Somebody give me a reason to hate “stake holders”. That was a new one for me, but it makes sense (everyone who has a “stake” in the project - owner, contractors, community, etc.). I just don’t like it for some reason.
I wish people would use the term 'stakeholders' more often. It forces people to think about everyone who has something at stake.
I've witnessed more than one major project or process get completely shut down after months of effort because the initiators completely disregarded a stakeholder who had to slam on the brakes.
I've seen months of meetings, software written, and training provided, all to have it come to a screeching halt when Legal asked "what the hell?" and had to inform the process owners that "we still need the current way to be able to walk into court with it."
Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable are two other stakeholders that get left out with severe consequences. I quickly got myself off of one project after the project leader responded to the question (not from me), "Did you run this by Finance?" with "We're going forward and will have them align when we're implementing it." Needless to say Finance simply said "No. That does not meet the legal requirements for audits." 18 months later and that was the quiet end of the project.
“Somebody give me a reason to hate “stake holders”. That was a new one for me”
I did my MBA 1979 - 1982. I bought an outstanding book on corporate strategy around 1980. I remember well the chapter that exposed me to the idea of “Stakeholders” which went far beyond customers and employees.
So it’s an old term. I don’t know when it originated, but I’ve got that 1980 reference. That was quite a while ago.