Formation of a cluster model of stakeholders taking into account the interdependence of interests, resources, and influences

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32347/2707-501x.2025.56(2).336-349

Keywords:

stakeholders, cluster model, resources, interests, influences, complementarity, cooperation, project management

Abstract

The formation of a stakeholder cluster model in construction development is a key stage in creating a management system based on the interdependence of interests, resources, and influences. In today’s environment of complexity and dynamism in development processes, traditional hierarchical management approaches are losing effectiveness, giving way to network-based models built on the principles of complementarity and mutual balance. The cluster model ensures the integration of participants in the construction process into a unified system, where the efficiency of interaction is determined not only by the distribution of resources but also by the structure of communications, the level of trust, and the alignment of interests. The foundation of cluster formation is the vector model of multidimensional stakeholder positioning in the I–R–V space (Interests – Resources – Influences). Its application makes it possible to determine the degree of interdependence between actors and identify potential zones of instability. Each cluster functions as an adaptive subsystem with its own management logic, depending on the dominant type of connections – resource-based, interest-based, or political. Determining the threshold limits of interaction helps to prevent destabilization and maintain dynamic equilibrium within the system.

Particular attention is given to the concept of resource complementarity, according to which stability is achieved through the mutual balancing of deficits. Stakeholders are viewed not as autonomous actors but as interconnected nodes of exchange, where one participant’s resource compensates for another’s shortage. This approach promotes a shift from competition to cooperation, which is critically important for enhancing the resilience of development clusters. Additionally, the model considers the dynamic aspect – the changing roles of stakeholders depending on the project phase. This ensures adaptation to external environmental changes and maintains institutional flexibility. The use of formalized interaction indicators (Ψ, Ω, Θ) allows for the quantitative assessment of connectivity levels and the identification of critical coordination points. The integration of these parameters into the management system creates a self-regulating mechanism that enables the prediction of network tension and its timely mitigation.

The proposed cluster model combines mathematical analytical tools with the managerial logic of modularity, making it an effective instrument for strategic planning under uncertainty. It provides a balance between centralized control and decentralized initiative, creating the preconditions for sustainable industry development and strengthening the competitiveness of development systems.

References

Krause, A. (2019). Cluster Equivalence and Stakeholder Typology in Complex Projects. Systems of Governance Review, 13(2), 175–198.

Revol, C. (2020). Multidimensional Vector Models in Strategic Development Clusters. Journal of Spatial Economics, 15(1), 54–79.

Wills, P. (2021). Segmented Trust and Structural Conflict in Urban Coalitions. Policy Framework Studies, 9(3), 223–242.

Mintz, L. (2022). Role Complementarity in Stakeholder Clusters: Stability and Modularity. Strategic Urban Research, 18(2), 102–129.

Gilbert, A. (2017). Resource Dependency and Institutional Complementarity in Stakeholder Networks. Strategic Network Analysis Journal, 21(2), 133–155.

Lithgow, R. (2019). Critical Influence Nodes in Development Clusters. Urban Governance and Stakeholder Studies, 11(1), 42–68.

Maldini, I. (2020). Cross-Phase Role Balancing in Construction Stakeholder Systems. Project Systems Modelling Review, 14(3), 203–228.

Shadman, R. (2022). Overload Risk in Stakeholder Meshes: Metrics and Models. Complex Systems and Urban Interfaces, 17(4), 275–297.

Piraggi, E. (2020). Inverted Cooperation and Stakeholder Role Reconfiguration. Urban Policy Structures, 12(3), 184–211.

Hansmeier, B. (2019). Circular Clusters and Reciprocal Impact Mechanics. Infrastructure Strategy Review, 10(2), 101–138.

Zöllner, I. (2021). Nonlinear Interaction Energy in Stakeholder Governance. Systems Complexity Journal, 7(4), 309–330.

Coldrake, S. (2022). Entropy Metrics and Risk of Coordination Collapse in Stakeholder Meshes. Journal of Distributed Management, 15(1), 55–76.

Rindova, V. P. (2006). Stakeholder Configurations and Strategic Governance: The Relational View. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 606–621.

Boyer, M. (2020). Responsibility Diffusion in Intersectoral Urban Systems. Journal of Infrastructure Governance, 18(1), 71–93.

Levitt, J. (2019). Feedback Loops and Role Shifts in Project Networks. Project System Dynamics, 14(4), 243–264.

Cohen-Silver, A. (2021). Intensity Typologies in Stakeholder Impact Models. Organizational Structures Quarterly, 11(2), 155–179.

Гергі Д., Єлін В., Гроголь В., Остапенко І. Дослідження основних факторів моніторингу та ключових учасників процесу реалізації стратегічних інновацій у будівельному секторі. Шляхи підвищення ефективності будівництва, 2024, 53(3), 96–113. https://doi.org/10.32347/2707-501x.2024.53(3).96-113

Thomasson, K. (2021). Urban Clusters and Stakeholder Fluidity in Transitional Economies. Regional Planning and Stakeholder Dynamics, 9(2), 201–228.

Чуприна Ю.А. Методологія інтеграції потенціалу стейкхолдерів до складу будівельного кластеру. Формування ринкових відносин в Україні. 2019. № 2 (213). C. 81-87

Published

2025-11-25

How to Cite

ANANKO, Y. . (2025). Formation of a cluster model of stakeholders taking into account the interdependence of interests, resources, and influences. Ways to Improve Construction Efficiency, 2(56), 336–349. https://doi.org/10.32347/2707-501x.2025.56(2).336-349