| Course | PUBH 6641 Applied Project in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 6 |
| Paper type | Stakeholder map brief |
| Length | About 760 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Public Health (MPH) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PUBH 6641 Week 6
Ten Parties and What Cooperation Would Cost Each: A Stakeholder Map Placing the People a Cream-Testing Program in Two Neighborhoods Depends On by Power and Interest, Then Adding the Column That Makes the Map Useful
Student Name
Walden University
PUBH 6641: Applied Project in Public Health
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Ten Parties and What Cooperation Would Cost Each: A Stakeholder Map Placing the People a Cream-Testing Program in Two Neighborhoods Depends On by Power and Interest, Then Adding the Column That Makes the Map Useful
Why Map Stakeholders
The skin cream mercury screening project in Marlow County, a composite county, runs on cooperation from people the health department does not employ: the laboratory that lends the analyzer, the sites that host events, the community leaders whose word brings women in, and even the shopkeepers whose products may be tested. Bryson (2004) argues that public projects succeed when planners identify who has a stake, how much power and interest each holds and what each needs, rather than assuming support. This map places ten parties on a power and interest grid, then adds a column for the cost cooperation would impose on each.
The Map
Table 1
Stakeholders by Power, Interest and Cost of Cooperation
| Stakeholder | Power over project | Interest in project | Cost of cooperating | |
|---|---|---|---|
| State public health laboratory | High: lends analyzer, confirms results | Moderate | Staff time; analyzer unavailable for other uses for two weeks at a time | |
| County health officer | High: approves project and reports | Moderate | Political risk if findings upset local businesses | |
| Community health center | Medium: hosts events, accepts referrals | High | Clinic space on event days; clinician time for referred women | |
| Somali community association | Medium: trusted voice | High | Leaders' credibility if the project feels like blame | |
| Mexican consulate health window | Medium: reaches recent arrivals | Moderate | Staff time; diplomatic caution about products from Mexico | |
| Filipino and Nigerian church groups | Medium: trusted gathering places | Moderate | Hall space; concern about stigma | |
| Beauty supply shop owners | Medium: can help or undermine | Low to negative | Possible loss of sales if their products test positive | |
| Women who use creams | High: project exists for them | Variable | Time, privacy, possible loss of a valued product | |
| State health department regulators | High over sellers, low over project | Moderate | Investigation workload if brands are reported | |
| Local media | Medium: shape public framing | Low until a finding | None directly; risk to the project if coverage stigmatizes | |
Note. Placements are the student's judgment from meetings and the setting profile; the county and groups are composite.
Reading the Grid
High-power, moderate-interest parties, such as the laboratory and the health officer, must be kept satisfied: they can stop the project, but it is not their main concern. High-interest, medium-power groups, such as the community health center and community associations, should be closely involved, since they bring the women the project serves. Shop owners have medium power and low or negative interest, which makes them the hardest group.
Why the Cost Column Matters
The cost column changes how each party is approached. The state laboratory's cost is mostly scheduling, so the project will book the analyzer months ahead and share results in a format the laboratory can use. The community associations' cost is reputational: if the project feels like criticism of women's choices, leaders lose standing. Every material will frame the issue as product safety, and leaders will review materials before use. For shop owners, the cost could be real lost sales, so the project will not test products on shelves or name shops publicly; it will report brands to regulators, who have the authority to act (21 C.F.R. § 700.13). For women, the cost is a valued product, which is why a replacement moisturizer is offered.
Parties Left Off the Map
Two groups were considered and left off: online sellers, who supply some creams but cannot be engaged locally, and the regional poison center, which receives calls but has no role in screening. Both may matter later. If many contaminated creams turn out to have been bought online, the state health department, not the county, is the right party to approach the platforms, and the project's brand reports will give it the evidence to do so. The poison center will receive a copy of the final report so its staff know the project exists.
What the Map Changes in the Plan
Two changes follow. First, community leaders will co-sign invitations, since their trust is what brings women in. Second, the project will meet with a small group of shop owners before the first event to explain what it will and will not do, reducing the chance that they warn customers away. The contamination found in international testing, 6% of products above 1,000 parts per million in one study (Hamann et al., 2014), is reason enough to proceed; the map shows how to proceed without making enemies of people the project needs.
