Engagement overview — Q2 2026
Coverage of GIPF's stakeholder universe against the Strategic Plan 2026–2029. Stakeholders are scored quarterly, timed to Board and Committee meetings; the Q3 re-score opens 01 Oct. Figures are illustrative placeholder data.
June delivered 16 of 22 planned engagements — the widening gap to watch
Planned vs completed, last 6 months. Gold marks the shortfall.
Stakeholders by priority class
Power × interest scores classify each stakeholder A–D and set engagement intensity.
Recommended actions — continuous improvement
Generated from engagement gaps, lapsed contacts and sentiment shifts.
Power–interest map
Each stakeholder is placed by institutional power (vertical) and interest in GIPF outcomes (horizontal). The quadrant sets the class (A–D) and engagement strategy — classification is automatic from the scores. Hover a point for detail; click to open the register filtered to that class.
Engagement strategy by class
Principles, frequency and methods aligned to the Strategic Plan 2026–2029. Scoring repeats quarterly with the Board calendar.
Methods: Bilateral briefings, board reporting, direct consultation
Methods: Statutory reporting, scheduled briefings, liaison meetings
Methods: Newsletters, town halls, member portal, press releases
Methods: Public campaigns, CSI programmes, periodic outreach
Stakeholder register
Single source of truth for every stakeholder relationship — inputs and outputs live in the dashboard. Scores are 1–10 for power and interest; the class is assigned automatically. Click any row for the full profile.
| Stakeholder ↕ | Class ↕ | Power ↕ | Interest ↕ | Engagement owner ↕ | Last contact ↕ | Sentiment ↕ | Status ↕ |
|---|
Leverage matrix — who influences whom
Read along a row: a mark shows that the row stakeholder can influence the column stakeholder. Use leverage paths to reach difficult stakeholders through their trusted relationships. Hover any mark for the relationship.
Most connected influencers
Stakeholders with the widest influence reach in the current scope — the strongest leverage partners.
How to use leverage
Practical plays generated from the relationship map.
Stakeholder action plan
Per-stakeholder engagement playbook: perceived disposition, what's in it for them, communication approach, leverageable allies and anticipated Q&A. Reviewed quarterly with the Board & Committee cycle.
Support spectrum — level of support
Where each stakeholder sits today on the support scale, from strongly opposed to strongly supportive, and the target position we're engaging them toward. Position is derived from the disposition score in the register and re-scored quarterly. Chips are coloured by priority class; hover for the current → target shift.
Priority shifts — who to move
Stakeholders furthest from their target position, ranked by the size of the gap. These are where engagement effort has the most to do.
Distribution & how to read it
Count of stakeholders at each position — current vs target. A healthy portfolio shifts mass to the right over successive quarters.
Scale maps to the disposition score: Strongly Opposed = Opponent · Opposed = Critic · Neutral · Supportive = Supporter · Strongly Supportive = Champion. Re-scored quarterly with the Board & Committee calendar.
Stakeholder engagement maturity
Phase 1 diagnostic baseline, assessed on the Good Governance Institute (GGI) Stakeholder Engagement Maturity Matrix across eight dimensions, on a scale from Baseline to Exemplar. The dashboard tracks current maturity against the target future state to prioritise improvement.
Maturity profile — current vs target
Each axis is one GGI dimension; the ring scale runs Baseline (centre) to Exemplar (edge).
Dimension breakdown
Current maturity per GGI dimension, with the gap to target.
Scale: Baseline · Emerging · Developing · Established · Exemplar (GGI Stakeholder Engagement Maturity Matrix). Re-assessed each engagement cycle.
Stakeholder risk
Likelihood of a relationship problem against its impact if it materialises, so management can intervene early where support is declining or risk is emerging. Likelihood is driven by disposition, sentiment and lapsed contact; impact by the stakeholder's power. Re-scored quarterly.
Risk heat map
Impact (vertical) × likelihood (horizontal). Chips sit in their risk cell; hover for the driver.
Top stakeholder risks
Highest exposure first, with the driver and recommended mitigation.
Engagement activity tracker
Delivery against the engagement calendar, and the channel mix used to reach stakeholders. The completion gap has widened since April.
Completion slipped to 86% of plan year-to-date
Monthly planned vs completed — use ‹ › to move through the year.
Meetings & forums remain the dominant channel
Share of completed engagements, year-to-date. Sorted by volume.
Positive sentiment has softened 12 points since January
Share of stakeholders by sentiment, monthly pulse — formally re-scored each quarter.
Recent engagement activity
Latest logged touchpoints across all stakeholders.
Status against plan
RAG health per priority class, scored against a defined threshold — Green ≥85% coverage, Amber 70–84%, Red <70% — plus the next scheduled touchpoints.
RAG thresholds: Green ≥ 85% · Amber 70–84% · Red < 70% coverage of the class's stakeholders engaged within 60 days. Re-scored quarterly with the Board & Committee calendar.
Upcoming engagements
Next scheduled touchpoints across all classes, including the Q3 re-scoring window.