| Course | PM 587 Project Risk Management and Quality Assurance (PM/587) |
|---|---|
| Week | 1 |
| Paper type | Graduate risk identification paper |
| Length | about 1,218 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PM 587 Week 1
Before the First Panel Leaves the Autoclave: Identifying the Risks in a Composite Part Launch for a New Business Jet
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
PM/587: Project Risk Management and Quality Assurance
Week 1 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Plainsview Aerostructures, its customer program, people and figures are composites written for a model paper.
Plainsview Aerostructures is a composite supplier in Wichita, Kansas, employing about 640 people and producing metal and composite parts for business and regional aircraft. It has won a contract from a business jet maker to produce a family of 22 carbon-fiber access panels and fairings for a new midsize jet. The contract is worth about $48 million over its first five years, and the first shipset is due in 14 months, after the parts pass first article inspection under the aerospace industry's standard for verifying that a production process yields conforming parts. Plainsview has made similar panels before but never this many new part numbers at once, and the jet maker is still finalizing some interfaces. The launch project, managed by Andre Whitlock, must design and build tooling, qualify processes, train technicians, pass inspection and reach a production rate of four shipsets a month. This paper identifies the project's risks.
Risk Relative to Objectives
The current standard treats a risk as something uncertain that would push at least one project objective up or down should it happen (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2021). Identification therefore starts from objectives. Plainsview's are: pass first article inspection on all 22 parts by month 13; deliver the first shipset by month 14; reach four shipsets a month by month 20; keep launch cost within $6.2 million; and achieve a first-pass yield of at least 92 percent by month 20. A risk is anything uncertain that could move one of these.
Why Identification Deserves Effort
De Bakker et al. (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of empirical studies on risk management in information technology projects and found that evidence for its contribution to success was mixed when risk management was treated as a purely analytical exercise, but that activities such as identification could contribute by creating shared awareness and influencing stakeholders' behavior. For Plainsview, that suggests identification should involve the people who will act on the risks, not just a planner with a template.
A Risk Breakdown Structure
The team organized identification with a risk breakdown structure of six categories: technical (design, tooling, materials and processes), supply (material and component suppliers), customer (design changes, schedule, requirements), capacity (autoclave, clean room, inspection equipment), people (skills, staffing) and organizational (priorities, funding, other programs). Each category was used as a prompt in every technique below, so that familiar technical risks did not crowd out the others.
Interviews
Whitlock interviewed seven people for 45 minutes each. The tooling engineer worried that two large fairing tools, cut in invar for dimensional stability, had a 22-week lead time from the only qualified tool builder with capacity. The quality manager noted that first article inspection of 22 parts would occupy the coordinate measuring machine for about six weeks. The buyer pointed out that the specified carbon-fiber prepreg came from a single qualified supplier, whose last allocation notice had cut deliveries by 15 percent for a quarter. The autoclave supervisor reported that the large autoclave already ran at about 85 percent utilization.
Assumptions Analysis
The bid rested on assumptions that the team listed and challenged. It assumed the customer would release final drawings by month 2; the customer's own schedule showed month 4 for six parts. It assumed technicians could be hired at the current wage; the local market has been tight since two larger manufacturers expanded. It assumed a 92 percent first-pass yield by month 20, based on a previous program with simpler shapes. Each doubtful assumption became a risk.
Every assumption in the bid is a risk that someone has already decided not to worry about.
A Pre-Mortem
Klein's pre-mortem asks a team to imagine the project has already failed and explain why. Whitlock gathered twelve people and asked them to write, silently, the reasons the launch had failed by month 20. The exercise surfaced risks the interviews had not: a production planner wrote that an existing military program would win any fight over autoclave time; a technician wrote that the new parts' ply layups were long enough to exceed the out-time limit of the prepreg if the clean room was crowded; a quality engineer wrote that the customer's source inspector might reject the inspection reports' format.
Writing Risks Well
Each risk was written in cause, event and effect form. Examples:
Because six part drawings are scheduled for release in month 4 rather than month 2, tool design for those parts may start late, which would delay their first article inspection past month 13.
Because prepreg comes from one qualified supplier with a history of allocation, a supply cut may occur during the launch, which would stop layup and delay the first shipset.
Because the large autoclave is near capacity and shared with a military program, cure slots for qualification panels may be unavailable, delaying process qualification.
Because the new layups are long, prepreg may exceed its out-time before cure, causing scrap and lower yield.
Checking the List Against a Category Prompt
After the three techniques, the team checked the draft register against the risk breakdown structure. The supply and capacity categories were full; the people and organizational categories were thin. A second short session focused only on those two produced four more risks: the loss of the only engineer certified to program the automated ply cutter; a competing internal program requesting the same inspection technicians in month 12; a planned change in the company's enterprise system during month 9; and the general manager's expected retirement, which could change priorities. Using the categories as a checklist after open techniques kept the register from reflecting only what people happened to think about first.
Opportunities
Three opportunities were identified: the supplier's newer out-of-autoclave material, if qualified by the customer, could relieve autoclave capacity; automated ply cutting could cut layup time and errors; and early completion of the military program's current lot could free autoclave time in months 8 to 10.
