WMBA 6623 Week 2 Project Risk Identification Table Example

Course	WMBA 6623 Enterprise and Project Risk Management
Week	Week 2
Paper type	Risk identification
Length	About 920 words, 6 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	Master of Business Administration (MBA)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for WMBA 6623 Week 2

Twenty Risks to a Loan Servicing Consolidation, Each Written as Cause, Event and Effect, Grouped Into Five Categories and Traced to Its Source, With No Scores Yet

Student Name

Walden University

WMBA 6623: Enterprise and Project Risk Management

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title counts the risks and states the format and the deliberate absence of scores, the three features this week grades.

Twenty Risks to a Loan Servicing Consolidation, Each Written as Cause, Event and Effect, Grouped Into Five Categories and Traced to Its Source, With No Scores Yet

The Project and How Risks Were Found

Lakeshore Community Bank, a composite western Michigan lender with about $3.2 billion in assets, is consolidating loan servicing from offices in Traverse City, Muskegon and Kalamazoo so that all servicing happens at a single Grand Rapids site. The work is scheduled over fourteen months, from April 2026 to June 2027, with a budget of $4.8 million. It moves about 41,000 mortgage accounts and 6,500 consumer and commercial loans, 63 servicing staff positions and the payment, escrow, collections and investor reporting work those staff perform.

Risks were identified from five sources: interviews with the three office managers and eight senior servicing staff; the lessons-learned file from the bank's 2019 acquisition of a smaller bank, which included a servicing conversion; the most recent regulatory examination report; the vendor contracts for the core system and the payment processor; and a two-hour risk session in which the project team worked through the draft list. Every entry separates a known cause, an uncertain event and its effect, the three-part phrasing the PMBOK Guide calls risk metalanguage (Project Management Institute, 2017), so that the known condition, the uncertain event and its consequence stay separate. Rows are numbered so later assignments can refer to them.

Hillson (2003) recommended grouping risks in a risk breakdown structure by source, which shows where risks cluster and which areas may be underexplored. The five categories here, technical, vendor, regulatory, staffing and change adoption, serve that purpose. Staffing and regulatory risks dominate, the regulatory ones driven largely by federal mortgage servicing rules (12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.30-1024.41), which matches the 2019 lessons-learned file: that conversion's problems came from people and compliance, not from the software.

No likelihood or impact scores appear yet. Scoring at this stage tends to anchor the team on early guesses, and the next assignment will score these risks against defined scales.

What this page is doingThe narrative is short, because the table is the point of the week.

Risk Identification Table

Table 1

Identified Risks, Loan Servicing Consolidation

No.	Cause	Event	Effect	Category	Source \|
R01	Three offices configure escrow, late-fee and payment rules differently in the core system	Local settings are missed in the consolidated configuration	Incorrect fees or payment amounts after cutover	Technical	Workshop \|
R02	Escrow reconciliation relies on one analyst's spreadsheets	The first consolidated escrow analysis runs without her knowledge	Incorrect escrow adjustments on thousands of accounts	Staffing	Interviews \|
R03	Two of three office managers will not relocate	Supervisory knowledge leaves before the new center is stable	Slow problem resolution in the first months	Staffing	Interviews \|
R04	Grand Rapids labor market for servicing staff is tight	The center cannot fill 20 new positions by cutover	Backlogs in payment processing and customer calls	Staffing	Human resources \|
R05	Departing staff have little reason to stay through closure	Key staff leave before their office closes	Gaps in coverage during transition	Staffing	2019 lessons file \|
R06	Payment processor contract requires 90 days' notice for routing changes	Notice is given late	Borrower payments misrouted after cutover	Vendor	Vendor contract \|
R07	Core system vendor's conversion team is shared with other clients	Vendor resources are unavailable on planned dates	Testing and cutover slip	Vendor	Vendor contract \|
R08	Lockbox vendor charges for address changes per account	Change costs exceed estimate	Budget overrun	Vendor	Vendor contract \|
R09	Federal servicing rules require notice of servicing changes to borrowers	Notices are late or incomplete	Regulatory violation and borrower confusion	Regulatory	Examination report \|
R10	Annual escrow analysis falls in the cutover quarter for 9,000 accounts	Analyses are late or wrong	Regulatory findings and refunds	Regulatory	Workshop \|
R11	Loss mitigation cases are mid-review at closing offices	Files are lost or deadlines missed in transfer	Violations of loss mitigation timelines and borrower harm	Regulatory	Examination report \|
R12	Investor reporting to two secondary market agencies follows strict calendars	Reports are late during transition	Fees and loss of servicing standing	Regulatory	Workshop \|
R13	Historical documents are stored on paper in three offices	Documents are lost or misfiled in the move	Inability to support collection or foreclosure actions	Technical	2019 lessons file \|
R14	Data from three offices uses different codes for the same loan conditions	Conversion maps codes incorrectly	Wrong collection actions on some accounts	Technical	Workshop \|
R15	The new center's telephone system is new to staff	Call routing fails at cutover	Long hold times and complaints	Technical	Workshop \|
R16	Borrowers in small towns value the local office	Many borrowers react negatively to the change	Complaints and loss of relationships	Change adoption	Interviews \|
R17	Branch staff will field servicing questions without training	Branches give wrong answers	Borrower frustration and repeat calls	Change adoption	Interviews \|
R18	Remaining staff fear job losses	Productivity falls during transition	Backlogs before cutover	Change adoption	Interviews \|
R19	Project team members also hold full-time roles	Project tasks slip behind daily work	Schedule delays	Staffing	Workshop \|
R20	Grand Rapids lease buildout depends on a landlord's contractor	Buildout finishes late	Delayed move and extra costs	Vendor	Lease agreement \|

