this manually? This is stupid."
SOLUTION OPPORTUNITY:
- Automate Salesforce → CS tool sync
- Implementation cost: $15,000 one-time
- Payback: 2.8 years on direct labor alone
- But... frees 96 hours/year of CSR capacity (better payback metric)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Do this for every identified impact.
Frequency Matrix: Stakeholder × Impact
Create a matrix showing which stakeholders are affected how often:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
FREQUENCY MATRIX: CUSTOMER ONBOARDING DELAYS
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STAKEHOLDER │ CONTINUOUS │ DAILY │ WEEKLY │ MONTHLY │ QUARTERLY
─────────────────┼────────────┼───────┼────────┼─────────┼──────────
CSRs (8) │ ✓✓✓ │ ✓✓✓ │ ✓✓ │ ✓ │
│ (juggling) │(inter-│(escala-│ (new │
│ │rupted)│ tions) │customer)│
─────────────────┼────────────┼───────┼────────┼─────────┼──────────
CS Manager │ ✓ │ ✓ │ ✓✓ │ ✓✓ │
│ (no visi- │(status│(manual │(report- │
│ bility) │checks)│report) │ ing) │
─────────────────┼────────────┼───────┼────────┼─────────┼──────────
Implementation │ │ ✓ │ ✓✓ │ ✓✓ │
Team (3) │ │(check │(urgent │(backlog │
│ │queue) │request)│ grows) │
─────────────────┼────────────┼───────┼────────┼─────────┼──────────
Sales (6) │ │ │ ✓ │ ✓ │
│ │ │(escala-│(lost │
│ │ │tion) │referral)│
─────────────────┼────────────┼───────┼────────┼─────────┼──────────
Customers (24/mo)│ ✓ │ ✓ │ ✓ │ │
│ (waiting) │(emails│(frus- │ │
│ │status)│tration)│ │
─────────────────┼────────────┼───────┼────────┼─────────┼──────────
CFO │ │ │ │ ✓ │ ✓
│ │ │ │(deferred│ (board
│ │ │ │revenue) │questions)
─────────────────┼────────────┼───────┼────────┼─────────┼──────────
CEO │ │ │ │ ✓ │ ✓
│ │ │ │(cust. │(investor
│ │ │ │escalate)│concerns)
─────────────────┴────────────┴───────┴────────┴─────────┴──────────
KEY INSIGHT:
- Primary stakeholders (CSRs, customers) affected DAILY
- Secondary stakeholders (Sales, Implementation) affected WEEKLY
- Tertiary stakeholders (execs) affected MONTHLY/QUARTERLY
This frequency distribution means:
✓ Build coalition starting with primary stakeholders (daily pain)
✓ Connect to secondary stakeholders (weekly frustration)
✓ Tie to tertiary stakeholder priorities (quarterly metrics)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Layer 4: Quantified Impact by Stakeholder
Roll up all impacts into a comprehensive stakeholder cost table.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
COMPREHENSIVE STAKEHOLDER IMPACT SUMMARY
Problem: Customer Onboarding Delays
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STAKEHOLDER │ PEOPLE │ ANNUAL COST │ PRIMARY IMPACTS
─────────────────────┼────────┼─────────────┼────────────────────
Customer Success Reps│ 8 │ $432,300 │ Manual work, stress,
│ │ │ burnout, turnover
─────────────────────┼────────┼─────────────┼────────────────────
CS Manager │ 1 │ $41,600 │ No visibility, manual
│ │ │ tracking, firefighting
─────────────────────┼────────┼─────────────┼────────────────────
Implementation Team │ 3 │ $67,800 │ Backlog, unclear
│ │ │ requests, rework
─────────────────────┼────────┼─────────────┼────────────────────
Sales Team │ 6 │ $331,812 │ Escalations, lost
│ │ │ referrals, commission
─────────────────────┼────────┼─────────────┼────────────────────
Support Team │ 4 │ $18,400 │ Status inquiry volume
─────────────────────┼────────┼─────────────┼────────────────────
CFO │ 1 │ $350,500 │ Revenue timing, LTV,
│ │ │ scaling constraints
─────────────────────┼────────┼─────────────┼────────────────────
CEO/Executive Team │ 5 │ $45,200 │ Customer escalations,
│ │ │ investor questions
─────────────────────┼────────┼─────────────┼────────────────────
Customers (new) │ 288/yr │ $215,000 │ Poor experience, churn
│ │ (churn) │ delayed value
─────────────────────┴────────┴─────────────┴────────────────────
TOTAL INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS: 28 people directly affected
TOTAL QUANTIFIED ANNUAL COST: $1,502,612/year
Plus unmeasured impacts:
- Organizational culture and morale
- Competitive disadvantage (slower onboarding than competitors)
- Market perception (negative reviews mention onboarding)
- Strategic agility (can't scale efficiently)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
This table becomes a centerpiece of your executive presentation.
