Templates & Examples / Examples
Communication Plan — Worked Example
Eight audiences, four owners, one operating plant. A communication plan worked end-to-end — with the reasoning left in.
- Reading time · 3 min
- 6 sections
- 8 audiences · 4 owners
- Power–interest mapped
§1The scenario
A realistic mid-size job, so the choices in the plan have something to push against.
The project: a conveyor and drive upgrade inside an operating food-manufacturing plant — fourteen weeks, one planned production shutdown for tie-in, an external HSE regulator interface, and neighbouring tenants inside noise range. Delivery is routine; the communication load is not. Eight audiences, each needing different information at a different rhythm through a different channel, is exactly the situation a written plan exists for.
How to use this page. Read the plan in §3 with the stakeholder map above, then §4 for why each row is shaped that way. Adapt names, keep the shapes.
§2From map to plan
The power–interest quadrant sets each audience’s default; the plan then earns its exceptions.
Manage closely (high power, high interest) gets synchronous channels and short cycles. Keep satisfied (high power, low interest) gets concise, formal, infrequent contact — enough to prevent surprises, never enough to create work. Keep informed gets broadcast channels on a reliable rhythm, and monitor gets triggered contact only. Every row in §3 can be traced back to a quadrant, and the two deliberate exceptions are explained in §4.
Contents§3The plan — eight audiences
Audience · message · channel · frequency · owner. One row per audience, no orphans.
| Audience | Core message | Channel | Frequency | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsor & steering group | Cost, schedule and risk position; decisions needed | One-page dashboard + steering meeting | Monthly | Project Manager |
| Operations manager | Shutdown windows, tie-in dates, production impact | Face-to-face + confirming email | Fortnightly | Project Manager |
| Maintenance team | What changes on their equipment and when | Toolbox talk | Fortnightly | Project Engineer |
| Site workforce | Look-ahead, access changes, safety alerts | Noticeboard + pre-start brief | Weekly | Site Lead |
| Procurement | Long-lead status, delivery risks | Shared tracker + call | Weekly | Project Engineer |
| HSE regulator liaison | Permit status, incident notifications | Formal letter / portal | As required | HSE Advisor |
| Finance | Accruals, forecast at completion | Cost report | Monthly | Project Manager |
| Neighbouring tenants | Noise, traffic and outage notices | Letter drop + noticeboard | Before each impact | Site Lead |
§4Reading the choices
A plan is a set of arguments. These are the ones worth copying.
Operations gets face-to-face
Highest-power internal stakeholder whose goodwill controls the shutdown window. Email alone lets misunderstandings compound silently; the confirming email after the conversation creates the record without carrying the relationship.
The regulator gets formality
Low frequency, maximum precision. Everything in writing, through the official channel, in the regulator’s own format — informal chat with a regulator is risk generation, not communication.
The workforce gets rhythm, not volume
A weekly look-ahead at the pre-start beats a daily bulletin nobody reads. Predictability is the message: people forgive inconvenience they were warned about.
Tenants are triggered, not scheduled
“Before each impact” beats monthly letters — a notice with nothing in it trains recipients to stop reading, which is the one failure this audience cannot afford.
§5Adapting the example
Change the nouns, keep the tests.
Three tests keep an adapted plan honest. Coverage: every stakeholder on the map appears in exactly one row. Ownership: every row names one person, and no person owns a channel they never use. Load: total up each owner’s column — a plan the project manager cannot actually execute in a normal week is a wish, and the register in §3 deliberately spreads the eight rows across four owners for that reason.
Contents§6Quick reference
The working core of the resource on one card rack.
Map first
Power × interest sets the default channel and rhythm.
One row each
Every audience appears once — with one owner.
Exceptions argued
Depart from the quadrant only with a written reason.
Load test
Sum each owner’s rows; wishes aren’t plans.
Handbook application: from concept to controlled practice
Purpose. This expanded section turns the original page into a practical handbook. It preserves the supplied material and adds a repeatable way to apply, check and review Stakeholder Communication Plan — Worked Example. It does not replace a contract, legislation, a controlled standard, competent engineering judgement or specialist advice.
The operating aim is to make the blank artefact usable by explaining what belongs in each field, who supplies it and how it is reviewed. Read the original explanation first, then use the workflow and checks below to convert knowledge into evidence.
Use Stakeholder Communication Plan — Worked Example as a decision instrument rather than an administrative form. The subject terms—plan, communication, worked, example, stakeholder—need an explicit connection to the project objective, business value and stakeholder commitments. Before completing the artefact, write one sentence stating who will use it, what decision it supports and when that decision is required.
