Turkulainen Et Al-2015-Project Management Journal

PAPERS
Managing Project Stakeholder

Communication: The Qstock Festival
Case
Virpi Turkulainen, College of Business, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Kirsi Aaltonen, Industrial Engineering and Management, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
Pivi Lohikoski, Industrial Engineering and Management, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
ABSTRACT
This research develops the understanding
of project stakeholder management through
examining how stakeholder communication
is facilitated and managed during the different phases of the projects life cycle. By
building on the information processing view
and the stakeholder salience framework, our
study shows how stakeholder communication practices vary among the impersonal,
personal, and group modes of communication. We also show how these practices
depend on stakeholders salience and project life cycle phase. The results indicate that
a dynamic approach is required to understanding stakeholder management; different communication practices are required
over the projects life cycle, which can be
explained by the varying degrees of stakeholder salience.
KEYWORDS: project stakeholder
management; project communication;
information-processing view; stakeholder
salience
Project Management Journal,

Journal Vol. 46, No. 6, 7491
2015 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21547
74
INTRODUCTION
roject stakeholder management is one of the focal parts of project

management. Aligning the different objectives, interests, and
expectations of stakeholders directly contributes to the success of
the project (Aaltonen, 2011; Cleland, 1986; Jepsen & Eskerod, 2009).
Previous research on project stakeholder management has mainly focused
on the conceptual development of stakeholder management tools and
frameworks to improve the management of stakeholders (e.g., Bourne
& Walker, 2005; Olander & Landin, 2005). The majority of research on
stakeholder management has built tools and frameworks consistent with a
static perspective on projects, yet they have paid less attention to how the
relationship between the focal project organization and its stakeholders
changes over the projects life cycle (e.g., Brde Jepsen, 2013; Eskerod &
Vaagaasar, 2014; Yang, Shen, & Ho, 2009). A project, however, moves through
different distinctive phases over its life cycle (e.g., Morris, 1982; Turner,
1999), thereby creating a dynamic context for the management of project
stakeholders (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010). This gap in the literature calls for
research on stakeholder management that takes into account the projects
life cycle.
In this research, we address project stakeholder management by studying
the modes of communication with project stakeholders. Stakeholder communication ensures the effective engagement of different stakeholders and
hence plays a fundamental role in project stakeholder management (Crane
& Livesey, 2003; Welch & Jackson, 2007). Because the role of communication
in projects is crucial, the various communication needs in different phases
of the project should be acknowledged and planned (Lohikoski, Kujala,
Hrknen, Haapasalo, & Muhos, 2015). Furthermore, even though stakeholder communication is an integral part of actual stakeholder management
processes, little empirical research exists on project stakeholder communication practices and their relation to the attributes of these stakeholders;
therefore, the research question of the study can be formulated as follows:
How and why is stakeholder communication managed over a project s life
cycle?
In order to address the research question, we build on the information
processing model (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Galbraith, 1973), which is the most
established model that addresses communication both within and across
organizations. We develop a generic framework of stakeholder communication in the project context, which draws on the theoretical argument about
how context shapes the use of communication modes. In order to illustrate
December 2015/January 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
and elaborate on the framework, we

use observations from a festival project
and utilize the concept of stakeholder
salience (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997)
to assess the characteristics of the different stakeholders. The empirical context
chosen for this study is the Qstock project, which is the largest music festival
in Northern Finland. Festival projects
are typically very complex and highly
cooperative projects that involve many
stakeholder groups, including the audience, municipality, media, suppliers,
sponsors, allied festivals, public, festival
organization, artists, restaurants, market vendors, and voluntary associations
(Larson, 2009). Consequently, the complex stakeholder network with diverse
communication needs makes a festival
project, like Qstock, a particularly suitable context for observing project stakeholder communication over the project
life cycle.
Focal Concepts
andTheoretical Background
Project Communication
A critical part of project management is
communication (Crane & Livesey, 2003;
Welch & Jackson, 2007). In this research,
communication refers to the patterns of
exchanging information and knowledge
between team members (Greenberg,
1999; Johns & Gratton, 2013). The goal
of communication is, for example, to
generate action or change or to create
common understanding and goal alignment (Faraj, Jarvenpaa, & Majchrzak,
2011; March & Simon, 1958; Mayfield,
2014).
In this study, the information processing view is used to study communication (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Galbraith,
1973). The information processing view
is considered appropriate because it
is the theoretical view that is used the
most often to assess information and
knowledge sharing within and across
organizations. It is also widely used
to understand communication in the
project context (e.g., Adler, 1995; Turkulainen, Kujala, Artto, & Levitt, 2013;
Turkulainen, Ruuska, Brady, & Artto,
2015 ). The information processing

view builds on the bounded rationality
argument (March & Simon, 1958), suggesting that because of the cognitive
limitations of individuals, organizations
develop idiosyncratic bases of information, thus creating information processing needs (Galbraith, 1973; Lawrence &
Lorsch, 1967).
Organizations manage the information processing needs by using various
managerial tools. Van de Ven, Delbecq,
and Koenig (1976) classified such practices into the impersonal, personal, and
group modes. The impersonal mode
refers to programming (March & Simon,
1958 ); communication is facilitated
with the use of preestablished plans,
schedules, and formalized procedures
as well as standardized communication
systems (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Galbraith,
1973). The main characteristic of these
activities is that a codified blueprint is
specified, which requires minimal verbal communication (Galbraith, 1973;
March & Simon, 1958). Examples of
communication practices in the impersonal mode include project plans,
descriptions of jobs and roles for the
project, standard project procedures,
and project newsletters.
The personal and group modes both
relate to mutual adjustment and coordination according to feedback (March
& Simon, 1958; Thompson, 1967). In
the personal mode, the organizations
members serve as mechanisms for communication (Hage, Aiken, & Marrett,
1971). Personal communication, either
face-to-face or through messaging, has
been suggested as one of the most useful tools for breaking down individual and organizational barriers (e.g.,
Brown, Huettner, & James-Tanny, 2007).
In the group mode, the mechanism for
mutual adjustment is used to bring
together a group of people; for example,
communication is facilitated through
scheduled and unscheduled meetings
and teamwork (Adler, 1995; Van de Ven
etal., 1976). Today, social media, such as
Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp, provide various modes of communication
depending on whether they are used

to distribute information (impersonal
mode) or promote mutual discussions
(personal and group modes) (Hudson &
Hudson, 2013; Waters, Burnett, Lamm,
& Lucas, 2009).
Project Stakeholder Management
Although the notion of stakeholders was
originally introduced in general management discussion (Freeman, 1984),
Cleland ( 1986 ) brought stakeholder
thinking into the project context. Stakeholder management is a focal area of
project management, as even the concept of project management is defined
as the process through which stakeholders adapt the specifications, plans, and
approaches according to their different concerns and expectations (Eskerod
& Jepsen, 2013; Project Management
Institute, 2013).
The role of the project stakeholder
has been constantly debated (Aaltonen,
2010), which has led to several definitions in the project management literature. In wide definitions of the term,
stakeholders are any organizations or
individuals that affect or are affected by
the project. Narrower definitions tend
to focus on the nature of the interest or
stake that a particular stakeholder has
with regard to the project. These definitions focus on stakeholders, such as
those who are participants in exchange
relationships (e.g., Hill & Jones, 1992) or
have a legitimate claim (Cleland, 1986).
A broadly acknowledged definition sees
stakeholders as [i]ndividuals and organizations that are actively involved in
the project or whose interests may be
affected as a result of project execution
or project completion (Project Management Institute, 2013). Furthermore,
in a widely rooted dichotomy, stakeholders are divided into internal and
external stakeholders. Internal stakeholders are formal members of the project coalition and hence usually support
the project (Beringer, Jonas, & Gemnden, 2012; Winch, 2004). External stakeholders are not formal members of the
project coalition, but they may affect or
75
PAPERS
The Qstock Festival Case
be affected by the project. Such groups

are often referred to as nonbusiness
stakeholders or secondary stakeholders (Cova & Salle, 2005). Hence, the
purpose of project stakeholder management is to enhance the project management teams understanding of the
diverse stakeholders and their ability to
make informed decisions about how to
engage them in order to maintain their
support and align their objectives (Aaltonen, 2010; Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010;
Yang, Wang, & Jin, 2014).
Stakeholder Salience
In order to assess the characteristics
of stakeholders, we build on the stakeholder salience framework proposed by
Mitchell et al. (1997), which is one of
the most established theoretical models
used to analyze and categorize project
stakeholders. The framework explains
the process of managerial decision
making with regard to stakeholders, and
it provides a solid basis for identifying
and categorizing them and understanding how to manage them (Aaltonen,
Kujala, & Oijala, 2008). Mitchell et al.
(1997) classified stakeholders according to their claims on the dimensions
of power, legitimacy, and urgency. The
stakeholder salience framework suggests that these three attributes determine how much attention and what
type of attention stakeholders receive
from management.
In the salience framework, power
relates to stakeholders requests as perceived by management. Stakeholder
power is defined classically as a relationship among social actors in which
one social actor, A, can get another
social actor, B, to do something that
B would not otherwise have done.
The bases of power are considered to
reside in the types of resources used to
exercise power to provide material or
financial resources, symbolic resources,
force, and violence. Legitimacy refers to
a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are
desirable, proper or appropriate within
some socially constructed system of
76
norms, values, beliefs and definitions

