| Course | BU 396 Managing Project Risks |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Qualitative risk analysis and scoring |
| Length | About 770 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Project Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 396 Unit 3
Two Raters, Sixteen Entries and Five Sent to the Sponsor: Qualitative Risk Scoring for a Composite Riverfront Festival, With the Disagreements Kept on the Page
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 396: Managing Project Risks
Instructor Name
February 18, 2026
Two Raters, Sixteen Entries and Five Sent to the Sponsor: Qualitative Risk Scoring for a Composite Riverfront Festival, With the Disagreements Kept on the Page
Method
This analysis scores the 14 threats identified in the Unit 2 workshop for the fictional Riverfest, plus two opportunities the core team added afterward. Each entry was rated independently by two people, the events director and the operations lead, using the probability and impact bands in the Unit 1 plan. Each objective got its own impact rating, and an entry's impact band is whichever of the four is highest. The score is probability multiplied by impact, as the plan requires. Two further columns were added. Urgency is the number of months before the risk could occur or before a response would have to start. Detectability records whether a warning sign would appear in time to act: high, medium or low. Where the raters' scores differed by one band, they discussed the entry and agreed a rating; where they differed by more, the evidence each relied on was written down, and the project manager decided.
The Scored Table
The table lists every entry with its agreed ratings. Zones follow the plan: scores of 1 to 6 are green and may be accepted by the owner, 8 to 12 are amber and require the project manager, and 15 to 25 are red and require the sponsor. Safety impacts of 4 or 5 go to the sponsor regardless of score.
| ID | Entry (short) | P | Highest impact (objective) | Score | Zone | Urgency (months) | Detectability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R01 | Severe storms clear the park | 3 | 5 (cost) | 15 | Red | 6 | Medium: forecasts 3 to 5 days out |
| R03 | Heat illness overloads first aid | 3 | 4 (safety) | 12 | Amber, sponsor for safety | 6 | High: heat forecasts |
| R13 | A verbal sponsor withdraws | 3 | 4 (cost) | 12 | Amber | 3 | Medium: contract deadlines |
| R02 | High wind damages structures | 2 | 5 (safety) | 10 | Amber, sponsor for safety | 6 | Medium |
| R14 | Slow advance ticket sales | 3 | 3 (cost) | 9 | Amber | 5 | High: weekly sales reports |
| R07 | Too few volunteers | 3 | 3 (quality) | 9 | Amber | 5 | High: sign-up counts |
| R11 | Crowd disorder at headliner | 2 | 4 (safety) | 8 | Amber, sponsor for safety | 6 | Low |
| R08 | Headliner cancels | 2 | 4 (quality) | 8 | Amber | 6 | Low |
| R10 | Food safety failure | 2 | 4 (safety) | 8 | Amber, sponsor for safety | 6 | Low |
| R05 | Permit approval delayed | 2 | 3 (schedule) | 6 | Green | 3 | High: council agenda |
| R06 | Road closure plan changes | 2 | 3 (schedule) | 6 | Green | 4 | Medium |
| R09 | More than five vendor cancellations | 3 | 2 (cost) | 6 | Green | 5 | High |
| R12 | Generator failure | 2 | 3 (quality) | 6 | Green | 6 | Low |
| R04 | River stage closes part of site | 1 | 4 (schedule) | 4 | Green | 6 | High: river forecasts |
| O1 | A sponsor upgrades its tier | 3 | 3 (cost benefit) | 9 | Amber opportunity | 3 | Medium |
| O2 | State tourism grant awarded | 2 | 3 (cost benefit) | 6 | Green opportunity | 4 | High |
The Plot
Plotted on a five-by-five grid with probability on one axis and impact on the other, the entries fall mostly in the middle. Only R01 sits in the red zone by score, while R03, R02, R11 and R10 go to the sponsor because of their safety impact. The upper right corner, likely and severe, is empty; the lower left, rare and minor, holds nothing because the workshop did not record trivial risks. A plot like this is useful mainly for showing the sponsor where attention is needed, not for ranking entries finely.
The plot also shows why the plan gave safety its own route to the sponsor. Several safety entries sit in the amber zone by score because their probabilities are low, yet their consequences are the ones the Partnership could least tolerate. A score alone would have left them with the project manager; the plan's override ensures the board chair sees them. The scoring therefore combines the matrix with a rule based on consequence, which is a practical way to limit the matrix's blind spots.
Where the Raters Disagreed
Three entries produced real disagreement. On R01, severe storms, the operations lead rated probability at 4 and the events director at 3. The operations lead pointed to two of the last five Partnership summer events interrupted by storms; the events director noted that those were evening concerts over a full season, while the festival has only two days. The difference was one band, they discussed it and agreed on 3, with a note that the rating should be checked against the quantitative analysis. On R08, headliner cancellation, one rater gave probability 1 and the other 3. The first relied on the headliner's record of no cancellations in three years; the second on the contract's broad illness clause. Because the gap was two bands, the project manager decided on 2 and recorded both arguments. On R11, crowd disorder, both raters agreed on probability but split on impact, 3 against 4. The police lieutenant's advice from the workshop, that a single incident near the main stage can force a partial shutdown, settled it at 4.