Apply a disciplined information model. Separate facts supported by evidence, forecasts derived from a method, assumptions awaiting validation, constraints that limit choice, risks that may occur, issues that already exist and actions assigned to people. Each material entry should have an owner, date, status and next review point. Where probability or impact scores are used, define the scale so different reviewers interpret it consistently.
A baseline is useful only when changes are visible. Give the artefact an identifier, version, approval state and effective date. Define which changes require reapproval, how superseded versions are retained and where supporting evidence is stored. During reviews, focus on exceptions, decisions and trends rather than reading every field aloud. Record the decision and rationale, not merely that a meeting occurred.
Close the loop beyond delivery. Confirm acceptance criteria, unresolved items, transferred responsibilities and operational ownership. Where benefits are expected, identify the outcome measure, baseline, target, observation period and owner who remains accountable after the project team disbands. Lessons should describe the condition, consequence and reusable action; a generic statement such as “communicate better” cannot improve the next project.
Step-by-step operating method
- Name the decision. Write the decision, approval, handover or control activity the completed template must support.
- Assign ownership. Nominate one accountable owner and identify contributors, reviewers and approvers.
- Gather evidence. Use records, estimates, stakeholder input and source references rather than unsupported opinion.
- Complete with discipline. Use consistent dates, units, identifiers, status values and version controls.
- Review and maintain. Check completeness and logic, approve the baseline, then update it when trigger conditions occur.
Completion and governance protocol
Start with a short drafting workshop involving the accountable owner and the people who hold the evidence. Complete high-consequence fields first: objective, scope, owner, baseline, acceptance, dependencies and escalation. Mark unknowns as assumptions or actions rather than hiding them behind vague prose. Circulate a review draft, resolve conflicting interpretations, baseline the approved version and place the next review date in an owned schedule.
| Information type | Minimum useful content | Review test |
|---|---|---|
| Outcome | Observable change and intended recipient | Not merely a deliverable or activity |
| Measure | Definition, baseline, target, frequency and source | Two reviewers would calculate it the same way |
| Ownership | One accountable role plus contributors and approver | Authority matches responsibility |
| Uncertainty | Assumption, risk or issue with response and trigger | Status reflects current reality |
| Control | Version, approval, review date and change rule | Current baseline is identifiable |
Common failure modes and recovery actions
1. Watch for
Filling every box even when a field is not applicable instead of recording why.
Recovery: Return to the governing definition or requirement and restate the decision in one sentence.
2. Watch for
Writing vague statements without an owner, measure, date or evidence source.
Recovery: Separate evidence from assumption, assign an owner and set a date for validation.
3. Watch for
Copying a previous project without revalidating assumptions and stakeholders.
Recovery: Run a small counterexample, boundary test, pilot or independent check before proceeding.
4. Watch for
Using the document as a private worksheet when it is meant to support a shared decision.
Recovery: Record the consequence, decision and rationale, then update the controlled baseline.
5. Watch for
Creating an approved baseline but failing to define who maintains it and when.
Recovery: Escalate when the issue affects safety, compliance, acceptance, material value or an agreed tolerance.
Review checklist
- Is the purpose and intended decision clear to a reader outside the team?
- Are owners, dates, measures and sources complete and internally consistent?
- Which fields are assumptions and how will they be validated?
- What event, threshold or review date causes this document to change?
- Are mandatory requirements distinguished from recommendations and illustrative values?
- Are sources, assumptions, units, dates and versions recorded closely enough to reproduce the decision?
- Have safety, legal, ethical, stakeholder and operational consequences been considered at the appropriate level?
- Is there a named owner and a trigger for review, escalation, change or retirement?
Questions for deeper application
What is the most important distinction a practitioner must preserve when applying Stakeholder Communication Plan — Worked Example?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
Which assumption about plan would change the result most if it proved false?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
What evidence would allow an independent reviewer to reproduce or challenge the conclusion?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
Which boundary, exception or failure case has not yet been tested?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
What must be handed over, monitored or reviewed after the immediate work is complete?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
Authoritative references and use notes
The sources below were selected as institutional or primary guidance for the broader practice. They support the handbook method; they do not imply that every statement or clause in a source applies to every project. Confirm the current edition, jurisdiction, contract and application before treating any requirement as mandatory.
- PMI Standards and Publications — Project Management Institute. Used for project, program, portfolio and organisational project management. Accessed 2026-08-13.
- ISO 31000 family — Risk management — International Organization for Standardization. Used for principles and guidance for enterprise risk management. Accessed 2026-08-13.