(Mitchell etal., 1997, p. 865). The more
legitimate the stakeholders claims are,
the more likely they are to receive positive responses from firms. Finally, the
urgency of the stakeholders is defined as
the degree to which stakeholder claims
call for immediate attention (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 867) and is based on
two attributes: (1) time sensitivity (i.e.,
the degree to which managerial delay
in attending to the claim or relationship is unacceptable to the stakeholder;
and (2) criticality, which is the importance of the claim to the stakeholder
(Mitchell etal., 1997). By combining the
three attributes of power, legitimacy,
and urgency, a typology of stakeholders
can be formed and its importance to
management and its decision-making
can be evaluated.
Project Phases and Communication
A project creates a dynamic context
for stakeholder management because
it moves through different phases during its life cycle (Morris, 1982; Turner,
1999 ). Projects can be divided into
distinctive stages that connect the
beginning of a project to its end and
partly depend on the project type and
organization (Project Management
Institute, 2013). A well-established classification is to divide projects into (1)
project conceptualization and planning, (2) project execution, and (3) the
post-project phase, each of which has
significantly different characteristics
(Morris, 1982, p. 156). The first two
phases are sometimes separated (e.g.,
Slevin & Pinto, 1987).
In the project s conceptualization
and planning phases, including strategic feasibility assessment, planning, and
design (Hunsaker & Hunsaker, 2008;
Morris, 1982), communication focuses
on the projects content and plan, in
addition to establishing the rules of
behavior and clarifying the teams purpose (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). In
the project s execution phase , communication focuses on explaining the
goals and objectives and on ensuring
and enhancing motivation (Mukherjee,
Lahiri, Mukherjee, & Billing, 2012). In
the post-project phase, communication
focuses on ensuring that information
exchange is related to documenting the
project activities and results and gathering and storing the lessons learned for
future projects.
Summary: Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 summarizes the theoretical
concepts discussed in the introduction,
thus providing the conceptual framework that guides our research. In this
study, we investigate how and why
Project stakeholder communication

Stakeholders
Stakeholder
salience
Project
Conceptualization
and planning
Execution
Figure 1: Conceptual framework.
December 2015/January 2016 Project Management Journal
DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Power
Legitimacy
Urgency
Post
project
Stakeholder
communication
Impersonal mode
Personal mode
Group mode
stakeholder communication is managed in a project. We elaborate on the

information processing model (Daft &
Lengel, 1986; Galbraith, 1973) in the
project context by illustrating how
stakeholder communication is managed over the projects life cycle. We
assess communication practices based
on the classification into impersonal,
personal, and group modes of communication (Van de Ven et al., 1976),
and based on the stakeholder salience
framework, we assess the stakeholder
characteristics (Mitchell etal., 1997).
Research Method and Data
examination of the data collected with

a case study. The case study approach
to the data collection was chosen for
the following reasons. First, a case
study is particularly suitable for theory
elaboration research (Ketokivi & Choi,
2014); second, a case study is beneficial because it facilitates the investigation of a phenomenon in its real-life
context (Rowley, 2004); and third, case
studies are considered suitable for
research questions that ask how and
why, as in this study (Yin, 2009). We
focus on a single project because it provides unusually revelatory information
(Yin, 2009).
Research Strategy
Because of the lack of theories on stakeholder communication that take into
account the dynamic context of projects,
this research started without precise
hypotheses or propositions. Instead, the
research follows an approach that can
best be described as theory elaboration
(Ketokivi & Choi, 2014; Layder, 1993;
Vaughan, 1992). Compared to testing a
theory or developing a theory, in theory
elaboration the empirical data serve to
illustrate an existing general conceptual
or theoretical framework (Ketokivi &
Choi, 2014; Layder, 1993). In the theory elaboration research approach, the
emphasis is on the empirical context in
which a general theory is elaborated.
Our research builds on and elaborates
on the generic ideas of the information
processing model (Daft & Lengel, 1986;
Galbraith, 1973) in the context of project
stakeholder communication. In doing
so, we illustrate how stakeholder communication is managed over the project
life cycle of a music festival, and provide
explanations for the observed communication modes based on the salience
of the various stakeholders. The outcome of this study can be considered
as middle-range theory (Merton, 1968),
which is different from a generic theory
and defined as theory that generalizes
beyond a particular case but within a
particular context.
Our theory elaboration is based on
the interplay between theory and the
The Empirical Context: Qstock Music

Festival
The source of our empirical data is
the music festival project Qstock,
which takes place in Northern Finland.
We decided to use a festival for our
empirical project because its complex
stakeholder networks and communication needs make it particularly suitable for illuminating and elaborating
on the relationships and logic among
information processing modes, stakeholder salience, and project life cycle
phases. In addition, cultural projects,
such as music festivals, provide an
interesting context in which to study
project stakeholder management. The
economic importance of cultural industries in general is increasing (European
Commission [EC], 2014; Lampel, Lant,
& Shamsie, 2000; Larson, 2009). The
cultural industries have widened and
broadened in scope (OConnor, 2003;
Radbourne & Fraser, 1996), and they not
only continuously generate an increasing number of jobs but also contribute to innovations in other sectors (EC,
2014). The organizations in the cultural
industries exist to promote a particular
form of art or group of artists or to run
venues and festivals, all of which are
typically organized in the form of projects (Pick & Anderton, 1999). Managing
such cultural projects is challenging for
several reasons. They are high in ambiguity and unpredictable with regard
to the experiential goods that are produced (Pan & Huan, 2013). Moreover,
they are inherently dynamic multiorganizational set ups (Lampel et al.,
2000). Thus, they affect and are affected
by a large number of different voluntary
and involuntary stakeholders, ranging
from local people to agents and city officials (Larson, 2011). Determining how
to engage different stakeholders that
also have diverse, mutual dependencies
for the joint good of the project is crucial for the success of cultural projects
(Andersson & Getz, 2010; Larson, 2009).
The Qstock music festival, the cultural
project selected as our case study, has
grown rapidly from its beginning in
2003, with a few hundred attendees to
30,000 attendees in 2013. It is currently
the largest music festival in Northern
Finland with a turnover of US$2,673,000
(2013). Qstock s stakeholder network
has grown steadily each year; at present,
it is broad and stable. From the perspectives of the stakeholder network and
communication, the Qstock project is
considered to represent a typical festival
project.
The case study focused on stakeholder communication in the Qstock
festival, which took place in July 2014,
starting from project conceptualization
and planning in September 2013, and
ending with the post-project phase in
August 2014. The Qstock project can
be divided into roughly four phases:
(1) conceptualization and planning; (2)
execution; (3) festival; and (4) postproject. The conceptualization and
planning phase took place from September to April, and followed by the
execution phase. The festival took place
at the end of July, and the project ended
in August with the post-project phase.
The project organization of
the Qstock project is as follows. The
management group consists of four
members: two managers, a festival
coordinator, and a marketing coordinator, all of whom are located in Oulu. The
management group works full time, and
they meet at the office on a daily basis.
The internal stakeholders include the
77
PAPERS
artist coordinator and the communication coordinator. The festival event is

organized with the assistance of volunteers from local sports teams and
individuals who work in catering, transportation, and security. In addition,
several other stakeholders are involved,
including agents and city and municipality officials.
Data Collection and Analysis
Following the logic of theory elaboration
research, the conceptual framework dictates the form of data required (Layder,
1993). The data were gathered in
September 2014 through semistructured
interviews. We interviewed the entire
management team (i.e., the managing
director, director, marketing manager,
and festival coordinator) and most internal stakeholders (the artist coordinator,
communication coordinator, restaurant
manager, festival area manager, accreditation manager, and safety manager).
They coordinate the external stakeholder groups. There were 10 interviewees in total. The interviews, which lasted
1 to 2 hours focused on communication practices with different stakeholders
during the different phases of the projects life cycle. Particular focuses were to
identify the most important stakeholders
and their characteristics in the different
phases of the project and to discuss how,
through what kinds of modes, how often,
and by whom communication occurred.
In addition, we gathered data on the history, organization, planning practices,
and project life cycle characteristics of
the festival. The interview data were
complemented by secondary data that
consisted of the written materials about
the festival, such as presentation materials, organizational charts, stakeholder
maps, webpage information, and other
documentation provided by the festival
organization.
In order to ensure the high reliability of the data collection, we implemented the following procedures.
First, we developed a general research
protocol to ensure a systematic data
collection, and we sent out an interview
78
outline before each interview (Yin,

