Because “community” is not one thing. Projects touch groups with different histories, needs, power, and interests. Mapping pushes you beyond broad labels to a clear picture of who is actually involved, affected, or influential; the anchor for everything that follows.

It stops impact from being abstract. Social change is always change for someone. By naming stakeholder groups first, you can say whose outcomes you mean, where risks sit, and who carries power, so design, measurement, and engagement are tied to real people in real places.

They sit in the same frame. For each group you consider connection to the project, power to influence, dependence of wellbeing on project success, expected roles, potential risks / harms, and potential benefits. This turns a contact list into a structured analysis of people, power, risk, and value.

Stakeholders are the organising spine. • Theory of Change: built by selecting a group and articulating what changes for them. • Surveys: designed and sampled by stakeholder group. • Results: visualised and reported by group. Start here and every later module stays grounded.

You start with broad categories (e.g., Government, Communities affected, Marginalised groups, Partner agencies, Our organisation) and then name specific groups within each (e.g., community development officers, village decision-makers, women in [context], field officers). This two-step flow moves you from “the community” to recognisable groups with distinct roles.

Six simple, repeatable prompts build a consistent profile: 1. Connections — How is this group connected to the project? 2. Power — What power do they have to influence it? 3. Wellbeing — How might their wellbeing depend on project success / failure? 4. Roles — What roles / responsibilities do they hold? 5. Risks — What harms or negative impacts could they face? 6. Benefits — What benefits might they experience? Each mixes quick ratings with space for short narrative notes.

When a risk is identified for a group, you can one-click create a risk entry (type, description, likelihood, consequence, owner, mitigation) and send it straight to the risk register. Stakeholder mapping is therefore the front door to risk management for people and relationships.

Both. • Project level: groups that matter across all sites (e.g., national bodies, lead NGO, funder). • Site level: groups specific to a village, WMA, school, hub, etc. This keeps local nuance visible while still giving a coherent project-wide view.

Not just MEL. HQ, field staff, and leadership often each hold part of the picture. The module is designed to surface gaps and prompt conversation; it is a catalyst for internal learning, not a form to fill in isolation.

A structured view you can revisit over time: • Counts by category and scope • Average scores for connection, power, wellbeing, roles, risks, benefits • Category analyses (who sits where) • Influence matrices that flag high-power / high-risk / high-benefit groups Re-running it later makes changes in relationships, risks, or influence visible, not guessed.

It guides engagement plans, shapes site- and group-specific Theories of Change, and underpins surveys and sampling so evidence reflects your real stakeholder landscape. In short, you move from a vague sense of “the community” to an evidence-ready map of who is involved, what is at stake, and how the project should respond.

• Begin with a short workshop to draft categories and named groups. • Capture quick ratings first; add brief notes for context. • Turn clear risks into register entries immediately. • Revisit the map after the first ToC draft—expect to refine.