---
title: "Discover Stakeholder Summary: Workbench Blueprints"
description: "Workbench enterprise collaboration platform: Blueprints launch stakeholder map."
artifact: stakeholder-summary
version: "1.0"
repo_version: "2.5.0"
skill_version: "2.0.0"
created: 2026-02-21
status: sample
thread: workbench
context: "Workbench enterprise collaboration platform: Blueprints launch stakeholder map"
---
<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 -->

## Scenario

Workbench is preparing to build and launch Blueprints, reusable document templates with required sections and role-based approval gates, for its ~500 enterprise customers [fictional]. Rachel V. (Technical PM) created a stakeholder summary to map the internal and external stakeholders who influence Blueprints' success, identify alignment risks early, and establish a communication cadence before development begins. The stakeholder landscape is more complex than a typical feature launch because Blueprints touches IT security (SSO provisioning), legal/compliance (audit trail requirements), enterprise sales (positioning against Confluence), and customer success (migration support for Confluence-migrant accounts). Early mapping is particularly important given the tight timeline from discovery (October 2025) through GA (April 2026), which leaves little room to recover from misalignment discovered mid-build.

**Source Notes:**

- Atlassian's FY2024 Annual Report reported total revenue of approximately $4.35 billion, with Confluence as the dominant enterprise documentation tool, the incumbent that Blueprints is positioned to displace for governance-focused buyers.
- Gartner's 2024 Market Guide for Content Collaboration Tools identifies template governance and approval workflow enforcement as emerging enterprise requirements that no current market leader fully addresses.
- G2's Enterprise Collaboration category lists Confluence, Notion, and Coda as the top three by review volume in the documentation sub-segment, establishing the competitive context for Blueprints positioning.

---

## Prompt

```
/stakeholder-summary

Project: Workbench Blueprints -- reusable document templates with required sections and role-based approval gates
Product: Workbench (enterprise collaboration platform, Series B, ~200 employees, ~500 enterprise customers [fictional])
Stage: Pre-development. Discovery interviews complete. About to enter Define phase.
PM: Rachel V. (Technical PM, Blueprints)

Stakeholders to map:

Internal:
1. Sandra C. -- Head of Product. Blueprints sponsor. Approves scope and timeline. Wants Blueprints to drive enterprise expansion and reduce churn in the compliance segment.
2. James W. -- VP Engineering. Owns engineering allocation. Concerned about CRDT complexity and timeline risk. Supportive but cautious.
3. Karen L. -- Engineering Lead, Blueprints squad. Day-to-day engineering owner. Excited about the technical challenge. Needs clear requirements early.
4. Derek H. -- Head of Marketing. Owns GA positioning and messaging. Needs competitive differentiation story for enterprise sales enablement.
5. Mei-Lin T. -- Enterprise Sales Lead. Manages the top 50 enterprise accounts. Wants Blueprints to close pipeline deals stalled on governance gaps. Resistant to phased rollout -- wants everything at once.

External:
6. IT Security leads at enterprise customer accounts. Gate SSO and data residency requirements. Will block deployment if security posture is insufficient.
7. Confluence-migrant accounts (estimated 15 of 80 closed-beta customers [fictional]). High-value, high-risk -- switching cost makes them sticky if onboarding goes well, churnable if it doesn't.

Format: Full stakeholder summary with influence/interest map, detailed profiles, communication plan, and risk mitigation.
```

---

## Output

# Stakeholder Summary: Workbench Blueprints

## Overview

**Project:** Workbench Blueprints, reusable document templates with required sections and role-based approval gates
**Purpose:** Map stakeholders who influence Blueprints' success from pre-development through GA launch, identify alignment risks, and establish communication cadence
**Date:** October 2025
**Owner:** Rachel V., Technical PM, Blueprints

## Stakeholder Map

```
                    [High Interest]
                          |
        KEEP SATISFIED    |    MANAGE CLOSELY
                          |
        James W.          |    Sandra C.
        (VP Eng)          |    Karen L.
                          |    Mei-Lin T.
                          |    Derek H.
[Low Influence] ----------+---------- [High Influence]
                          |
                          |    IT Security Leads
        MONITOR           |    KEEP INFORMED
                          |
                          |    Confluence-Migrant
                          |    Accounts
                    [Low Interest]
```