2009). Second, each interview was conducted by two members of the research
team (Eisenhardt, 1989 ). Th ird, the
interviews were recorded in order to
enhance the quality and reliability of
the data and were then transcribed by
the research team into text. Fourth, we
analyzed the aforementioned primary
and archival data to facilitate triangulation (Yin, 2009).
We started our analysis by developing a brief description of the Qstock
project and its key features, and we
mapped the key stakeholders. We then
continued with the data analysis by
identifying the key stakeholders in the
different phases of the project, identifying communication practices with the
different stakeholders during the project life cycle, and analyzing the characterizations and attributes related to
each stakeholder in the different phases
of the project. Based on this analysis,
we compiled a table of raw data on
the stakeholders, the ways in which
communication was managed, and the
characterizations of the stakeholders
in different phases of the project. Next,
we continued the analysis by categorizing the stakeholder communication
practices into impersonal mode, personal mode, and group mode (Van de
Ven et al., 1976) and by analyzing the
salience attributes of each stakeholder
(Mitchell et al., 1997 ). The analysis
was carried out separately during each
project phase. This analysis enabled
us to begin to elaborate and explain
how the observed communication practices were related to the stakeholder s
salience in each phase of the project.
Empirical Findings and Theory

Elaboration
We illustrate how the communication
practices were used by different stakeholders (Table 1). The analysis is carried
out across the major phases of the project, thus allowing us to reveal the potential differences among them. We then
use the stakeholder salience framework
to explain the observed patterns of
DOI: 10.1002/pmj
stakeholder communications, and we

conclude by stating propositions.
Empirical Findings
Conceptualization and planning phase
The festivals conceptualization and
planning phase took place from September until the end of December
2014. This phase included the concept
renewal and the development of major
ideas for the coming festival. Decisions
concerning the festivals design, theme,
and artists were made during this phase.
The primary aim of festival planning
was to create new and unexpected experiences for the customers, book popular
artists, and generate ideas for discussion. The communication modes and
practices, as well as the communication
intensity, varied significantly among the
different stakeholders.
Agents
These stakeholders represented the artists and were perceived as a particularly
significant stakeholder group during
the festivals conceptualization and
planning phase. Negotiations with the
agents to book the desired artists were
extremely intensive, starting in September through the end of the year. Communication with the agents was carried
out intensively in both impersonal
and personal modes. Email was used
to exchange standard quotes through
a standardized protocol. Other venues
and informal meetings, such as Musamedia in Tampere (a forum for agents,
festival organizers, and artists), were
considered to contribute to the building of personal and embedded relationships with the agents, gaining new
information about the artists, or getting
feedback related to the festival, which
ensured continuity and helped refine
the concept. This phase was seen as the
most significant because it defined the
level of attractiveness of the entire festival. Uncertainty and pressure concerning the agents were particularly high
during the festivals planning stage, and
communication took place via multiple
channels:
79
Impersonal mode: Facebook updates to enhance a sense of community to promote

feelings of the last festivals and to share information. Qtv in Youtube, advertising,
Qstock magazine, Instagram, Twitter.
Customers
Group mode: N/A.
Personal mode: N/A.
Impersonal mode: Email quotes and information exchange.

Personal mode: Occasional private phone calls.
Group mode: Occasional informal and formal face-to-face meetings to achieve
highest possible mutual benefit.
Salience: Low
Power: Customers are not perceived to possess much resources or information
that could be used by the management during the planning phase.
Legitimacy: A highly relevant group for the existence of the festival but their
input is not perceived by the management as important during the planning phase.
Urgency: Customers are not experienced to have urgent or critical claims during
the planning phase.
Salience: Medium
Power: Sponsors have monetary resources and brand value that enforce the
attractiveness of the festival; however, they are not critical for the festival
planning phase.
Legitimacy: Sponsors are selected in a manner that they are legitimate in the
eyes of the festival audience.
Urgency: Sponsors make sponsoring decisions related to summer events typically
during the autumn in order to be able to market them at the maximum intensity
during spring.
Legitimacy: Legitimate actors in the scenerepresentatives of the artists.

Urgency: Booking the artists is time-critical for the agents during the autumn.
Urgency decreases significantly during spring, in April almost all of the most
popular artists are booked.
Personal mode: Intense phone call negotiations with agents to discuss the festival
bookings: artist offers, contracts; Musamedia seminar: various informal discussions
and meetings with the agents for relationship building, learning, and exchanging
rich information. Friends with a lot of agents, but with others interaction is formal;
Finnish rock festivals registered association meetings.
Group mode: Musamedia seminar and meetings; Finnish rock festival registered
association meetings.
Salience: High
Power: Highly powerful, since they are in charge of the calendar and booking
ofthe artists that are a crucial resource for the festival.
Conceptualization and Planning/External Stakeholders
Salience
Impersonal mode: Email quotes and exchanging artist offers (Most attractive
artists are booked one and half years in advance.) September to December (final
opportunity to book artists).
Sponsors
Agents
Communication
80
DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Agents
Artist
coordinator;
restaurant
manager;
festival area
manager;
safety
manager; area
coordinator;
communication
coordinator
Salience: Low
Power: During the planning phase, the city officials do not have claims related to
the next years festival.
Legitimacy: City officials input into certain planning solutions could be asked for
at this point, but no permit application processes need to be executed during this
stage.
Urgency: Permit application processes are not time-critical at this point of the
year.
Urgency: It is critical to start planning the visual image and campaign during the
planning phase so that for example, the visual image can be released in liaison
with the Christmas campaign.
Legitimacy: A capable and widely known agency within the marketing scene.
Group mode: Informal meetings at other festivals.
Personal mode: Phone calls to ask questions and to book additional artists during
the early spring.
Impersonal mode: Email quotes as needed.
Urgency: Low in planning phase from the perspective of the organizing of Qstock
and coordinating the external stakeholders.
Legitimacy: Permanent and accepted position as part of the Qfamily due to many
years working relationship with the festival.
Power: Coordinators are in charge of the operative functions of the festival

services, orchestrate the external operative stakeholder network, and are in
a position to influence the concept and direction of the project based on their
experience. Rich information about organizing the event is in the form of tacit
knowledge of internal stakeholders.
Salience: Medium
Urgency: Urgency is low since all the bookings have been made.
(Continued)
Power: All the artists have been booked so power of agents is medium.
Salience: Medium
Execution Phase/External Stakeholders
Impersonal mode: Occasional phone and email quotes to gather data for planning
and concept development.
LinkedIn group discussions to discover good practices (Artist Coordinator). Planning
and applying permits; mainly just exchanging contracts (Festival Area Manager).
Personal mode: Phone calls to gather information for planning and to make
appointments. Social media (private) to stay up to date and to enhance commitment
NHS give the opportunity to be part of the Qfamily.
Group mode: Pre-Christmas party and other team building events to generate ideas
to develop festival concept. Facebook group for information sharing (restaurant
team, safety team).
Group mode: N/A.
Salience
Power: Capabilities and knowledge to plan and design an effective marketing
campaign and visual image of the festival. However, the marketing agency is
easily changeable and the management group has expertise in planning the
campaigns themselves.
Salience: Medium
Conceptualization and Planning/Internal Stakeholders
Impersonal mode: N/A.
City officials
Personal mode: N/A.
Impersonal mode: Email exchange concerning the marketing material.

