SpacePonics

Stakeholders were determined by considering anyone who would have any benefit from the success of the system or would face any consequences if the system were to fail. The stakeholders could be divided into three categories based upon how removed they are from the system and were defined as so:

 

• Primary Stakeholders — Those who bear a physical dependence on the system’s success; the primary user of the system

• Secondary Stakeholders — Those who are not directly dependent on the system but who are impacted by the success or failure of the system; have some sizable investment in the system

• Tertiary Stakeholders — Those who are unlikely to incur any harm if the system were to fail but would benefit in some manner or be unaffected if the system succeeds; have little or no investment in the system

 

The stakeholders are:

​

• Crew — The crew was identified as the primary stakeholders as the crew will be the ones dependent on the system and will likely suffer grave consequences if the system fails.

 

• Space Agencies (NASA, JAXA, Roscosmos, ESA, etc.) — The sponsoring space agencies were identified as secondary stakeholders as their success is not directly tied to the success of the system but they are likely to suffer political fallout and a souring of public opinion if the system were to fail. This would be especially true if the system failure resulted in the loss of the crew or complete mission failure.

 

• Manufacturers/Contractors — The manufacturers and contractors were identified as secondary stakeholders as they have made investments into the manufacturing of the system. Economic benefits are likely to occur if the system is successful and economic and damage to reputation are expected if the system fails due to loss or delay of additional contracts as well as the reputation hit associated with a failed system.

 

• Taxpayers or Private Investors — Taxpayers and private investors were identified as tertiary stakeholders as they bear a portion of the funding but likely have very little connection to the project. They are likely to be personally unaffected by the system regardless of outcome. The only side effect would be the emotions that come with the belief that they have paid for a failed project.

 

• Government — The government was identified as a secondary stakeholder as it is likely to bear the majority of the financial burden of the project and is likely to face lower public perception if the system were to fail, especially if the failure resulted in the loss of the crew or a total mission failure.

 

• Scientific Community — The general scientific community was identified as a tertiary stakeholder as they have no dependence on the system and are likely uninvested in the project. They would, however, benefit from any information that would be obtained from either a system failure or success.

 

• Food Industry — The food industry was identified as a tertiary stakeholder as they would likely be very removed from the system with no investment in its success. The system’s success however could result in useful information of beneficial publicity to the food industry.

​

​

​