| Course | NU803 Change Management and Clinical Data Analysis |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder interest analysis |
| Length | About 890 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU803 Unit 4
They Gain Nothing and Carry the Most: A Stakeholder Interest Analysis Sorting Seven Groups on Two Composite Medical Units by What a Steroid Hyperglycemia Bundle Takes From Each
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU803: Change Management and Clinical Data Analysis
Unit 4 Stakeholder Interest Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The groups, workloads and figures are composite; counts and minutes are bracketed.
Method
Stakeholder analysis usually records each group's interest, influence and position (Brugha & Varvasovszky, 2000). This analysis adds a cost column: what the change takes from each group in time, discretion, certainty or standing, and a benefit column: what, if anything, the group gains. Groups were placed by interviews with [two] members of each and by counting the new tasks each would perform in a typical week.
The Seven Groups, Highest Cost First
Patient care technicians. Cost: about [22] extra capillary checks a day across both units, most at [1100] to [1130], when half of them are at lunch. Benefit: none directly; they do not see the glucose results used. Influence: high in practice, since they perform most checks, though low on paper. Response: move the first lunch wave, rewrite the assignment sheet so checks appear with times, and show technicians the weekly run chart so they can see what their checks change. Messenger: the nurse managers, with a technician who helped pilot the sheet.
Staff nurses. Cost: time to review afternoon readings, page prescribers and explain checks to patients without diabetes. Benefit: fewer patients who become thirsty, confused or unwell by evening, and a defined threshold that tells them when to page. Influence: high. Response: a scripted page and a script for patients. Messenger: the clinical nurse specialist.
Night prescribers. Cost: pages about hyperglycemia at night and decisions about NPH for morning doses. Benefit: fewer calls about very high readings later. Influence: moderate. Response: a briefing and the pharmacy-approved suggestion in every page. Messenger: the hospitalist director.
Day hospitalists. Cost: some loss of discretion, since the order set now adds checks automatically, and time to respond to pages. Benefit: earlier warning and a ready dosing suggestion. Influence: high. Response: the suggestion is optional, and the taper prompt reduces follow-up work. Messenger: the change agent, as a member of their group.
Pharmacists. Cost: review time for NPH suggestions and for steroid orders from other order sets until the trigger is extended. Benefit: alignment with glycemic stewardship goals. Influence: moderate. Response: a short daily list of qualifying orders from oncology and the emergency department. Messenger: the pharmacy manager.
Nurse managers. Cost: rearranging lunch breaks and protecting time for a diabetes resource nurse. Benefit: a measurable quality improvement to report. Influence: high. Response: data on the pre-lunch gap. Messenger: the change agent.
Patients. Cost: more fingersticks, sometimes for patients who have never had one. Benefit: detection and treatment of hyperglycemia and a discharge plan if needed. Influence: indirect, through complaints and refusals. Response: a plain explanation at the first check. Messenger: the bedside nurse.
The group that carries the most new work has the least reason to do it and the most power, in practice, to let it lapse.
Where Interests Conflict
Two conflicts stand out. The first is between technicians and nurse managers over lunch timing: moving the first lunch wave later helps the checks but pushes some technicians' breaks past the point in the shift they prefer, and several said they would rather keep an early lunch. The second is between day hospitalists and night prescribers: day hospitalists agreed to the bundle, but night prescribers will receive most pages about late-afternoon readings that arrive after the day team leaves, and they were not part of the agreement. Both conflicts are about who carries the work at a particular hour, which is why the responses above focus on schedules and briefings rather than on persuading anyone that steroid hyperglycemia matters.
Groups Considered and Left Out
Dietary staff and the laboratory were considered. Dietary staff deliver trays but do not trigger or perform checks, and their tray times are fixed by the kitchen. The laboratory is unaffected, since checks are point-of-care. Both were left out of the analysis but informed of the change.
What the Analysis Shows
The groups with the highest costs are not those with the most formal authority. Technicians and staff nurses carry most of the work, while hospitalists and pharmacists, who sit on the committees that approved the bundle, carry relatively little. Kotter and Schlesinger argued that the best way to manage resistance depends on its cause and on the power of those resisting, recommending facilitation and support when people resist because of adjustment problems (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Technicians' likely resistance is of that kind: the change adds work at a difficult time without taking anything away, and the right response is to change the schedule and the sheet, not to persuade them.
Monitoring Stakeholder Response
The weekly run chart will show pre-lunch checks separately, which serves as a measure of the technicians' response. Readiness theory treats confidence in the team's ability to carry out a change as part of readiness itself (Weiner, 2009), so technicians' efficacy is worth asking about again after the first month, not only at baseline. If pre-lunch checks lag after the lunch wave moves, the next step is to ask technicians directly what else is in the way.