Personal mode: Meetings to plan advertising and design hand.
Telephone calls to the representatives.
Group mode: Occasional meetings for cooperation and marketing, which go hand
in hand.
Marketing
agency
Communication
PAPERS
81
Personal mode: Occasional phone calls.
City officials
Power: Not much power in terms of the festival image during the execution
phase.
Impersonal mode: Occasional emails.
Marketing
agency
Group mode: Relationship building meeting with the authorities. Meeting at the
festival site to inspect the festival areas condition.
Personal mode: Phone calls to make appointments and discuss permit application,
procedures, and unexpected events.
Impersonal mode: Email to apply for a permit to organize a festival and to set up
a date for area inspections. Festival permits set high importance and pressure on a
festival, as there are not alternative plans.
Group mode: N/A.
Salience: Low
Impersonal mode: Active information sharing in Qtv in Youtube, advertising,

Qstock magazine, Facebook to enhance sense of community to promote feelings
of the last festivals and to share information, Twitter, Instagram for information
sharing.
Personal mode: Collecting feedback from randomly selected festival participants.
Group mode: N/A.
Urgency: During the project execution phase, the urgency and time-criticality is
on a high level due to the permit application process.
Legitimacy: High legitimacy based on formal authority, authority to grant the

permits.
Power: Formal authority in relation to the festival, power to prevent the

organizing.
Salience: High
Urgency: During the project execution phase, the urgency and time-criticality is at
a low level as the marketing campaign has already been planned.
Urgency: Customers urgency is at its highest during the project execution phase
particularly during the actual festival when communication requirements come up.
Legitimacy: A relevant and legitimate group particularly during the actual festival
weekend.
Power: Customers are not perceived to possess much resources or information

that could be used by the management during the execution phase.
Salience: Medium
Urgency: During the project execution phase, the urgency of the sponsors
increases particularly when their promotion campaigns and visibility at the festival
site is planned.
Power: Sponsors have monetary resources and brand value that enforce the
attractiveness of the festival.
Customers
Salience: Medium
Impersonal mode: Email quotes as needed.

Personal mode: Phone calls to ask questions.
Group mode: Meetings as needed.
Salience
Sponsors
Communication
82
Agents
Artist
coordinator;
restaurant
manager;
festival area
manager;
safety
manager; area
coordinator;
communication
coordinator
DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Group mode: N/A.
Personal mode: Phone calls as needed.
Impersonal mode: Emails as needed.
(Continued)
Salience: Medium
Power: Powerful because they are in charge of the calendar and booking of the
artists. At this point, all the popular artists have been booked and festival artist
portfolio is supplemented with more low-profile artists.
Urgency: Urgency decreases significantly during spring, in April almost all of the
most popular artists are booked.
Post-Project Phase/External Stakeholders
Training sessions for the security volunteers (Safety manager).
Internet conversation groups. Private Facebook groups (safety and restaurant teams
separately). Facebook group discussions for planning and sharing tasks with external
stakeholders.
Weekly status meetings at the office (formal 1 hr min and informal part 1 hr
optional). Informal meetings in other festivals (Provissirock, Rotuaari Piknik, Sziget in
Hungary) for benchmarking, networking, and team building. Meetings with external
stakeholders at the office. Recruitment meetings.
Group mode: Management group organizes a spring break party and kick off
meeting to enhance team spirit and motivation.
Phone calls to security team, door attendants, area manager, first aid (Akuutti apu)
(Safety manager).
Personal mode: Face-to-face discussions with hotels, artists, stage production

companies, agencies, stage managers, backstage hosts, and other volunteers to
share information (artist coordinator). Meetings with the artists and bands to make
interviews and meetings with media (Communication coordinator).
Salience
Salience: High
Legitimacy: High urgency (Highly urgent and critical from the perspective of
organizing Qstock and coordinating external stakeholders).
Power: Highly powerful group, since they have rich information about organizing the
event, the contacts, and the information is mainly in the form of tacit knowledge.
Legitimacy: High.
Urgency: (Highly urgent and critical from the perspective of organizing Qstock and
coordinating external stakeholders).
Replacing internal stakeholders in this group in execution phase would be highly
challenging.
Execution Phase/Internal Stakeholders
Impersonal mode: Email quotes and phone calls to external stakeholders. Most
communication to volunteers is in email (restaurant manager). Emails for recruiting and
selecting employees and volunteers for the festival. Mass emails to internal and external
stakeholders and to Qtv to make marketing material, editing Qstock magazine, information
letters to media and to local businesses (Communication coordinator). Guidelines and
information are stored on memory sticks. Web page is established for sharing information
and guidelines. Facebook advertising for recruiting volunteers start in April.
Communication
PAPERS
83
Group mode: Meeting about the feedback.
Group mode: Meeting as needed.
Power: Formal authority in relation to the festival site inspections.

Legitimacy: High legitimacy based on formal authority.
Personal mode: Phone calls.
Group mode: Meeting at the festival site to inspect the festival area after event.
Informal sauna event. Analysis from the audiences feedback after lessons-learned
event.
Group mode: Meeting with the management group and internal stakeholders to
discuss about the feedback and to generate ideas for the next festival.
Impersonal mode: Lessons-learned document is created and stored in network

drive.
Power, legitimacy, and urgency: Low because the festival is finished.
Salience: Low
Post-Project Phase/Internal Stakeholder
Urgency: During the post-project phase discussions and solving possible conflicts
of interests about the feedback is crucial for the event next year.
Salience: Medium
Impersonal mode: Email to set up a date for inspections and to discuss about the
feedback.
Urgency: During the post-project phase, occasional feedback from the marketing
agency may be required.
Salience: Medium
Power: Power of the agency is low.
Impersonal mode: Emails as needed.
Urgency: As the festival has ended, there are no urgent customer claims.
Legitimacy: Legitimacy of customers is low.
Group mode: N/A.
Personal mode: N/A.
Internet-based conversation groups.
Impersonal mode: Feedback collected from the festival audience and processed by Salience: Medium
the college students. Analysis is made by the management team. Email responses
Power: Customers are perceived to possess knowledge related to the festival
to customer feedback.
experience.
Urgency: In the post-project phase, the urgency of sponsors is low.
Salience: Medium
Power: Sponsors with monetary resources may be used in next years festivals
and their knowledge and experience on this years festival is discussed.
Impersonal mode: N/A.
Salience
Personal mode: Discussion about feedback, which is based on sponsors

experience and feeling of the benefit rather than something measurable.
Table 1: Communication in the festival project Qstock over its life cycle.
Artist
coordinator;
restaurant
manager;
festival area
manager;
safety
manager; area
coordinator;
communication
coordinator
City officials
Marketing
agency
Customers
Sponsors
Communication
PAPERS
Well the agents are really challenging to deal with and communication
with them is intensive in the planning
phase: emails, phone calls, and meetings in an informal setting. Many of
them are my friends. (Manager A)
In the project conceptualization and

planning phase, communication among
the project management group and
the festival sponsors and the marketing agency took place primarily through
impersonal modes, such as emails;
however, occasionally, personal phone
calls and face-to-face meetings were
organized in order to share ideas about
the marketing concept and the ideas
that the sponsors could take forward.
Customers and city officials
Communications with these stakeholders were almost nonexistent during the
festivals conceptualization and planning phase. The impersonal mode was
used with customers, including Facebook updates and advertising, which
increased particularly during the first
phase of the ticket sales in December.
Internal stakeholders
The internal stakeholders, such as the artist coordinator and the festival area manager, did not work full time for the project
and hence were not always available for
communication during this phase of
the project. Communication among the
management group and internal stakeholders during the conceptualization and
planning phase was occasional and took
place via face-to-face meetings or telephone calls. The main purpose of using
the personal mode and group mode was
to maintain and enhance commitment
and to develop ideas further. Their role
primarily included networking and evaluating the practices and services in other
festivals. Thus, generating ideas was also
part of the conceptualization and planning phase, which partly overlapped the
execution phase.
Execution phase
During the execution phase, communication with external stakeholders was
84
initiated and took place mainly in the