### Quadrant Placement

**Manage Closely (High Influence, High Interest):**
- Sandra C., Head of Product (sponsor; scope and timeline authority)
- Karen L., Engineering Lead (day-to-day execution owner)
- Mei-Lin T., Enterprise Sales Lead (pipeline dependency; strong opinions on scope)
- Derek H., Head of Marketing (GA positioning; competitive narrative)

**Keep Satisfied (High Influence, Low Interest):**
- James W., VP Engineering (resource allocation; engaged at milestone gates, not daily)

**Keep Informed (Low Influence, High Interest):**
- IT Security leads at enterprise accounts (gate deployment; high interest in security posture but no influence on Workbench product decisions)
- Confluence-migrant accounts (high interest in Blueprints success; no direct influence on roadmap)

**Monitor (Low Influence, Low Interest):**
- None identified at this stage

## Stakeholder Profiles

| Stakeholder | Role | Influence | Interest | Alignment | Key Need |
|-------------|------|-----------|----------|-----------|----------|
| Sandra C. | Head of Product | High | High | Supportive | Blueprints drives enterprise expansion and compliance-segment retention |
| James W. | VP Engineering | High | Medium | Supportive (cautious) | Realistic timeline; no CRDT-related tech debt that slows other squads |
| Karen L. | Engineering Lead, Blueprints | Medium | High | Supportive | Clear requirements early; stable scope; no mid-sprint pivots |
| Derek H. | Head of Marketing | Medium | High | Supportive | Differentiated positioning story ready 4 weeks before GA |
| Mei-Lin T. | Enterprise Sales Lead | High | High | Supportive (impatient) | Full feature set at GA to close stalled pipeline deals |
| IT Security Leads | Customer-side gate | Low | High | Neutral | SSO, SAML, audit logs, data residency compliance at deployment |
| Confluence-Migrant Accounts | Early adopters (closed beta) | Low | High | Supportive (fragile) | Smooth migration; parity with Confluence templates; no data loss |

## Detailed Stakeholder Analysis

### Sandra C.

**Role:** Head of Product
**Influence Level:** High. Approves Blueprints scope, timeline, and go/no-go for GA launch
**Interest Level:** High. Blueprints is the flagship initiative for H1 2026; Sandra's H1 OKR is tied to enterprise expansion [fictional]
**Current Alignment:** Supportive

**Needs:**
- Blueprints ships to closed beta on schedule (February 2026) and GA by end of Q2 2026
- Clear evidence that required-section enforcement drives measurable approval-cycle improvement before GA (the A/B test must show results)
- Enterprise churn in the compliance segment decreases from 18% annual to below 12% within two quarters of GA [fictional]

**Concerns:**
- Scope creep from Mei-Lin's sales-driven feature requests could delay the timeline
- If CRDT co-editing (powered by Yjs) is unreliable at launch, enterprise accounts will lose trust quickly
- Competitive response from Atlassian (Rovo AI agent or Confluence enforcement features) could narrow the window

**What Motivates Them:**
- Series C fundraise in late 2026 depends on demonstrating enterprise traction; Blueprints is the anchor narrative for the fundraise deck [fictional]

**Preferred Communication:**
- Channel: Weekly 1:1 with Rachel V.; Slack for async updates
- Frequency: Weekly during development; daily during closed beta and GA launch week
- Style: Data-driven; wants metrics dashboards, not narrative updates

---

### James W.

**Role:** VP Engineering
**Influence Level:** High. Controls engineering allocation across all squads; can reallocate headcount away from Blueprints if another initiative becomes urgent
**Interest Level:** Medium. Engaged at architecture review and milestone gates; does not follow sprint-level details
**Current Alignment:** Supportive but cautious

**Needs:**
- CRDT implementation does not create tech debt that affects other squads (shared libraries, infrastructure load)
- Timeline is realistic; prefers shipping later with stability over shipping on time with known bugs
- Architecture decisions are documented (ADRs) so future engineers can maintain Blueprints without tribal knowledge

**Concerns:**
- CRDT libraries (Yjs, Automerge) add operational complexity that the infra team has not budgeted for
- If Blueprints co-editing causes performance regressions in the core editor, the blast radius extends beyond the Blueprints squad
- Hiring timeline may not align; the Blueprints squad needs one more backend engineer (Nate P. is currently the sole backend engineer on the squad) and the recruiting pipeline is thin [fictional]

