When a company undergoes a merger or acquisition, how should project managers handle stakeholder changes for ongoing projects?
Should the PM conduct a new stakeholder analysis to identify changes in roles, influence and expectations among both internal and external stakeholders?
Who should be responsible for identifying and communicating these changes, is it the PM, project sponsor or organizational leadership?
I am interested to hear your perspectives and experiences about this situation.
Consultant| Timely Nexus Project LLPGreater NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh, India
A merger or acquisition can change stakeholder roles, influence, priorities, and expectations. The PM should reassess and update the stakeholder register. The PM should lead the process, but it should not be done by the PM alone. The sponsor and key organizational leaders should provide information about the new structure and priorities. Communication about organisational changes should be handled by Key organisational leaders, project manager should concern about the project.
Stakeholder analysis is an ongoing, iterative activity which needs to happen throughout the life of a project. While it can be triggered by key external events such as the example you have provided, it is a good idea to review it periodically regardless.
As far as communicating changes to the stakeholder register, that depends on the communications plan for the project and the nature of the changes themselves. For example, if the sponsor decides to step back from the project and appoint one of their reports as the replacement sponsor, that might best be communicated by the current sponsor.
A merger or acquisition can change stakeholder roles, influence, priorities, and expectations. The PM should reassess and update the stakeholder register. The PM should lead the process, but it should not be done by the PM alone. The sponsor and key organizational leaders should provide information about the new structure and priorities. Communication about organisational changes should be handled by Key organisational leaders, project manager should concern about the project.
Thank you for sharing your valuable insights. Saving Changes...
Stakeholder analysis is an ongoing, iterative activity which needs to happen throughout the life of a project. While it can be triggered by key external events such as the example you have provided, it is a good idea to review it periodically regardless.
As far as communicating changes to the stakeholder register, that depends on the communications plan for the project and the nature of the changes themselves. For example, if the sponsor decides to step back from the project and appoint one of their reports as the replacement sponsor, that might best be communicated by the current sponsor.
Kiron
Thank you for sharing your valuable insights. Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
A very relevant question. I would treat a merger or acquisition as a trigger for stakeholder reassessment, but not necessarily for rebuilding the analysis from zero.
The key question is what has changed materially. An M&A can alter not only roles, influence and expectations, but also decision authority, priorities, dependencies, commitments and relationships with external stakeholders. The analysis should therefore determine which existing assumptions remain valid and which no longer do.
I would also avoid assigning the entire responsibility to one role. Organizational leadership and relevant integration authorities should define and communicate formal organizational changes. Sponsors and governance bodies should interpret their implications for project purpose, priority and authority. The project manager should assess how those changes affect stakeholder engagement, risks, dependencies and delivery.
So the transaction should trigger reassessment, while the material changes it creates should determine what needs to change in stakeholder engagement and governance. Because integration evolves over time, reassessment should continue as those conditions change.
...
1 reply by Srikana Ray
Aug 20, 2026 11:49 AM
Srikana Ray
...
Thank you for sharing the valuable insights. I agree Organizational leadership, sponsors and governance play an important role and the project manager should collaborate with relevant stakeholders to assess the change.
A very relevant question. I would treat a merger or acquisition as a trigger for stakeholder reassessment, but not necessarily for rebuilding the analysis from zero.
The key question is what has changed materially. An M&A can alter not only roles, influence and expectations, but also decision authority, priorities, dependencies, commitments and relationships with external stakeholders. The analysis should therefore determine which existing assumptions remain valid and which no longer do.
I would also avoid assigning the entire responsibility to one role. Organizational leadership and relevant integration authorities should define and communicate formal organizational changes. Sponsors and governance bodies should interpret their implications for project purpose, priority and authority. The project manager should assess how those changes affect stakeholder engagement, risks, dependencies and delivery.
So the transaction should trigger reassessment, while the material changes it creates should determine what needs to change in stakeholder engagement and governance. Because integration evolves over time, reassessment should continue as those conditions change.
Thank you for sharing the valuable insights. I agree Organizational leadership, sponsors and governance play an important role and the project manager should collaborate with relevant stakeholders to assess the change. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