impersonal mode. This was crucial in
order to start the implementation of
plans and to recruit and coordinate
volunteer workers from local colleges
and sports clubs. The festivals webpage
opened with the final list of performing artists, which indicated an impersonal mode of communication with
customers.
Communication with the city officials was also important in the project
execution phase because of the need to
apply for different permits. We observed
a combination of impersonal, personal,
and group modes of communication
with the city officials. Although written
applications were sent via email and
regular mail, the projects management
also organized an informal meeting
with the city officials in order to discuss
ongoing concerns.
In the execution phase, we observed
the extensive use of impersonal, personal, and group modes by the internal
stakeholders. The start of the ticket sales
was particularly important. During this
phase, face-to-face meetings with internal stakeholders were held weekly. Typically, the first hour of these meetings
was allotted to organizing the event;
during the second hour, time was available for free discussion. The main purpose of the personal and group modes
of communication was to enhance team
spirit, focus on implementation, share
tasks, ask questions, and network with
other festival organizers. The security
team and the catering team also used
Facebook and Qstocks Facebook page
to share information. The festival coordinator described the communication
with internal stakeholders during the
execution phase as follows:
Our core is small, efficient, and agile.
Our communication works really well.
Other festivals have heavy organizations with 20 people or so and that
challenges decision-making.
Festival phase. Communication

with the agents and city officials was
observed to be only occasional during
DOI: 10.1002/pmj
the festival phase and was primarily

related to unexpected situations that
needed to be dealt with immediately.
For example, the flight of one of the
artist groups was delayed, which meant
that the hours-of-noise permit obtained
for the festival needed to be extended.
Late on a Friday evening, one of the
managers telephoned a city official who
gave permission to extend the hours.
During the actual festival phase,
which was part of the project execution
phase, the major focus of communication was on coordinating the activities between the internal and external
stakeholders . According to the interviewees, the main challenge was to be
able to contact the key people and know
who was needed and who specialized
in which topic in case of an emergency
or if something unexpected happened.
During the festival phase, there were
clear guidelines instructing whom to
contact and in which situations. The
communication followed a strict hierarchy, and the formal lines of communication used mainly the personal mode
but only if escalations were needed. For
example, the bar employees would first
contact their line manager, who would
then contact the restaurant manager
if necessary. The restaurant manager
then would decide whether support
by the festival manager or the external
stakeholders was needed. The backstage coordinator and hygiene coordinator were the only ones instructed
to contact the festival coordinator or
managers directly. In the case of a major
unexpected event that could potentially
affect the whole festival, the festival
managers would be contacted directly.
In the case of serious security issues, the
festival managers would follow the suggestions given by the safety manager. In
the case of severe weather conditions,
the marketing manager would have the
required external contacts at the local
airport, and decisions would be made
based on these experts views. Communication in the personal mode was
managed through radiophones, and
the festival coordinator mediated and
transmitted messages across the festival organization; therefore, keeping the

festival coordinator up to date during
the festival was crucial for its operation.
The week before the festival and
during the festival were the most hectic periods. Many telephone conversations and instant messages took place
among different stakeholders; however,
communication stopped soon after the
festival ended, as the artist coordinator
described:
Communication with some of the
stage managers is really hectic during the festival, but after the festival
they barely answer the phone anymore, because they have other jobs
and interests then. Thats ok, and we
think that everyone can be in touch
as much as they like outside of the
festival. (Artist coordinator)
During the festival, project management and the internal stakeholders

were mainly present at the festival to
answer questions and coordinate activities among stakeholders as required.
The management team and internal
stakeholders communicated actively
with each other and guided others in
the case of an emergency. They were
also present to communicate personally
in order to build contacts and enhance
relationships with the artists and other
stakeholders. The restaurant manager
described that by the time of the festival, the tasks and guidelines had been
shared and were clear to everyone. Volunteer workers, security, and the bar
staff usually knew their tasks and routinely did what was expected of them:
That moment feels really rewarding
when you are listening to the bands and
you see how the audience is enjoying
the show. You just get these feelings of
success when you see how everything
works and how employees just take
over knowing what to do and things are
running smoothly. (Restaurant manager and festival coordinator)
Post-project phase. In the postproject phase, a meeting with all the

internal stakeholders was organized
to gather feedback about the festival.

On the Sunday after the festival, the
internal stakeholders and management
team met face-to-face to participate in
a team sauna event. The next day they
discussed the feedback related to the
festival. A festival coordinator described
this meeting as follows:
Everyone thinks how everything went
on his or her side in his or her opinion.
Every internal stakeholder member
talks about his or her experiences and
then we discuss. Others make documents and lists and others just talk,
each individual does this in his or her
own style. Then we store the information to the network drive. (Festival
coordinator)
The feedback was collected, analyzed, discussed, and stored on a network drive; some members created
documents and lists, whereas others
preferred informal discussions. In the
post-project phase, the communication
mainly facilitated the lessons learned
from the project in order to enhance the
festival:
Lessons learned meeting is organized because we want to know how
to make the festival work nicer and
easier. We discuss what we could we
do better, what havent we noticed
and how could we enhance their job
satisfaction as a whole? (Manager A)
The communication with the festival

visitors focused on collecting feedback
which was done with the assistance of
local college students. In the previous
year, the college students organized a
project to conduct an electronic survey using a mobile application; they
received over 500 responses from the
audience. The students synthesized the
feedback, which was analyzed by the
festival coordinator. Feedback was also
collected during the festival in paper
form; this feedback, however, was not
available at the lessons-learned meeting, which therefore was organized
mainly to discuss the internal stakeholders and managements experiences
of the festival. Immediately after the

lessons-learned session, a team sauna
event was organized to facilitate informal discussions.
Synthesis of Results
The findings showed that various kinds
of communication practices in impersonal, personal, and group modes were
used to manage the project stakeholder
communication. Moreover, the findings
indicated that the communication with
different stakeholders evolved over the
projects life cycle.
In the project s conceptualization
and planning phase, communication
with internal stakeholders to conceptualize and plan the festival was observed
to be occasional and mainly in the
impersonal and group modes. Communication with agents utilized the impersonal, personal, and group modes and
was high in frequency. With other external stakeholders, communication was
managed in the impersonal mode (customers) and a combination of impersonal and occasional personal modes
(sponsors and marketing agency).
In the project s execution phase,
the amount and frequency of impersonal, personal, and group modes of
communication with internal stakeholders increased significantly. In this
phase, communication was initiated
with many external stakeholders, such
as sports associations and mainly took
place in the impersonal mode, such as
social media.
In the actual festival phase, communication was extensive. A wide-ranging
set of clear and structured guidelines
was developed, which facilitated communication in the impersonal mode
with both internal and external stakeholders. In addition, in operations during the festival, the personal and group
modes of communication were used
along with internal and external stakeholders, such as city officials and voluntary organizations.
In the post-project phase, communication with the internal stakeholders to
discuss festival feedback and to develop
85
PAPERS
project management practices for the

next festival project was in the personal
and group modes. Less emphasis was
placed on communication with customers and other external stakeholders,
which was mainly carried out with the
impersonal mode.
The findings clearly indicate that
project stakeholder communication
practices depend on the project phase,
which is evident in two ways: First, the
communication mode within a specific
stakeholder group varied over the project s life cycle. Second, communication focused on different stakeholder
groups in the different stages of the
project life cycle. Hence, we conclude
the following:
Proposition 1: Project stakeholder communication is a dynamic process, and it
evolves throughout the project phases as the
overall effort in communication with stakeholders evolves over the projects life cycle.
Proposition 2: The emphasis on using
impersonal, personal, and group modes
of communication with each stakeholder
evolves over the projects life cycle.
We conducted an additional analysis to explain the dynamism observed

to underlie the stakeholder communication. According to the information
processing model, the communication
modes of impersonal, personal, and
group modes are used to facilitate information processing needs (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Galbraith, 1973). Moreover,
the impersonal mode can be used to
fit lower information processing needs,
whereas the personal and group modes
are used to facilitate information processing to a greater extent and hence to
fit situations with greater information
processing needs.
For example, in the project conceptualization and planning phase, communication with agents was extensive
in the impersonal, personal, and group
modes, indicating high information processing needs. This can be explained by
the high power and legitimacy of the
agents in terms of negotiating the artists
86
deals and high urgency in claims during