**What Motivates Them:**
- Engineering quality and team health; James will trade speed for stability every time

**Preferred Communication:**
- Channel: Bi-weekly architecture review; Slack DM for escalations
- Frequency: Bi-weekly during development; weekly during closed beta
- Style: Technical depth; wants to see system diagrams, load test results, and risk registers

---

### Karen L.

**Role:** Engineering Lead, Blueprints squad
**Influence Level:** Medium. Owns sprint planning and technical decisions within the squad; does not control cross-squad resources
**Interest Level:** High. Blueprints is Karen's primary workstream; career growth tied to successful delivery
**Current Alignment:** Supportive

**Needs:**
- Requirements locked before sprint 1; mid-sprint scope changes are the most disruptive risk to delivery
- CRDT spike completed and architecture decision recorded before implementation begins
- Clear escalation path when blockers arise, especially cross-squad dependencies like SSO provisioning

**Concerns:**
- Required-section enforcement logic is straightforward, but edge cases around partially saved drafts, concurrent editing, and section deletion are complex. The Yjs CRDT model handles text-level conflicts well, but section-level structural constraints require careful design.
- The squad is understaffed by one backend engineer; Karen has flagged this to James but hiring has not closed [fictional]
- If the closed beta timeline slips, the GA timeline compounds and the A/B test window shrinks

**What Motivates Them:**
- Shipping well-engineered products; Karen values clean architecture and comprehensive test coverage

**Preferred Communication:**
- Channel: Daily standup; sprint planning; Slack #blueprints-eng channel
- Frequency: Daily
- Style: Direct; prefers written specs over verbal briefs

---

### Derek H.

**Role:** Head of Marketing
**Influence Level:** Medium. Owns GA launch messaging, sales enablement materials, and competitive positioning; does not influence product scope
**Interest Level:** High. Blueprints GA is the marquee launch for Q2 2026; marketing pipeline targets depend on it [fictional]
**Current Alignment:** Supportive

**Needs:**
- Differentiated competitive positioning locked 4 weeks before GA to allow content production, sales training, and press outreach
- Access to closed-beta customer stories (with permission) for GA launch blog post and case study
- Clear feature matrix showing Blueprints vs. Confluence vs. Notion for enterprise sales battle card

**Concerns:**
- If Blueprints ships with AI-assisted drafting as "Partial" (per competitive analysis), competitors will attack the AI gap in head-to-head evaluations
- A phased GA rollout (Mei-Lin's resistance notwithstanding) could fragment the launch message

**What Motivates Them:**
- Pipeline generation; Derek is measured on marketing-sourced pipeline and Blueprints GA is expected to generate 30% of Q2 enterprise pipeline [fictional]

**Preferred Communication:**
- Channel: Bi-weekly product-marketing sync; Slack #blueprints-launch channel
- Frequency: Bi-weekly during development; weekly in the 6 weeks before GA
- Style: Narrative with visual assets; wants positioning decks, not spreadsheets

---

### Mei-Lin T.

**Role:** Enterprise Sales Lead
**Influence Level:** High. Manages the top 50 enterprise accounts; her pipeline feedback directly shapes Sandra's prioritization decisions
**Interest Level:** High. Has 8 deals currently stalled because prospects require template governance that Workbench does not yet offer [fictional]
**Current Alignment:** Supportive but impatient

**Needs:**
- Full Blueprints feature set at GA (required sections, approval gates, version history, SSO, and audit logs) with no "coming in v1.1" asterisks
- Battle card and competitive one-pager (Workbench vs. Confluence) ready for AE distribution at GA
- At least 2 closed-beta reference customers willing to take prospect calls

**Concerns:**
- A phased rollout that ships required sections without approval gates would be "half the story" and insufficient to close stalled deals
- If GA is delayed past Q2 2026, 3 of the 8 stalled deals will likely be lost to Confluence renewals [fictional]
- Pricing for Blueprints tier has not been finalized; sales cannot quote customers without a price. The $1.8M stalled pipeline [fictional] is at risk of eroding if pricing clarity comes too late for Q2 deal cycles.

