C798 Task 1 SDLC Plan and Gantt Chart Example

Course	C798 Informatics System Analysis and Design
Task	Task 1
Paper type	SDLC project plan with Gantt chart
Length	About 1,000 words, 4 pages
Format	APA 7
School	Western Governors University (WGU)
Program	MSN Nursing Informatics
Updated	September 2026

Free sample paper for C798 Task 1

Systems Development Life Cycle Plan and Gantt Chart: Building Structured Suicide Risk Screening Into the EHR at a Midsize Rural Hospital Over Nine Months

Student Name

Leavitt School of Health, Western Governors University

C798: Informatics System Analysis and Design, Task 1

Course Instructor

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title names the method, the artifact and the time frame. An SDLC plan is judged on whether each phase has tasks, owners and dependencies that a project team could actually follow, so the paper is built around the chart rather than around definitions of the phases.

Systems Development Life Cycle Plan and Gantt Chart: Building Structured Suicide Risk Screening Into the EHR at a Midsize Rural Hospital Over Nine Months

Project Charter in Brief

I am the newly hired informatics nurse specialist (INS) at a composite rural county hospital with 110 beds. Leadership wants the suicide risk questions, now asked on paper and filed in the electronic health record (EHR) as a picture, rebuilt as discrete fields that score themselves, open a precautions order set and travel with the patient from the emergency department (ED) to the inpatient floors. The executive sponsor is the chief nursing officer. The project has nine months, one EHR analyst at 50% time, a reporting analyst at 20% and the INS at 60%, with no budget for outside consultants. Success means that at least 90% of eligible ED patients are screened within six months of go-live and that high-risk patients reach one-to-one observation faster than the current median of 34 minutes.

Informatics projects fail at least as often for social and organizational reasons as for technical ones. Sittig and Singh (2010) describe health information technology as one part of a sociotechnical system that also includes people, workflow, organizational policies and measurement, and the plan below allots time to each of those, not only to building screens.

Phase 1: Planning (Month 1)

Tasks: confirm scope and exclusions (patients under 12, patients arriving in cardiac arrest), form a steering group that brings together both nurse managers, the physician who directs the ED, the liaison for behavioral health, the safety officer and one EHR analyst, set measures and baseline data collection, and agree on a communication plan. Deliverable: signed charter. Owner: INS, with the sponsor accountable for approval.

Phase 2: Analysis (Months 1 to 2)

Tasks: document the current paper workflow through observation and chart review, map the future workflow with frontline nurses, list data requirements, review the EHR vendor's existing questionnaire and order set tools, and identify interfaces, such as the tracking board and secure messaging. Deliverables: current and future workflow maps, a requirements document and a gap list. Dependency: design cannot start until the future workflow is approved by the steering group.

Phase 3: Design (Months 3 to 4)

Tasks: design the screener form with branching logic and required answers, specify the risk calculation, design the tracking board indicator, draft the precautions order set with the ED medical director, define the secure message to the liaison, and design reports. Nurses review paper mock-ups in two sessions before anything is built. Deliverable: design specification signed by the steering group. Owner: INS, with the EHR analyst responsible for technical feasibility.

Phase 4: Build and Test (Months 4 to 6)

Tasks: build in the test environment, unit test each component, run integrated scenario tests using realistic test patients (a teenager with a positive screen, an adult who needs an interpreter, a patient admitted after a high-risk ED screen), and hold usability testing with six nurses from different shifts. Deliverables: tested build and a signed test log. Dependency: go-live cannot be scheduled until every critical defect is closed. Poorly designed systems can introduce new kinds of error, such as information split across screens or rigid required fields that invite workarounds (Ash et al., 2004), which is why usability testing is a separate task rather than an afterthought.

What this page is doingEach phase is written as tasks, deliverables, owner and dependency. That format lets an evaluator check the plan against the chart line by line, and the citation here explains why a task exists rather than decorating the paragraph.

Phase 5: Implementation (Months 6 to 7)

Tasks: train all ED and inpatient nurses in 30-minute sessions with hands-on practice in the training environment, train superusers on every shift, update the suicide prevention policy, schedule go-live on a weekday morning, provide at-the-elbow support for the first two weeks and hold daily huddles to capture problems. Deliverable: go-live with a completed training roster. Owner: INS and nurse managers.

Phase 6: Maintenance and Evaluation (Months 7 to 9 and ongoing)

Tasks: monitor screening rates and time to observation weekly for the first month and monthly afterward, review alert responses, fix defects, and report to the steering group at 30, 60 and 90 days. Deliverable: 90-day evaluation report with recommendations. Owner: INS, with the reporting analyst responsible for data extracts.

Gantt Chart

An X marks the months in which each task is active. Milestones are shown with the month they are due.

Task	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8	M9	Owner
Charter and steering group	X									INS
Current and future workflow analysis	X	X								INS
Requirements and gap list		X								INS, EHR analyst
Screener, logic and order set design			X	X						INS, ED medical director
Build in test environment				X	X					EHR analyst
Scenario and usability testing					X	X				INS, superusers
Policy revision					X	X				Patient safety officer
Staff training						X	X			INS, nurse managers
Go-live and at-the-elbow support							X			INS, superusers
Monitoring and 90-day evaluation							X	X	X	INS, reporting analyst
Milestones	Charter signed	Requirements approved		Design signed		Testing complete	Go-live		90-day report

What this page is doingThe chart shows overlap where it is realistic, such as policy revision during testing, and keeps strict dependencies where they matter. Milestones sit in their own row so the evaluator can see decision points at a glance.