the autumn in terms of bookings, which
indicates high stakeholder salience. In
the execution phase, the communication
with the internal stakeholders increased
and was extensive in the impersonal,
personal, and group modes of communication. This finding indicates very
high information processing needs. The
salience of the internal stakeholders in
this phase was very high in terms of
power, legitimacy, and urgency because
they needed to be engaged and committed to the actual execution processes and
have the high tacit knowledge needed in
project execution. Consequently, replacing them in the execution phase would
have been extremely challenging. In
the festival phase, the communication
with city officials was in the impersonal
and personal modes. The group mode
was used in meetings to inspect the festival area and to react to unexpected
events; this finding indicates high information processing needs, which can be
explained by high stakeholder salience:
City officials have high power and legitimacy based on their formal authority to
grant and oversee the festival permits.
Moreover, urgency during the festival
phase is high because of the criticality of
the time specified in the permit application process. Finally, in the post-project
phase, the communication with external stakeholders was minimal and only
in the impersonal mode, indicating low
information processing needs. This finding can be explained by the low salience
of the external stakeholders in this phase;
all dimensions of power, legitimacy, and
urgency are low. Based on these findings,
we conclude the following:
Proposition 3: The project stakeholder communication mode in a particular project
phase can be explained by the salience
of the stakeholders in that phase; less
salient stakeholders pose low information
processing needs and can be managed
using impersonal communication modes,
whereas highly salient stakeholders pose
high information processing needs and
require more advanced personal and group
communication modes.
DOI: 10.1002/pmj
According to the results of the

empirical analysis, the differences in the
observed communication modes used
among different stakeholders in different project phases can be explained
by stakeholder salience (Mitchell et al.,
1997 ). When stakeholder salience
in terms of power, legitimacy, and
urgencyis high, there is a more extensive use of personal and group modes
of communication, indicating higher
information processing needs. In contrast, when stakeholder salience is low,
the frequency of communication is low
and mainly in the impersonal mode,
indicating lower information processing
needs. Stakeholder salience in turn is
dependent on the life cycle stage of the
project. Stakeholder salience is associated with the phase of the project. For
example, stakeholders that are highly
salient during the project planning
phase may have low salience during the
project execution phase.
Our study provides an in-depth
understanding of communication
among stakeholders and shows how
stakeholder communication evolves over
a projects life cycle because of changes
in the attributes of stakeholder salience.
At a higher level, the results align with
previous research that addresses stakeholder management in various contexts.
In their seminal study, Mitchell et al.
(1997) noted that the salience of stakeholders might vary from one context to
another. To elaborate on this notion,
Jawahar and McLaughlin (1997) adopted
a firm life cycle perspective to examine
stakeholder dynamics and showed how
change in the context (i.e., the stage of
the organizational life cycle) was a key
factor in shaping the salience of organizational stakeholders. Following this
line of argumentation, in the context
of projects, the results of Aaltonen and
Kujala (2010) and Olander and Landin
(2005) suggested that the salience and
particularly the power of stakeholders
might change as the project proceeds
in its life cycle and as project-related
decisions are made. For example, when
the decision is made to start the project,
the salience of the opposing stakeholders decreases because their potential to

influence the decision-making process
becomes significantly lower (Aaltonen &
Kujala, 2010).
Discussion and Implications

Research Implications
This study contributes to the understanding of the management of project stakeholder communication over a
project s life cycle. The study particularly contributes to bridging project
stakeholder management and communications, the knowledge about communicating with project stakeholders,
the knowledge about project stakeholder dynamics, the contingency view
of project management, and the management of cultural projects.
Bridging project stakeholder management
and communication
The study is one of the few that have
attempted to bridge the research on
project stakeholder management and
communication: by combining the information processing perspective (Daft &
Lengel, 1986; Galbraith, 1973) with the
stakeholder salience framework (Mitchell et al., 1997). This study provides a
novel approach to theorizing project
stakeholder communication. Consequently, by explaining the perceived
stakeholder communication modes
according to the degree of stakeholder
salience, the results provide the initial
understanding of stakeholder attributes
as factors that influence the information
processing needs and hence the stakeholder communication practices that
are used. Moreover, the results of the
study increase the understanding of the
implications of the stakeholder salience
framework (Mitchell et al., 1997) for
managerial practice, particularly within
the area of communication practices.
Project stakeholder communication
management
The study particularly contributes to the
understanding of project stakeholder
communication. Even though existing
stakeholder management models take

into account the need to tailor communication processes according to the
importance of the stakeholders, little
empirical research has examined different modes of stakeholder communication and how they are related to
the stakeholder attributes. The study
furthers the understanding of the use
of multiple uses of the impersonal,
personal, and group modes to managing stakeholder communication in the
project context. In addition, the study
provides interesting insights into the
dynamics of stakeholder communication by showing how communication
practices with different stakeholders
evolve and develop over the projects
life cycle. By addressing communication
in the project context, the study also
complements prior project research on
the integration of various organizational
interfaces, such as project-to-project
(Prencipe & Tell, 2001 ; Turkulainen
et al., 2015) and functional interfaces
(Adler, 1995; Turkulainen et al., 2013).
In addition, our study responds to the
call for further empirical research on
stakeholder engagement practices (Aaltonen, 2010; Foster & Jonker, 2005).
Project stakeholder dynamics
This article developed a detailed understanding of project stakeholder management in different phases of the project
life cycle (e.g., Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010;
Eskerod & Vaagaasar, 2014; Olander &
Landin, 2005). Although prior research
has emphasized the lack of detailed
knowledge about how project stakeholder management is carried out in
practice and how it may vary over the
course of the project (Achterkamp &
Vos, 2008; Eskerod & Jepsen, 2013), it
has primarily focused on the conceptual
development of normative stakeholder
management tools and frameworks that
are inherently static (Yang et al., 2009).
In particular, this study shows that a
dynamic approach should be adopted
for project stakeholder management
and engagement. As the project moves
through the distinctive phases in its
life cycle (e.g., Morris, 1982; Turner,

1999), different approaches and modes
of communication for managing different stakeholders at different points in
time are required. By empirically demonstrating the changes in stakeholders
salient attributes and the shifts in the
associated communication practices of
project stakeholders over the projects
life cycle, the results further support the
notion of projects as dynamic contexts
of stakeholder management (Aaltonen
& Kujala, 2010; Eskerod & Vaagaasar,
2014). In addition, by analyzing stakeholder communication modes and their
changes with a multitude of internal
and external stakeholders, this study
departs from the majority of prior studies that tended to address management
practices in only a limited number of
stakeholder relationships, typically in
single focal project-stakeholder dyads
(e.g., Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010).
Contingency analysis of project
management
The results of the study suggest that
communication with stakeholders can
be explained by the salience of the focal
stakeholder in a specific phase of the
project. These results add to the previous contingency analyses of project
management (e.g., Shenhar & Dvir,
1996; Turkulainen etal., 2013; Turkulainen et al., 2015) by showing how context shapes the use of communication
practices. Moreover, the results imply
that in studying projects, we need to be
specific about the various stakeholders and their characteristics; different
stakeholders should be managed in different ways.
Managing cultural projects
This study responds to the call for
empirical research on managing cultural project s (Whlin & Blomquist,
2014 ). Despite their increased economic significance and their complex
and dynamic nature, cultural projects
have drawn only a little attention from
management researchers (Lampel etal.,
2000). Indeed, although it is widely
87
PAPERS
acknowledged that cultural projects

matter to society and their contexts are
considered to be different from those of
traditional projects, understanding how
cultural projects are organized and executed remains under studied (Whlin
& Blomquist, 2014). By contributing to
the understanding of stakeholder communication modes over the life cycle of
a festival project, a particular form of
cultural project, this study adds to the
emergent knowledge of the management of cultural projects. Stakeholder
communication processes play a central
role in managing a cultural project s
stakeholder network; however, their
role is not yet well understood (Larson,
2009, 2011). In addition, by identifying
the relevant stakeholders in a festival
project and describing the changes in
their attributes, the study provides a
holistic perspective on understanding
the stakeholder landscapes of cultural
projects and increases the understanding of their stakeholder contexts.
Managerial Implications
The study has clear managerial implications for stakeholder management
and communication in complex and
uncertain environments. In particular,
the study describes different ways of
managing stakeholder communication
in a project context over the projects
life cycle. We provide descriptions of
tools for practitioners, and the various practices for facilitating stakeholder
communication discussed in the article
can be a basis of analysis in their own
project settings to manage communication and potentially develop it. The
results of this study could also provide
additional ideas for managers regarding
stakeholder communication in different
project phases.
The results could also be used to
analyze and assess stakeholders and
their salience in other project contexts.
Based on the findings of this study,
the main conclusion is that project
stakeholder communication evolves
over the project s life cycle, and the
use of the impersonal, personal, and
88
group communication modes can be

