| Course | MGT 474 Project Management |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Risk management plan |
| Length | About 1,080 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGT 474 Module 6
The Risk No One Wanted to Write Down: A Risk Register and Management Plan for a River Otter Exhibit
Student Name
Business Administration Program, Aspen University
MGT 474: Project Management
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
The Risk No One Wanted to Write Down: A Risk Register and Management Plan for a River Otter Exhibit
By this point the otter exhibit at Meadowlark, a composite Kansas zoo, has its scope, its schedule and a budget holding $290,000 of contingency. Contingency is only useful if it is linked to identified risks and managed. The lion exhibit had no risk register; its drainage problem, contractor dispute and design changes all arrived as surprises. This paper presents the otter exhibit's risk management plan.
The Risk Process
In the PMBOK Guide's framing, a risk is anything uncertain that could push the project's objectives up or down, so the same process that guards against threats should also chase opportunities (Project Management Institute, 2021). The process followed here identifies risks with the team, scores probability and impact from 1 to 5, selects responses, assigns owners and reviews the register monthly. Threats may be avoided, transferred, mitigated, accepted or escalated; opportunities may be exploited, shared, enhanced, accepted or escalated.
The Risk Register
| Risk | Probability | Impact | Score | Response | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Permit review takes longer than 16 weeks | 4 | 4 | 16 | Mitigate: pre-application meetings with the city | Project manager |
| Groundwater during excavation | 3 | 4 | 12 | Mitigate: dewatering allowance in contract | Contractor |
| Life support components arrive late | 3 | 4 | 12 | Mitigate: order in design phase | Life support technician |
| Contractor prices rise | 3 | 3 | 9 | Transfer: fixed-price contract | Project manager |
| Severe weather during pool shell work | 3 | 3 | 9 | Transfer: weather days in contract | Contractor |
| Custom viewing window fails load test | 2 | 5 | 10 | Avoid: choose a standard window size | Designer |
| Partner zoo's otters unavailable | 2 | 5 | 10 | Mitigate: agreements with two partner zoos | Curator |
| Donor installment delayed | 2 | 4 | 8 | Escalate to board; line of credit | Sponsor |
| Keepers reject holding design | 2 | 3 | 6 | Mitigate: keeper sign-off at design | Curator |
| Water quality fails initial tests | 3 | 2 | 6 | Accept: buffer covers retesting | Veterinarian |
| Opportunity: state wildlife grant for interpretation | 3 | 3 | 9 | Exploit: apply in 2024 cycle | Education manager |
| Opportunity: contractor finishes early | 2 | 2 | 4 | Enhance: early completion incentive | Project manager |
How Risks Were Identified
Risks came from four sources. A half-day workshop brought together the project manager, designer, contractor, curator, veterinarian, life support technician and education manager to brainstorm what could go wrong or better than expected in each phase. The lion exhibit's records were reviewed for problems that occurred there. The estimate ranges from the budget module pointed to uncertain work packages. And the assumptions in the scope statement and estimate were each turned into a question: what happens if this assumption proves false?
Scoring Scales
Probability is scored 1 for under 10%, 2 for 10 to 30%, 3 for 30 to 50%, 4 for 50 to 70% and 5 for over 70%. Impact is scored on the larger of cost or schedule effect: 1 for under $10,000 or one week, rising to 5 for over $150,000 or more than eight weeks. Scores of 12 or more are reviewed by the sponsor each quarter. Using the same scales for every risk lets the team compare them, rather than arguing about whether a weather delay is worse than a supplier problem.
Linking Risks to Contingency
The expected cost of the main threats, probability times estimated cost, totals about $240,000, within the $290,000 contingency. The largest are groundwater, estimated at $90,000 if it occurs, and price increases, partly transferred by the fixed-price contract.
Opportunities Matter Too
Most risk registers list only threats. The otter exhibit's two opportunities show why that is a mistake. A state wildlife grant for interpretive programs, if won, would fund better graphics and free contingency for other uses. An incentive for early completion could move opening a few weeks earlier, adding spring attendance. Pursuing opportunities deliberately is part of managing uncertainty, not a distraction from it.
Where Risk Management Pays Off
Raz et al. (2002) studied more than a hundred projects and found that risk management practices were not widely used, but that where they were used, they were associated with better project success, mainly in projects with high technological uncertainty. For the otter exhibit, uncertainty is highest in life support and the viewing window, technologies the zoo has not installed before, and in permitting. Risk effort will focus there rather than spreading evenly.
Risks Nobody Wants to Name
Kutsch and Hall (2010) found that project managers do not always lack information about risks; sometimes they deliberately exclude them. Risks may be treated as irrelevant to the project, as undecidable because no one can estimate them, or as taboo because raising them would offend powerful people or threaten the project. In early meetings, no one wanted to write down that the donor's second installment depended on the donor's business performance, or that the board chair favored a contractor with a weak schedule record. Both are real risks.
Handling the Uncomfortable Risks
Once named, both uncomfortable risks could be managed. The donor risk was escalated to the sponsor, who spoke with the donor's representative and agreed that the second installment would be paid on a fixed date regardless of the donor's quarterly results; the line of credit remains as a backstop. The contractor risk was addressed through procurement rules: bids will be scored on schedule record as well as price by a panel the board chair does not sit on. Neither conversation was comfortable, and neither would have happened without the anonymous cards.
