| Course | EDN 818 Innovation and Technology in Health Care |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Creativity program design |
| Length | About 1,129 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDN 818 Module 2
Where Ideas Come From: Designing a Frontline Creativity Program With the Componential Model and Psychological Safety
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDN 818: Innovation and Technology in Health Care
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Where Ideas Come From: Designing a Frontline Creativity Program With the Componential Model and Psychological Safety
Kingsmere Regional Hospital's electronic suggestion box received 14 ideas last year from a staff of about 2,100, and only two were implemented. Leaders concluded that staff were not creative. A better explanation is that the hospital gives creativity little room to happen. This paper uses a model of creativity and innovation in organizations to diagnose why so few ideas emerge, draws on research on psychological safety, and designs a frontline creativity program for the hospital's nursing units, with a pathway that carries good ideas from a huddle to hospital-wide use.
Creativity and Innovation
Creativity is the production of new and useful ideas; innovation is their successful implementation. Health care needs both: new ideas about how to reduce waits, prevent harm or make work less exhausting, and the organizational capacity to test and adopt them. Most ideas that matter in a hospital are small and come from the people closest to the work, which is why a program aimed at frontline staff can yield more than a single innovation office.
The Componential Model
Amabile and Pratt (2016) describe creativity in organizations as the product of individual or team components and organizational components. On the individual side are expertise in the domain, creativity-relevant processes such as the habit of looking at problems from new angles, and intrinsic motivation, the drive to work on something because it is interesting or meaningful. On the organizational side are the motivation to innovate, resources such as time and money, and management practices that support new ideas. Their updated model adds the importance of a sense of progress in meaningful work and of meaning itself as sources of motivation. Where any component is weak, creativity suffers.
Psychological Safety
People rarely offer ideas when they fear embarrassment or blame. Edmondson (1999) researched 51 teams and found that those in which members felt it was safe to take interpersonal risks were the ones that questioned, sought feedback and examined their errors. A suggestion box that is anonymous and silent does little to build that belief. Ideas offered face to face, acknowledged by a manager and acted on visibly build it much faster.
Diagnosing Kingsmere
The table applies the model to Kingsmere's current state and shows how the program addresses each component.
| Component | Current state at Kingsmere | Program design |
|---|---|---|
| Domain expertise | Strong; experienced staff know the work well | Draw ideas from the unit's own problems |
| Creativity-relevant processes | Little training in problem framing or testing | Short training in problem statements and small tests of change |
| Intrinsic motivation | Present but worn down by workload | Let teams choose problems that frustrate them |
| Organizational motivation to innovate | Leaders say they want ideas but rarely act on them | Visible executive sponsor and a public idea board |
| Resources | No protected time or budget | Two protected hours a month per team; small idea fund |
| Management practices | Ideas routed to a box, not a person | Weekly unit huddle with the manager present |
| Progress and meaning | Staff rarely hear what happened to ideas | Every idea gets a response and a status within two weeks |
Unit Idea Huddles
The core of the program is a 15-minute weekly huddle on each participating unit, held at shift change so both shifts can attend. Staff bring problems, not only solutions, and the team writes each problem on a visual board. The manager's role is to ask questions and to remove barriers, not to judge ideas on the spot. Each idea receives an owner and a next step, and the board shows its status: new, testing, adopted or set aside with a reason. The format borrows from improvement huddles used in many hospitals, but its purpose here is to build the habit of noticing and proposing.
Small Tests of Change
Ideas move from the board to small tests: one shift, one hallway, a few patients. Testing on a small scale lowers the cost of failure, which supports psychological safety, and it gives teams a sense of progress, which the componential model identifies as a strong motivator. A nurse who proposes moving discharge medication teaching earlier in the day can test it with three patients on Tuesday rather than waiting for a committee.
Time, Money and Recognition
Resources matter. Each participating team receives two protected hours a month for improvement work, covered by float staff, and a small fund of $2,000 a year for supplies or equipment to test ideas. Recognition focuses on learning rather than prizes: a monthly note from the chief nursing officer describing ideas tested, including those that did not work and what the team learned. Extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation when they are large and controlling, so the program keeps them modest and informational.
From Unit Idea to Hospital Practice
Some ideas deserve to spread. Greenhalgh et al. (2004), reviewing how innovations spread through health service organizations, found that ideas travel further when people see a clear advantage in them, when they fit how staff already think and work, when they are simple, when they can be tried in a small way first and when their results are easy to see, and that the receiving system's readiness matters as much as the idea. The program's quality council will review successful unit tests each quarter, select those with clear results and broad relevance, and support their spread with the originating team as teachers.
Risks
The program has risks. Huddles can become complaint sessions if managers do not steer toward problems the team can work on. Protected time can be the first thing sacrificed during short staffing. And ideas that challenge physician practices or other departments may stall. The program addresses these with a facilitation guide for managers, a rule that protected time is covered even when units are short, and an executive sponsor who can open doors across departments.
