AccScience Publishing / DP / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/DP025060011
Submit to DP
Cite this article
3
Download
49
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

Stakeholder identification through participatory and speculative design: A case study

Davide M. Parrilli1* ,  Giulia Calabretta2
Show Less
1 UNIDCOM, Design and Communication Research Unit, IADE - Faculty of Design, Technology and Communication, Universidade Europeia, Lisbon, Portugal
2 Department of Design, Organisation and Strategy (DOS), Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, South Holland, Netherlands
DP, 025060011 https://doi.org/10.36922/DP025060011
Received: 8 February 2025 | Revised: 13 May 2025 | Accepted: 23 May 2025 | Published online: 11 June 2025
© 2025 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Download PDF
Cite
XML
Abstract

As organizations face increasingly complex and shifting stakeholder landscapes, innovative methods are needed to identify and engage with both present and future stakeholders. This article explores the integration of participatory and speculative design approaches for stakeholder identification. Our case study was conducted within an international organization focused on intellectual property protection, and it addressed a critical organizational task: Identifying actual and potential stakeholders. Traditional top-down approaches to stakeholder identification were found to be limiting due to the evolving nature of stakeholder relationships. Therefore, we proposed a design-led approach that involved participatory workshops and speculative thinking, empowering the organization to maintain a dynamic stakeholder list in the future. The project involved interviews with key staff, participatory workshops to identify and prioritize values, and a speculative approach – the Stakeholder Mapping Cone – to identify stakeholders and predict their future impact. By combining the creativity of speculative design with the inclusivity of participatory methods, the project allowed the organization to identify existing stakeholders and envision potential future stakeholders. This research demonstrates that speculative and participatory design are viable methods for stakeholder identification, offering innovative approaches that challenge conventional strategies and empower organizations to adapt to future challenges. It also introduces the need to explore how speculative design can evolve into operative speculative design thinking.

Keywords
Participatory design
Speculative design
Stakeholder identification
Strategy
Value
Funding
None.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
References
  1. Rittel HW, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973;4(2):155-169. doi: 10.1007/BF01405730

 

  1. Papanek V. Design for the Real World. United Kingdom: Thames and Hudson; 2019.

 

  1. Ceschin F, Gaziulusoy İ. Design for Sustainability: A Multi- Level Framework from Products to Socio-Technical Systems. England: Routledge; 2020.

 

  1. Bijl-Brouwer MVD, Malcolm B. Systemic design principles in social innovation: A study of expert practices and design rationales. J Design Econ Innovat. 2020;6(3):386-407. doi: 10.1016/j.sheji.2020.06.001

 

  1. Tromp N, Hekkert P. Designing for Society: Products and Services for a Better World. London: Bloomsbury Visual Arts; 2019.

 

  1. Aligica PD. Institutional and stakeholder mapping: Frameworks for policy analysis and institutional change. Public Organiz Rev. 2006;6(1):79-90. doi: 10.1007/s11115-006-6833-0

 

  1. Styk K, Bogacz P. A method for stakeholder mapping in connection with the implementation of a development project. Energies. 2022;15(4):1592. doi: 10.3390/en15041592

 

  1. Freeman RE. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2010.

 

  1. Catzín-Tamayo A, Frausto-Martínez O, Arroyo- Arcos L. Stakeholder mapping and promotion of sustainable development goals in local management. J Environ Stud Sci. 2022;12(3):611-626. doi: 10.1007/s13412-022-00761-1

 

  1. Payne A, Ballantyne D, Christopher M. A stakeholder approach to relationship marketing strategy. The development and use of the “six markets” model. Eur J Mark. 2005;39(7-8):855-871. doi: 10.1108/03090560510601806

 

  1. Rivera‐Camino J. Re‐evaluating green marketing strategy: A stakeholder perspective. Eur J Mark. 2007;41(11- 12):1328-1358. doi: 10.1108/03090560710821206

 

  1. Olander S, Landin A. Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects. Int J Project Manage. 2005;23(4):321-328. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.02.002

 

  1. Varvasovszky Z, Brugha R. A stakeholder analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2000;15(3):338-345. doi: 10.1093/heapol/15.3.338

 

  1. Freeman RE, Reed DL. Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. Cal Manage Rev. 1983;25(3):88-106. doi: 10.2307/41165018

 

  1. Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manage Rev. 1997;22(4):853-886. doi: 10.2307/259247

 

  1. Marie S. Stakeholder profile and stakeholder mapping of SMEs. Littera Scripta. 2016;1:123-139.

 

  1. Clifton D, Amran A. The stakeholder approach: A sustainability perspective. J Bus Ethics. 2011;98(1):121-136. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0538-6

 

  1. Harrison JS, Wicks AC. Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Bus Ethics Q. 2013;23(1):97-124. doi: 10.5840/beq20132314

 

  1. Freudenreich B, Lüdeke-Freund F, Schaltegger S. A stakeholder theory perspective on business models: Value creation for sustainability. J Bus Ethics. 2020;166(1):3-18. doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04112-z

 

  1. Freeman RE. Managing for stakeholders: trade-offs or value creation. J Bus Ethics. 2010;96(1):7-9. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0935-5

 

  1. Breuer H, Lüdeke-Freund F. Values-based network and business model innovation. Int J Innov Manage. 2017;21(03):1750028. doi: 10.1142/S1363919617500281