References
Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030410001675722
Hamann, C. R., Boonchai, W., Wen, L., Sakanashi, E. N., Chu, C.-Y., Hamann, K., Hamann, C. P., Sinniah, K., & Hamann, D. (2014). Spectrometric analysis of mercury content in 549 skin-lightening products: Is mercury toxicity a hidden global health hazard? Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 70(2), 281-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2013.09.050
Use of Mercury Compounds in Cosmetics, 21 C.F.R. § 700.13 (2024).
PUBH 6641 Week 6 instructions, in plain terms
Stakeholder mapping assignments ask students to identify the individuals and organizations that can affect or are affected by their project, and to analyze their positions. Prompts usually require a list of stakeholders, a classification such as power and interest, a description of each party's concerns and a plan for engaging them. Some instructors require a grid or diagram; others prefer a table. Expect two to three pages. Instructors reward maps that go beyond placement on a grid to explain what each party needs or risks, and plans that change because of the analysis. Recognizing parties who may oppose the project, and planning for them, usually distinguishes strong submissions.
Inside the PUBH 6641 Week 6 example
The brief opens with why the project needs cooperation from people the department does not employ, citing stakeholder analysis research. A table lists ten parties with power, interest and the cost of cooperating. A section reads the grid by quadrant. The core section explains how the cost column changes the approach to the laboratory, community associations, shop owners and women themselves. A section names two parties left off and why. The brief ends with two concrete changes to the project plan that follow from the map. The grid reading groups parties by quadrant before the cost column is discussed.
PUBH 6641 Week 6 rubric: what earns full marks
Stakeholder maps are graded on completeness, accuracy of placement, depth of analysis and use in planning. Completeness means key parties, including potential opponents, are included. Placement should be justified. Depth comes from analyzing each party's concerns or costs, not only their position. Use in planning is shown when the map changes what the project will do. Citation of a stakeholder analysis source strengthens the work. Maps that list supporters only, or that never affect the plan, tend to score lower. Maps that include parties likely to resist, such as sellers whose products may be tested, and plan specifically for them, show realistic thinking. Credit also goes to approaches tailored to each party's cost, rather than a single outreach plan for everyone. Naming parties left off, with reasons, shows the map was built deliberately. A map that leads to at least one concrete change in the plan earns the most.
PUBH 6641 Week 6 help from the desk
Students often list only friendly partners. Include anyone who could slow or stop the project. For each party, ask what cooperation would cost them, in time, money or reputation. Use that cost to decide how to approach them. Plan at least one change to your project because of the map. Say who you left off and why. A stakeholder map for your project can be prepared if you list the parties involved. For each stakeholder, write the one thing that would make them say no. Then decide what the project can do about it. Revisit the map after the first events, since positions change.
Get a PUBH 6641 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Share the Week 6 prompt and rubric and your logic model, and every party the activities depend on is placed and costed. Real partners' names, contacts and agreements stay with you; the sample's library system, clinics and realtor association are invented. A first map is free and returns inside 24-48h.
More PUBH 6641 papers and MPH samples
- PUBH 6641 Week 1: Discussion Post
- PUBH 6641 Week 2: Setting Profile
- PUBH 6641 Week 3: Scope Decision
- PUBH 6641 Week 4: Objectives Memo
- PUBH 6641 Week 5: Logic Model
- PUBH 6641 Week 7: Work Plan
- PUBH 6641 Week 8: Resource Plan
- PUBH 6641 Week 9: Evaluation Plan
- PUBH 6641 Week 10: Peer Critique
- PUBH 6641 Week 11: Final Project Document
- HLTH 6005 Week 6: Practitioner Reflection Paper
- PUBH 6600 Week 6: Scope-of-Practice Note
- HLTH 6031 Week 6: Authority Check Peer Reply
- PUBH 6333 Week 6: Risk Numbers Memo
PUBH 6641 Week 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PUBH 6641 Week 6 sample paper?
Find the Week 6 stakeholder map above, placing ten parties in a skin cream mercury screening project.
What is a power and interest grid?
A chart sorting each party by its ability to help or block the work and by how much the work matters to it.
Why add a cost-of-cooperation column?
Knowing what cooperation would cost each party shows how to approach them, beyond where they sit on the grid.
Why meet shop owners before the first event?
Their products may be tested, so telling them plainly that shelves will not be tested lowers the chance they warn customers away.
Who was left off the map and why?
Online sellers and the poison center, because the project cannot engage the first locally and the second has no role in screening.