COST Action CA22140 · Insect-IMP
The Action has a stakeholder analysis covering forty organisations. It rests on one person's judgement, and it should not. This is how to add yours.
Get access to the workspace →The analysis covers forty external organisations, each traced back to a section of our Memorandum of Understanding. It ranks them, records what the Action needs from each, and proposes where to concentrate effort in the years remaining.
It was produced by one analyst. That is a reasonable starting point and a poor conclusion. Any single person knows some parts of this ecosystem well and others less so, and several of you have working relationships with these organisations that no desk analysis can replicate.
So you are being asked to score the same forty independently. Where we agree, the analysis is confirmed. Where we differ, that is exactly what the follow-up meeting is for.
Your scores and comments come back to the Greek Scientists Society and are compared with everyone else's. Nothing is averaged away and nothing is anonymised: your reasoning stays attached to your name so it can be discussed properly at the meeting.
| One browser | Your work is saved in the browser you are using. Switching machines part-way will not carry it across. |
| Stop and return | Your work stays where you left it, provided you come back in the same browser and have not cleared your browsing data. |
| Nothing is shared | Nobody sees anything until you press Submit. Until then it sits on your own machine. Access to the workspace is by a code sent to your email, valid for ten minutes; your sign-in then lasts three days. |
| No installation | Nothing to download and no password to create. Your email sits on an approved list so access stays within the group. |
Go to the access page and enter the email address on which you were invited. A six-digit code arrives within a minute and is valid for ten minutes. Enter it and the workspace opens.
If you have not been invited, the same page carries a short form: your name, email, role and affiliation. Requests are reviewed by the Greek Scientists Society and normally approved within a working day, after which you can sign in.
Access then lasts three days. If it expires, request a new code from the same page. Nothing is lost when it does: your scoring is saved in your own browser, not on our server, so you can stop and come back at any point.
A panel appears the first time you open the workspace. Enter your name, your email and your role in the Action. If you choose Working Group Leader or member, a second box asks which Working Group.
Your name travels with your scores so contributions can be told apart, and so we can come back to you if something you write needs following up. You can change these later using Edit my details.
The list on the left shows all forty, ranked by their current score, highest first. Each row gives the reference number, the name and the category. Click any row to open it.
Work through the organisations you know rather than starting at the top and going down. The order of the list is not the order in which you should score.
Each stakeholder is assessed through five groups of ratings: Salience, Interest, Influence and Impact, Engagement, and SWOT. Drag the slider, or type the number straight into the amber box beside it.
Everything recalculates as you go. The overall score, the tier and the classifications update immediately, and the stakeholder moves in the ranked list on the left.
Every group has a small circled i beside its heading. Click it for the definition used in this analysis, a diagram, the original academic source and further reading. The About the tools tab collects all six in one place, so this guide does not repeat them.
Under each lens group is a box headed Why these scores? Please use it whenever you move a rating away from where you found it.
This matters more than the numbers. A rating records what you concluded. The box records why, and the reasoning is the only part we can genuinely discuss when we meet. Two people scoring Power as 5 and 2 is not a problem to be solved by splitting the difference: it usually means they know different things, and the notes are how that surfaces.
One sentence is enough. You are not writing a report.
At the top right of the stakeholder panel is ⤢ Open full page. This opens the complete dossier for that organisation: everything the Action currently holds about them, on one page.
You will find the register entry, why they are classed as deliverable-critical with the MoU section that anchors it, the Working Groups and deliverables they touch, the salience reasoning, the recommended strategy from each grid, the engagement gap and the action proposed to close it, the SWOT notes, the entry point for reaching them, and their position in the current Top 10 where that applies.
You do not have to read all of it. It is there so that nothing sits hidden behind a number, and so you can check the reasoning wherever you want to.
Beside that button sit Duplicate and Delete. Duplicate is useful where one register entry really covers two distinct organisations that should be assessed separately. Delete removes an entry from your own copy only, so use it if you think something does not belong, and say why in a comment.
Two things in the dossier are particularly valuable to us.
Under every section there is a gold box marked Discussion surface. If a fact is out of date, if you disagree with a proposed strategy, or if you know something the analysis does not, write it there. It reaches us attached to that exact section rather than as a general remark we then have to place.
The register fields are editable. If a deliverable code is wrong, a Working Group link is missing, or the description of what an organisation wants from us is off, correct it directly.
There is also a block for the key individual: the role-level entry point and, where you know it, a name, title and contact details. Most are empty. If you deal with any of these organisations directly, filling this in turns a category label into a relationship somebody can actually pick up.
If an organisation should be in the register and is not, use Add stakeholder. If it fits none of the existing groups, use Add category. Anything you add travels with your submission.
| Results | The full ranking as your scores currently stand, and a radar profiling the top ten across all eight measures at once. Two organisations can hold nearly the same overall score and look completely different here, which tells you something a rank alone does not. |
| Weights & thresholds | The six weights that combine the lenses into one score, and the cut-offs that set the tiers. These are shown so you can see exactly how the scoring works. You cannot move them: the Action must use one common weighting, or contributions would not be comparable. If you think a weight is wrong, write what you would change and why in the box provided, and it is put to the group. The final settings are agreed collectively at the meeting. |
| Engagement plan | The Action-level plans: communication, risk, sustainability and the engagement schedule. Worth a look, and open for comment. |
| About the tools | Reference: every instrument, with its sources. |
When you are finished, click Submit my contribution. You are asked to confirm, then two things happen: a file is saved to your computer, and an email opens already addressed and written.
You must attach the file that has just downloaded to that email before sending. No web page is permitted to attach a file to your email for you, so this last step is yours. Please check the attachment is there before you send.
Export JSON saves a copy at any point without submitting. If you are working across several sittings, that is a sensible precaution.
Score the organisations you know, and leave the rest untouched. A confident assessment of twelve stakeholders, each with a line of reasoning, is far more useful than a hesitant pass over all forty.
If you have twenty minutes, cover the handful you work with directly and write a sentence on each. If you have an hour, work through your whole area and use the discussion surfaces where you have something to add. Either is a real contribution.
Leave the ratings as you found them and move on. A blank is more useful to us than a guess, because once it is in the data a guess looks identical to a judgement.
| 1 | Contributions are gathered and compared, stakeholder by stakeholder. |
| 2 | Where assessments diverge sharply, that is flagged for discussion along with the reasoning each person gave. |
| 3 | A meeting then agrees the final weighting, the tier thresholds and the priority list collectively. |
| 4 | The published analysis is regenerated from what the group agrees, so the public record reflects the Action's position rather than one analyst's. |
| 5 | The agreed priorities feed the engagement schedule, the position paper and planning for what outlives the Action. |
The value of this rests at least as much on your reasoning as on the numbers. Please write the notes, even where you have only a sentence to add.
Get access to the workspace →