BUSI 682 Week 3 Group DB Forum 2: Parts 1 and 2 Example

Reviewed by Thomas Kerrigan, MBA, CPA · Liberty University · Updated

In this BUSI 682 Week 3 sample, Group Discussion Board Forum 2 appears complete: a Part 1 reservation of the case and a Part 2 thread of about 480 words on what makes strategic project management succeed. The reserved case follows a composite U.S. pet-food maker that builds a plant in Querétaro, Mexico, to supply a planned expansion into Brazil. The plant opens on schedule and under budget, yet a year later it runs at 40 percent of capacity because the Brazilian retail partnership behind it collapsed during construction. The thread argues that the project met its targets and missed its purpose, using research on strategic project leadership, front-end decision making and behavioral biases such as escalation of commitment. Liberty University BUSI 682 gives the whole MBA forum 50 points once the Part 3 replies are posted.

CourseBUSI 682 Global Project Management (BUSI682)
Module/Week3
AssignmentGroup DB Forum 2: Parts 1 and 2
Paper typeDiscussion thread
Lengthabout 498 words (thread and replies). Course guide: a substantial, thoughtful and critical thread on the case reserved in Part 1, posted by Friday of Module/Week 3; at least two replies to group members follow in Module/Week 4, and the forum is graded after Part 3
FormatAPA 7 citations and reference list
Points50
SchoolLiberty University Online
ProgramMBA
Where it sitsModule/Week 3 in Liberty's published BUSI 682 course guide; current sections can differ
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for BUSI 682 Week 3

1

Group Discussion Board Forum 2: Parts 1 and 2 (Topic and Thread)

BUSI 682 Global Project Management, Group Discussion Board Forum 2: Parts 1 and 2 (topic reservation and thread)

Thread by [Student Name]

The reserved case and its company are composites standing in for the course's own project management case; the textbook and research cited are real, and the requirements follow Liberty's public course guide for BUSI 682.

Part 1: Topic Reservation

I am reserving the case of the pet-food plant in Querétaro, Mexico.

Part 2: Thread

Why this part earns its pointsThe thread separates delivery from purpose in its first paragraph, which is the distinction strategic project management rests on.
2

The case describes a composite U.S. pet-food company that approved a $90 million plant in Querétaro to supply a planned entry into Brazil through a partnership with a large Brazilian retailer. Construction took 22 months and finished on schedule and 4 percent under budget. Eight months into construction, the retailer withdrew from the partnership, but the steering committee kept the plant on its original plan. A year after opening, it runs at 40 percent of capacity. By the measures in the project charter, it succeeded. By the reason it was built, it failed.

Shenhar (2004) argues that projects are started for business reasons and that getting the job done on time and within budget is not enough; strategic project leadership connects project management to business results and treats projects as competitive tools. Judged that way, the plant project should have carried a business goal, such as supplying a set volume to Brazil by a set date, alongside its schedule and budget. No such goal appears in the case, which helps explain why the partner's withdrawal never reached the project's agenda. A project measured only on delivery has no way to notice that its purpose has left.

Why this part earns its pointsThe thread names the specific bias at work, which turns a vague criticism of leadership into a mechanism the group can discuss.
3

Williams and Samset (2010) identify the front end as the stage where doing the right project matters as much as doing the project right, and they stress both alignment between organizational strategy and the project concept and preparation for turbulence, including keeping strategic alignment as conditions change. The Querétaro project had alignment at approval and lost it during construction, with no mechanism to check. Flyvbjerg (2021) lists escalation of commitment among the ten most important behavioral biases in project management, alongside optimism bias. Both appear in the case: the committee was optimistic that the partnership would hold, and once ground was broken, the money already spent made stopping seem unthinkable.

The project manager is not blameless either. The case notes that she learned of the partner's withdrawal from a trade publication in the ninth month and raised it at the next status meeting, where the committee asked only whether the schedule was affected. Moran and Youngdahl (2008) treat strategic project management as one of the essential skills of a global project leader, which suggests her job included pressing the question of purpose, not only reporting progress. Raising it in writing, with options and their costs, would have made the committee's silence a decision on the record.

I would recommend three changes. First, every strategic project's charter should state the business result it is meant to produce. Second, the steering committee should hold a strategic review at each major milestone, asking whether the reason for the project still holds. Third, a change in a key assumption, such as a partner's withdrawal, should trigger an immediate review with options to pause, resize or redirect. Has anyone in our group seen a stage gate actually stop a project, and what made that possible?