References
Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 239-246. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/15.3.239
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 106-114.
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
What the NU803 Unit 4 assignment asks for
For Unit 4 you analyze the stakeholders affected by your change, their interests and how to engage them. Most versions ask for each group's stake, influence, likely response and an engagement strategy, often in a table. Expect about 1,500 words; strong analyses estimate costs concretely even without a time study, include groups with little formal power but real influence in practice, identify conflicts between groups, and match strategies to the reasons for resistance rather than relying on persuasion. Patients belong in the analysis even when the change is mainly about staff, since a change in how care is timed alters what patients experience and a committee will ask about it.
Inside the NU803 Unit 4 example
The method adds cost and benefit columns to a standard stakeholder analysis. Seven groups follow in order of cost. Technicians carry many new checks at a difficult hour with no direct benefit, and the response changes the schedule and sheet. Staff nurses, night prescribers, day hospitalists, pharmacists, nurse managers and patients each get cost, benefit, influence, response and messenger. The highlighted sentence observes that the group with the most new work has the least reason to do it. Sections describe conflicts over lunch timing and night coverage, groups considered and left out, what the pattern shows through Kotter and Schlesinger's strategies, and how technicians' response will be monitored.
Where the points sit in the NU803 Unit 4 rubric
Stakeholder analyses are frequently assessed on completeness, specificity of costs and benefits, analysis of influence, strategy and monitoring. Completeness earns credit when every affected group appears, including those without formal authority. Specificity rewards estimated costs in time or tasks. Influence is judged on whether practical influence, such as the ability to let a routine lapse, is recognized alongside formal authority. Strategy is credited when responses match the cause of resistance. Monitoring scores well when the analysis names how each group's response will be seen. Tables are common, and faculty often check that the groups ranked highest receive the most detailed strategies.
NU803 Unit 4 help from the desk
A frequent weakness is ranking groups by title, which puts committees above the staff who will do the work. Another is describing costs as increased workload without an estimate. Some analyses omit patients or groups with no formal power. Others propose the same engagement strategy for everyone, usually education. Many ignore conflicts between groups, which is often where a change stalls. And monitoring is rarely planned. Estimate what each group gives up, recognize who can let the routine lapse, name the conflicts over time and work, match your response to why each group might resist, and decide how you will see whether it worked. Finally, show the analysis to one member of the highest-cost group before acting on it, since they will see costs you missed.
Get an NU803 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Sketch the groups your change touches and what it asks of each, however roughly, and add the Unit 4 instructions with rubric. A free first custom sample comes back within 24-48h, ranking those groups by what the change costs them, separating cost from influence and proposing an offset for each heavy burden. 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 NU803 papers and DNP samples
- NU803 Unit 1: Change Model Application, Lippitt
- NU803 Unit 2: Readiness Assessment, Nine Conditions
- NU803 Unit 3: Discussion Post, A Change That Faded
- NU803 Unit 5: Measurement Plan
- NU803 Unit 6: Baseline Data Summary
- NU803 Unit 7: Run Chart Interpretation
- NU803 Unit 8: Statistical Analysis Write-up
- NU803 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- NU803 Unit 10: Sustainability Plan
- NU800 Unit 4: Evidence Table, Steroid Hyperglycemia
- NU753 Unit 4: Culture Appraisal, Fall-Free Banner
- NU703 Unit 4: Competency Self-Assessment, Essentials
- NU743 Unit 4: Case Analysis, Postpartum Headache
NU803 Unit 4 questions, answered
What is the difference between a stakeholder analysis and a readiness assessment?
A readiness assessment asks whether conditions exist for the change to start; a stakeholder analysis asks who pays for it and who can stop it. They overlap, and some sections combine them. The sample keeps them separate: its Unit 2 paper checked conditions such as card printing, while this one ranks the people those conditions affect.
Where can I find a free NU803 Unit 4 sample paper?
The complete NU803 Unit 4 stakeholder analysis is on this page, with its method, seven groups sorted by cost, two conflicts, groups left out, strategies matched to causes of resistance and a plan for monitoring response, with three references. Support mapping the groups affected by your own change is available.
Why do technicians top the list in NU803 Unit 4?
They would perform about 22 extra glucose checks a day, mostly during the first lunch wave, and gain nothing directly. They have little formal authority but the practical power to let the routine lapse.
How should resistance be handled in NU803 Unit 4?
According to its cause. Technicians' likely resistance comes from added work at a difficult hour, so the response changes the schedule and assignment sheet rather than trying to persuade them the change matters.
Should patients appear in NU803 Unit 4?
Yes. Patients without diabetes may receive their first fingersticks and ask why. Their cost is small, their benefit is detection and a discharge plan, and a plain explanation at the first check is the planned response.