How to Use Network Theory to Build Better Power-Interest Matrices

Most of us are familiar with the Power-Interest (PI) Matrix—a simple but effective tool for mapping stakeholders. As Product Owners, we have the tendency to categorize people based on their formal roles in the organization. But here’s the thing: real influence isn’t always about job titles. It’s about relationships, connections, and how information flows. That’s where Network Theory comes in.

In my opinion, a more effective approach to stakeholder management involves enhancing the Power-Interest Matrix with Network Theory, allowing for a deeper understanding of influence and decision-making dynamics.

The Power-Interest Matrix: The Standard Model

We won’t spend much time explaining the PI Matrix in detail—you already know how it works. In short, it classifies stakeholders based on:

• Power: Their ability to influence decisions.
• Interest: How much they care about what’s happening.

This results in four stakeholder categories:

1. High Power, High Interest – Keep them engaged; they make or break your project.
2. High Power, Low Interest – Keep them satisfied; their influence can impact you even if they aren’t directly involved.
3. Low Power, High Interest – Keep them informed; they care about the outcome and can support you.
4. Low Power, Low Interest – Monitor occasionally, but don’t over-invest in engagement.

The typical approach is to assign stakeholders to these categories based on their formal roles. While logical, it often misses key influencers who hold no official power but have strong informal networks. This is where Network Theory helps us see the bigger picture.

Network Theory: Finding the Hidden Influence

Network Theory is about how people are connected and how influence spreads. A person’s title might say one thing, but their actual role in the network could be completely different.

Key concepts that impact stakeholder mapping:

• Centrality: Some people are highly connected. They may not have a formal leadership role, but their influence is strong.
• Betweenness: Some individuals act as bridges between groups. They can control the flow of information and impact alignment.
• Closeness: Some stakeholders can reach anyone in the network quickly, making them highly influential in spreading ideas.
• Structural Holes: Some people connect otherwise disconnected groups. This gives them unique leverage in decision-making and knowledge-sharing.

By integrating these concepts into the Power-Interest Matrix, we uncover who really holds influence—not just who has an important title.

Step-by-Step: Building a Better PI Matrix

1. Build the Traditional PI Matrix

Start with the usual approach—map stakeholders based on their formal power and interest. This is your baseline.

2. Analyze the Network

The key to understanding influence in an organization is looking beyond formal structures. People rely on trusted colleagues, subject-matter experts, and informal leaders—individuals who might not have official authority but still hold significant influence over decisions.

To analyze the network, follow these simplified steps:

• Find Information Flow – Identify who regularly shares insights and facilitates collaboration across teams.
• Spot Gatekeepers – Look for stakeholders who act as bridges between different groups and control access to key information.
• Track Decision Pathways – Observe who influences decisions before they reach leadership.
• Map Key Relationships – Use simple tools like whiteboards or sticky notes to visualize interactions and connections.

Observing informal discussions, Slack/Teams conversations, and recurring meeting attendees might reveal the real influencers in your corporate ecosystem.

3. Merge the Two Perspectives

Now that we have both the traditional PI matrix and the network analysis, it’s time to bring them together. This step helps us refine our stakeholder map and shift from a static view of power and interest to a dynamic one based on real influence.

Here’s how the two perspectives intersect:

• Identifying Hidden Influencers: Some stakeholders in the “low power” category might hold significant network influence and shape key decisions.
• Recognizing Isolated High-Power Stakeholders: Some leaders may have authority but lack real engagement and impact.
• Uncovering Decision-Making Pathways: By knowing where decisions are shaped, you can influence the right people early.
• Adjusting Engagement Strategies: Engage key network connectors to help spread messages and build consensus before key decisions are made.

By overlaying network insights onto the Power-Interest Matrix, the final stakeholder map will be more realistic and actionable. This approach prevents blind spots and ensures that efforts are focused on actual influence, not just perceived power.

Why This Matters: Communication, Buy-In, and Decisions

Organizations don’t run on org charts; they run on people dynamics. The first thing you see in any company is the org chart, but the real power lies in corporate social networks—the informal connections that influence decisions, priorities, and outcomes.

By merging Network Theory with the PI Matrix:

• You engage the right people, not just those in formal leadership roles.
• You secure buy-in from the actual key influencers, not just those with senior titles.
• You avoid decision bottlenecks caused by missing out on informal decision-makers.

This approach helps ensure that decisions are shaped by the right voices at the right time, preventing delays and unexpected pushback.

Example: Applying This in a Real-World Project

To see this in action, let's assume one (intentionally simplified) example. Working on a new project, as a PO you start building the classical PI Matrix based on the formal roles:

• High Power, High Interest – CIO, Engineering Managers, DevOps Leads
• High Power, Low Interest – Finance Director, Compliance Team
• Low Power, High Interest – DevOps Engineers, SREs (Site Reliability Engineers)
• Low Power, Low Interest – General IT staff, External Vendors

Following this traditional approach, you focus your stakeholder engagement on senior decision-makers, assuming their approval guarantees success. However, reality proves different: delays happen, resistance builds up, and adoption is slow.

Instead of relying solely on the org chart, you decide to analyze the internal network to see who actually holds influence. Here’s what you discover:

• The most consulted people on DevOps best practices are two Senior Engineers (not managers!) who act as knowledge hubs.
• A well-connected Scrum Master frequently interacts with multiple teams and acts as a bridge between Engineering and Product.
• The Compliance Team, although seemingly "low interest," actually has one key person who often flags potential risks and can delay implementation if not involved early.

With this network insight, you update your engagement plan:

• Instead of just top-down communication, you now work closely with the two Senior Engineers. You involve them early, making them internal ambassadors for the tool.
• You leverage the Scrum Master to cascade information and smooth out cross-team collaboration issues.
• You engage the key Compliance Team member earlier in the process, ensuring potential blockers are addressed before they escalate.

By integrating Network Theory into the Power-Interest Matrix:

• Adoption improves because engineers trust their peers more than a top-down directive.
• Fewer delays happen because Compliance concerns are tackled early.
• Communication is more effective since messages flow through trusted, informal influencers.

As you can see, we moved beyond job titles and focused on how people actually influence decisions. This shift creates a more realistic and actionable stakeholder strategy.

Neither Power-Interest Matrices nor Network Theory are new, but combining them provides a more effective way to understand and manage stakeholders beyond the traditional and formal concept.

One additional key takeaway: networks are not static—they evolve constantly. Your initial stakeholder analysis is just a starting point. To stay effective, you must continuously review, adapt, and refine your approach as influence shifts over time.

- D. Scope