| Course | HA510 Organizational Development in Health Care |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Development intervention plan |
| 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 9
A Summit to Open It, Paired Managers to Carry It, a Staggered Start to Test It: A Development Intervention Plan for a Composite Three-Hospital System Two Years Into Its Merger, With the Evaluation Designed Before Either Intervention Begins
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HA510: Organizational Development in Health Care
Unit 9 Development Intervention Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The system, the interventions, the dates and every target are composite and bracketed; the plan is a course model built on the earlier units' findings.
The Diagnosis in Four Lines
1. Culture: clan cultures at the small hospitals meet an integration plan written in hierarchy terms, while regional center managers themselves want less hierarchy (Unit 3).
2. Engagement: fell more at the small hospitals because decision latitude and visible leadership were lost (Unit 7).
3. Teams: the transfer center lacks shared understanding and backup (Unit 5).
4. Relationships: small hospital directors of nursing have no counterparts at the regional center, and rollout messages never came from them (Unit 8).
Choosing the Kind of Intervention
Cummings and Worley group organization development interventions into four families: human process, technostructural, human resource management and strategic change (Cummings & Worley, 2019). Placing the diagnosis in those families shows that the merger's problems sit mostly in relationships between sites and in the structure connecting them, not in individual skills. That rules out the leadership course the system had considered, which would train individuals without changing how the sites relate. A course for individual managers would have answered a question nobody asked; the diagnosis points to relationships between hospitals and how decisions cross them.
Intervention 1: An Appreciative Inquiry Summit
What: a two-day summit of about [80] people, managers, front-line staff, physicians and two trustees, drawn from all three hospitals. Following the appreciative inquiry cycle of discovery, dream, design and destiny, participants describe times the system worked well across sites, imagine what it could be and design specific changes (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). Why: it addresses culture and relationships at once, gives the small hospitals an equal voice and starts from strengths rather than blame. Caution: studies of appreciative inquiry found it was most likely to produce lasting change when it generated new ideas and when participants were free to act on them afterward, rather than producing only a positive event (Bushe & Kassam, 2005). The plan therefore commits funds and authority for summit-designed changes.
Intervention 2: Paired Managers
What: each small hospital manager is paired with a regional center counterpart in the same function, such as nursing, pharmacy, imaging and staffing. Pairs meet monthly for a year, solve one shared problem each quarter and co-sign decisions that affect both sites. Why: it builds the cross-site relationships the diagnosis found missing and restores small hospital voice in system decisions.
The Staggered Start
The summit includes everyone, but paired managers start at one small hospital in month 2 and at the other in month 8. For six months, one small hospital has pairs and the other does not, supplying a comparison.
Evaluation Designed in Advance
Measures, taken before the summit and every six months:
1. Decision latitude and leadership support survey items, by site.
2. The small hospitals' portion of all float pool requests.
3. Transfer center call-to-acceptance time.
4. A repeat of the culture instrument with managers at month 12.
Comparison: the early-pairing small hospital against the late one, months 2 to 8. Prediction: decision latitude rises at least [five] points more at the early-pairing hospital.
Why a Staggered Start Rather Than a Pilot Site
A single pilot site would leave the other small hospital waiting a year and would make any change hard to attribute. Staggering gives both hospitals the intervention within eight months, treats them fairly and still provides a six-month comparison. It also lets the second hospital learn from the first.
What Will Not Change
The central staffing office, the shared record and system-wide quality reporting remain. The plan changes how decisions are made across sites, not whether the system is integrated.
Interventions Considered and Rejected
A system-wide leadership course was rejected for the reasons above. A reorganization returning full autonomy to the small hospitals was rejected because it would undo the merger's benefits, such as shared recruiting and purchasing, without addressing relationships. A new engagement survey vendor was rejected as measurement without intervention.
Roles and Costs
Sponsor: the system president. Lead: the vice president for organizational development. Facilitator: an outside appreciative inquiry practitioner for the summit. Cost: about [$186,000], mostly paid time for participants.
Risks
The summit becomes a positive event with no follow-through; answered by committed funds and quarterly reviews of summit projects. Pairs fail to meet; answered by including the pairing in managers' goals. Regional center managers see pairing as extra work; answered by counting it toward their own goals and protecting meeting time.
