| Course | BU 396 Managing Project Risks |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Response strategy selection |
| Length | About 1,060 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Project Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 396 Unit 5
Insure the Storm, Sign the Sponsors, Park a Second Generator: Response Strategy Selection for a Composite Riverfront Festival, With the Rejected Options Left Visible
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 396: Managing Project Risks
Instructor Name
March 18, 2026
Insure the Storm, Sign the Sponsors, Park a Second Generator: Response Strategy Selection for a Composite Riverfront Festival, With the Rejected Options Left Visible
How Each Decision Is Made
This document chooses a response for each high-priority risk on the Riverfest, the invented riverside event studied all term. Each entry is restated with its current rating and, where it was modeled, its exposure from the quantitative analysis. All four response strategies for threats are then considered: avoid, by removing the condition; transfer, by moving the consequence to a party better placed to carry it; mitigate, by reducing probability or impact; and accept, by carrying the risk deliberately with money set aside (Project Management Institute, 2019). For each option the entry records its cost, what exposure it leaves behind and any secondary risk it creates. The chosen response is named, and the rejected options stay visible so the sponsor can see what was weighed.
R01: Severe Storms Clear the Park
Current rating: probability 3, impact 5, score 15, red. The quantitative model found that this risk drives almost all of the upper tail of possible losses, with every simulated outcome above the 90th percentile including a storm.
Avoid would mean moving the festival indoors or to a different month. No indoor venue in the city holds 25,000 people, and moving the date would abandon the riverfront identity the sponsors are paying for, so avoidance changes the project rather than responding to a risk. Transfer through event cancellation insurance would cover lost revenue and refunds if severe weather forces the park to close; a broker's quote is a $9,500 premium for up to $150,000 of coverage with a $20,000 deductible. Mitigate would mean a professional weather monitoring service at $1,800 and a written shutdown and shelter plan, which would reduce injury risk and shorten closures but would not prevent a storm or its revenue loss. Accept would mean holding the full contingency derived in Unit 4, about $62,000.
Chosen: transfer plus mitigate. The insurance caps the Partnership's storm loss at the deductible, and the monitoring service and shelter plan protect people and support the insurer's requirement that closures follow documented safety decisions. Remaining exposure: the $20,000 deductible, the premium and a small chance that a storm causes damage outside the policy's terms. Secondary risk: a claim could be disputed if the closure decision is poorly documented, so the shutdown plan assigns one person to log each weather decision with the time and the forecast relied on.
R13: A Verbal Sponsor Withdraws
Current rating: probability 3, impact 4, score 12, amber. Expected exposure from the model is about $9,300.
Avoid is impossible without giving up sponsorship income altogether. Transfer has no practical form; no one insures a sponsor's change of heart at a reasonable price. Mitigate would mean converting the three verbal commitments into signed agreements with a payment schedule by April 1 and building a waiting list of two backup sponsors. Accept would mean simply holding reserve.
Chosen: mitigate. Signing costs only staff time, and a signed agreement with a deposit sharply reduces the probability of withdrawal. Remaining exposure: a sponsor could still breach, and backup sponsors may pay less. Secondary risk: pressing a sponsor to sign early could sour the relationship, so the board chair, not staff, will make the request.
R08: The Headliner Cancels
Current rating: probability 2, impact 4, score 8, amber. Expected exposure is about $2,800, but a cancellation close to the date would hurt Saturday attendance badly.
Avoid would mean booking no headliner, which would reduce ticket sales more than the risk costs. Transfer would mean a contract clause requiring the booking agency to supply a comparable replacement at no added fee if the headliner cancels for illness; the agency will accept this for a $2,000 premium on the booking. Mitigate would mean booking a popular regional act as a second-billed co-headliner, costing about $4,000 more, so that Saturday still has a strong draw. Accept would mean carrying the risk in reserve.
Chosen: transfer through the contract clause. It addresses the consequence at half the cost of the co-headliner. Remaining exposure: a replacement may draw fewer people, and refunds may still be requested. Secondary risk: the replacement clause could be disputed if the cancellation reason is unclear, so the clause defines illness and requires written notice.
R09 and R12: Vendor Cancellations and Generator Failure
Vendor cancellations, rated probability 3, impact 2, score 6, carry an expected exposure of about $1,750. The chosen response is to mitigate with nonrefundable deposits and a waiting list of ten vendors who can fill gaps; avoiding the risk would mean having no vendors, and transfer is impractical. Remaining exposure: last-minute gaps the waiting list cannot fill. Kendrick (2015) notes that small risks with cheap, reliable responses are worth treating even when their expected cost is low, because the response also reduces the manager's time spent on the problem later.
Generator failure, rated probability 2, impact 3, score 6, carries an expected exposure of about $1,400, but a failure during the headliner would be visible and damaging. The chosen response is to mitigate by renting a standby generator for the main stage at $2,400 for the weekend. Accept was considered and rejected because the cost of the response is small compared with the harm of a dark main stage at night. Remaining exposure: a failure on a secondary stage, which will be handled by moving acts.
