WMBA 6623 Week 7 Risk Response Plan Example

Course	WMBA 6623 Enterprise and Project Risk Management
Week	Week 7
Paper type	Risk response plan
Length	About 800 words, 5 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 7

Response Plan for the Loan Servicing Consolidation: Nine Risks Treated, Each With a Strategy, an Action, a Named Owner, a Trigger, a Deadline, a Cost and a Residual Rating, for $214,000 Against $412,550 of Expected Exposure

Student Name

Walden University

WMBA 6623: Enterprise and Project Risk Management

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title gives the count, the columns and the cost against exposure, because a response plan is judged on whether its spending is worth it.

The Threshold for Treatment

A plan that treats every risk treats none of them well. Covering the composite Lakeshore bank's move to one servicing center, this plan treats every risk with a qualitative score of 10 or more, or a consequence rating of 5, or an expected value above $25,000. Nine risks meet at least one test. The remaining two priced risks, R13 and R20, are accepted with monitoring, because their expected values are small and their existing controls, document imaging and a lease penalty clause, are already in place.

What this page is doingThe rule that decided which risks get a response is stated before the table, so the omissions are deliberate.

The Plan

Table 1

Risk Response Plan

ID	Strategy	Action	Owner	Trigger	Deadline	Cost	Residual L and I \|
R02	Mitigate	Document the escrow spreadsheets and county exceptions; train two analysts who run the November 2026 cycle alongside the current analyst	Dana Whitfield, Mortgage Servicing Manager	Second analyst's error rate above 2% in the parallel cycle	November 30, 2026	$48,000	2 and 4 \|
R04	Mitigate	Begin recruiting in October 2026; offer relocation to Muskegon staff; hold an agency contract in reserve	Luis Ortega, Human Resources Director	Fewer than 14 of 20 positions filled by March 1, 2027	March 1, 2027	$36,000	2 and 4 \|
R10	Avoid	Run the 9,000 cutover-quarter escrow analyses in February, before data moves	Grace Lin, Escrow Operations Supervisor	Any analysis not completed by February 28	February 28, 2027	$12,000	1 and 5 \|
R11	Mitigate	Leave open loss mitigation cases with the staff already handling them until a decision is made; move only closed files	Ray Mensah, Default Servicing Manager	Any active case older than 30 days at an office scheduled to close	Ongoing to June 2027	$22,000	1 and 5 \|
R01	Mitigate	Inventory all local settings; run two parallel billing cycles	Priya Shah, Core Systems Manager	More than 10 billing differences per 1,000 accounts in a parallel cycle	April 2027	$30,000	1 and 4 \|
R05	Mitigate	Stay bonuses for 14 named roles, paid at office closure	Luis Ortega, Human Resources Director	A named role resigns before closure	Agreements signed by January 2027	$42,000	2 and 3 \|
R07	Transfer	Contract amendment naming a dedicated vendor team, with a $5,000-a-week delay credit	Ellen Brooks, Project Manager	Vendor misses a named milestone	December 2026	$8,000 in legal review	2 and 3 \|
R06	Avoid	Give the payment processor routing notice now	Sam Okafor, Treasury Operations Manager	Notice not acknowledged within 10 days	October 2026	$0	1 and 5 \|
R09	Mitigate	Compliance review of borrower notices; mailing schedule checked against regulatory deadlines	Teresa Vance, Compliance Officer	Any notice draft not approved 75 days before transfer	March 2027	$16,000	1 and 5 \|

Names are invented for the composite case; costs are in addition to the project's base budget.

Is the Spending Worth It

The nine responses cost about $214,000. Before treatment, the same nine risks carried roughly $650,000 of expected value under the probabilities the team assigned before responses were designed; the $412,550 in the quantitative analysis already assumed these responses. The plan therefore buys a reduction of about $240,000 in expected cost for $214,000, a modest gain on average. Its real value lies in the tails: it cuts the chance of the most damaging outcomes, an escrow failure on thousands of accounts or a regulatory violation on loss mitigation, which would cost far more than their expected values suggest. Hillson (2002) set the four threat strategies, avoid, transfer, mitigate and accept, beside matching strategies for opportunities, and this plan uses all four threat strategies.

Two responses are notably cheap for what they buy. Giving the payment processor notice now, R06, costs nothing and removes a risk with a $300,000 consequence. Running the cutover-quarter escrow analyses early, R10, costs $12,000 and moves a regulatory risk almost out of reach.