Layer 5: Priority and Care Level
Not all stakeholders care equally, even if affected equally.
You need to assess: How much does this stakeholder CARE about solving this problem?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STAKEHOLDER PRIORITY ASSESSMENT
Problem: Customer Onboarding Delays
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STAKEHOLDER │AFFECTED│FREQUENCY│ COST │CARE LEVEL│ NOTES
│(1-10) │ (1-10) │ (1-10) │ (1-10) │
──────────────────┼────────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────
Customer Success │ 10 │ 10 │ 9 │ 10 │ Daily pain,
Reps │ │ │ │ │ top priority
──────────────────┼────────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────
CS Manager │ 9 │ 8 │ 8 │ 9 │ Responsible
│ │ │ │ │ for fix
──────────────────┼────────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────
Implementation │ 8 │ 7 │ 7 │ 7 │ Cares but
Team │ │ │ │ │ not top issue
──────────────────┼────────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────
Sales Team │ 6 │ 5 │ 9 │ 6 │ Cares about
│ │ │ │ │ referrals,
│ │ │ │ │ busy w/quota
──────────────────┼────────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────
CFO │ 5 │ 3 │ 9 │ 7 │ Strategic
│ │ │ │ │ importance,
│ │ │ │ │ will fund ROI
──────────────────┼────────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────
CEO │ 4 │ 3 │ 7 │ 6 │ Aware, not
│ │ │ │ │ daily focus
──────────────────┼────────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────
Customers │ 10 │ 10 │ 10 │ 10 │ Experiencing
│ │ │ │ │ the problem
COALITION BUILDING STRATEGY:
PRIMARY CHAMPIONS (High care + High affected):
✓ Customer Success Reps - Will actively advocate
✓ CS Manager - Owns the problem, will drive
✓ Customers - Voice of customer strengthens case
STRATEGIC SUPPORTERS (High care, lower affected):
✓ CFO - Will approve budget if ROI clear
✓ VP Sales - Recognizes revenue impact
NEED TO ENGAGE (Lower care but meaningful impact):
⚠ Implementation Team - Need to involve in solution design
⚠ CEO - Need to connect to strategic priorities
BUILD THE CASE:
1. Lead with CSR pain (daily suffering = emotional resonance)
2. Connect to customer experience (external validation)
3. Tie to CFO priorities (margin improvement, scaling)
4. Link to CEO strategy (growth enablement)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Layer 6: The Stakeholder Narrative
Turn your analysis into compelling stories.
For each key stakeholder, create a “day in the life” narrative that brings the data to life.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
A DAY IN THE LIFE: CUSTOMER SUCCESS REP
Problem: Customer Onboarding Delays
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
MEET SARAH CHEN
Role: Senior Customer Success Rep
Tenure: 3 years
Current load: 11 active onboardings + 35 existing customer accounts
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
8:00 AM - Arrive at office, check personal onboarding tracker
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Sarah opens her personal Google Doc with her 11 active onboardings.
This isn't in the official CS tool - that system doesn't have good
task tracking, so she maintains her own.
She cross-references with her email to see what happened yesterday:
- Customer A emailed asking for status (again)
- Implementation team finished setup for Customer B
- Sales forwarded a "new customer" email for Customer L (12th onboarding!)
TIME: 15 minutes just to orient herself on status
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
8:15 AM - Respond to Customer A status inquiry
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Customer A: "Hi Sarah, just checking in on when we'll be up and
running. It's been 3 weeks since we purchased."
