Stakeholder Impact Analysis

STAKEHOLDER GROUP	IMPACT/ RECOURSE	DESIRED OUTCOME	DEMAND FOR ESIGNATURES	PRIORITIES/ ENABLERS	CONCERNS/ BARRIERS	VALUE PROPOSITION	STRATEGY FOR ACTION
Who are the people who will be affected by what we want to do?	How can this group affect, positively or otherwise, what we want to do?	What specifically do we want this group to do with regard to our initiative?	What did they say they were interested in during initial meetings?	What is important to these stakeholders? What other factors might enable these stakeholders' participation?	What are these stakeholders worried about? What other factors might inhibit these stakeholders' participation?	Does what we're doing offer any specific benefit(s) to this group?	What do we plan to do to influence/ achieve the desired outcome?
Primary pilot candidates	eSignature team or program office have identified this program as potential pilot
National Permit System	Serve as a source of learning for our team. Serve as a source of document examples and templates. Provide us with CIO-office access and perspective.	Share their work products and lessons learned with our team. Exercise our evaluation process to test our evaluation criteria. Allow us to cite their approved documents as additional examples in our final report.		Time. The NPS team is on a very tight schedule.	Anything that might delay completion of their project.	Our focused and methodical approach might contribute to the quality of their proposal and lend their proposal additional credibility.
Secondary pilot candidates	eSignature team has had preliminary discussions with these program offices

Other Potential pilots	eSignature team has not yet "pitched" the idea of a pilot to these program offices

Internal Stakeholders
IT Experts
CIO
Project Management Team for FIS
Office of Policy
Program Offices (i.e., Fisheries)
Regional Offices	must ultimately implement systems using our design	participate in our project contribute ideas review and comment support the final product in the approval step		efficient operations ease of use (to reduce support burden)	fraud excessive support burden	improved customer satisfaction reduced paperwork faster workflow
Office of Law Enforcement	Has to review and possibly approve solutions?	Would like them to help shape alternatives and criteria to ensure approval	Necessary to enable electronic reporting and ensure accountability	Accuracy of data and accountability for data submitted	Solution(s) need to withstand judicial scrutiny and be consistent with case law	improves accuracy , makes individuals legally responsible for data they submit regardless of report	Get it right the first time and include OLE staff on team to help with "reach back" into organization and get hands on expertise.
General Counsel	GCF (in conjunction with F/CIO and GCEL) must approve our project outcome	advise, answer questions, and ultimately approve		legal sufficiency legal efficiency	increased difficulty of prosecution	no	maintain lines of communication
NOAA
Commerce
Service providers (examples)
Olfish
SiriusIT
Catchlog
Professional/Trade Groups (examples)
At-sea Processors Association
West Coast Seafood Processors Association
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
Pacific States Fisher Management Council
Partner Organizations
States (e.g., Alaska)
Countries (e.g., Canada)
Commissions (e.g., Tuna or Halibut)
End User Community

Non-profit organizations (filers)		File for themselves or on behalf of others
For-profit organizations (filers)		File for themselves or on behalf of others
Individuals (filers)
*Oversight/ Public Interest*
OMB
Congress (authorizing committees)
Congress (appropriating committees)
GAO