| Course | HA 640 Healthcare Operations Assessment and Decision-Making |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Project sequencing and risk register |
| Length | About 560 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MS in Healthcare Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HA 640 Unit 7
Twenty-Seven Weeks Through the Electronic Record Build: Sequencing the Third Processor and Bedside Barcode Labeling, With a Risk Register Tied to the Path That Sets the Finish Date
Student Name
Health Care Administration, Herzing University
HA 640: Healthcare Operations Assessment and Decision-Making
Instructor Name
February 26, 2026
Twenty-Seven Weeks Through the Electronic Record Build: Sequencing the Third Processor and Bedside Barcode Labeling, With a Risk Register Tied to the Path That Sets the Finish Date
Scope
The decision matrix ranked a third morning processor first and found bedside barcode labeling complementary to it. This plan sequences both, together with the status message that tells units where each morning result stands, as one project for the core laboratory and inpatient units. The split-draw option is outside this project until the medical staff decide on it. The project finishes when six weeks of post-implementation measurement are complete. Durations are in calendar weeks and were estimated by each task's owner, with the information services estimates checked against two similar builds completed last year; where an owner gave a range, the upper end was used, so the 27-week total is a planning figure rather than a best case.
Task List
Each task has one owner, one duration and a finish condition, and its predecessors are stated.
| ID | Task | Owner | Weeks | Predecessors | Finish condition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Approve budget for the position and the labeling project | Laboratory director | 2 | None | Signed approval from finance |
| T2 | Recruit the third processor | Talent acquisition partner | 4 | T1 | Offer accepted |
| T3 | Train the new processor | Laboratory supervisor | 2 | T2 | Competency checklist signed |
| T4 | Select printers and scanners; confirm label format with the record's vendor | Information services analyst | 3 | T1 | Specification signed by laboratory and nursing |
| T5 | Purchase and receive hardware for 22 units | Supply chain buyer | 5 | T4 | All devices received and tagged |
| T6 | Build the bedside collection workflow and label format in the record | Information services analyst | 6 | T4 | Build passes unit testing |
| T7 | Integrated test on one unit with live devices | Information services analyst with laboratory | 2 | T5, T6 | 100 test labels scanned without error |
| T8 | Pilot on two units | Nurse manager, pilot units | 3 | T7 | Compliance of 90% or more for two consecutive weeks |
| T9 | Train staff on the remaining 20 units | Nursing educator | 4 | T8 | 95% of nurses and phlebotomists trained |
| T10 | Go-live on all units | Information services and nursing | 1 | T9 | All units collecting with bedside labels |
| T11 | Build the result-status message | Second information services analyst | 3 | T1 | Message displays correctly in testing |
| T12 | Release the status message | Second information services analyst | 1 | T11 | Live in production |
| T13 | Measure six weeks after go-live | Laboratory quality coordinator | 6 | T3, T10, T12 | Report to the laboratory director |
The Network and the Path With No Slack
Earliest start and finish, in weeks from project start: T1, 0 to 2. T2, 2 to 6; T3, 6 to 8. T4, 2 to 5. T5, 5 to 10. T6, 5 to 11. T7 must wait for both T5 and T6, so it runs 11 to 13. T8, 13 to 16. T9, 16 to 20. T10, 20 to 21. T11, 2 to 5; T12, 5 to 6. T13 waits for T3, T10 and T12, so it runs 21 to 27.
The path with no slack runs T1, T4, T6, T7, T8, T9, T10, T13: 2 + 3 + 6 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 1 + 6 = 27 weeks. Any delay on these tasks delays the finish. Float for the other tasks: T5 has 1 week, since it must finish by week 11 when T7 begins; T2 and T3 together have 13 weeks, since the processor is needed only by week 21 for measurement; T11 and T12 have 15 weeks.
The float matters in two ways. First, the third processor can start work in week 8, long before the project finishes, which is the point: the morning queue is relieved within two months while the labeling work continues. Second, the information services analyst on T6 is the scarcest resource; the second analyst's work on the status message has 15 weeks of float and can be scheduled so that it never competes with T6.
Risk Register
Each risk is described as a condition that could occur, not a general worry, with an owner, an early warning signal and a response decided now. Risks on the path with no slack are marked.
| Risk | On the determining path? | Likelihood (1 to 5) | Impact (1 to 5) | Owner | Early warning | Response decided now |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The record build (T6) takes longer because the analyst is pulled to other projects | Yes | 3 | 4 | Information services director | Build not started by week 5, or less than half complete by week 8 | Analyst's time reserved in writing at T1; escalation to the chief information officer if either signal appears |
| Nurses on pilot units bypass bedside labeling when busy (T8) | Yes | 3 | 4 | Nurse manager, pilot units | Compliance below 90% in pilot week 1 | Superusers on each shift in weeks 1 and 2; workflow adjusted before wider training |
| Scanners fail in wireless dead zones in patient rooms (T7) | Yes | 2 | 3 | Network manager | Scan failures in the integrated test | Site survey of all 22 units during T5; access points added before T7 |
| Hardware backorder delays delivery (T5) | No, but only 1 week of float | 2 | 3 | Supply chain buyer | Vendor ship date more than 4 weeks after order | Order placed on quote in week 5; vendor's loaner stock identified as a fallback |
| Recruitment for the third processor fails (T2) | No | 3 | 4 | Talent acquisition partner | Fewer than three qualified applicants by week 4 | Agency processor for up to 12 weeks, approved in the T1 budget |
| Label printers fail after go-live | No | 2 | 3 | Laboratory supervisor | More than two printer outages in a week | Downtime labeling procedure and spare printers on each floor |
How the Register Will Be Used
The project lead reviews the register weekly with task owners, checking only the early warning signals, not re-rating every risk. The three risks on the determining path are reported to the laboratory director every two weeks. Evidence supports the investment in bedside labeling: a systematic review found that barcoding reduced specimen identification errors substantially across diverse hospital settings (Snyder et al., 2012). The practice of identifying the zero-float path and managing risk around it follows standard project management guidance (Project Management Institute, 2021). Because identification errors are among the most common pre-analytic problems (Plebani, 2006), the measurement in T13 will report labeling exceptions alongside turnaround.
