BUSI 313 Week 6 Discussion Board Forum 3 Replies Example

Discussion Board Forum 3 Replies: Responding to Classmates on Risk and Resource Scheduling

BUSI 313 Foundations of Project Management, Discussion Board Forum 3 Replies

Thread by [Student Name]

The classmates and their threads are composites; the research and Scripture cited are real.

Reply to Jordan

Jordan, you described the risk register as the heart of risk management, listing each risk with its probability, impact and owner. I agree a register is an essential tool, and Larson and Gray treat it as the core record of the risk process.

Research suggests the register is necessary but not sufficient. Kutsch and Hall (2010) interviewed project managers and found that some risks were deliberately ignored, not because no one saw them, but because addressing them was uncomfortable, would raise costs or might threaten the project's approval. A register can hold a risk that no one intends to act on. De Bakker et al. (2010) add that hard evidence linking formal risk management to project success is limited, although it appears to help by improving communication and shared awareness.

Proverbs praises the person who notices trouble ahead and takes cover in time (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Proverbs 27:12). Seeing the danger is only half of prudence; the other half is doing something about it.

How would you make sure the risks in your register are reviewed and acted on, rather than recorded and forgotten? One idea from the research is to give each risk an owner who must report its status at every team meeting, so that an uncomfortable risk cannot quietly disappear. Another is to invite someone outside the team to read the register, since outsiders are less invested in the plan and more willing to name the risks insiders avoid.

Reply to Lauren

Lauren, your thread proposed assigning staff to three projects at once so no one sits idle, and keeping people fully utilized is a real goal in the resource chapter. But research suggests the hidden cost of switching may outweigh the benefit.

Rubinstein et al. (2001) showed in experiments that switching between tasks costs time, and the cost rises with the complexity of the tasks. Leroy (2009) found that when people move from one unfinished task to another, part of their attention stays with the first, a residue that lowers performance on the second. A developer split across three projects may look fully used on paper while losing hours each week to switching.

Ecclesiastes says that better is a handful of quietness than two hands full of toil and a striving after wind (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Ecclesiastes 4:6). Focused work honors people's limits. The resource chapter's goal of smoothing workloads can still be met by sequencing projects so each person finishes one block of work before starting the next, rather than slicing every week into thirds. Managers sometimes resist this because it leaves a project waiting, but a short wait for a focused person often delivers sooner than constant progress by a distracted one.

Would assigning each person to one main project, with a second only for short tasks, keep utilization high without the switching cost? I would be interested to hear whether your team has tried anything like that, and whether people noticed a difference in how much they finished each week or how tired they felt at the end of it.

References

de Bakker, K., Boonstra, A., & Wortmann, H. (2010). Does risk management contribute to IT project success? A meta-analysis of empirical evidence. International Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 493-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.07.002

English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)

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

Leroy, S. (2009). Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 168-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.04.002

Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763-797. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.763