4

References

Flyvbjerg, B. (2021). Top ten behavioral biases in project management: An overview. Project Management Journal, 52(6), 531-546. https://doi.org/10.1177/87569728211049046

Moran, R. T., & Youngdahl, W. E. (2008). Leading global projects: For professional and accidental project leaders. Butterworth-Heinemann.

Shenhar, A. J. (2004). Strategic Project Leadership: Toward a strategic approach to project management. R&D Management, 34(5), 569-578. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2004.00363.x

Williams, T., & Samset, K. (2010). Issues in front-end decision making on projects. Project Management Journal, 41(2), 38-49. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20160

What the BUSI 682 Week 3 instructions ask

Module/Week 3 of BUSI 682 assigns the third chapter of the course text and opens Group Forum 2. On Monday each student reserves one of the course's project management cases in Part 1, so that group members analyze different cases, and by Friday posts a Part 2 thread on it. Part 3, due the following Friday, asks for at least two replies within the group. The guide describes what the instructor wants in all three parts as substantial, thoughtful and critical discussion, and it sets neither a length nor a number of sources. Forum 2 counts for 50 points, and the grade is posted after the replies, in the same module/week as Annotated Bibliography 1 and the midterm.

How this BUSI 682 Week 3 example is built

The Part 1 line names the reserved case. The thread then summarizes the plant project in a few sentences and states the problem in one: the project was managed to time and budget while its strategic reason disappeared. Shenhar's strategic project leadership approach supplies the standard the project should have been held to, business results rather than completion. Williams and Samset's review of front-end decision making explains the missing mechanism, keeping strategic alignment under review through turbulence. Flyvbjerg's overview of behavioral biases names the trap the steering committee fell into, escalation of commitment, along with optimism about the partner deal. The thread ends with three governance changes and a question to the group about stage gates.

BUSI 682 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go

For Forum 2, graders want critical analysis of the reserved case rather than retelling, and a thread that ties the case to the course's ideas about strategic project management and the critical factors that decide whether global projects succeed. They look for an accurate summary, a clear claim, sources that are scholarly and correctly described, and recommendations that follow from the analysis. A thread that separates delivery success from business success, and explains how governance should connect the two, demonstrates the course's second learning outcome directly. Professional writing and correct APA citations are expected, and a closing question that invites challenge prepares the group for the replies the instructor will grade alongside the thread.

BUSI 682 Week 3 help: mistakes that cost points

Threads on strategic project cases tend to slide into describing what the project built. Give most of the thread to the reason the project existed and whether that reason was met. Look in the case for the moment the strategy changed, and ask who knew and what they did. Separate the project manager's responsibilities from the steering committee's, since much strategic failure sits above the project. Use sources on project strategy or decision making rather than general strategy texts. If you recommend stage gates or benefit reviews, say who would hold them and when. Remember the Monday reservation, since Part 1 is how the group avoids two threads on the same case.

Related BUSI 682 sample papers

Other BUSI 682 weeks

More MBA sample papers

BUSI 682 Week 3 questions, answered

What is BUSI 682 Group Discussion Board Forum 2?

The second case-based forum: a case reserved Monday of Module/Week 3, a thread posted that Friday and two or more replies by Friday of Module/Week 4, graded at 50 points after the replies.

Where can I find a free BUSI 682 Week 3 sample paper?

Read the full BUSI 682 Week 3 thread here; it examines a cross-border plant that was finished on time and under budget but lost its strategic purpose during construction.

What is strategic project management?

An approach that judges projects by the business results they were started to create, such as competitive advantage, and that keeps project decisions aligned with organizational strategy throughout, not only at approval.

What is escalation of commitment in projects?

The pull to keep funding a failing plan because of the money and effort already sunk into it, even after new facts have removed the original case for it.

What else is due in BUSI 682 Module/Week 3?

Only chapter 3 of the textbook and the first two parts of Forum 2; the module/week has no quiz or exam, which arrive with the bibliography in Module/Week 4.

Use it as a model, or ask for your own

This paper is an original model written by our desk for study. It is not a submitted student paper and not an official Liberty University document. Read it for structure and reasoning, then write your own to the instructions in your Canvas course. If you want a version built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.

Ask for a custom BUSI 682 Week 3 sample · All BUSI 682 weeks · All courses