What This Scoring Can and Cannot Do
Most entries scored in the middle of the range, between 6 and 12. That clustering is a known weakness of risk matrices. Cox (2008) showed that matrices can assign the same score to risks with very different expected losses and can even rank risks in the wrong order when probability and impact are coarsely banded. Hubbard (2020) goes further and argues that qualitative scores give an impression of precision that the underlying judgments do not support. For this project, the matrix is used for what it does reasonably well: sorting entries into those needing the sponsor, those needing the project manager and those the owners can carry, and flagging which ones deserve closer analysis. The five entries with the largest possible cost effects, R01, R08, R13, R09 and R12, are carried forward to the quantitative analysis in Unit 4, where ranges and probabilities can be modeled instead of banded. The Cedar Bend Riverfest and its ratings are composites created for this course (Project Management Institute, 2019).
References
Cox, L. A., Jr. (2008). What's wrong with risk matrices? Risk Analysis, 28(2), 497-512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x
Hubbard, D. W. (2020). The failure of risk management: Why it's broken and how to fix it (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Project Management Institute. (2019). The standard for risk management in portfolios, programs, and projects. Project Management Institute.
What the BU 396 Unit 3 instructions ask for
For Unit 3, students rate and prioritize the risks identified earlier using qualitative scales. Most versions want each risk rated for probability and impact using the bands from the risk management plan, a combined score, a prioritized list or matrix and a discussion of how ratings were agreed. Many rubrics add urgency, proximity or detectability as extra dimensions. Instructors reward consistency with the earlier plan and honesty about disagreements or uncertainty in the ratings. A probability and impact grid is common, but a well-organized table can also work. Expect a few pages with a scored table and a short description of the plot, citing sources on risk assessment in APA 7, and state clearly which entries you will carry into quantitative analysis.
How the BU 396 Unit 3 example is put together
The sample explains its method first: two independent raters, bands from the plan, impact rated per objective and the highest band used, plus urgency and detectability columns and a rule for settling disagreements. A sixteen-row table presents every entry with its agreed ratings and zone. A short section describes the resulting plot and explains why the safety override matters when probabilities are low. A disagreements section takes three contested entries and records each rater's evidence and the outcome. The final section discusses the weaknesses of risk matrices with two sources and explains that the matrix is used mainly to route entries to the right decision maker, before naming the five entries carried forward.
Where the points sit in the BU 396 Unit 3 rubric
Herzing's rubric for qualitative analysis commonly includes consistency with the plan, completeness of ratings, the handling of disagreements and critical awareness of the method. Consistency earns full points when every rating uses the bands and zones defined earlier, without redrawing them to fit the results. Completeness is judged by ratings for every entry, including opportunities, with the combined score calculated correctly. Handling of disagreements rewards papers that record the evidence behind contested ratings and explain how each was settled, which the sample does in detail. Critical awareness scores highest when the paper acknowledges the limits of matrices and explains what the scoring is used for. Clear tables and appropriate citations complete the grade, and a plan for which entries to model next earns further credit.
BU 396 Unit 3 help before you submit
The most common Unit 3 mistake is changing the bands from the planning unit to make the results look better. Another is rating risks without explaining how disagreements were resolved, which suggests no discussion took place. Students often give every risk a medium score, which provides no guidance. Some papers draw a matrix but never use it to decide who acts on which risk. Others ignore urgency, so a risk months away gets the same attention as one due next week. Finally, name the limits of your method; showing that you know risk matrices can mislead, and saying how you guarded against that, earns credit and prepares the ground for quantitative work in the next unit.
Get a BU 396 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Attach the Unit 3 instructions and the rubric your BU 396 classroom posts, with the bands and the identified entries the assignment builds on. We write a custom example that rates against the published definitions, scores impact per objective, holds warning time separately, plots by agreed thresholds and records where raters split. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More BU 396 papers and project management samples
- BU 396 Unit 1: Risk management planning
- BU 396 Unit 2: Risk identification workshop output
- BU 396 Unit 4: Quantitative analysis
- BU 396 Unit 5: Response strategy selection
- BU 396 Unit 6: Risk register
- BU 396 Unit 7: Monitoring and review plan
- BU 396 Unit 8: Risk report to sponsor
- BU 345 Unit 3: Scope and work breakdown document
- BU 433 Unit 3: Backlog with prioritization basis
- BU 434 Unit 3: Problem definition
- BU 436 Unit 3: Decision rights and escalation
BU 396 Unit 3 questions, answered
Can I change the bands I wrote earlier?
Yes, if you say so and say why. Definitions that turn out to be unusable, where every entry lands in the middle, are worth revising and the revision is a creditable observation. What loses marks is quietly rating against different definitions from the ones already submitted, since the two documents get read together and the mismatch is easy to see.
What if most entries score in the middle?
That usually means the bands are too narrow at the ends rather than that the project is uniformly moderate. Look at whether your top impact band describes something that would genuinely stop the project, and whether the bottom one describes something you would not bother writing down. Adjust the definitions, state that you did, and rescore everything consistently.
Is a matrix required, or will a table do?
Check the instructions, since sections differ and some want both. A table carries more information and a plot shows concentration, so where there is room the two together read better than either alone. If only one is asked for, put the reasoning in prose underneath rather than assuming a grid explains itself to a reader who was not in your head.
Where can I find a free BU 396 Unit 3 sample paper?
A free copy of the BU 396 Unit 3 scoring paper, with its sixteen-row table and disagreement notes, is shown above. If your project's risks differ, share your identification output and the prompt, and a free custom scoring paper will be prepared for you, typically in a day or two.
What if most BU 396 Unit 3 entries score in the middle?
That is common, and it is worth saying so. The sample explains why matrices compress scores and uses additional rules, such as a safety override, to route important entries correctly. Carry the entries with the largest possible consequences forward to quantitative analysis.