| Course | BU 345 Project Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Risk response table |
| Length | About 610 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Project Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 345 Unit 6
A Late Machine, a Maxed-Out Transformer and a Discount on a Demo Depalletizer: A Risk Response Table for a Composite Brewery's Canning Line
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 345: Project Management
Instructor Name
April 1, 2026
A Late Machine, a Maxed-Out Transformer and a Discount on a Demo Depalletizer: A Risk Response Table for a Composite Brewery's Canning Line
How the Table Works
This table records what could go wrong, or unexpectedly right, on Iron Trestle Brewing's canning line, building on the schedule and budget from Units 4 and 5. Every entry names what triggers it, what might happen and what that would do to the project, so that it reads as something that could actually happen rather than a category. Probability and impact are rated against scales defined below, before any risk is scored. Each risk receives a response strategy, specific actions, an owner and a note on what remains once the response has done its work. Two opportunities are included, because Hillson (2002) argued that the same process used to manage threats should be used to find and pursue uncertain events that would help a project, and most risk registers miss them entirely.
The Rating Scales
Probability is rated from 1 to 5: 1 means less than a 10 percent chance, 2 means 10 to 30 percent, 3 means 30 to 50 percent, 4 means 50 to 70 percent and 5 means more than 70 percent. Impact is rated from 1 to 5 by the larger of its cost or schedule effect: 1 means under $1,000 and no effect on the first-run date; 2 means $1,000 to $3,000 or a delay of under 3 working days to the first run; 3 means $3,000 to $6,000 or a delay of 3 to 7 days; 4 means $6,000 to $10,000 or a delay of 1 to 2 weeks; 5 means more than $10,000 or a delay of more than 2 weeks. The score is probability multiplied by impact, and the table is ordered by score. For opportunities, impact describes a benefit on the same scale.
Threats
The table lists seven threats in order of score. Strategies follow the standard set for threats: avoid, transfer, mitigate or accept (Project Management Institute, 2017).
| ID | Risk (cause, event, effect) | P | I | Score | Strategy and actions | Owner | Residual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | Because the line is built to order, a factory or freight delay could push delivery past May 13, delaying the first saleable run | 3 | 5 | 15 | Mitigate and transfer: weekly calls with vendor; contract credit of $500 per day after 5 days late; book two mobile canner bridge dates (contingency C4) | Project manager | Launch could still slip; credit and bridge runs protect cash and customers |
| R2 | Because the building's service is near capacity, the utility may require a transformer upgrade, adding cost and delaying site work | 3 | 4 | 12 | Mitigate: request utility load review in March; hold contingency C1 of $8,000 | Electrical contractor | Cost covered; delay absorbed by 26 days of float |
| R3 | Because staff have never seamed cans, trial runs may produce seams outside specification, requiring extra vendor time and scrapped cans | 3 | 3 | 9 | Mitigate: vendor technician present for all trials; seam tools bought in April for practice; contingency C2 of $4,500 | Head brewer | A day or two of delay within the trial float |
| R4 | Because the panel's position behind the wall is unknown, the contractor may need to relocate it, adding cost | 2 | 4 | 8 | Accept with contingency C3 of $5,000 | Electrical contractor | Cost covered; float absorbs time |
| R5 | Because brewing continues during the work, utility tie-ins could interrupt glycol cooling and harm fermenting beer | 2 | 3 | 6 | Avoid: schedule all tie-ins on non-brew days with the head brewer | Project manager | Low; rests on schedule discipline |
| R6 | Because the owner has not filed can labels before, an approval could be returned for correction, delaying label approval | 2 | 2 | 4 | Mitigate: check art against federal labeling rules before filing; contingency C5 of $1,700 | Owner | Low; 36 days of float |
| R7 | Because only two operators are trained, one leaving would leave the line unstaffed | 2 | 2 | 4 | Mitigate: train the head brewer as a backup operator | Project manager | Low |
Opportunities
Two opportunities could benefit the project. Strategies for opportunities parallel those for threats: exploit, enhance, share or accept (Project Management Institute, 2017).
| ID | Opportunity (cause, event, effect) | P | I | Score | Strategy and actions | Owner | Result if realized |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O1 | Because the vendor has a demonstration depalletizer in stock, ordering it by March 20 could save about $4,300 and ship with the line | 4 | 3 | 12 | Exploit: inspect photos and hours, accept if it meets specification, sign by March 20 | Project manager | Saves about $4,300 against package 3.2 |
| O2 | Because the local electric utility offers business efficiency rebates, choosing an efficient air compressor could return part of its cost | 3 | 2 | 6 | Enhance: specify an eligible compressor and file the rebate application with the contractor | Electrical contractor | Rebate of perhaps $1,000 to $2,000, credited after close |
What the Table Shows
The two highest threats sit on different paths. R1, a late machine, sits on the critical path and has no float to absorb it, so its response concentrates on early warning and on protecting customers rather than on preventing the delay, which the brewery cannot control. R2, a transformer upgrade, sits on the site chain, which has 26 days of float, so its main effect is cost, and the contingency line sized in Unit 5 covers it. Contingency lines C1 through C5 in the budget each correspond to a threat in this table, which means every dollar held in reserve has a named purpose.