**What Motivates Them:**
- Quota attainment; Mei-Lin's H1 target is $2.4M in new enterprise ARR and Blueprints is the primary unlock [fictional]

**Preferred Communication:**
- Channel: Weekly pipeline review with Sandra and Rachel; Slack DM for urgent customer requests
- Frequency: Weekly
- Style: Customer-impact framing; "Customer X needs Y by Z date" format

---

### IT Security Leads (Enterprise Customer Accounts)

**Role:** Gate deployment of new enterprise tools; evaluate SSO integration, data residency, audit logging, and security certifications
**Influence Level:** Low (on Workbench product decisions) but can block deployment at customer accounts, effectively preventing adoption
**Interest Level:** High. Any new tool touching enterprise documents triggers a security review
**Current Alignment:** Neutral (default posture is skeptical until evidence is provided)

**Needs:**
- SSO/SAML integration documented and testable before deployment
- SOC 2 Type II report available (or in progress with expected completion date)
- Data residency options for EU-based customers (GDPR)
- Audit log export capability for compliance evidence

**Concerns:**
- New collaboration tool means new attack surface; IT security teams are inherently cautious about expanding the tool stack
- If Workbench cannot demonstrate security parity with Confluence, IT will block the deployment regardless of end-user enthusiasm
- The Yjs CRDT co-editing layer introduces real-time data synchronization that security teams will want to understand in terms of data-in-transit encryption and session integrity

**What Motivates Them:**
- Risk reduction; security leads are evaluated on preventing incidents, not enabling features

**Preferred Communication:**
- Channel: Security documentation package sent to customer IT team; follow-up call with Workbench security engineering as needed
- Frequency: Milestone-based (pre-deployment review, annual renewal review)
- Style: Checklist-driven; wants a security FAQ and compliance artifact package

---

### Confluence-Migrant Accounts

**Role:** Early adopters in closed beta who are actively migrating from Confluence to Workbench; estimated 15 of 80 closed-beta accounts [fictional]
**Influence Level:** Low (on product decisions) but their success or failure during migration will determine the Confluence migration narrative for GA marketing
**Interest Level:** High. These accounts have committed to migration and need Blueprints to justify the switch
**Current Alignment:** Supportive but fragile

**Needs:**
- Confluence template import (or guided manual recreation) that preserves existing document structure
- Feature parity with Confluence templates at minimum; required-section enforcement as the clear upgrade justification
- Responsive support during migration; these accounts are highest-risk for churn if onboarding fails

**Concerns:**
- Data loss during migration (document history, attachments, permissions)
- If Blueprints GA is delayed, migrant accounts are stuck on Workbench without the feature that justified switching
- Internal stakeholders at migrant accounts may push back if Workbench adoption is slower than Confluence for existing workflows

**What Motivates Them:**
- Governance and compliance improvements that Confluence cannot provide; "templates with teeth" is the reason they switched

**Preferred Communication:**
- Channel: Dedicated Slack channel per account (#wb-[account-name]); bi-weekly check-in call with Customer Success
- Frequency: Bi-weekly during migration; weekly during closed beta launch
- Style: Hands-on; wants live walkthroughs and migration checklists, not documentation links

## Key Relationships

### Dependencies

| From | To | Dependency Type |
|------|-----|-----------------|
| Rachel V. (PM) | Sandra C. (Head of Product) | Scope approval; go/no-go authority |
| Rachel V. (PM) | James W. (VP Eng) | Engineering headcount allocation |
| Karen L. (Eng Lead) | James W. (VP Eng) | Backend engineer hiring approval |
| Derek H. (Marketing) | Rachel V. (PM) | Feature specs and competitive positioning inputs |
| Mei-Lin T. (Sales) | Derek H. (Marketing) | Battle card and sales enablement materials |
| Mei-Lin T. (Sales) | Sandra C. (Head of Product) | Pricing decision for Blueprints tier |
| IT Security Leads | Karen L. (Eng Lead) | SSO/SAML integration and security documentation |

### Alliances

- **Product-Engineering alignment:** Sandra C. and Karen L. are aligned on shipping a well-scoped v1 with required sections and approval gates; both resist scope creep. This alliance is the primary defense against timeline inflation.
- **Sales-Marketing alignment:** Mei-Lin T. and Derek H. both want a full-featured GA launch with strong competitive positioning; they will jointly push for aggressive timelines. Rachel V. should anticipate coordinated pressure from this pair at scope reviews.