The Register
The register holds 30 risks and 3 opportunities, each with category, statement, owner, initial trigger and a placeholder for analysis in Week 2. Owners are the people closest to each risk: the buyer for supply, the tooling engineer for tools, the autoclave supervisor for capacity and the program manager for customer risks.
Risks People Do Not Want to Mention
Kutsch and Hall (2010) studied information technology projects and found that project managers sometimes deliberately ignored certain risks, for example because addressing them was seen as too costly or politically awkward, a behavior they called deliberate ignorance. Some of Plainsview's risks were uncomfortable: the bid's yield assumption came from the sales team, and the autoclave conflict involved a more senior program manager. The anonymous pre-mortem and Whitlock's rule that every written risk would be entered without attribution helped bring these forward. The general manager endorsed the register in a staff meeting, signaling that naming a risk was welcome.
Conclusion
Identifying risk for Plainsview's panel launch started from objectives and used a risk breakdown structure, interviews, assumptions analysis and a pre-mortem, each finding risks the others missed. Thirty risks and three opportunities, written in cause, event and effect form with owners, give the team a register ready for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Encouraging people to name uncomfortable risks was as important as any technique.
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
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.). Project Management Institute.
What the PM 587 Week 1 instructions ask
The first PM 587 assignment usually asks graduate students to identify risks for a project and explain the identification process. Prompts may ask for project context and objectives, identification techniques such as brainstorming, interviews, checklists, assumptions and constraints analysis, root cause analysis, a risk breakdown structure or a pre-mortem, a risk register with well-formed risk statements, owners and categories and attention to both threats and opportunities. Some versions ask students to discuss barriers to identifying risks. Use a realistic project, show the outputs of each technique and cite risk management studies from peer-reviewed journals in APA style.
How this PM 587 Week 1 example is built
Our model treats a composite panel launch as a project full of uncertainty: new tooling, a customer still finishing its own design, a single source for the carbon-fiber material and an autoclave already near capacity. It starts from objectives, since a risk only matters relative to what the project must achieve. A risk breakdown structure organizes categories, from technical and supply to customer and organizational. Interviews with the tooling engineer, quality manager and buyer, an assumptions analysis of the bid and a pre-mortem with the launch team each surface different risks. Thirty risks are written in cause, event and effect form and entered in a register with owners. Three opportunities are included, and a section on deliberate ignorance explains how the team encouraged people to name uncomfortable risks.
PM 587 Week 1 grading rubric: where the points go
Graduate graders assess whether identification was thorough and well documented. Strong papers tie risks to project objectives, use more than one identification technique with a reason for each and present risks as structured statements rather than vague worries. Credit goes to a register with categories, owners and initial triggers, to the inclusion of opportunities and to awareness of the behavioral and organizational barriers that hide risks. Research on risk management practice and its link to project success strengthens the analysis. Clear organization, a readable register excerpt and APA citations without errors earn the remaining marks. Graders also notice when the risks are specific to the project rather than copied from a generic list.
PM 587 Week 1 help: mistakes to avoid
Generic risks, such as schedule delay or budget overrun, are outcomes rather than risks. Name the uncertain event and its cause: a late customer drawing release could delay tool design, delaying first article inspection. Another common gap is relying on one brainstorming session, which tends to surface the same familiar risks. Combine techniques. Students also forget opportunities, which the standard treats as part of risk management. Include a few. Some registers lack owners, so nobody acts. Assign each risk to a person. Finally, think about why people might not mention some risks, such as those that reflect badly on the sales team's bid, and how you would draw them out. A tutor can help you rewrite vague risks as structured statements.
Related PM 587 sample papers
Other PM 587 week samples
- PM 587 Week 2: Qualitative Risk Analysis
- PM 587 Week 3: Quantitative Risk Analysis
- PM 587 Week 4: Planning Risk Responses
- PM 587 Week 5: Complexity and Quality Assurance
- PM 587 Week 6: Benefits Realization
More MBA sample papers
- MKT 574 Week 1: Marketing Strategy and Customer Value
- PM 570 Week 1: Leading the Project Team
- PM 583 Week 1: Governance Principles
- PM 585 Week 1: Requirements and Scope
PM 587 Week 1 questions, answered
What does PM 587 Week 1 usually cover?
It usually covers identifying project risks: techniques such as interviews, assumptions analysis, checklists and pre-mortems, risk breakdown structures, well-formed risk statements, opportunities and the risk register.
Where can I find a free PM 587 Week 1 sample paper?
The Week 1 paper above identifies threats and opportunities for a composite aircraft part launch using several techniques and a risk register, free to read.
How do you write a good risk statement?
Describe the cause, the uncertain event and the effect on objectives, for example: because the material has one supplier, a supply interruption may occur, which would delay first deliveries.
What is a pre-mortem?
A technique in which the team imagines that the project has failed and works backward to explain why, which helps people name risks they might otherwise keep to themselves.
Can risks be positive?
Yes. Opportunities are uncertain events that would benefit the project if they occurred, such as a faster curing cycle, and they should be identified and managed alongside threats.
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 University of Phoenix 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.
Request this one custom, free · All PM 587 week samples · All courses