| Course | BU 396 Managing Project Risks |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Risk register |
| Length | About 520 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Project Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for BU 396 Unit 6
The Riverfest Risk Register as of July 15: Seventeen Entries, Three Closed, One That Became an Issue, and the Change Log That Proves It Is Maintained
Student Name
Business, Herzing University
BU 396: Managing Project Risks
Instructor Name
July 15, 2026
The Riverfest Risk Register as of July 15: Seventeen Entries, Three Closed, One That Became an Issue, and the Change Log That Proves It Is Maintained
About This Register
This is the maintained risk register for the fictional Riverfest as it stood on July 15, 2026, five weeks before the festival. It assembles the work of earlier units: the identifiers and statements from the identification workshop, the ratings from the qualitative scoring, the exposure estimates from the quantitative analysis and the responses chosen in Unit 5. Each entry holds a permanent identifier that is never reused, the date it was raised and last reviewed, its category, a short form of its statement, its current and remaining ratings, the chosen response, actions with owners and dates, the trigger being watched and a status. Guidance from the Project Management Institute (2019) describes the register as the living record of a project's risks, and it becomes living only when its status and history change as the project moves.
Active Entries
The table shows the active entries. Ratings are shown as probability by impact, with the score in parentheses; remaining ratings describe the position once responses are complete.
| ID | Raised / reviewed | Category | Entry | Current | Remaining | Response and actions | Owner | Trigger | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R01 | Feb 2 / Jul 14 | Weather | Storms force park closure | 3x5 (15) | 3x2 (6) | Transfer and mitigate: insurance bound Apr 20; monitoring service contracted May 1; shelter plan drilled Jul 30 | Events director | Severe thunderstorm watch for the county within 48 hours | Active |
| R03 | Feb 2 / Jul 14 | Weather | Heat illness overloads first aid | 3x4 (12) | 2x3 (6) | Mitigate: two cooling tents, free water stations, added EMS crew; ordered by Aug 1 | Operations lead | Heat index forecast above 100 degrees | Active |
| R02 | Feb 2 / Jul 1 | Weather | Wind damages structures | 2x5 (10) | 1x5 (5) | Mitigate: engineered tents, wind-speed shutdown rule of 35 mph | Production manager | Sustained wind forecast above 25 mph | Active |
| R07 | Feb 2 / Jul 14 | People | Too few volunteers | 3x3 (9) | 2x3 (6) | Mitigate: shift incentives, partner with two civic clubs by Jul 25 | Volunteer coordinator | Sign-ups below 80% of target on Aug 1 | Active |
| R14 | Feb 2 / Jul 14 | Finance | Slow advance ticket sales | 2x3 (6) | 2x2 (4) | Mitigate: July promotion with radio partner | Finance manager | Weekly sales below plan two weeks running | Active, rerated down |
| R11 | Feb 2 / Jun 30 | Safety | Crowd disorder at headliner | 2x4 (8) | 1x4 (4) | Mitigate: police staffing plan, barrier layout approved | Police liaison | Intelligence of planned disruption | Active |
| R08 | Feb 2 / Jul 1 | People | Headliner cancels | 2x4 (8) | 2x2 (4) | Transfer: replacement clause signed Mar 30 | Events director | Any notice from agency | Active |
| R10 | Feb 2 / Jul 1 | Vendors | Food safety failure | 2x4 (8) | 1x4 (4) | Mitigate: county inspection before gates open, handwashing stations | Vendor coordinator | Failed pre-opening inspection | Active |
| R09 | Feb 2 / Jul 14 | Vendors | More than five vendor cancellations | 3x2 (6) | 2x2 (4) | Mitigate: deposits collected; waiting list of 10 | Vendor coordinator | Three cancellations in one week | Active |
| R12 | Feb 2 / Jun 15 | Safety | Generator failure | 2x3 (6) | 1x3 (3) | Mitigate: standby main-stage generator booked | Production manager | Failed load test on Aug 21 | Active |
| R04 | Feb 2 / Jul 14 | Weather | River stage closes part of site | 1x4 (4) | 1x4 (4) | Accept; watch river forecasts | Operations lead | Forecast crest above minor flood stage | Active |
| O1 | Feb 12 / Jul 1 | Finance | A sponsor upgrades its tier | 3x3 (9) | Enhance: offer stage naming rights | Board chair | Sponsor meeting scheduled | Active opportunity | |
| R15 | Jun 3 / Jul 14 | Permits | Neighbor complaints about noise | 3x2 (6) | 2x2 (4) | Mitigate: sound limit and neighborhood letter | Events director | Complaints to city | Active, new entry |
Closed and Realized Entries
Closed entries stay in the register so the history of the project's risks remains visible. R05, permit approval delayed, was closed on May 13, the day after the city council approved the special event permit. R06, road closure plan changes, was closed on June 10, when the city issued the final plan with no change to the site layout. O2, a state tourism grant, was closed on June 1 when the grant was awarded, a realized opportunity worth $12,000, the kind of upside Hillson (2002) argued registers should track alongside threats.
R13, a verbal sponsor withdraws, occurred. On April 22, one of the three verbal sponsors, representing $18,000, withdrew after a change in its own budget. The register entry was closed as realized, and issue I-04 was opened in the issue log, owned by the board chair. The issue was resolved on May 20, when a backup sponsor from the waiting list signed at $12,000; the remaining $6,000 gap was covered by the realized tourism grant. The other two verbal sponsors had signed agreements by April 1, as the response required.
