A Five-Question Stakeholder Analysis · Hong Kong Baptist University Career Development Centre
Our Group · 10 September 2026 · Press ▶ Read Aloud for the narrated tour
Contents
Five Questions
Q1 — Problem · What problem does this stakeholder experience?
Q2 — Value · What value might the service create?
Q3 — Contribution · What must this stakeholder contribute?
Q4 — Concern · What concern might prevent participation?
Q5 — Evidence · What evidence would make them try?
1
Question the First · Problem
What problem does this stakeholder experience?
Information collection fails — data from students and employers never arrives as planned.
Severe understaffing — two staff serving 1,000+ students: constant overload.
Messages never arrive — email and Outlook bury the information where it is lost.
Content gets ignored — unappealing packaging means students skip it.
Insufficient resources — too little funding and manpower; every initiative costs money.
1
Question the First · Structure
Two layers of trouble
Resource-level problems feed an information-flow chain that breaks at every link.
2
Question the Second · Value
What value might the service create?
A single coordination hub for the Career Centre.
Better matching algorithms between students and opportunities.
Clear project pipelines — transparent from start to finish.
Tracking of deliverables and feedback.
Easier reporting of outcomes.
2
Question the Second · Vision
One platform, one hub
Reduced administrative load, higher placement success, stronger value to both sides.
3
Question the Third · Contribution
What must this stakeholder contribute?
Career-related resources — professional materials and information.
Professional guidance — expert advice on career planning.
Employment support — hands-on help toward employment.
In practice: resume reviews · job-search workshops · career counselling · access to job opportunities.
4
Question the Fourth · Concern
What concern might prevent participation?
Functional overlap — the root of all concerns.
Disintermediation fear — "students may bypass us and go straight to the platform."
Risk transfer — lax vetting could expose students to risky jobs; the Centre answers for it.
Compliance burden — more vetting, more compliance work.
4
Question the Fourth · Logic Chain
How willingness erodes
Overlap → bypassed? → liable? → the willingness to participate is suppressed.
5
Question the Fifth · Evidence
What evidence would make them try?
The government's perspective — stable graduate employment serves social stability and future tax revenue.
The university's perspective — strong graduate outcomes attract future students.
5
Question the Fifth · The Proof
Placement data speaks
Epilogue · Summary
Problem → Value → Contribution → Concern → Evidence
The Centre is understaffed and underfunded, with a broken information flow. A shared platform offers it a single coordination hub. It contributes resources, guidance, and employment support — yet fears disintermediation and liability. The key to winning it over: placement data, employment rate and quality.