What the Responses Change
The chosen responses cost about $15,700 in cash: the $9,500 insurance premium, the $1,800 monitoring service, the $2,000 booking premium and the $2,400 standby generator. Rerunning the Unit 4 simulation with storm losses capped at the $20,000 deductible lowers the 80th percentile of losses from about $62,300 to about $34,800 and the 90th percentile from about $104,300 to about $45,700. The recommended contingency therefore falls from about $62,000 to about $35,000. Response spending plus contingency, about $50,700, is lower than the $62,000 contingency alone would have been, and it protects the Partnership much better in a bad year. Hillson and Murray-Webster (2007) argue that responses should reflect an organization's stated appetite for risk rather than a habit of mitigating everything, and a small nonprofit with limited reserves has good reason to buy protection against its single largest exposure. The festival, its broker's quote and every figure are fictional teaching material.
References
Hillson, D., & Murray-Webster, R. (2007). Understanding and managing risk attitude (2nd ed.). Gower.
Kendrick, T. (2015). Identifying and managing project risk: Essential tools for failure-proofing your project (3rd ed.). AMACOM.
Project Management Institute. (2019). The standard for risk management in portfolios, programs, and projects. Project Management Institute.
BU 396 Unit 5 instructions, in plain terms
The Unit 5 assignment asks students to select response strategies for their priority risks. Most versions want each risk restated with its rating, all relevant strategies considered, such as avoid, transfer, mitigate and accept for threats, each option's cost and remaining exposure described, any secondary risks noted and a chosen response justified. Many rubrics ask you to show the options you rejected and explain how the chosen responses change the overall risk position or contingency. Instructors reward realistic costs and honest statements of what each response does not fix. Composite costs are acceptable if their basis is stated. Expect a few pages, often a page per major risk, citing risk response sources in APA 7, and link the result back to the contingency set in the previous unit.
Inside the BU 396 Unit 5 example
The sample explains its decision method and the four strategies before turning to the risks. Severe storms receive the longest treatment, with each strategy costed, the insurance and monitoring combination chosen, the remaining exposure stated and a secondary risk about claim documentation handled. The sponsor, headliner, vendor and generator risks follow, each with options, a choice and a residual. A final section adds up the cash cost of the responses, reruns the simulation with the storm loss capped at the insurance deductible and shows how the contingency changes, concluding that response spending plus a smaller reserve protects the organizer better than a large reserve alone.
BU 396 Unit 5 rubric: what full points look like
Herzing's criteria for response selection usually include consideration of alternatives, costing, residual and secondary risk and the link to the overall risk position. Consideration earns full points when all relevant strategies are weighed for each major risk, not just the preferred one. Costing is judged by realistic figures with a stated basis. Residual and secondary risk score highest when each response's leftover exposure and any new risk it creates are named, as the sample does with the insurance claim documentation. The link to the overall position rewards papers that show how responses change contingency or exposure. Instructors also value choices that reflect the organization's risk appetite. Clear structure and citations complete the grade.
Common BU 396 Unit 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common Unit 5 mistake is listing mitigate for every risk without considering transfer, avoid or accept. Another is choosing responses with no cost, which makes them impossible to compare. Students often ignore secondary risks, such as a contract clause that could be disputed. Some papers state responses but never say what exposure remains. Others treat acceptance as a failure rather than a legitimate choice for low-impact risks. Finally, connect the responses to the numbers; showing how contingency falls when the biggest risk is transferred turns a list of actions into a real risk decision a sponsor can approve.
Get a BU 396 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Forward the Unit 5 instructions with the BU 396 rubric and the scored register the assignment builds on. We write a custom example that opens each decision on exposure, weighs all four strategies with their costs, keeps the rejected ones visible, names the secondary exposure created and attaches a triggered fallback. 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 3: Qualitative analysis and scoring
- BU 396 Unit 4: Quantitative analysis
- 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 5: Budget baseline sheet
- BU 433 Unit 5: Sprint plan
- BU 434 Unit 5: Requirements document
- BU 436 Unit 5: Sustainability plan with costs
BU 396 Unit 5 questions, answered
Is carrying a risk allowed as an answer?
Yes, and a document without any is usually avoiding the question. Small entries, ones with no affordable response and ones whose treatment would cost more than the exposure get carried on purpose, and saying so with the reserve set aside and the condition that would reopen the choice reads as judgment. What fails is acceptance dressed as reduction by promising closer attention.
How do I cost a response when the project is invented?
Work it out on the page and label what you produce. A response has a shape even in a constructed case: somebody's time, a supplier premium, a piece of equipment held in reserve, a decision taken earlier than it needed to be. Put an order of magnitude against each with the thinking beside it, and say plainly that the amounts belong to the case.
Can one response cover several entries?
Often yes, and noticing it earns credit. A single change to how a supplier is engaged can address three entries sharing the same condition, and grouping them shows you read the register rather than processing it row by row. Say which entries the response covers, then rate each remainder separately, because one action rarely leaves all three in the same place.
Where can I find a free BU 396 Unit 5 sample paper?
The complete BU 396 Unit 5 selection paper, with every option and the revised contingency, can be read above at no cost. If your risks call for different responses, pass along your scored risks with the instructions, and we will write the selection free, normally within about two days.
Is carrying a risk allowed as an answer in BU 396 Unit 5?
Yes, when it is a deliberate choice. The sample accepts or mitigates small risks cheaply and transfers only the largest. Acceptance works when the cost of any response exceeds the risk's expected effect, and money is set aside to cover it.