Change Log
The change log records every change to an entry, which is what marks the register as maintained rather than merely produced.
| Date | Entry | Change | By |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 30 | R08 | Replacement clause signed; remaining rating set at 2x2 | Events director |
| Apr 1 | R13 | Two sponsors signed; one still verbal | Board chair |
| Apr 20 | R01 | Insurance bound; remaining rating 3x2 | Events director |
| Apr 22 | R13 | Closed as realized; issue I-04 opened | Events director |
| May 13 | R05 | Closed; permit approved | Operations lead |
| Jun 1 | O2 | Closed; grant awarded | Finance manager |
| Jun 3 | R15 | New entry raised after neighborhood meeting | Events director |
| Jun 10 | R06 | Closed; road plan final | Operations lead |
| Jul 14 | R14 | Probability lowered from 3 to 2; sales at 104% of plan | Finance manager |
Reading the Register
Three things stand out on July 15. First, the risk profile has improved: two entries have closed, the realized sponsor risk was absorbed within the contingency plan, and ticket sales are ahead of plan. Second, the entries that remain most serious are weather entries whose triggers can only fire in the final days, which is why the review cadence moves to daily in the festival week. Third, a new entry, R15, appeared after identification closed, which bears out the advice from Kendrick (2015) that registers must stay open to new risks as a project reveals them. The register will be reviewed next on July 22. The Cedar Bend Riverfest, its entries and dates 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
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 6 instructions, in plain terms
For Unit 6, students assemble the term's risk work into a complete risk register. Most versions want each entry to carry an identifier, the date raised and last reviewed, its category, a structured risk statement, current and residual ratings, the chosen response, actions with owners and dates, a trigger and a status. Many rubrics ask that closed entries remain in the register and that realized risks be linked to an issue log. A change log is often required to show maintenance over time. Instructors grade the register as a working document rather than a static list, so dates and status changes matter. Expect a wide table plus a change log and a short interpretation, citing risk standards in APA 7, and date the register so the reader knows which moment it captures.
How this BU 396 Unit 6 example is built
The sample explains what each column holds and why a register becomes useful only when it changes. The active entries table lists thirteen entries, each with ratings, dated actions, an owner, a trigger and a status, including one new entry and one rerated down. A section on closed and realized entries explains why three entries closed and how a sponsor withdrawal was handled through the issue log until a replacement was signed. A change log table lists every change with a date and the person who made it. The final section reads the register, noting the improved risk profile, the weather entries still ahead and the lesson from the new entry.
BU 396 Unit 6 rubric: what full points look like
The rubric for the register typically assesses completeness of fields, evidence of maintenance, handling of closed and realized risks and interpretation. Completeness earns full points when every entry carries all the required fields, including triggers and owners. Maintenance is judged by review dates, a change log and status changes over time, as the sample shows. Handling of closed and realized risks rewards registers that keep closed entries and link realized risks to issues. Interpretation scores highest when the paper explains what the register shows about the project's risk position at that date. Instructors also credit new entries added after identification, since they show the register is truly open. A readable table and citations complete the grade.
BU 396 Unit 6 help before you submit
The most common Unit 6 mistake is submitting a register with no dates, which makes it impossible to tell whether it has been maintained. Another is deleting closed risks, which erases the project's history. Students often leave triggers blank, turning the register into a list rather than an early warning system. Some registers assign owners to teams instead of people. Others show no change log, so every entry looks as if it was written the same day. Finally, include at least one entry whose status has changed; a register in which nothing ever closes, opens or moves suggests it was produced once and never used by the team.
Get a BU 396 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 6 instructions and the rubric in your BU 396 classroom, along with the register format your section specifies if it fixes one. We write a custom example with permanent identifiers, both dates, statements carried forward whole, paired ratings, a written status field and a change log underneath. 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 5: Response strategy selection
- BU 396 Unit 7: Monitoring and review plan
- BU 396 Unit 8: Risk report to sponsor
- BU 345 Unit 6: Risk response table
- BU 442 Unit 6: Earned value calculation
- BU 433 Unit 6: Ceremony analysis
- BU 434 Unit 6: Prioritization exercise
BU 396 Unit 6 questions, answered
How many entries belong in the register?
Whatever survived identification and cleaning, which is normally more than the shortlist you modeled and fewer than the raw capture. Where the instructions fix a count, keep the register at that size and note what was excluded and on what grounds. A register holding every idea from the session is unusable, and one holding four entries has not covered the project.
Should closed entries stay in the document?
Yes, marked closed with the date and a line on how it ended. A register showing only live entries hides the work already done and makes the change log unreadable. Closure is also evidence a marker can grade, since an entry closed because its condition expired reads very differently from one closed because the response worked, and the row should say which.
Does the register need a separate issue log?
That depends on the section, since some ask for both and others keep everything in one place. Where both exist, an entry that materializes moves across with its identifier intact and the register records the date and the destination. What causes trouble is leaving a materialized entry open with a probability still attached, because it is no longer uncertain and the rating means nothing.
Where can I find a free BU 396 Unit 6 sample paper?
Everything in the BU 396 Unit 6 register, active and closed entries plus the change log, is open above to read for free. To get a register assembled from your own earlier units, share them with the prompt, and a free custom register will be built for you, usually within two days.
Should closed entries stay in the BU 396 Unit 6 register?
Yes. The sample keeps closed and realized entries with their dates and reasons, because they show the project's risk history and how responses worked. Deleting them makes the register look cleaner but removes evidence that instructors look for.