Timeline
Month 1: baseline measures and summit. Month 2: first pairs begin. Month 6: first review. Month 8: second pairs begin. Month 12: full evaluation.
Conclusion
The plan answers a relational and structural diagnosis with relational and structural interventions, and it builds in a comparison so the system can learn whether they work.
References
Bushe, G. R., & Kassam, A. F. (2005). When is appreciative inquiry transformational? A meta-case analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(2), 161-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886304270337
Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. Berrett-Koehler.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2019). Organization development and change (11th ed.). Cengage.
Reading the HA 510 Unit 9 instructions
Unit 9 typically asks students to design organizational development interventions based on their diagnosis of a health care organization. Instructions usually require restating the diagnosis, selecting interventions with reasons, describing how each works, planning roles, costs and a timeline, and designing an evaluation. Many instructors ask students to classify interventions using a typology. Support each choice with organization development sources and research on the chosen interventions, cited in APA format; mark composite costs and keep the system unnamed. Plans that design the evaluation before the interventions start, with a comparison group if possible, show stronger thinking than plans that promise to evaluate later. Name an owner for each intervention.
Inside the HA510 Unit 9 example
The sample restates the diagnosis in four numbered lines, with a margin note on the plan's logic. A section places candidate interventions in Cummings and Worley's families, and the highlighted sentence explains why a course for individuals was ruled out. The summit is described with the appreciative inquiry cycle and a caution from research on when such summits produce lasting change. Paired managers follow, with a margin note linking each intervention to findings. A staggered start and evaluation with a prediction come next, then why staggering beats a single pilot site with a third note, what will not change, three rejected options, roles, a cost of about $186,000, risks with responses and a twelve-month timeline.
Reading the HA510 Unit 9 grading rubric
Intervention plan rubrics in HA 510 usually give points for linking interventions to diagnosis, selecting interventions with a typology, describing implementation, planning evaluation, addressing risks and resources, and citing sources. Linking points depend on each intervention answering a finding. Selection points go to reasons for choosing and rejecting options. Implementation points reward specific activities, roles and timing. Evaluation points require measures, a baseline and a comparison. Risk points go to named risks with responses. Resource points need costs. Plans that build a comparison into the rollout, such as a staggered start, often earn the highest marks, because they let leaders learn whether the interventions worked rather than assume it. Itemized costs also help.
HA510 Unit 9 help from the desk
Intervention plans often lose points by choosing popular interventions, such as team-building retreats, without showing how they answer the diagnosis. Another gap is promising evaluation without measures or a baseline. Some plans ignore research cautions about their chosen interventions. Others list activities without owners or costs. Restate the diagnosis, use a typology to choose interventions, explain how each addresses a finding, design the evaluation first and name owners, costs and risks. Then say what will not change, which reassures leaders that integration is not being undone. Record the options you rejected and why, and state a prediction the evaluation can test. Budget paid time for participants.
Get an HA510 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Bring the diagnosis from earlier units, however rough, or the course case if one is supplied, and any baseline figures available, with the Unit 9 instructions and rubric. What returns in 24-48h, free on a first request, is a plan with interventions justified against alternatives and an evaluation designed before launch, ready to feed the final proposal. 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 4: Lewin and ADKAR Change Analysis
- HA510 Unit 5: Transfer Center Team Development Case
- HA510 Unit 6: Email Conflict Analysis
- HA510 Unit 7: Post-Merger Engagement Research Paper
- HA510 Unit 8: Readiness and Resistance Analysis
- HA510 Unit 10: Organizational Development Proposal
- HA520 Unit 4:
- HA540 Unit 5:
HA510 Unit 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HA510 Unit 9 sample paper?
This page holds the full HA510 Unit 9 development intervention plan for a composite merged system, pairing an appreciative inquiry summit with paired managers and a staggered start, with three sources. Your own plan can be designed the same way.
What is appreciative inquiry?
An organizational development approach that starts from what works well, moving through discovery, dream, design and destiny.
What are the families of organization development interventions?
Human process, technostructural, human resource management and strategic change interventions.
Why use a staggered start in an intervention plan?
It gives every site the intervention while creating a period when one site can be compared with another.
How long is the HA510 Unit 9 plan?
About seven pages, from diagnosis to interventions to evaluation.