Organizational Change Management · Multi-Project Analysis
Stakeholder Change Impact Saturation Report · August 16, 2026

Stakeholder Change Impact Saturation Report

How concentrated is each stakeholder group's exposure across P001 — EchoWave (ST), P001 — GreenLight (MT), and P001 — OpenSpace (LT)? Stracl has no native "Saturation" field, so this report computes it directly: for each stakeholder group, what share of that project's total logged Change Impacts name that group as affected. A group linked to most or all of a project's change impacts is carrying disproportionate change load, regardless of its headcount.

Methodology: Saturation % = (change impacts linked to this group) ÷ (total change impacts in the project) — a measure of breadth of exposure, not headcount or severity. A group at 100% is linked to every change happening on the project; a group at 10% is touched by only one. Computed live from each project's Change Impact Analysis on Aug 16, 2026. Tiers: 0% Not Linked · 1–24% Low · 25–49% Moderate · 50–74% High · 75–100% Saturated.

Portfolio at a glance

Three concurrent projects, one shared change population risk
3
Projects analyzed
44
Stakeholder groups (real)
42
Change impacts logged
9
Groups at Saturated tier

EchoWaveST · Project ID 115

Saturation risk
21
Groups
12
Change impacts
5
Saturated
6
Not linked (0%)
BIS Customer Service
12/12 100%
Fuels Marketing Sales Team
10/12 83%
Credit & Legal
10/12 83%
Legacy CRM Users
9/12 75%
IT Support
9/12 75%
Accounting / Finance
7/12 58%
DAI (Data & Analytics)
6/12 50%
PMO / Strategy & Transformation
5/12 42%
Executive Sponsor & Oversight Cmte
4/12 33%
IT Product Mgmt & Engineering
4/12 33%
Operations
4/12 33%
External - Fuels Marketing Customers
2/12 17%
Legacy CRM Users (Admin)
2/12 17%
Tax
2/12 17%
Trainers
1/12 8%
Human Resources, Change Management, Change Ambassadors, Super Users, Partner - Capgemini, Partner - QA Mentor
0/12 0%
Saturated (75–100%) High (50–74%) Moderate (25–49%) Low (1–24%) Not linked (0%)

GreenLightMT · Project ID 134

Concentrated in delivery core
7
Groups
14
Change impacts
2
Saturated
0
Not linked (0%)
Change Champions
13/14 93%
GBS Centre Staff
11/14 79%
Executive Sponsors
10/14 71%
Finance Business Partners
8/14 57%
Regional HR Leaders
7/14 50%
People Managers
7/14 50%
Procurement & Sourcing Teams
6/14 43%
Saturated (75–100%) High (50–74%) Moderate (25–49%)

OpenSpaceLT · Project ID 141

Concentrated in leadership tiers
16
Groups
16
Change impacts
2
Saturated
2
Not linked (0%)
Senior Leaders (VP & Above)
15/16 94%
People Managers (Director & Below)
13/16 81%
HR & Learning Business Partners
9/16 56%
Individual Contributors
9/16 56%
Executive Sponsors
7/16 44%
Early Adopter Cohort (Pilot Group)
6/16 38%
Regional Change Leads
5/16 31%
Talent & Organizational Development
5/16 31%
Change Agent Network
2/16 13%
Facilitators & Coaches
2/16 13%
Steering Committee
2/16 13%
Program Quality & Evaluation
1/16 6%
Communications & Brand Team
1/16 6%
Learning Design Team
1/16 6%
Change Management, Project Management
0/16 0%
Saturated (75–100%) High (50–74%) Moderate (25–49%) Low (1–24%) Not linked (0%)
!

The saturation pattern differs by project — but every project has one

EchoWave is the most exposed: 5 groups sit at Saturated, led by BIS Customer Service, which is named in every single one of the project's 12 change impacts. Fuels Marketing Sales Team and Credit & Legal aren't far behind at 83%.

GreenLight and OpenSpace each concentrate saturation in just 2 groups — but those groups are the delivery core (Change Champions, GBS Centre Staff) and the leadership tiers (Senior Leaders, People Managers) respectively. That's a narrower blast radius, but it means burnout risk is concentrated on fewer people rather than spread thin.

A caveat worth flagging: EchoWave's Change Ambassadors, Super Users, Human Resources, Change Management, and both delivery partners currently show 0% — not linked to any change impact yet. That's not evidence they're under no load; it means their change-impact analysis hasn't been completed, the same gap this methodology can't distinguish from genuine non-involvement.