Sarah has to:
1. Check her notes (Where are we? Oh right, waiting on Implementation)
2. Slack the Implementation team: "Hey, status on Acme Corp setup?"
3. Wait for response (30 min later: "Sorry, it's in the queue,
probably tomorrow")
4. Email customer: "Good news, setup happening tomorrow, then we'll
schedule training"
Customer A actually paid 22 days ago. Sarah wishes there was an
automated status portal so customers could see progress themselves
and she wouldn't field these emails 3-4 times per day.
TIME: 20 minutes (could be 0 minutes with self-service portal)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
8:35 AM - Create CS record for new Customer L
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Sales email says: "New customer: ABC Industries, $75K deal, needs
onboarding ASAP"
The email has:
- Company name ✓
- Contact name ✓
- Contact email ✓
- Products purchased ✗ (not clear)
- Special configuration needs ✗ (mentions "custom integration" but no details)
Sarah must:
1. Open CS tool
2. Manually create new customer record
3. Type in all information from Sales email (20 minutes of data entry)
4. Notice missing information
5. Email Sales rep: "Can you clarify what products and what custom integration?"
6. Wait for Sales to respond (could be hours or days)
Sarah is frustrated: "This information already exists in Salesforce.
Why am I manually copying it? And why doesn't Sales give complete info?"
TIME: 25 minutes (could be 0 minutes with automated sync + required fields)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
9:00 AM - Kickoff call with Customer C (scheduled)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
This is actual value-add work Sarah enjoys!
Prep: 10 minutes reviewing account, customizing presentation
Call: 60 minutes with customer
Follow-up: 15 minutes documenting notes, sending follow-up email
During call, customer asks: "When will technical setup be done?"
Sarah: "I'll submit the request to our Implementation team right after
this call and they'll reach out within 2-3 days."
Customer (disappointed): "Oh, I was hoping to start using it this week."
Sarah wishes she could see Implementation's queue in real-time and
give customer accurate timeline.
TIME: 85 minutes (appropriate and valuable)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
10:25 AM - Implementation request for Customer C
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Sarah needs to request technical setup for Customer C.
The process:
1. Open Slack, message Implementation channel: "New setup request..."
2. Write out details (company name, contact, products, special needs)
3. Hope someone sees it and picks it up
Sarah knows this isn't a great system. Sometimes requests get lost.
No ticket number. No SLA. No visibility into queue.
She wishes there was a structured request system with tracking.
TIME: 10 minutes (could be 2 minutes with proper workflow tool)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
10:35 AM - Customer D calls (unscheduled) - Urgent issue
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Customer D: "Hi, we were supposed to have training yesterday but
nobody showed up!"
Sarah (panicking, checks calendar): Oh no. Training was scheduled
for yesterday but the CSR who originally scheduled it (John, who's
on vacation this week) apparently didn't send calendar invite.
Sarah has to:
1. Apologize profusely
2. Find John's notes on this customer (where are they? Not in system...)
3. Scramble to reschedule for today or tomorrow
4. Brief herself on customer needs (no context)
This coverage failure happens because there's no shared system.
Everyone has personal notes.
TIME: 45 minutes firefighting (could be prevented with shared system)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
11:20 AM - Training session with Customer E (scheduled)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Prep: 15 minutes (training slides need updating AGAIN - product changed,
slides outdated, Sarah manually fixes them)
Training: 90 minutes
Follow-up: 10 minutes
Sarah wishes training materials were centrally maintained and
automatically updated. Each CSR maintains their own slides.
TIME: 115 minutes (appropriate, but 15 min waste on materials)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1:05 PM - Lunch (while reading more status inquiry emails)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1:30 PM - Status update meeting with CS Manager (weekly)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Manager asks each CSR to verbally report status on their onboardings.
Sarah reports: "Customer A waiting on Implementation, Customer B
training scheduled for Friday, Customer C just had kickoff..."
The manager takes notes. There's no system that shows this.
Sarah thinks: "I just spent 30 minutes in a meeting describing
information that should be visible in a dashboard."
TIME: 30 minutes (could be 5 minutes with dashboard)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
2:00 PM - Back to Customer A status inquiry (AGAIN)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Customer A emails AGAIN: "Any update? I really need this moving."