What this page is doingEach response is weighed against the exposure it reduces, which is the question a sponsor will ask.

Secondary Risks

A response can itself introduce a new risk, a point ISO 31000 makes explicitly about risk treatment (International Organization for Standardization, 2018). Training two analysts on the escrow process in November adds work in a month when the Traverse City office is already short-staffed. Stay bonuses may cause resentment among staff not offered them. The vendor delay credit may make the vendor less flexible in other areas. Each secondary risk has been added to the register with the same owner as its parent.

Monitoring

Owners report on their triggers at each biweekly steering meeting. A trigger that fires moves the risk to the meeting's first agenda item. The PMBOK Guide recommends that risk responses be monitored for effectiveness, not only completion (Project Management Institute, 2017), so each owner will report whether the residual rating still holds.

References

Hillson, D. (2002). Extending the risk process to manage opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 235-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00074-6

International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Risk management: Guidelines (ISO Standard No. 31000:2018).

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

Reading the WMBA 6623 Week 7 instructions

The response plan assignment asks students to decide how to treat their most important risks. Instructors expect a planning table with one row per treated risk, typically eight to twelve rows, with columns for the register number, the chosen strategy, the specific action, the owner by name and role, the trigger, the deadline, the estimated cost and the residual likelihood and impact. Above the table, a short paragraph states the threshold that decided which risks were treated. Below it, discussion of cost against benefit, secondary risks and monitoring completes the plan. Triggers should be events someone could observe, so the owner knows when a response is failing. Costs should be stated in dollars and added to the project's budget.

Inside the WMBA 6623 Week 7 example

The plan states its treatment threshold and explains why two priced risks are accepted. A table lists nine responses, using all four threat strategies, with owners, triggers, deadlines, costs and residual ratings. A section compares the $214,000 cost with the reduction in expected exposure and argues that the real value lies in cutting severe outcomes, citing Hillson. It highlights two inexpensive responses. A section names secondary risks created by responses, citing ISO 31000, and adds them to the register. A monitoring section, citing the PMBOK Guide, sets reporting at steering meetings. Margin comments flag the threshold and the cost-benefit discussion. Each owner is named with a role so accountability is personal.

WMBA 6623 Week 7 rubric: what earns full marks

Graders reward a plan with a clear threshold for treatment and specific, owned actions with triggers and deadlines. Using response strategies correctly, and matching them to the risk, shows understanding. Costing responses and comparing them with the exposure reduced demonstrates judgment. Identifying secondary risks shows depth. A monitoring approach that checks effectiveness, not just completion, adds rigor. Responses that name a secondary risk created by the response itself show the depth this week rewards. Plans that compare total response cost with the reduction in exposure, and explain the value of cutting severe outcomes, show the strongest judgment. Responses should be proportionate, with spending concentrated on the risks that matter most to the project's objectives.

Common WMBA 6623 Week 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Decide first which risks deserve a response and state the rule. For each, choose avoid, transfer, mitigate or accept, and write an action specific enough to schedule. Name one owner, a trigger that would show the response failing and a deadline. Estimate the cost and the new rating. Then ask whether the total spending is worth what it reduces. Students often lose marks by treating every risk, by writing actions such as monitor or by omitting costs. Another frequent gap is ignoring new risks the responses create. If you would like a custom sample risk response plan for your project, send us your priced risks.

Get a WMBA 6623 Week 7 example written to your instructions

Attach the Week 7 prompt and rubric, plus the register you built earlier if your section carries the project forward, and a response plan comes back with strategies argued rather than assumed. Owners, triggers, costs and residual ratings are all filled in. The first one is free and arrives within 24-48 hours.

More WMBA 6623 papers and MBA samples

WMBA 6623 Week 7 questions, answered

Where can I find a free WMBA 6623 Week 7 sample paper?

The risk response plan for a bank's servicing consolidation is published in full here.

Which risks are treated?

Nine that score 10 or more, have a consequence of 5 or exceed $25,000 in expected value.

What do the responses cost?

About $214,000 in total.

Which responses are cheapest for their value?

Giving the payment processor notice now and running cutover-quarter escrow analyses early.

What secondary risks are noted?

Extra workload from training, resentment over stay bonuses and a less flexible vendor.