 

  1. Argandoña A. Stakeholder theory and value creation. SSRN J. 2011;922:15. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1947317

 

  1. Bridoux F, Stoelhorst J. Stakeholder theory, strategy, and organization: Past, present and future. Strateg Organ. 2022;20(4):797-809. doi: 10.1177/14761270221127628

 

  1. Jones TM. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Acad Manage Rev. 1995;20(2):404. doi: 10.2307/258852

 

  1. Donaldson T, Preston LE. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manage Rev. 1995;20(1):65-91. doi: 10.2307/258887

 

  1. Scrich VM, Elliff C, De Andrade MM, Grilli NM, Turra A. Stakeholder analysis as a strategic tool in framing collaborative governance arenas for marine litter monitoring. Mar Pollut Bull. 2024;198:115799. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115799

 

  1. Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, et al. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manage. 2009;90(5):1933- 1949. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001

 

  1. Cross N, ed. Proceedings of the Design Research Society International Conference, 1971: Design Participation. London: Design Research Society; 1972. Available from: https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/conference-volumes/1

 

  1. Bødker S. Creating conditions for participation: Conflicts and resources in systems development. Hum Comput Interact. 1996;11(3):215-236. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci1103-2

 

  1. Bødker S, Dindler C, Iversen OS, Smith RC. What is participatory design? In: Participatory Design. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics. New York: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 5-13. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-02235-7-2

 

  1. Sanders EBN, Stappers PJ. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign. 2008;4(1):5-18. doi: 10.1080/15710880701875068

 

  1. Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. J Interact Mark. 2004;18(3):5-14. doi: 10.1002/dir.20015

 

  1. Buchanan R. Design ethics. In: Mitcham C, editor. Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Vol 2. United States: Thomson Gale; 2005. p. 504-510.

 

  1. Manzini E. Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. United States: The MIT Press; 2015.

 

  1. Poulsen S, Ipsen C, Gish L. Applying the chronicle workshop as a method for evaluating participatory interventions. Int J Hum Factors Ergon. 2015;3(3-4):271. doi: 10.1504/IJHFE.2015.073002

 

  1. Malpass M. Critical design practice: Theoretical perspectives and methods of engagement. Design J. 2016;19(3):473-489. doi: 10.1080/14606925.2016.1161943

 

  1. Dunne A, Raby F. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. United States: The MIT Press; 2013.

 

  1. Manzini E. Politics of the Everyday. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Visual Arts; 2019.

 

  1. Bauman Z. Liquid Modernity. United Kingdom: Polity Press , Blackwell; 2000.

 

  1. Simonse L. Design Roadmapping: Guidebook for Future Foresight Techniques. Delft: TU Delft OPEN Publishing; 2024. doi: 10.59490/tb.84

 

  1. Bokulich A. Rethinking thought experiments. Perspect Sci. 2001;9(3):285-307. doi: 10.1162/10636140160176152

 

  1. Barendregt L, Vaage NS. Speculative design as thought experiment. She Ji J Design Econ Innovat. 2021;7(3):374-402. doi: 10.1016/j.sheji.2021.06.001

 

  1. Penin L. An Introduction to Service Design: Designing the Invisible. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2017.

 

  1. Meroni A, Sangiorgi D. Design for Services. United Kingdom: Gower; 2011.

 

  1. Morelli N, Götzen A, Simeone L. Service Design Capabilities. Germany: Springer; 2021. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-56282-3

 

  1. Skarlatidou A, Suskevics M, Göbel C, et al. The value of stakeholder mapping to enhance co-creation in citizen science initiatives. Citizen Sci Theory Pract. 2019;4(1):24. doi: 10.5334/cstp.226

 

  1. Covey SR. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: 30th Anniversary Edition. United States: Simon and Schuster; 2020.

 

  1. Carnegie D. How to Win Friends and Influence People. New York City: Pocket Books; 2010.

 

  1. Aguirre M, Agudelo N, Romm J. Design facilitation as emerging practice: Analyzing how designers support multi-stakeholder co-creation. She Ji J Design Econ Innovat. 2017;3(3):198-209. doi: 10.1016/j.sheji.2017.11.003

 

  1. Norman DA. The Design of Everyday Things. Revised and expanded edition. New York City: Basic Books; 2013.

 

  1. Archer LB. Systematic method for designers. In: Cross N, editor. Developments in Design Methodology. United States: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.; 1984. p. 68-82.

 

  1. Alexander C. The determination of components for an Indian village. In: Conference on Design Methods. United Kingdom: Pergamon Press; 1963.

 

  1. Dorst K. Design beyond design. She Ji J Design Econ Innovat. 2019;5(2):117-127. doi: 10.1016/j.sheji.2019.05.001

 

  1. Simon HA. The science of design: Creating the artificial. Design Issues. 1988;4(1-2):67-82. doi: 10.2307/1511391

 

  1. Malpass M. Between wit and reason: Defining associative, speculative, and critical design in practice. Design Culture. 2013;5(3):333-356. doi: 10.2752/175470813X13705953612200

 

  1. Kahneman D, Sibony O, Sunstein CR. Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment. First Little, Brown Spark paperback edition. Auckland: Little, Brown Spark; 2022.

 

Previous article in this issue
Next article in this issue
Share
Back to top
Design+, Electronic ISSN: 3060-8953 Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept