Kaizen events
Stakeholder coverage map
Stakeholder coverage map is licensed CC BY 4.0. Attribution: Katafacts (katafacts.com).
Customise with AISkill file ↓1 · What it is
What it is
A stakeholder coverage map answers two separate completeness questions honestly, not one blended impression. First: of the whole population you need real engagement across, how much is even tracked as a named unit — a department, a site, an account? Second: within what's tracked, how completely does each unit's required roles have a real, named contact, not just a company or department name on a list? Both are computed from what you actually enter, never asserted. Every tracked unit with zero real contacts is named directly as a dark unit, and every role that's systemically under-covered across the tracked population is flagged the same way — the honest-gap discipline this catalogue applies everywhere, here applied to a real person's name rather than a number.
2 · When to use it
When to use it — and when not to
Use it when
- A commitment or a market depends on real, named engagement across more units than you can track from memory, and you want an honest measure of how complete that engagement actually is.
- You want to know which units have no real contact at all, and which required roles are systemically missing across the population you do track — before either becomes a problem.
- You have a rough sense of the whole population's size and want to see honestly how much of it is even on your radar yet, not just how good the part you're tracking looks.
Not when
- You need to calculate or model the population size itself — that's a sizing exercise (firmographic filtering, technographic signals), a different discipline from this one; this tool takes a stated population size as given and starts from there.
- You don't have any real contacts yet for any unit — that's fine as a starting point, but write the population and roles first and let the map show 0% honestly rather than padding it with guesses.
- The population is small enough to track from memory without losing anyone — a handful of units doesn't need a coverage map; use judgement, not process, for a small population.
3 · How to fill it in
How to fill it in
- Target units
- Describe the scope roughly — a first-pass list of tracked units gets drafted, each with a segment. Add or correct with the real ones you're actually tracking; the gap between this list and your stated scope size is itself a real finding.
- Known contacts
- Only enter a contact where you actually have a real, named person for a real unit and role. An empty cell is a real gap — never invent a plausible-sounding name to make coverage look better than it is.
- Coverage
- Computed for you from your target units, required roles, and known contacts — nothing to enter here.
- Narrative
- Drafted from the map actually built.
- Next steps
- What will you do about a dark unit or a systemic role gap, ranked by impact and effort, owned and dated.
4 · What good looks like
What good looks like
The example below tracks a regional safety-protocol rollout — only 8 of the region's 12 sites are actually tracked yet, one tracked site has no contact at all, and Union safety rep is honestly named as the systemically under-covered role rather than smoothed over.
Same example, as a downloadable xlsx workbook.
Download .xlsxStakeholder coverage map · New two-unresolved-calls andon escalation protocol — regional rollout
Regional safety-protocol rollout — stakeholder coverage map
Elena Cho, Regional EHS Director · 2026-04-12
Team: Dana Ruiz, Cell Lead · Sponsor: Marcus Lee, Quality Manager
Target units
Site A
North region
2 of 3 roles covered
Site B
North region
2 of 3 roles covered
Site C
North region
3 of 3 roles covered
Site D
North region
1 of 3 roles covered
Site E
South region
1 of 3 roles covered
Site F
South region
2 of 3 roles covered
- Dark
Site G
South region
0 of 3 roles covered
Site H
South region
3 of 3 roles covered
Known contacts
- Rosa Delgado — Site EHS lead at Site A (identified)
- Tom Whitfield — Shift supervisor at Site A (engaged)
- Marcus Lee — Site EHS lead at Site B (engaged)
- Grace Owusu — Union safety rep at Site B (identified)
- Dana Ruiz — Site EHS lead at Site C (engaged)
- Ken Ito — Shift supervisor at Site C (engaged)
- Lena Park — Union safety rep at Site C (engaged)
- Ahmed Farouk — Site EHS lead at Site D (identified)
- Nina Brandt — Shift supervisor at Site E (identified)
- Carlos Reyes — Site EHS lead at Site F (engaged)
- Priya Nair — Shift supervisor at Site F (engaged)
- Wei Zhang — Site EHS lead at Site H (identified)
- Omar Haddad — Shift supervisor at Site H (identified)
- Fatima Noor — Union safety rep at Site H (identified)
Coverage
Scope size
12 sites
Tracked units
8
List coverage
66.7%
Contact coverage
58.3% (14 / 24)
Dark units
1
Site EHS lead
6 / 8 units
Shift supervisor
5 / 8 units
Union safety rep
3 / 8 units
Dark units
Site G
Narrative
8 of the region's 12 sites are actually tracked yet — a real list-coverage gap (66.7%) before contact coverage even enters the picture. Within those 8, contact coverage across the three required roles sits at 58.3% (14 of 24 cells). Union safety rep is the systemically under-covered role — a named contact at only 3 of 8 tracked sites, well behind Site EHS lead's 6 of 8. Site G has no named contact at all yet for any role, an honest gap rather than an oversight to quietly fill with a guess.
Next steps
Add the four untracked sites in the North and South regions to the tracked list before the next rollout review.
Only 8 of 12 sites are tracked — 66.7% list coverage · Impact: high · Effort: medium · Elena Cho · 2026-04-30
Reach out to each site's union local to get a named safety rep for the four sites currently missing one.
Union safety rep — covered at only 3 of 8 tracked sites · Impact: high · Effort: medium · Elena Cho · 2026-05-08
Get a named contact of any kind at Site G before the next regional review.
Site G — no known contact at all · Impact: high · Effort: low · Dana Ruiz · 2026-04-22
5 · Common mistakes
Common mistakes
Treating a company or unit name on a list as real coverage.
A unit with no named contact behind it is a dark unit, not a covered one — this tool exists specifically to stop a long list from being mistaken for real reach.
Inventing a plausible-sounding contact to make a gap look filled.
A fabricated name defeats the entire point of this tool — the honest gap is the useful signal; papering over it just moves the discovery of the real gap to a worse moment.
Building the map once and never revisiting it.
A contact that was real six months ago and never reverified isn't reliable coverage today — this is a living measure, not a one-time snapshot.
6 · What it connects to
What it connects to
upstream
Kaizen event charter
A kaizen event's roster names who's on the team; a stakeholder coverage map is the same discipline applied to a much larger population that can't be tracked from memory.
downstream
Implementation plan
A newly-identified contact for a dark unit is exactly the kind of real, named dependency an implementation plan's milestones get built around.
7 · Where AI helps
Where AI helps
Judgement — stays yours
- Deciding whether a drafted target unit or required role actually reflects the real population
- Deciding which dark unit or role gap to chase down first
Analysis — AI helps
- Drafting a target-unit list and required roles from a rough description of the scope
- Drafting the narrative from the map actually built
Drudgery — automated
- Computing list coverage and contact coverage percentages
- Flagging dark units and tallying role gaps
- Exporting to xlsx in the house format
9 · Rate this kata