| Course | HA510 Organizational Development in Health Care |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Change model analysis |
| Length | About 860 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Master of Health Administration (MHA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HA510 Unit 4
Spreadsheets at the Center, Text Messages at the Edges: A Change Model Analysis Testing Lewin's Three Stages and the ADKAR Model Against the Five-Month Stall of a Composite Health System's Central Staffing Office
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HA510: Organizational Development in Health Care
Unit 4 Change Model Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The system, the staffing office and every figure are composite and bracketed; interviews are summarized by role, not person.
The Change as Designed and as It Runs
As designed: a scheduling platform with system-wide rules, a central office of [four] schedulers and a float pool of [30] nurses available to all three hospitals. As it runs five months later: platform use is high for posting schedules but low for requests and swaps. Float nurses were idle on [11] days when one of the small hospitals worked short. Regional center managers say the platform's reports do not show what they need, so they keep spreadsheets. Small hospital charge nurses arrange trades by text and enter them later, or not at all.
The Evidence
1. Platform use by unit: schedule posting [95] percent; shift requests through the platform [38] percent at the regional center, [9] percent at the small hospitals.
2. Float pool use: [71] percent at the regional center, [6] percent at the small hospitals.
3. Off-system trades: [84] in two months, counted from charge nurse logs at the small hospitals.
4. Interviews with [six] managers, three from each type of facility.
Lewin Applied
In Lewin's account, people must first loosen old habits, then shift to new ones, then settle the new ones in place (Lewin, 1947). Applied here, the model describes the sequence well. Leaders announced the change, trained staff and launched the platform, but did little to unfreeze the old routines first. The regional center moved partly, then refroze around spreadsheets beside the platform. The small hospitals never unfroze: their text-message trades continued unchanged. Where Lewin struggles: the model treats the organization as one body moving through stages. It cannot easily explain why one group moved and refroze in a hybrid state while another never started, or why managers who wanted the change still kept spreadsheets. Lewin explains that the change never took hold; it does not explain why two groups failed in different places for different reasons.
ADKAR Applied
Hiatt (2006) breaks change into five personal milestones that must be reached in order, beginning with understanding why the change is needed and wanting to take part, then learning the new way, being able to carry it out and having it reinforced so it lasts. Applied to each group: Regional center managers: aware, willing and trained. Their barrier is ability: the platform cannot produce the unit-level reports they use for budgets, so they rebuild them in spreadsheets. Small hospital charge nurses: aware and trained, but the barrier is desire. Interviews show they do not trust float nurses who do not know their patients or building, and they see the platform as the regional center's tool.
Verdict
ADKAR explains the stall better because it locates each group's barrier: ability at the regional center, desire at the small hospitals. Lewin remains useful at the system level, reminding leaders that unfreezing, the work of making the old way visible and its costs clear, was skipped. Organization development texts note that models complement each other and that the choice depends on the level of analysis needed (Cummings & Worley, 2019).
What Each Diagnosis Suggests
For the regional center: fix the platform's reports or give managers access to the data in the format they need. Training more would not help. For the small hospitals: build trust in float nurses through orientation days at each small hospital, assign a few float nurses to each site and involve charge nurses in choosing them. Requiring platform use would push trades further underground. For the system: hold meetings that make the costs of the current state visible, such as the idle float days, which is the unfreezing step that was missed.
What the Interviews Added
A regional center manager put it plainly: "I'm not against the platform. I just can't run my budget meeting from it." A small hospital charge nurse said: "If I call the float pool, I get someone who's never been in our building. If I text Dana, I get someone who knows where the crash cart is." Both quotations fit their group's ADKAR barrier and neither fits a single Lewin stage, which is part of the verdict's evidence.
What a Third Model Might Add
Kotter's eight steps, not tested here, would point to the missing guiding coalition: no small hospital leader helped design the staffing office. That observation supports the ADKAR finding about desire at the small hospitals and could be tested in a later unit.
Limits
Six interviews cannot represent all managers. Off-system trades were counted only at the small hospitals. Five months may be too early to judge.