explained by the perceived salience of
a particular stakeholder in a specific
phase of the project. Managers could
use the conclusions of this study to
assess the salience of their stakeholders
and their links to communication over
the projects life cycle. Especially in the
cultural project context, the framework
could be used as a basis for enhancing
relationships with the existing customers and pursuing new audiences. The
framework could also be used to build
commitment to agents and city officials,
which could benefit future projects
(Andersson & Getz, 2010).
Limitations and Future Research
A theory-elaborating case study, such
as the one utilized in this study, does
not lead to a validated theory, but it
does provide empirical insights and
theoretical ideas for future research.
The empirical findings presented in this
article are based on a specific empirical context. Future research could
engage in collecting large-scale data
from other empirical contexts to test
the presented conclusions. Our case
project has repetitive elements in that
similar festivals have been organized
for several years, and the stakeholder
network could be partly characterized
by close and embedded ties cultivated
among the key participants. It is evident
that the established relationships and
accumulated capability for managing
different stakeholders has implications
for the use of different communication
modes. It could be expected that the use
of the personal communication mode
would be more extensive in one-of-akind novel projects in which the participants had no prior experience working
with one another. Future research could
thus assess the ways in which the nature
of the project, particularly its repetitiveness, affects the communication modes
implemented.
Another fruitful avenue of research
would be to study the relations
among the company strategy, stakeholder communication strategy, and
DOI: 10.1002/pmj
communication modes. This would

be especially useful for high salience
stakeholders. Such research could also
assess links to the outcomes of stakeholder communication as well as the
business effects of stakeholder communication; moreover, the broader area of
a firms efforts to enhance sustainability
and use stakeholder communication to
improve sustainability could be studied.
In the context of our study, utilizing
modern ICT in stakeholder communications is still in its infancy. Previous
studies on the cultural industry have
presented similar conclusions (e.g.,
Hudson & Hudson, 2013 ). Because
social media, such as Facebook and
LinkedIn, can offer organizations and
their stakeholders with an effective tool
for relationship building and networking, they could be crucial in the success of festivals in the future (Hudson
& Hudson, 2013; Waters et al., 2009).
Further research could systematically
assess the use and implications of such
communication practices.
Conclusion
In this article, we reported a study on
project stakeholder communication
over a projects life cycle by elaborating
on the information processing model
in the context of project stakeholder
management. Our empirical findings
are based on the case study of the music
festival Qstock and the management of
stakeholder communication during the
festival projects life cycle. Our study
bridges project stakeholder management and communication and also contributes to the contingency approach to
project management, and research on
cultural projects. The main conclusion
drawn from our study is that stakeholder communication during a project
evolves through the project s phases
and can be explained by the perceived
salience of the focal stakeholder in each
phase of the project. In addition, the
mode of communication (i.e., impersonal, personal, and group modes) can
be explained by the perceived salience
of the stakeholder. Communication
with less salient stakeholders can be

managed by using the impersonal
mode, whereas highly salient stakeholders require communication by using the
personal and group modes.
References
Aaltonen, K. (2010). Stakeholder
management in international projects
(Doctoral dissertation, Aalto University
School of Science and Technology,
Department of Industrial Engineering
and Management, Espoo, Finland,
Doctoral dissertation series 2010/13).
Aaltonen, K. (2011). Project stakeholder
analysis as an environmental
interpretation process. International
Journal of Project Management, 29(2),
165183.
Aaltonen, K., & Kujala, J. (2010).
A project lifecycle perspective on
stakeholder influence strategies in
global projects. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 26(4), 381397.
Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., & Oijala, T.
(2008). Stakeholder salience in global
projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 26(5), 509516.
Achterkamp, M. C., & Vos, J. F. (2008).
Investigating the use of stakeholder
influence strategies in global projects.
International Journal of Project
Management, 26(7), 509516.
Adler, P. S. (1995). Interdepartmental
interdependence and coordination:
The case of the design/manufacturing
interface. Organization Science, 6(2),
147167.
Andersson, T., & Getz, D. (2010). Festival
stakeholders: Exploring relationships
and dependency through a four-country
comparison. Journal of Hospitality/
Tourism Research, 34(4), 531556.
Beringer, C., Jonas, D., & Gemnden,
H.G. (2012). Establishing project
portfolio management: An exploratory
analysis of the influence of internal
stakeholders interactions. Project
Management Journal, 43(6), 1632.
Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2005).
Visualizing and mapping stakeholder
influence. Management Decision, 43(5),

649660.
.eu/culture/policy/strategic-framework/
growth-jobs_en.htm
Brde Jepsen, L. (2013). Complex new

product development projects: How the
project managers information sharing
with core actors changes over time.
Project Management Journal, 44(6),
2035.
Faraj, S., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak,

A. (2011). Knowledge collaboration
in online communities. Organisation
Science, 22(5), 11241239.
Brown, K. M., Huettner, B., & JamesTanny, C. (2007). Managing virtual

teams: Getting the most from wikis, blogs,
and other collaborative tools. Plano, TX :
Wordware.
Cleland, D. I. (1986). Project stakeholder
management. Project Management
Journal, 17(4), 3644.
Cova, B., & Salle, R. (2005). Six key
points to merge project marketing into
project management. International
Journal of Project Management, 23(5),
354359.
Crane, A., & Livesey, S. (2003).
Are you talking to me? Stakeholder
communication and the risks and
rewards of dialogue. In J. Andriof,
S.Waddock, S. Rahman, & B. Husted
(Eds.), Unfolding stakeholder thinking 2:
Relationships, communication, reporting
and performance (pp. 3952). Sheffield,
England: Greenleaf.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986).
Organizational information
requirements, media richness and
structural design. Management Science,
32(5), 554571.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building
theories from case study research.
Academy of Management Review, 14(4),
532550.
Eskerod, P., & Jepsen, A. L. (2013).
Project stakeholder management
(fundamentals of project management).
Farnham, Surrey, England: Gower.
Foster, D., & Jonker, J. (2005).

Stakeholder relationships: The dialogue
of engagement. Corporate Governance,
5(5), 5157.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic
management: A stakeholder approach.
Boston, MA: Pitman.
Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing
complex organizations. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Greenberg, J. (1999). Managing behavior
in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Hage, J., Aiken, M., & Marrett, C. B.
(1971). Organization structure and
communications. American Sociological
Review, 36(5), 860871.
Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M.
(1992). Stakeholder-agency theory.
JournalofManagement Studies, 29(2),
131154.
Hudson, S., & Hudson, R. (2013).
Engaging with consumers using social
media: A case study of music festivals.
International Journal of Event and
Festival Management, 4(3), 206223.
Hunsaker, P. L., & Hunsaker, J. S. (2008).
Virtual teams: A leaders guide. Team
Performance Management, 14(1/2),
86101.
Jawahar, I. M., & McLaughlin, G. L.
(2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder
theory: An organizational life cycle
approach. The Academy of Management
Review, 26(3), 397414.
Eskerod, P., & Vaagaasar, A. L. (2014).

Stakeholder management strategies and
practices during a project course. Project
Management Journal, 45(5), 7185.
Jepsen, A. L., & Eskerod, P. (2009).

Stakeholder analysis in projects:
Challenges in using current guidelines in
the real world. International Journal of
Project Management, 27(4), 335343.
European Commission. (2014). Creative

EuropeSupporting Europes cultural and
creative sectors, Culture for growth and
jobs. Retrieved from http://ec.europa
Johns, T., & Gratton, L. (2013). Spotlight

on the future of knowledge work: The
third wave of virtual work. Harvard
Business Review, 91(1), 6673.
89
PAPERS
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K.