Risks and Communication

The largest risks are analyst time, since the EHR analyst also supports other projects; nurse resistance to a required screen during busy triage; and an increase in positive screens that the behavioral health liaison cannot absorb. Responses: the sponsor will protect the analyst's 50% allocation in writing; the design includes a single deferral with a reason and an hourly reminder; and the liaison will receive only moderate and high-risk results, with low-risk results handled by nursing and the provider. Communication follows a fixed rhythm: a monthly steering group meeting, a one-page update to staff every two weeks during build and training, and daily huddles in the first two weeks after go-live.

Why the Project Is Worth Nine Months

Universal screening in EDs is feasible and roughly doubles the detection of suicide risk compared with usual care (Boudreaux et al., 2016). The plan above is the work required to make that result possible in a small hospital without adding confusion or delay at the bedside.

References

Ash, J. S., Berg, M., & Coiera, E. (2004). Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: The nature of patient care information system-related errors. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11(2), 104-112. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1471

Boudreaux, E. D., Camargo, C. A., Arias, S. A., Sullivan, A. F., Allen, M. H., Goldstein, A. B., Manton, A. P., Espinola, J. A., & Miller, I. W. (2016). Improving suicide risk screening and detection in the emergency department. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(4), 445-453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.09.029

Sittig, D. F., & Singh, H. (2010). A new sociotechnical model for studying health information technology in complex adaptive healthcare systems. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19(Suppl 3), i68-i74. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2010.042085

What the C798 Task 1 instructions ask

The first C798 task asks you to plan a health information system project using the systems development life cycle. Most versions ask for a brief project description, each life cycle phase with its tasks and deliverables, a timeline presented as a Gantt chart, the people responsible and the risks with responses. The project should be realistic for the setting, with a scope and timeline a real team could meet. The evaluator reads for phases filled with specific tasks rather than general statements, and for a chart that matches the text. Assumptions such as analyst availability should be stated so the timeline can be judged.

How this C798 Task 1 example is built

The plan starts with a short charter: the problem, the goal, scope, exclusions and sponsor. Each phase then has its own section with the months it covers, a list of tasks, the deliverables it produces and who owns them. Tasks are concrete, such as scenario testing with realistic test patients. The Gantt chart summarizes the same tasks by month and marks milestones, so the text and chart can be checked against each other. Risks and communication follow, and the plan closes by explaining why the effort is justified, with evidence that universal screening roughly doubles detection of risk. Because tasks in adjacent phases overlap in the chart, the reader can see where design work continues while building starts.

Where the C798 Task 1 rubric puts the marks

Each C798 Task 1 aspect is evaluated as competent, approaching competence or not evident. A project description aspect checks scope and purpose. Phase aspects look for each life cycle phase with specific tasks and deliverables. A timeline aspect asks for a Gantt chart or equivalent that matches the plan. A roles aspect looks for responsible people. A risk aspect asks for realistic risks and responses. Evaluators also check that the timeline is feasible and that phases overlap sensibly, and they expect professional writing and APA citations for life cycle concepts and evidence. A plan that assigns every deliverable to a named role, rather than to the team, tends to satisfy the roles aspect easily.

C798 Task 1 help: what sends it back

The most frequent return is a plan with phase names and no real tasks. Under each phase, list what someone will actually do and produce. Second, Gantt charts often contradict the text; build the chart from the same task list. Third, timelines are unrealistic, such as building and testing in two weeks. Allow time for analyst workload, testing and training. Fourth, risks are generic. Name the risks specific to your project and a response for each. Finally, include maintenance and evaluation. Plans that stop at go-live miss the last phase of the life cycle, and evaluators look for how the system will be monitored and supported afterward.

Get a C798 Task 1 example written to your instructions

Send the Task 1 scenario and rubric aspects from your C798 course of study. We write a custom SDLC plan and Gantt chart to those exact aspects, returned in 24-48h. The first custom sample is free.

Other Nursing (MSN) sample papers

C798 Task 1 questions, answered

Can the C798 Gantt chart be a table?

A table with time periods as columns works if it shows timing, owners and milestones clearly. Many students use spreadsheet or project software; follow your instructions.

Which SDLC phases does C798 expect?

Most versions expect planning, analysis, design, build and test, implementation, and maintenance or evaluation. Give each phase specific tasks, deliverables and owners, as the sample does.

How detailed should C798 tasks be?

Detailed enough that someone could assign and schedule them, such as unit testing each component or training superusers on every shift, rather than general activities.

Where can I find a free C798 Task 1 sample paper?

The six phases and the Gantt chart are reproduced above with notes. Share your own project and the C798 task, and the desk returns a first custom plan free.

Is the C798 hospital project in the sample real?

No. The hospital, the team and the nine-month schedule are hypothetical; the life cycle model and the screening evidence behind the plan are drawn from published work.