HA510 Unit 10 OD Program Proposal Example

One Request on Page One: An Organizational Development Proposal Asking a Composite Three-Hospital System's Executive Council to Approve a Twelve-Month, $186,000 Program That Answers the Merger's Remaining Relational and Structural Problems as a Set

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

HA510: Organizational Development in Health Care

Unit 10 Organizational Development Proposal

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The system, the costs and every outcome target are composite and bracketed; the proposal is a course model assembling the term's analyses.

Executive Summary

Request: approve a twelve-month organizational development program beginning [month]. Cost: about [$186,000], of which [$142,000] is paid time for participants. Three outcomes the council can hold the program to:

1. Decision latitude scores at the two critical access hospitals rise at least [eight] points.

2. Transfer center median call-to-acceptance time falls below [40] minutes.

3. Float pool requests from the small hospitals reach at least [15] percent of the system total.

The Problem

Two years after the merger, the system is integrated on paper but not in practice. Managers at the small hospitals describe a clan culture that values local relationships, while the integration plan relies on hierarchy; and even regional center managers say they would prefer fewer layers of approval (Unit 3). Survey results show the small hospitals lost more say over their own work and saw their leaders less, while workload rose about equally everywhere, consistent with the job demands-resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Unit 7). The transfer center operates as a relay rather than a team (Unit 5). The central staffing office is worked around at the small hospitals because rollout messages never addressed their staff's beliefs (Unit 8). The merger's remaining problems are not in any one department; they are in how the three hospitals relate and how decisions cross between them.

The Program

Component 1, appreciative inquiry summit: two days, about [80] participants from all three hospitals, designing changes from strengths, with funds and authority committed to carry out summit projects (Unit 9). Component 2, paired managers: each small hospital manager paired with a regional center counterpart for a year, solving one shared problem each quarter, with a staggered start to allow comparison (Unit 9). Component 3, transfer team development: a shared request template, a daily backup hospitalist, closed-loop communication and a monthly huddle, addressing the weaknesses found through the Big Five model of teamwork (Salas et al., 2005). Component 4, local decision authority and readiness: small hospital administrators regain authority over decisions below a cost threshold, and staffing office messages are reissued by local leaders with local data and benefits, building the commitment and efficacy that readiness requires (Weiner, 2009).

What the Program Does Not Do

It does not undo the merger, replace the central staffing office or change system-wide quality reporting. It does not train individual managers in leadership skills, because the diagnosis found the problems lie in relationships and decision paths, not in individual ability. It does not add staff, though float coverage may improve as small hospitals use the pool.

Month by Month

Month 1: baseline measures and the summit. Month 2: first manager pairs begin at one small hospital; transfer template drafted. Month 3: backup hospitalist schedule starts; decision threshold takes effect. Month 4: staffing messages reissued by local leaders. Month 6: first progress report to the council. Month 8: second manager pairs begin at the other small hospital. Month 12: full evaluation and a recommendation on continuing.

Why These Components Together

Each component addresses one finding, but they reinforce one another. The summit builds relationships the pairs use. The pairs give small hospital managers voice in decisions that affect the staffing office and the transfer center. Local authority restores the resources whose loss lowered engagement. Separately, each would be weaker.

Cost

Summit facilitation and logistics: [$28,000]. Paid time for summit participants: [$64,000]. Paired managers' time over twelve months: [$48,000]. Transfer team huddles and template work: [$30,000]. Evaluation and survey: [$16,000]. Total: about [$186,000].

Who Is Responsible

Sponsor: the system president. Program lead: the vice president for organizational development. Component owners: the chief nursing officer for pairing in nursing; the director of patient flow for the transfer team; the chief operating officer for decision authority; the small hospital administrators for local messaging.

How Progress Will Be Judged

A baseline is collected ahead of the summit, with repeat measurement at months six and twelve, covering four areas: decision latitude and leadership support items by site; transfer call-to-acceptance time; float requests by site; and a repeat culture assessment at twelve months. The staggered start of the pairs provides a six-month comparison between the two small hospitals. Organization development practice treats evaluation as part of the intervention, not an afterthought (Cummings & Worley, 2019).

How the Council Will Stay Informed

The program lead will send a one-page summary each quarter with the three outcome measures, the status of each component and any summit projects that are behind schedule. The month six and month twelve reports will include the comparison between the two small hospitals.

Costs Avoided

The council should weigh the program's cost against costs already being paid: overtime at the small hospitals on nights float nurses sat idle, extra hours in transfers that delay care and turnover among small hospital nurses, whose replacement costs the system an estimated [$40,000] or more each.

What Might Fail

The summit could produce enthusiasm without action; summit projects therefore have budgets and owners. Regional center leaders could resist returning decisions; the threshold is set in advance and reviewed at six months. Participants may struggle to attend; paid time is budgeted and backfilled.

A Year From Now

If the program works, a small hospital charge nurse would call the float pool and get a nurse who has oriented in her building. An emergency physician at a small hospital would tell a transfer story once and hear an acceptance within forty minutes. A small hospital administrator would approve a weekend therapy schedule without waiting for a committee. And managers at all three hospitals would describe a culture moving toward collaboration rather than control.

Alternatives Considered

A leadership course was rejected because the problems are relational and structural, not individual. A reorganization restoring full autonomy was rejected because it would lose the merger's benefits.

Decision Requested

Approve the program and its budget, name the sponsor and program lead, and schedule the first progress report for month six.

Conclusion

The program asks the council for one decision and offers three measurable outcomes. It builds on two years of integration rather than replacing it. It treats the merger's remaining problems as relationships and decisions that cross hospitals, and it addresses them together.

References

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2019). Organization development and change (11th ed.). Cengage.

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a "Big Five" in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555-599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405277134

Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4, Article 67. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-67