References
Plebani, M. (2006). Errors in clinical laboratories or errors in laboratory medicine? Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 44(6), 750-759. https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2006.123
Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.
Snyder, S. R., Favoretto, A. M., Derzon, J. H., Christenson, R. H., Kahn, S. E., Shaw, C. S., Baetz, R. A., Mass, D., Fantz, C. R., Raab, S. S., Tanasijevic, M. J., & Liebow, E. B. (2012). Effectiveness of barcoding for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors: A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Biochemistry, 45(13-14), 988-998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.06.019
The Herzing HA 640 Unit 7 instructions
Unit 7 asks you to sequence an operations project and build a risk register. Expect to define scope, list tasks with owners, durations and predecessors, calculate the network and identify the path with no slack, register risks with owners, signals and responses and explain how the register will be used. Students often ask how to find the path that sets the finish date. Work forward from the start, giving each task its earliest start after all predecessors finish; the longest chain has no slack. Write risks as specific conditions, not general worries. Give each an early warning signal so it can be spotted. Decide responses in advance. Flag risks on the zero-slack path, since they move the finish date.
How this HA 640 Unit 7 example is built
The plan opens with scope, noting what is left out, such as split draws. A task table lists 13 tasks from budget approval to go-live, each with an owner, duration in weeks, finish condition and predecessors. The network section walks through earliest start and finish week by week, showing that labeling depends on both hardware selection and record integration. The path with no slack runs through the record build and testing, setting the 27-week finish. The risk register table lists conditions such as delayed interface testing or slow recruitment, each with an owner, a signal and a planned response, and marks those on the zero-slack path. The final section sets weekly reviews and biweekly reports to the director.
Reading the HA 640 Unit 7 rubric
Herzing's rubric for a project sequencing plan usually covers scope, the task list, network analysis, the zero-slack path, the risk register and its use. Identifying the path with no slack and linking risks to it receive the heaviest weight, because those are the tasks and risks that move the finish date. Scope points reward clear inclusions and exclusions. Task criteria look for one owner, a duration, a finish condition and predecessors. Network credit goes to calculations shown step by step. Register points reward specific conditions, early signals and responses decided in advance. Use of the register should be practical and scheduled. The PMBOK Guide, Snyder's review of barcoding and Plebani on lab errors support the plan.
HA 640 Unit 7 help before you submit
Sequencing plans in HA 640 Unit 7 commonly lose points through task lists with no predecessors, which makes the network impossible to check. Another frequent problem is naming the longest task rather than the longest chain as the critical one. Students often write risks as vague concerns, such as staff resistance. Early warning signals are missing. Responses are left for later. Risks are not linked to the zero-slack path. Owners are teams rather than people. The register has no review schedule. Finish conditions are missing, so no one knows when a task is done. Finally, show the forward pass, because graders reward a plan whose finish date anyone can recalculate.
Get a HA 640 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 7 instructions and the rubric from your HA 640 classroom, plus the change being implemented and any task list or template your section provides. We write a custom example with tasks owned and estimated, dependencies stated, the determining path computed and a register of risks with triggers, returned in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More HA 640 papers and healthcare administration samples
- HA 640 Unit 1: Operations baseline report
- HA 640 Unit 2: Bottleneck assessment
- HA 640 Unit 3: Demand forecast
- HA 640 Unit 4: Capacity and queue analysis
- HA 640 Unit 5: Make or buy analysis
- HA 640 Unit 6: Decision matrix
- HA 640 Unit 8: Operations improvement recommendation
- HA 645 Unit 7: Safety culture assessment
- HA 695 Unit 7: Executive summary
- HA 610 Unit 7: Advocacy plan
- HA 620 Unit 7: Resource allocation memo
HA 640 Unit 7 questions, answered
Do I need to draw a network diagram?
Check the instructions, since some sections require one and others accept a dependency table. A diagram helps a reader see the chain at a glance, but a table listing each task with its predecessors carries the same information and is easier to keep accurate. Whichever you use, show how the longest path was identified, because the calculation is what the criterion is testing.
How detailed should the task breakdown be?
Detailed enough that each task has one owner and a verifiable finish, and no further. A task nobody can say is done is too large, while a breakdown into individual emails produces a schedule nobody will maintain. A consistent level across the plan matters more than the depth you choose, since mixed granularity makes durations incomparable and the path calculation unreliable.
What makes a risk entry useful rather than generic?
A trigger and a decided response. Anyone can write that a project may be delayed; a useful entry says which condition would signal the delay beginning, who is watching for it, what will be done when it appears and who authorizes that action. Tie at least some entries to specific tasks on the determining path, since those are the risks with schedule consequences.
Where can I find a free HA 640 Unit 7 sample paper?
The full HA 640 Unit 7 project sequencing and risk register is free on this page, 27 weeks of lab improvement tasks with the zero-slack path and risks tied to it. A plan for another project can be written to order.
What is the critical path in a project?
The longest chain of dependent tasks from start to finish, which has no slack; any delay on it delays the whole project. This sample finds it through an electronic record build.