Conclusion
Lewin and ADKAR both help, at different levels. Lewin explains why the change did not take hold system-wide; ADKAR shows where each group stopped. The fixes that follow are different for each group, which a single system-wide push would miss.
References
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2019). Organization development and change (11th ed.). Cengage.
Hiatt, J. M. (2006). ADKAR: A model for change in business, government and our community. Prosci.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103
HA510 Unit 4 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 4 usually asks students to apply two or more change models to a change in a health care organization and evaluate which explains it better. Instructions commonly require describing the change, presenting evidence of how it is going, applying each model, comparing their explanatory power and drawing implications. Expect to cite each model's source in APA style, use composite data and interviews attributed to roles, and reach a clear verdict rather than summarizing the models side by side. A strong analysis lets the models compete on the same evidence, so the reader can see where each one explains the facts and where it struggles to account for them. Name each model's authors.
How this HA510 Unit 4 example is built
The sample describes the change as designed and as it runs, with a margin note on making the models compete. Four kinds of evidence are listed with figures. Lewin's stages are applied, and the highlighted sentence says the model explains the failure but not its two forms. ADKAR is applied group by group, with a margin note showing each group stopped at a different milestone. The verdict cites an organization development text on choosing models by level. Fixes follow for each group and the system. Quotations from interviews with a third note, a brief look at what Kotter's steps would add, limits of six interviews and a conclusion close the analysis.
Reading the HA510 Unit 4 grading rubric
Change model rubrics in HA 510 usually give points for describing the change, presenting evidence, applying each model accurately, comparing their explanatory power, reaching a verdict, drawing implications and citing sources. Description points depend on the change as designed and as running. Evidence points go to data and interviews. Application points reward applying each model to the facts rather than defining it. Comparison points require showing where each model works and fails. Verdict points go to a clear judgment. Implication points need different fixes where groups differ. Analyses that apply a model separately to different groups often earn top marks, since the groups rarely stall at the same point. A clear verdict matters most.
HA510 Unit 4 help from the desk
Change model papers often lose points by describing both models fully and then saying both apply. Another gap is applying the models to the idea of the change instead of to data on how it is actually going. Some papers treat everyone affected as one group. Others give no verdict. Present evidence first, apply each model to it, look for groups that behave differently, say which model explains the differences and draw fixes for each group. Then note what a third model might add. Short quotations from interviews, attributed to roles, help show that the diagnosis matches what people say. Keep figures bracketed if they are composite.
Get an HA510 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Tell us which change the Unit 4 prompt wants analyzed and which models the reading assigns, then describe how the change is actually going, workarounds included. With the instructions and rubric attached, a first model analysis comes back free within 24-48h, the models tested on your evidence rather than summarized. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HA510 papers and MHA samples
- HA510 Unit 1: Four Worlds Theory Post
- HA510 Unit 2: Hospital Structure Comparison
- HA510 Unit 3: Competing Values Culture Diagnostic
- HA510 Unit 5: Team Development Case
- HA510 Unit 6: Conflict and Communication Analysis
- HA510 Unit 7: Engagement Research Paper
- HA510 Unit 8: Resistance to Change Analysis
- HA510 Unit 9: Development Intervention Plan
- HA510 Unit 10: Organizational Development Proposal
- HA520 Unit 4:
- HA540 Unit 5:
HA510 Unit 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HA510 Unit 4 sample paper?
This page holds the full HA510 Unit 4 change model analysis, testing Lewin and ADKAR against a composite central staffing office's stall, with three sources. Your own stalled change can be tested the same way.
What are Lewin's three stages of change?
Unfreezing existing behavior, moving to a new state and refreezing it so the change lasts.
What does ADKAR stand for?
Awareness, desire, knowledge, ability and reinforcement, the individual milestones of change in Hiatt's model.
Why compare change models on the same evidence?
It shows which model explains the facts better and leads to a verdict rather than a summary.
How long is the HA510 Unit 4 analysis?
About six pages in three parts: the change, the models and a verdict.