The bank and figures are composite; risks will be scored and assigned owners in the risk register.

What Comes Next

The register will add owners, scores and responses. Two gaps are worth noting now. Few technology security risks appear, because the core system is not changing; the security team will review the list. And the table holds only threats; opportunities, such as standardizing collection practices across offices, will be added in the register.

What this page is doingNaming the gaps in the list is as useful as the list, because unlisted risks cannot be owned.

References

Hillson, D. (2003). Using a risk breakdown structure in project management. Journal of Facilities Management, 2(1), 85-97. https://doi.org/10.1108/14725960410808131

Mortgage servicing, 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.30-1024.41 (2024).

Project Management Institute. (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (6th ed.).

What the WMBA 6623 Week 2 instructions ask for

Week 2 has students list what could go wrong on a project and lay those risks out in tabular form. Instructors expect about half a page of narrative describing the project and how risks were found, followed by a table that carries most of the work. Columns usually read cause, event, effect, category and source, and the table typically holds eighteen to thirty numbered rows spread across several categories. Scores should not appear yet; assigning likelihood at this stage anchors the team on guesses. Strong submissions name their sources, explain their categories and note gaps the list may have. Each row should be specific enough that a later reader could tell whether the risk occurred. Sources matter because they show the list rests on more than one person's view.

How this WMBA 6623 Week 2 example is built

The narrative describes the bank's consolidation, its scale and budget, the five identification sources and the use of risk metalanguage from the PMBOK Guide. A paragraph cites Hillson on organizing risks by category, notes the regulatory risks driven by servicing rules and observes that staffing and regulatory risks dominate. A sentence explains why scores are withheld. The table lists twenty numbered risks with cause, event, effect, category and source, from configuration differences and the escrow analyst to borrower reaction and a late buildout. A closing section names two gaps, security risks and opportunities, for the register to address. Margin comments flag the narrative and the gaps. Every row keeps its number for use in later weeks.

Where the marks sit in the WMBA 6623 Week 2 rubric

Graders reward a table of risks written consistently as cause, event and effect, numbered for later reference and traced to sources. Spreading risks across meaningful categories shows breadth. A brief narrative explaining the identification method demonstrates rigor. Withholding scores at this stage, with a reason, shows understanding of the process. Naming gaps in the list shows critical thinking. Risks phrased so that an owner could be assigned to each one without further discussion mark the top band. Tables that consistently use the same cause, event and effect structure across every row earn the strongest marks. Noting which sources produced which risks also helps reviewers judge coverage.

WMBA 6623 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost marks

Gather risks from several sources: people who know the work, past project files, audit or examination reports and contracts. Write each as because of a cause, an event may occur, leading to an effect. Number them and group them into categories. Check which categories are thin and ask whether risks are missing there. Students often lose marks by listing vague risks, by adding scores too early or by omitting sources. Another frequent gap is a list with no opportunities. Note what the next stage will add. If you would like a custom sample risk identification table for your project, send us its scope and stakeholders.

Get a WMBA 6623 Week 2 example written to your instructions

The desk needs the Week 2 prompt, the rubric your section posted, and the name of the initiative you want the sweep run over. What comes back is an identification pass built on that project, with the three columns kept apart the way the assignment wants. Nothing is charged for a first sample, and it lands within 24-48 hours.

More WMBA 6623 papers and MBA samples

WMBA 6623 Week 2 questions, answered

Where can I find a free WMBA 6623 Week 2 sample paper?

The twenty-row risk identification table for a loan servicing consolidation is published here.

How are the risks written?

As cause, event and effect, each numbered and traced to a source.

Which categories are used?

Technical, vendor, regulatory, staffing and change adoption.

Why are there no scores?

Scoring at identification tends to anchor the team on early guesses.

What gaps does the paper note?

Few security risks and no opportunities, both to be added in the register.