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.
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.