Every row carries the power basis in plain words and a dated disposition; stances change, and the register says when it last knew. The engagement gap (current versus desired) is what the communication plan works on.
Stakeholder
Role
Power basis
Disposition (as of Jul 14)
Engagement C → D
R. Okafor
VP Operations, sponsor
Budget authority
Supportive
Supportive → Supportive
J. Whitfield
Operations sponsor
Formal authority over hub managers
Supportive
Supportive → Supportive
M. Chen
Dispatch lead
Scarce expertise, floor credibility
Supportive · leading the pilot
Leading → Leading
S. Grewal
Fleet manager
Telematics vendor contract owner
Neutral
Neutral → Supportive
T. Fontaine
Account management
Enterprise customer voice
Neutral · customer-disruption wariness
Neutral → Supportive: gap drives milestone briefings
Sentiment log: dispositions move; the log shows the movement
Stakeholder
Dated movement
Target
L. Moreau
May 20 resistant (kickoff) → Jun 25 resistant-but-engaged
(telemetry-scope briefing)
Neutral by cutover
T. Fontaine
Jun 10 wary → Jul 14 neutral (first account briefing)
Supportive by pilot week 2
Engagement actions per gap: gaps drive actions, not just cadence
Gap
Action
Owner
When
Fontaine neutral → supportive
Pre-milestone customer-impact briefs
A. Reyes
per milestone
Moreau resistant → neutral
Telemetry-scope working session: what is logged, what is not, who sees it
N. Duval
Jul 30, 2026
Decision: register scope
Excluded with reason: warehouse staff, no interaction with the dispatch flow. Refresh: monthly, owned by the delivery lead; next review August 14, 2026.
Rendered from source, dated. Every placement is justified by the named power basis in §1; high/medium/low without a basis is indefensible under challenge. The quadrants map to the tiers the communication plan derives from.
Influence × interest, as of 2026-07-14, generated from
influence-grid.mmd. Manage closely: Okafor, Whitfield, Chen. Keep satisfied: Moreau, Duval (veto bases). Keep informed closely: Fontaine. Mid-grid: Grewal; his salience rises at the January 2027 contract renewal, noted below, never overloaded onto the grid.
Decision · model: RACI
Chosen for a delivery-execution project with few discrete cross-org decisions. DACI was considered for the cutover go-no-go and rejected: one approver already exists. Legend matches the chosen model: A accountable (exactly one per row) · R responsible · C consulted · I informed.
Deliverable / decision
Okafor
Whitfield
Chen
Reyes
Sandoval
Duval
Moreau
Grewal
Fontaine
PRD approval
A
C
C
R
I
I
I
I
I
Cutover go-no-go
A
C
C
I
R
C
C
I
C
Override telemetry policy
I
I
C
R
I
A
C
I
I
Telematics vendor renewal
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
A
I
Dispatcher training plan
I
A
R
I
I
I
C
I
I
Pentest findings disposition
I
I
I
I
A
C
I
I
I
Telematics data-contract change
I
I
I
I
R
C
I
A
I
Reason-code list change
I
I
C
A
R
I
C
I
I
Eight rows, one page; Okafor holds two of eight accountable cells, under the concentration threshold, noted. Cross-references: pentest disposition gates (security testing[2]), the data-contract
change rule (DC-1[1]).
Directly S. Grewal per the integration contract
(INT-1[1])
per contract SLA
§6
Open Questions
mandatory1 decision
Question
Owner
Answer by
Blocks
Does L. Moreau's committee require a standing seat in the steering review
after cutover?
N. Duval
Aug 8, 2026
The post-cutover comms row only
Omission note, the lite form under five stakeholders: "Engagement assessment collapsed to a watch-list column: roster of four; full current-versus-desired matrix engages past five. Recorded in adaptation event #1."
Refs
References & Package Contents
In this export package
package[2] Business Requirements Document: union constraints, accountability slices
./brd-dispatch-modernization.docx