Sarah (sighs): Checks Implementation. Setup done! Great!
But now has to:
1. Email customer: "Setup complete, let's schedule training"
2. Back and forth on calendar availability (5 emails)
3. Finally schedule for next Tuesday
Sarah wishes there was automated scheduling.
TIME: 25 minutes (could be 5 minutes with booking link)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
2:25 PM - Finally get to work on strategic CS project (15 minutes)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Sarah is supposed to be working on customer health scoring model
(strategic project) but she's been fighting fires all day.
Gets 15 minutes of focused work before...
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
2:40 PM - Sales escalation - angry customer
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Sales rep forwards email: "Customer is PISSED, nobody contacted them
for 10 days after purchase, please handle ASAP"
Sarah has to investigate: This was a new customer assigned to Mark
(another CSR) but he's been swamped and missed the email notification.
Sarah:
1. Apologizes to customer
2. Scrambles to get up to speed on their account
3. Schedules immediate call to rebuild relationship
TIME: 60 minutes crisis management (could be prevented with automated
assignment and tracking)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
3:40 PM - Update personal tracker, CS tool, various systems
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Sarah spends time entering notes from today's activities into:
- Her personal Google Doc tracker
- The CS tool (required)
- Email (confirmations to customers)
- Calendar (scheduling)
Three different systems. Lots of duplication.
TIME: 30 minutes administrative overhead (could be 5 minutes with
unified system)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
4:10 PM - More status inquiries, more firefighting...
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Sarah checks email: 4 more status inquiries, 2 questions from
Implementation team, 1 escalation from manager.
Handles these for rest of afternoon.
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
5:30 PM - End of day reflection
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Sarah reviews her day:
✓ Actual customer-facing value work: ~3 hours (kickoff + training)
✗ Administrative overhead: ~2.5 hours
✗ Firefighting/escalations: ~1.5 hours
✗ Status inquiries: ~1 hour
✗ Coordination/waiting: ~30 minutes
Sarah leaves feeling exhausted and frustrated:
"I love helping customers but I spent more time today on broken
process than actually doing customer success work. This is why
people burn out and quit. If we just had better systems..."
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
THIS IS THE REALITY OF YOUR PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS.
This narrative - based on real observation and time studies - makes
the problem visceral and human in ways that spreadsheets cannot.
Use this in presentations to build empathy and urgency.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Create similar narratives for 3-4 key stakeholders.
The Stakeholder Analysis Deliverable
Compile everything into a comprehensive stakeholder impact document.
Document Structure:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STAKEHOLDER IMPACT ANALYSIS
Problem: Customer Onboarding Delays
[Company Name] | [Date]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (2 pages)
- Stakeholder overview
- Total people affected: 28 internal + 288 customers/year
- Total quantified cost: $1.5M/year
- Coalition building opportunities
SECTION 1: STAKEHOLDER MAPPING (3 pages)
- Stakeholder circle model (primary, secondary, tertiary)
- Comprehensive stakeholder list
- Reporting relationships
- Coalition building strategy
SECTION 2: PRIMARY STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS (15-20 pages)
- Detailed analysis for each primary stakeholder
- Customer Success Reps (8 pages)
- CS Manager (3 pages)
- Implementation Team (3 pages)
- Customers (3 pages)
SECTION 3: SECONDARY STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS (10-12 pages)
- Sales Team (4 pages)
- Support Team (2 pages)
- Product Team (2 pages)
- Other affected departments (3 pages)
SECTION 4: TERTIARY STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS (8-10 pages)
- CFO analysis (3 pages)
- CEO/Executive team (3 pages)
- Board/Investors (2 pages)
SECTION 5: FREQUENCY ANALYSIS (4-6 pages)
- Frequency categorization framework
- Frequency matrix (stakeholder × frequency)
- Frequency multiplication examples
- Impact compounding analysis
SECTION 6: QUANTIFIED IMPACT SUMMARY (3-4 pages)
- Comprehensive cost table
- Impact by stakeholder
- Impact by frequency
- Total organizational cost
SECTION 7: PRIORITY AND CARE ANALYSIS (3-4 pages)
- Stakeholder priority matrix
- Care level assessment
- Coalition building recommendations
- Key influencers identified
SECTION 8: STAKEHOLDER NARRATIVES (8-12 pages)
- "Day in the life" for primary stakeholders
- Bringing data to life
- Emotional resonance building
SECTION 9: COALITION BUILDING STRATEGY (3-4 pages)
- Who to engage when
- How to frame problem for each stakeholder
- Building support for solution
- Managing resistance
APPENDICES:
- Interview transcripts (excerpts)
- Survey data
- Time study details
- Email examples
- Calculation methodologies
TOTAL: 60-80 pages
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Using Stakeholder Analysis Strategically
Application 1: Executive Presentations
Instead of: “Onboarding is slow and costs $400K/year.”