### Potential Conflicts

| Parties | Conflict Area | Risk Level |
|---------|---------------|------------|
| Mei-Lin T. vs. Sandra C. / Karen L. | Scope: Mei-Lin wants all features at GA; Sandra and Karen want a phased approach to protect timeline quality | High |
| James W. vs. Sandra C. | Timeline: James prefers conservative estimates and may push back on the February closed-beta target if the CRDT spike reveals complexity | Medium |
| Derek H. vs. Rachel V. | AI messaging: Derek wants to position Blueprints as AI-powered; Rachel's competitive analysis shows AI drafting is Partial, which creates a gap if competitors attack it | Low |

## Communication Plan

| Stakeholder | Frequency | Channel | Content | Owner |
|-------------|-----------|---------|---------|-------|
| Sandra C. | Weekly | 1:1 meeting + Slack | Sprint progress, metric updates, scope decisions | Rachel V. |
| James W. | Bi-weekly | Architecture review + Slack DM | Technical milestones, risk register, hiring status | Karen L. |
| Karen L. | Daily | Standup + Slack #blueprints-eng | Sprint execution, blockers, technical decisions | Rachel V. |
| Derek H. | Bi-weekly | Product-marketing sync | Feature specs, competitive inputs, positioning drafts | Rachel V. |
| Mei-Lin T. | Weekly | Pipeline review (with Sandra) | Customer requirements, deal status, feature requests | Rachel V. |
| IT Security Leads | Milestone-based | Security doc package + call | SSO docs, SOC 2 status, data residency options | Karen L. |
| Confluence-Migrant Accounts | Bi-weekly | Dedicated Slack + check-in call | Migration status, feature readiness, support issues | Customer Success |

## Risk Mitigation

### Resistant Stakeholders

| Stakeholder | Concern | Mitigation Strategy | Owner |
|-------------|---------|---------------------|-------|
| Mei-Lin T. | Wants full feature set at GA; resists phased rollout | Share interview evidence showing required sections plus approvals alone justify migration. Align on "v1 closes deals; v1.1 expands them" narrative. Provide Mei-Lin with early access to the competitive battle card so she can validate the v1 story against live deal objections. | Rachel V. |
| James W. | CRDT complexity and timeline risk | Complete CRDT spike before sprint 1; present findings at architecture review with realistic estimate and fallback options | Karen L. |

### Political Risks

| Risk | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|--------|------------|
| Mei-Lin escalates scope requests directly to Sandra, bypassing Rachel | Scope creep; team whiplash if Sandra overrides sprint plan | Establish a shared intake process: all feature requests go through Rachel's triage doc; Sandra reviews weekly |
| Derek positions Blueprints as AI-first despite Partial AI capability | Competitor attack ads at GA; credibility damage in enterprise evaluations | Align on "governance-first" positioning in product-marketing sync; AI messaging limited to roadmap teasers |
| Confluence-migrant account churns during closed beta, creating negative internal narrative | Sandra loses confidence in Blueprints viability; GA timeline questioned | Assign dedicated Customer Success manager to the 5 highest-value migrant accounts; weekly health checks during first 30 days |

## Action Items

- [ ] Schedule kickoff meeting with Sandra, Karen, and Mei-Lin to align on Blueprints v1 scope boundary (required sections plus approval gates in; version history and AI drafting in v1.1)
- [ ] Send CRDT spike brief to James W. before architecture review (December 2025)
- [ ] Request security documentation package from Karen's team for IT Security lead review (SSO, SAML, audit log specs)
- [ ] Identify 3 Confluence-migrant accounts willing to participate in closed beta and provide GA reference testimonials
- [ ] Schedule product-marketing sync with Derek to align on "governance-first" positioning and competitive battle card timeline
- [ ] Confirm Blueprints pricing tier with Sandra and finance before Mei-Lin's next enterprise pipeline review

## Document History

| Date | Change | Author |
|------|--------|--------|
| 2025-10-28 | Initial creation after discovery interviews | Rachel V. |

---

*Review and update this document when stakeholder dynamics change or at major project milestones.*