Secondary Risks
Some responses create new risks. The fixed-price contract transfers price risk but may lead the contractor to resist change requests or cut corners on finishing work. The early order of life support components reduces delay risk but requires storage on site through a Kansas winter. These secondary risks are added to the register with their own owners.
Keeping the Register Alive
Monthly reviews will begin with each participant writing one risk on an unsigned card, which the project manager reads aloud. New risks are scored and added. Each owner reports on their risks, and closed risks are recorded with what happened. The sponsor will attend quarterly reviews, so escalated risks receive decisions.
Conclusion
The risk register turns the otter exhibit's contingency from a cushion into a managed fund tied to named risks and owners. The PMBOK Guide's strategies give each risk a response, Raz, Shenhar and Dvir's research directs effort to the most uncertain work and Kutsch and Hall's findings explain why the review process must make it safe to name the risks people would rather not mention.
References
Kutsch, E., & Hall, M. (2010). Deliberate ignorance in project risk management. International Journal of Project Management, 28(3), 245-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.05.003
Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.).
Raz, T., Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2002). Risk management, project success, and technological uncertainty. R&D Management, 32(2), 101-109. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00243
MGT 474 Module 6 instructions, in plain terms
Risk is the focus of Module 6 in Aspen's MGT 474. A submission for this module generally identifies what could go wrong or unexpectedly right, rates each item and decides what to do about it before it happens. Check the classroom's Module 6 prompt for required parts; this example plans risk for the exhibit followed through the course. Describe the risk process you will use. Identify threats and opportunities across the project. Score probability and impact on a stated scale. Choose a response strategy and owner for each significant risk. Link risks to contingency. Explain how the team will keep identifying risks, including the ones people are reluctant to raise.
Inside the MGT 474 Module 6 example
This module takes the exhibit's contingency and asks what it is for. A table lists twelve risks scored on five-point scales, such as permit delays at 4 by 4, groundwater during excavation at 3 by 4 and the partner zoo's otters becoming unavailable at 2 by 5. Responses follow the PMBOK Guide: transferring weather risk through contract terms, mitigating permit delay with early meetings, avoiding a custom viewing window by choosing a standard size and exploiting an opportunity for a state wildlife grant. Raz, Shenhar and Dvir's R&D Management study found risk practices most associated with success in high-uncertainty projects. Kutsch and Hall's International Journal of Project Management article describes deliberate ignorance, such as treating a risk as taboo. Monthly reviews begin with anonymous risk cards so uncomfortable risks, like the donor's pledge timing, reach the register.
Reading the MGT 474 Module 6 grading rubric
Risk papers are assessed on a complete register with consistent scoring, responses matched to each risk, clear ownership and a process that keeps risk management alive after the first meeting. This example scores every risk on the same scales and ties expected costs to the contingency set in Module 5. Responses use the full range of strategies, including opportunities. Raz, Shenhar and Dvir's study explains where risk effort pays off most. Kutsch and Hall's research shapes a review process designed to surface risks people avoid. Owners, review dates and attention to secondary risks make the plan usable.
Common MGT 474 Module 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Risk papers often list risks without scoring them consistently or assigning anyone to act. Use one scale for probability and impact, and give every significant risk an owner and a response. Another weakness is ignoring opportunities; projects can benefit from uncertainty too. Match responses to risks: transfer suits risks others can manage better, mitigation suits risks the team can reduce. Tie expected costs to contingency. Address why some risks go unspoken, since political and uncomfortable risks are often the most dangerous. Finally, set a review schedule and explain how new risks will be added. Note risks that the responses themselves create.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More MGT 474 and Business Administration sample papers
- MGT 474 Module 1: Projects, Life Cycles and Success
- MGT 474 Module 2: Project Selection and the Charter
- MGT 474 Module 3: Scope and the Work Breakdown Structure
- MGT 474 Module 4: Scheduling and the Critical Path
- MGT 474 Module 5: Cost Estimating and Budgeting
- MGT 474 Module 7: Monitoring With Earned Value
- MGT 474 Module 8: Project Closing and Lessons Learned
- MGT 424 Module 1: What Leadership Is
- BUS 305 Module 5: Research Plan and Sources
- BUS 320 Module 3: Segmentation and Positioning
- MGT 240 Module 3: Setups, Batching and Changeovers
MGT 474 Module 6 questions, answered
What does MGT 474 Module 6 usually ask for?
Aspen's MGT 474 covers risk management in this module, so building a risk register with scored risks, responses and owners is typical. Check your classroom prompt.
What are the strategies for responding to project risks?
For threats: avoid, transfer, mitigate, accept or escalate. For opportunities: exploit, share, enhance, accept or escalate, as described in the PMBOK Guide.
Does risk management improve project success?
Raz, Shenhar and Dvir found risk management practices were more associated with success in projects with high technological uncertainty.
Where can I find a free MGT 474 Module 6 sample paper?
The example above builds a scored risk register for a zoo's river otter exhibit, with responses, owners and a review process.
Why do project managers ignore some risks?
Kutsch and Hall found that risks are sometimes deliberately left out because they seem irrelevant, undecidable or taboo to discuss.