Say: “This problem affects 28 people across 6 departments every single day. Your 8 Customer Success reps spend 3 hours per day on broken processes instead of helping customers – that’s $432K/year in wasted labor plus burnout that caused one CSR to quit last year. Your sales team loses $270K in referral revenue annually because unhappy onboarding experiences mean customers don’t refer. Your CFO can’t scale revenue 50% without hiring 2-3 more CSRs because the manual process doesn’t scale. And 288 customers per year are waiting 35 days for value they already paid for, resulting in 5% churn versus 2% benchmark – that’s $215K in lost LTV annually. Total cost: $1.5M/year affecting 316 people.”
This is specific, human, and impossible to ignore.
Application 2: Building Coalitions
Use your stakeholder analysis to sequence engagement:
Phase 1: Recruit Champions (Primary Stakeholders)
- Start with CSRs and CS Manager (highest pain, daily impact)
- Build trust: “We see your struggle, we’ve documented it, we want to help”
- Involve in solution design: “Help us build what you need”
- Create advocates: They become messengers to others
Phase 2: Engage Strategic Supporters (Secondary/Tertiary)
- CFO: “This enables scaling revenue without proportional headcount growth”
- VP Sales: “This eliminates post-sale escalations and improves referrals”
- CEO: “This aligns with our growth strategy and customer experience goals”
Phase 3: Neutralize Skeptics
- Identify who might resist (change-averse managers, overloaded IT)
- Address concerns early: “Here’s how this makes your life easier”
- Involve in planning: Give them voice to raise concerns constructively
Application 3: ROI Justification
Stakeholder analysis gives you multiple ROI angles:
Labor Efficiency ROI: “CSR team wastes 165,500 hours/year = $208K. Eliminating this frees capacity for 30% more customers without hiring.”
Revenue ROI: “Reducing churn 3% = $215K/year in retained LTV. Faster onboarding = faster referrals = $270K/year pipeline increase.”
Strategic ROI: “Enables $20M ARR growth goal without adding 2 CSRs ($240K/year avoided), improves LTV:CAC ratio from 3.2:1 to 3.5:1, enhances investor metrics.”
Different stakeholders care about different ROI.
The Meta-Principle: Problems Are About People
Problems don’t exist in abstract.
Problems exist because they affect human beings who:
- Waste time on stupid manual work
- Feel frustrated and powerless
- Experience stress and anxiety
- Deliver suboptimal experiences to customers
- Can’t achieve their goals
- Consider quitting their jobs
- Make less money due to commission clawbacks
- Face difficult questions from boards they can’t answer
When you document “affected stakeholders and frequency,” you’re:
- Making the invisible visible – People know they’re affected but don’t see the full picture
- Creating empathy – Executives realize the daily reality of their teams
- Building urgency – “This affects 28 people every day” hits different than “this is inefficient”
- Enabling coalition – People see they’re not alone, others share their pain
- Justifying investment – $1.5M annual cost justifies significant solution investment
- Humanizing data – Numbers with faces and stories drive action
The most compelling business cases are not about money.
They’re about people.
Do the work to understand who is affected, how they’re affected, and how often.
Then tell their stories with data.
That’s how you create change.
What aspects of stakeholder analysis are you most concerned about? Identifying all affected parties? Quantifying softer impacts like morale? Getting honest input from executives about their pain? Balancing comprehensiveness with conciseness? Turning analysis into compelling narratives?