Accepting a risk is a legitimate response when the cost of avoiding it exceeds its expected effect. Accepting R4, the panel relocation, with a contingency is cheaper than paying the contractor to open the wall before the permit is issued. Kerzner (2017) notes that small projects often over-invest in preventing low-probability risks and under-prepare for the few that matter; the ordering by score is meant to keep attention on R1 and R2.
Review
The project manager will review the table every two weeks with the sponsor and update ratings as risks pass or change. R1 will be reviewed weekly from the vendor's scheduled shipment date. R6 and O1 close in March and April once the label decision and the depalletizer decision are made. Any new risk will be added using the same scales. Iron Trestle Brewing, its vendor, contractors and all ratings are composites created for this course.
References
Hillson, D. (2002). Extending the risk process to manage opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 235-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00074-6
Kerzner, H. (2017). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (12th ed.). Wiley.
Project Management Institute. (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (6th ed.). Project Management Institute.
The Herzing BU 345 Unit 6 instructions
For Unit 6, students identify and plan responses to the risks in their project. Most versions want a risk register or table with each risk described, rated on probability and impact using defined scales, scored and ordered, and assigned a response strategy, actions and an owner. Many rubrics now ask for opportunities as well as threats and for the residual risk after the response. Instructors often check whether risks are specific events rather than categories and whether responses match the risks. Linking responses to contingency in the budget earns credit. Expect a wide table with a page or two of explanation, citing the course text and any risk sources in APA 7.
Inside the BU 345 Unit 6 example
The sample explains its cause-event-effect format and why opportunities are included. It then prints probability and impact scales anchored with percentages, dollars and days. The threats table lists seven risks ordered by score, each with a strategy, specific actions, an owner and a residual note. An opportunities table lists two, a discounted demonstration depalletizer and a utility rebate, with exploit and enhance strategies. The analysis explains why the top two threats are handled differently, one on the critical path and one with float, and shows that each contingency line has a named risk. A review section sets how often ratings are updated and when certain entries close. The layout lets a reader scan from the highest score down.
Where the points sit in the BU 345 Unit 6 rubric
The rubric for the risk table generally weighs the identification of risks, the rating method, the responses and the treatment of residual risk and opportunities. Identification earns full points when each risk is a specific event tied to the project. The rating method is judged by scales defined in advance and applied consistently. Responses score highest when the strategy fits the risk and actions are concrete with an owner. Instructors reward residual risk notes and genuine opportunities, both of which many submissions omit. Linking responses to budget contingency and schedule float shows integration with earlier units. A readable table and APA citations complete the grade, and a review schedule adds credit.
Common BU 345 Unit 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A frequent Unit 6 mistake is listing risks as one-word categories such as budget, schedule or weather. Another is rating probability and impact without defining the scales, so the numbers mean nothing. Students often choose mitigate for every risk, even when accepting or transferring would make more sense. Owners are sometimes missing or assigned to the whole team. Opportunities are commonly left out. Finally, say what is left after each response; a table that implies every risk disappears once a response is planned is not realistic, and instructors notice when residual risk is ignored. Revisit the table as the project moves, since risks that pass should be closed and new ones added.
Get a BU 345 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 6 instructions and the rubric from your BU 345 classroom, with the rating scale your section supplies if there is one. We write a custom example that prints the scale first, writes each risk as cause, event and effect, assigns a strategy and an owner, and rates what is left. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 345 papers and project management samples
- BU 345 Unit 1: Project selection record
- BU 345 Unit 2: Charter and stakeholder register
- BU 345 Unit 3: Scope and work breakdown document
- BU 345 Unit 4: Schedule and dependency chart
- BU 345 Unit 5: Budget baseline sheet
- BU 345 Unit 7: Status report to sponsor
- BU 345 Unit 8: Project closeout file
- BU 396 Unit 6: Risk register
- BU 433 Unit 6: Ceremony analysis
- BU 434 Unit 6: Prioritization exercise
- BU 436 Unit 6: Supplier and procurement standards
BU 345 Unit 6 questions, answered
How many risks should the table hold?
Follow the count the instructions give. Where none is set, a register somewhere between eight and a dozen rows lets a writer show range without repeating one threat in different words. What matters more is spread: entries drawn from the schedule, the budget, the supply chain, the sponsor and the technical work, rather than five versions of running late.
Is accepting a risk a weak answer?
No, and a register with nothing accepted usually means the writer thought acceptance would look lazy. Small, cheap risks are accepted every day on real work, and saying so, with the trigger that would change the decision, reads as judgment. What loses marks is acceptance disguised as mitigation by promising to monitor something closely.
Do the opportunities have to be realistic?
They have to be arguable from the project you described. An early supplier delivery that lets a later package start sooner, or a package that could be shared with another team, are the kind of upside a marker recognizes. Vague optimism about efficiencies is the opportunity equivalent of a one word threat and earns about as much.
Where can I find a free BU 345 Unit 6 sample paper?
The complete BU 345 Unit 6 risk table, threats and opportunities included, is open to read above without charge. If your project faces other risks, send your schedule, budget and the prompt, and a custom risk table will be written for you free, typically in 24 to 48 hours.
Is accepting a risk a weak answer in BU 345 Unit 6?
Not when it is justified. The sample accepts a possible panel relocation with a contingency line because checking in advance would cost more than the risk's expected effect. Acceptance is a deliberate choice, so explain why it beats the alternatives.