Stakeholders for a Public Project

Tension in Stakeholder Groups

Tensions in Stakeholder Groups

The author of this report is asked to make a brief offering of how tensions can be sparked when multiple groups of stakeholders coalesce around and offer their voice regarding the same project. This can be even more pronounced if the project is public and expensive in nature. Such was the case in Athens with the AIA project surrounding their airport adjustments that were to occur around the 2004 Olympic Games. This report will discuss the tensions that existed or would exist in a project of that nature and the author will also provide two suggestions as to how to mitigate or even eliminate those tensions.

Whether it be roadways, bridges or other projects of that nature, public-facing or public-used projects that are remotely taxpayer-funded in nature get a special kind of scrutiny and the 2004 Olympic games in Athens (especially in light of the economic turmoil that is going on in Greece right now) was certainly an example of this (Allen, 2014). The airport in Athens was the focus of the Athens International Airport (AIA) preparations for the 2004 Olympic Games in that area. Any project or sub-project of that nature is going to have a lot of stakeholders and a lot of differing opinions. Many hold Olympic Games to be money pits for cities given that many of the facilities and venues are only used once and never used again. However, the center of this report was the airport and that facility would obviously be used before, during and after the event.

Even so, that does not ease the stakeholder tensions nor does it make the depth and the breadth of the project therein any easier to navigate. Tensions that would exist between the government, the users of the airport and the people in general would include things like whether the airport's use would be constricted or reduced during improvements, whether the improvements are just for the Olympics and whether they will be shuttered or drawn back thereafter, and the amount of money that will be funneled into the project vs. The return on investment that will be realized for the Athens area both during and after the Olympics are over. As for two suggestions on how to ease these tensions, keeping things as open and visible as reasonably possible is one way to mitigate tensions. The amount of closed-door meetings should be very low to none and there should be an easy-to-interpret accounting of what will be spent, what the overall effects will be for the Olympics and what will be the longer term effects (especially the benefits) for the city. Another way to mitigate tensions is to actively and visibly show that dollars are being spent in a reasonable and deliberate way and not just being wasted. As much that can benefit the city of Athens and the country of Greece both during and after the Olympics should have been shown and bragged about (Odono et al., 2009).