1. Analyses are generated by a team of three to seven country specialists, hired as consultants, for each country. The team members each provide independent estimates that are combined into the forecasts in the reports.
2. The network includes more than 250 area specialists spread throughout the US and several other countries.
3. Specialists with academic (60%), business (5%), government (15%), and general consulting (20%) background.
4. Most important selection criterion: demonstrated ability to analyze the politics of the country (publications, reputations in the field, professional background, and graduate training). Tested by having them complete an analysis of an existing report.
1. The change that will create a business loss must be explicitly defined.
2. The immediate process by which the loss will occur should be explicitly defined.
3. Resulting Risk Statement: The Government of India will change its investment laws to bar foreign investment in the computer hardware industry.
1. All political parties.
2. Local firms in the computer industry.
3. Foreign firms in the computer industry.
4. Computer industry customers.
5. Computer industry suppliers.
6. Foreign governments that care about the computer industry.
7. Workers who will be affected by regulatory change.
8. Public interest groups concerned with computerization.
9. Public interest groups concerned with nationalism.
10. Other foreign investors in India.
11. Government bureaucrats who affect computer industry.
Determine power for each actor (rating is 0-3, where zero means no power to affect the outcome; three means can single handedly affect the outcome).
Determine position (rating is from -3 - +3; negative three means very strongly opposed; positive three means very strongly in favor).
Determine salience or conscious importance (rating is 0-3, where zero means they don't really care about the outcome; three means that their life turns on this issue).
1. Look across the actors, to see if any of them are willing to make alliances that might shift their power, position or salience ratings.
2. Possible alliances may be based on common positions on this topic or on any historical links between the actors.
3. Possible alliances on this topic may also arise because of common plans for future action (e.g. political parties that hope to create coalition government).
4. If an alliance is likely and will shift ratings, adjust your estimates. (typically estimate risk with and without alliances and compare results).
1. Multiply each actor's power, position and salience ratings.
2. Total those products across all actors.
3. Divide by the number of actors.
4. The resulting number will vary between -27 and +27. The higher the number, the more likely the event is to occur.
5. If the number is strongly negative, the opposite event may be likely, but since the analysis isn't necessarily symmetric you really need to do it again with the risk stated in the opposite way to be confident with that conclusion.
1. Much of the PRINCE analysis is based on educated estimates; so, the result is not perfect, but the exercise...
2. Forces you to be explicit about your political risk assumptions.
3. Provides insight into where you need to intervene in the political process if you want to change the environment.