(1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard
Business Review. The Best of HBR, 7(8),
162171.
Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014).
Renaissance of the case research as a
scientific method. Journal of Operations
Management, 32(5), 232240.
Lampel, J., Lant, T., & Shamsie, J. (2000).
Balancing act: Learning from organizing
practices in cultural industries.
Organization Science, 11(3), 263269.
Larson, M. (2009). Festival innovation:
Complex and dynamic network
interaction. Scandinavian Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism, Special
Issues:Festival Management, 9(23),
288307.
Larson, M. (2011). Innovation and
creativity in festival organizations.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, 20(34), 287310.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967).
Differentiation and integration in
complex organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 12(1), 147.
Layder, D. (1993). New strategies in
social research. Cambridge, England:
Policy Press.
Lohikoski, P., Kujala, J., Hrknen, J.,
Haapasalo, H., & Muhos, M. (2015).
Enhancing communication practices
in virtual NPD projects. International
Journal of Innovations in the Digital
Economy, 6(4), 1636.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958).
Organizations. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Mayfield, P. (2014). Engaging with
stakeholders is critical when leading
change. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 46(2), 6872.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and
social structure (enlarged ed.). New York,
NY: Free Press.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D.J.
(1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the
principle of who and what really counts.
Academy of Management Review, 22(4),
853886.
90
Morris, P. G. W. (1982). Project

organizations: Structures for managing
change. In A. J. Kelley (Ed.), New
dimensions of project management,
Arthur D. Little program (pp. 155171).
Lexington, MA: Heath.
Mukherjee, D., Lahiri, S., Mukherjee,
D., & Billing, T. K. (2012). Leading
virtual teams: How do social, cognitive,
and behavioral capabilities matter?
Management Decision, 50(2), 273290.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations

in action: Social science bases of
administrative theory (transaction ed.).
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Turkulainen, V., Kujala, J., Artto, K., &
Levitt, R. (2013). Organizing in the context
of global project-based firm: The case
of sales-operations interface. Industrial
Marketing Management, 42(2), 223233.
OConnor, J. (2003). Public and private

sector in cultural industries. In M.-L.
Niinikoski & K. Sibelius (Eds.),
Kulttuuribusiness (pp. 1229). Vantaa,
Finland: WSOY.
Turkulainen, V., Ruuska, I., Brady, T.,

& Artto, K. (2015). Managing projectto-project and project-to-organization
interfaces in programs: Organizational
integration in a global operations
expansion program. International Journal
of Project Management, 33(4), 816827.
Olander, S., & Landin, A. (2005).

Evaluation of stakeholder influence in
the implementation of construction
projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 23(4), 321328.
Turner, J. R. (1999). The handbook of

project-based management: Improving
the processes for achieving strategic
objectives (2nd ed.). London, England:
McGraw-Hill.
Pan, B., & Huan, T.-C. (2013). New perspectives on festival and events research.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism
and Hospitality Research, 7(2), 115117.
Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. H., &

Koenig, R. Jr. (1976). Determinants of
coordination modes within organization.
American Sociological Review, 41(2),
322338.
Pick, J., & Anderton, M. (1999). Arts

administration. London, England: Spon
Press, Taylor & Francis.
Prencipe, A., & Tell, F. (2001). Interproject learning: Processes and
outcomes of knowledge codification in
project-based firms. Research Policy, 30,
13731394.
Project Management Institute (2013).
A guide to the project management body
of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (5th ed.).
Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Radbourne, J., & Fraser, M. (1996). Arts
management: A practical guide. (South
Wind Production). Singapore: Allen &
Unwin.
Rowley, J. (2004). Researching people
and organizations. Library Management,
25(4), 208214.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (1996). Toward a
typological theory of project management.
Research Policy, 25(4), 607632.
Slevin, D. P., & Pinto, J. K. (1987).
Balancing strategy and tactics in project
implementation. Sloan Management
Review, 29(1), 3341.
DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Vaughan, D. (1992). Theory elaboration:

The heuristics of case analysis. In C.C.
Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.), What is
case? Exploring the foundations of social
inquiry (pp. 173201). Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Whlin, N., & Blomquist, T. (2014).
Organizing cultural projects. Special Issue
Call for Papers. InternationalJournal of
Managing Projects in Business.
Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., &
Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders
through social networking: How nonprofit
organisations are using Facebook. Public
Relations Review, 35(09), 102106.
Welch, M., & Jackson, P. R. (2007).
Rethinking internal communication:
A stakeholder approach. Corporate
Communications: An International
Journal, 12(2), 177198.
Winch, G. (2004). Managing project
stakeholders. In P. W. G. Morris &
J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide
to managing projects (pp. 321339).
NewYork, NY: Wiley.
Yang, J., Shen, Q., & Ho, M. (2009).

An overview of previous studies in
stakeholder management and its
implications for the construction
industry. Journal of Facilities
Management, 7(2), 159175.
Yang, R., Wang, Y., & Jin, X.-H. (2014).
Stakeholders attributes, behaviours,
and decision strategies in construction
projects: Importance and correlations in
practice. Project Management Journal,
45(3), 7490.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research:
Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dr. Virpi Turkulainen is Lecturer in Management
at University College Dublin, College of Business,
Dublin. Prior to that she worked as Fulbright Scholar
at Stanford University and was an Academy of
Finland post-doctoral fellow at Aalto University in

Finland. Her research interests are in the areas of
organization design, organizational integration, and
operations strategy. She has published her work
in Industrial Marketing Management, International
Journal of Project Management, Journal of Supply
Chain Management, and International Journal of
Operations & Production Management. She can be
contacted at virpi.turkulainen@ucd.ie
Dr. Kirsi Aaltonen is Assistant Professor of Project
Management at Research Group of Industrial
Engineering and Management, University of
Oulu, Finland. Prior to that she worked as Senior
Lecturer at Aalto University in Finland. Her current
research interests are in the areas of stakeholder
and uncertainty management in large and complex
projects. Her publication list includes more than 40
academic papers and book chapters in the area of
project business. She has published for example in
Scandinavian Journal of Management, International
Journal of Project Management, and International

Journal of Managing Projects in Business. She can
be contacted at kirsi.aaltonen@oulu.fi
Pivi Lohikoski, MA, is a university teacher in
Information Studies at the Faculty of Humanities
and a doctoral candidate in Industrial Engineering
and Management at the Faculty of Technology
at the University of Oulu. Pivi also works as
a communications freelancer and her research
interests are in knowledge management in virtual
organizations and corporate communications. She
received her MA degree in Information Studies from
the University of Oulu, where she has worked as a
university lecturer and university teacher since 2005.
Her work experience has concentrated on planning
and teaching in e-learning projects and she has
several years of work experience in the ICT industry
in communication and documentation functions
in R&D. She can be contacted at paivilohikoski@
outlook.com
91

Turkulainen Et Al-2015-Project Management Journal

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Turkulainen Et Al-2015-Project Management Journal

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

PAPERS

Managing Project Stakeholder

Project Management Journal,

roject stakeholder management is one of the focal parts of project

December 2015/January 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

and elaborate on the framework, we

2015 ). The information processing

depending on whether they are used

December 2015/January 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

The Qstock Festival Case

be affected by the project. Such groups

norms, values, beliefs and definitions

Project stakeholder communication

Figure 1: Conceptual framework.

December 2015/January 2016 Project Management Journal

stakeholder communication is managed in a project. We elaborate on the

Research Method and Data

examination of the data collected with

The Empirical Context: Qstock Music

December 2015/January 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

The Qstock Festival Case

artist coordinator and the communication coordinator. The festival event is

outline before each interview (Yin,

Empirical Findings and Theory

December 2015/January 2016 Project Management Journal

stakeholder communications, and we

December 2015/January 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Impersonal mode: Facebook updates to enhance a sense of community to promote

Group mode: N/A.

Personal mode: N/A.

Impersonal mode: Email quotes and information exchange.

Legitimacy: Legitimate actors in the scenerepresentatives of the artists.

Conceptualization and Planning/External Stakeholders

December 2015/January 2016 Project Management Journal

Group mode: Informal meetings at other festivals.

Impersonal mode: Email quotes as needed.

Power: Coordinators are in charge of the operative functions of the festival

Legitimacy: Legitimate actors in the scenerepresentatives of the artists.

Execution Phase/External Stakeholders

Group mode: N/A.

Conceptualization and Planning/Internal Stakeholders

Impersonal mode: N/A.

Personal mode: N/A.

Impersonal mode: Email exchange concerning the marketing material.

December 2015/January 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Personal mode: Occasional phone calls.

Impersonal mode: Occasional emails.

Group mode: N/A.

Impersonal mode: Active information sharing in Qtv in Youtube, advertising,

Legitimacy: High legitimacy based on formal authority, authority to grant the

Power: Formal authority in relation to the festival, power to prevent the

Power: Customers are not perceived to possess much resources or information

Impersonal mode: Email quotes as needed.

December 2015/January 2016 Project Management Journal

Group mode: N/A.

Personal mode: Phone calls as needed.

Impersonal mode: Emails as needed.

Post-Project Phase/External Stakeholders

Training sessions for the security volunteers (Safety manager).

Personal mode: Face-to-face discussions with hotels, artists, stage production

Execution Phase/Internal Stakeholders

December 2015/January 2016 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

Group mode: Meeting about the feedback.

Group mode: Meeting as needed.