Measures
The program will be piloted on six units for a year and measured by the number of ideas raised and tested per unit, the share tested within 30 days, the number adopted and spread, staff scores on psychological safety items in the engagement survey and nurse turnover on pilot units compared with others. The goal for the first year is at least 10 tested ideas per unit and a measurable rise in psychological safety scores.
Conclusion
Kingsmere's 14 suggestions a year reflect a system that asks for ideas without supporting them, not a staff without imagination. The componential model points to what is missing: training in creative processes, time and resources, management practices that respond, and a sense of progress. Psychological safety explains why an anonymous box fails. Unit idea huddles, small tests, modest recognition and a clear path to spread supply the missing conditions, and the program's measures will show whether creativity follows.
References
Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581-629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
EDN 818 Module 2 instructions, in plain terms
Developing creativity for use in the organization appears in Aspen's EDN 818 description, and because the second module's directions are kept for class members, this sample designs a program that does exactly that. Assignments like this usually ask you to explain what drives creativity in organizations, diagnose your own setting and propose ways to strengthen it. Use a model with defined components so your diagnosis is systematic rather than impressionistic. Separate creativity, generating ideas, from innovation, carrying them through, since organizations can fail at either. Address the social conditions that make people willing to speak, not only training and resources. Build in a way for good ideas to spread beyond one unit. Close with measures that would show whether creativity actually increased.
Inside the EDN 818 Module 2 example
The paper opens with the suggestion box's poor record and argues that it reflects the system, not the staff. It distinguishes creativity from innovation, explains the componential model's individual and organizational components and its emphasis on progress and meaning, and adds psychological safety as a condition for speaking up. A three-column diagnostic table rates seven components at the hospital and pairs each with a program feature. The program itself follows: 15-minute weekly huddles at shift change with a visual board, small tests on one shift or hallway, two protected hours a month per team, a $2,000 idea fund and recognition through a monthly note. Sections on spreading ideas, using attributes identified in a review of innovation diffusion, risks and a one-year pilot close the paper.
Where the marks sit in the EDN 818 Module 2 rubric
Program design papers are graded on a sound theoretical basis, an accurate diagnosis, a coherent design and credible evaluation. This example ties every program feature to a component of the model, which makes the design traceable to theory. It cites three APA sources: Amabile and Pratt's updated componential model in Research in Organizational Behavior, Edmondson's research on team learning and interpersonal risk, and Greenhalgh and colleagues' Milbank Quarterly review of how innovations spread. The diagnostic table is the analytical core, because it shows where the hospital falls short rather than assuming it. Attention to the risk that rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation, and to protecting time when units are short-staffed, shows the practical judgment graders look for.
Common EDN 818 Module 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A common weakness is proposing a creativity program made of brainstorming sessions and prizes without explaining why ideas are missing now. Diagnose first, using the components of a model, then design. Another weakness is ignoring what happens after an idea is raised; staff stop offering ideas when nothing visibly happens to them. Include a response time and a way to show status. Keep rewards modest and tied to learning. Plan how ideas that work on one unit will reach others. If you are not in a leadership role, design the program for a team you belong to and say who would sponsor it. A tutor can help you map your setting against the model's components before you write the diagnosis.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More EDN 818 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDN 818 Module 1: Authentic Leadership Self-Assessment
- EDN 818 Module 3: Complex Adaptive Systems in Practice
- EDN 818 Module 4: Evaluating a Digital Technology
- EDN 818 Module 5: Evidence-Based Innovation
- EDN 818 Module 6: Lean Redesign of a Clinical Process
- EDN 818 Module 7: Six Sigma DMAIC Project
- EDN 818 Module 8: Ethics of a Health Care Innovation
- EDN 816 Module 5: Capital Budgeting Decision
- EDN 812 Module 3: Negligence, Malpractice and Crime
- EDN 820 Module 2: Practice Question and Evidence Search
- EDN 810 Module 3: Evaluating Resources and Capabilities
EDN 818 Module 2 questions, answered
What does EDN 818 Module 2 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDN 818 says creativity can be developed for use in the organization and the classroom, so a paper designing a way to foster creativity in a health care setting is a typical second assignment. Follow your classroom prompt.
What is the componential model of creativity?
A model in which creativity depends on individual components, expertise, creative thinking processes and intrinsic motivation, and on organizational components such as resources, management practices and the motivation to innovate.
Why do suggestion boxes produce few ideas?
They offer no conversation, no quick response and no sign of progress, so they do little to build the psychological safety and sense of meaning that encourage people to propose ideas.
Where can I find a free EDN 818 Module 2 sample paper?
Read the full design above: a frontline creativity program for a hospital, with a table diagnosing seven components of the componential model and a program feature for each.
What is the difference between creativity and innovation?
Creativity is producing new and useful ideas; innovation is implementing them successfully, which needs resources, support and a path for ideas to spread.