Demo Vendor Contract Expansion
Impact analysis
Calculated from the submitted answers by fixed rules.
75/ 100
Organization-level. Executive visibility before implementation.
- Recommended review route
- Executive Leadership
- Highest individual impact identified
- Major
- What drove this score
- How severely those areas are affected · Departments affected · How severely those groups are affected
Raised to 75 by an escalation rule
At least one affected area is rated Major. The weighted total was 52.1, which understates a change of this severity, so the rule sets a minimum.
Where the points came from
- How many areas are affected6.8 / 15
5 of the 11 listed areas were rated above N/A.
- How severely those areas are affected12.0 / 15
Across the 5 areas that were rated, the average is 2.4 on the Minor-to-Major scale. Areas marked N/A are excluded here — they are counted in the breadth dimension above.
- Departments affected9.0 / 15
3 of 5 departments were selected.
- Operational categories affected3.8 / 10
3 of the 8 operational categories were answered Yes.
- How many stakeholder groups are affected3.8 / 10
3 of the 8 stakeholder groups were rated above N/A.
- How severely those groups are affected7.8 / 10
Across the 3 groups that were rated, the average is 2.3 on the Minor-to-Major scale.
- Compliance and risk position5.0 / 10
Compliance review: yes. Risk assessment: yes. A completed risk assessment scores zero here — the points reflect what is outstanding.
- Implementation complexity4.0 / 15
Training yes, pilot no, rollback plan yes, 2 communication methods, go-live in 98 days.
This score reflects the breadth and severity of the structured impacts identified in the request. Written descriptions provide review context but do not directly change the score.
How this was calculated
Each dimension is scored against its own maximum and the eight are added together. Grid questions are read twice, once for breadth and once for severity, because those are different questions with different denominators:
- Breadth counts rows marked N/A in the denominator. That is what makes a change touching one of eleven areas read as narrow, and a change touching eight read as wide.
- Severity excludes them. One area hit as hard as possible is fully severe; it should not read as mild merely because the form lists eleven areas.
The highest individual impact identified above is a fact about the answers, not a second classification. Its role in the calculation is to trigger the escalation floors below.
- Weighted total
- 52.1 / 100
- After escalation floors
- 75.0 → displayed as 75
- Classification bands
- Minor below 50 · Moderate 50–74 · Major 75 and above
- Scoring version
- change-impact-score-v1
Escalation rules that matched
- At least one affected area is rated Major — sets a minimum of 75 (this one governs)
- At least one stakeholder group is rated Major — sets a minimum of 75
- A Major rating in a critical area — clinical care, patients, compliance, technology, or reporting — sets a minimum of 75
These weights are a draft. They were proposed for review and have not been approved as IDEL policy. Changing them produces a new scoring version, so past scores keep meaning what they meant when they were calculated.
Overview
- Organization
- Sample Health Network
- Requestor
- Sample Submitter
- Role
- Manager / Supervisor
- Executive sponsor
- Sample Operations Leader
- Date submitted
- Jul 9, 2026
- Target go-live
- Oct 15, 2026in 70 days
- Departments impacted
- Pharmacy, Finance, Administration
- Rationale
- Financial Performance, Strategic Initiative
- Assigned reviewer
- Sample Client Administrator
Description of change
Fictional demonstration record. Adds two suppliers to an existing arrangement, with new reconciliation and audit steps.
Affected areas
- Billing / Revenue CycleModerate
- TechnologyModerate
- ComplianceMajor
- FinanceMajor
- Community PartnersModerate
Description of impact
New reconciliation steps, an expanded audit scope, and revised reporting.
Compliance and risk
- Is a regulatory or compliance review required?
- Yes
- Has a Risk Assessment been completed?
- Yes
Operational impact
- Clinical CareNo
- IT & DataYes
- Finance & Revenue CycleYes
- Patient Access & ExperienceNo
- Workforce & StaffingNo
- Operational & AdminYes
- Equity & AccessNo
- OtherNo
Stakeholders
- ITModerate
- LeadershipMajor
- AdminModerate
Engagement strategy
Monthly review with finance and compliance.
Training, communication, and implementation
- Training required
- Yes
- Training formats
- Live Sessions
- Communication methods
- Announcement from leadership, Email update(s)
- Pilot
- No
- Rollback plan
- Yes
- Target go-live
- Oct 15, 2026
Review activity
- Sample Client AdministratorJul 15, 2026, 9:30 AM
Please confirm the audit sampling plan with compliance before the next review.
History
- DraftSample Submitter · Jul 2, 2026, 9:00 AM
- Draft → SubmittedSample Submitter · Jul 9, 2026, 11:30 AM
- Reviewer assignedSample Client Administrator · Jul 14, 2026, 9:00 AM
- Submitted → Under ReviewSample Client Administrator · Jul 14, 2026, 9:00 AM
- Comment addedSample Client Administrator · Jul 15, 2026, 9:30 AM
Workflow
Recommended next steps
For a Major change. Current status: Under Review.
- 1.Senior Executive Leadership review
- 2.Consider executive or board approval, as configured for this client
- 3.Confirm organization-wide timing and capacity
- 4.Complete the compliance and risk review
- 5.Confirm stakeholder, training, pilot, communication, and rollback plans
- 6.Review overlap with other Major changes in flight
These steps follow from the impact level. They are recommendations — the platform does not record any of them as complete, and none of them is an approval.
Established impact logic
The earlier reading, kept for continuity. The official classification is the impact score above.
- Highest individual impact identified
- Major
- Recommended review route
- Executive Leadership
How this was reached
- Highest affected-area impact: Major.
- Highest stakeholder impact: Major.
- Overall impact is the higher of the two: Major.
- Recommended review route: Executive Leadership. Overall impact: Major. This is a routing recommendation and does not record an approval decision.
Compliance and risk
- Regulatory or compliance review required
The requester indicated that a regulatory or compliance review is required before implementation.
- Moderate areas
- 3
- Major areas
- 2
- Moderate stakeholders
- 2
- Major stakeholders
- 1
- Unresolved items
- 0
- Days to go-live
- 98
These figures describe the answers; they are not a second classification. This request has one official classification, shown with the impact score above. The recommended route indicates who should review this change. It does not record that an approval has been given. Calculated by logic revision cia-logic-v1 from the answers as submitted.
IDEL internal
- Client
- Sample Health Network
- Request id
- req_sn_001
- Template version
- change-impact-analysis-v1
- Submitted by (member)
- mem_sn_submitter
- Internal notes
- 0 on this request
This panel and every internal note are excluded from client responses by the serializer, not by this page.
Impact reference
- Minor
- Form update, scripting change — Department / Site Manager
- Moderate
- Workflow change across multiple departments — Operations Leader
- Major
- New service line, major EHR change — CEO / Board
Highest individual area rating: Major · Highest individual stakeholder rating: Major