University of Salford – LOG704 Project Management
Assessment Brief: Supply Chain Resilience and Risk Management in Complex Projects

This assessment requires you to produce a 3,000-word individual project risk management report for a complex infrastructure project of your choice. You will develop a comprehensive risk register, apply both qualitative and quantitative risk analysis techniques, and propose a structured mitigation strategy aligned with PMBOK and PRINCE2 frameworks. The report carries 60% of the module mark and is assessed on the rigour of your risk identification, the depth of your analysis, and the practicality of your mitigation recommendations. Submit via the University of Salford’s Canvas portal by 23:59 on Friday 15 May 2026.

Module and Assessment Details

Module code: LOG704
Module title: Project Management
Assessment type: Individual written report
Weighting: 60% of total module mark
Word count: 3,000 words (+/- 10%, excluding reference list, appendices, and risk register tables)
Submission deadline: Friday 15 May 2026, 23:59 (UK time)
Submission method: Canvas assignment portal (Turnitin-enabled)
Referencing style: Harvard (University of Salford standard)
Module leader: Dr James Whitfield

Context

The University of Salford’s LOG704 module in Project Management equips postgraduate students with the analytical and practical skills to manage complex projects across construction, engineering, and technology sectors. The module sits within the Salford Business School’s broader commitment to industry-informed teaching and aligns with the Association for Project Management’s (APM) Body of Knowledge. This assessment builds directly on the weekly seminar work covering risk management frameworks, the PMBOK Guide’s risk management processes, and the PRINCE2 risk theme. It also connects to the formative risk workshop run in Week 6, where you practised constructing a risk breakdown structure for a simulated infrastructure project. The skills developed in this assessment are directly transferable to roles in project management, risk analysis, and operations consultancy.

Task Description

You are a project risk consultant engaged by a client organisation undertaking a complex infrastructure project. Select one project from the following sectors: renewable energy, transport infrastructure, digital transformation, or healthcare facilities. The project must have a defined budget of at least £10 million, a duration of at least 18 months, and multiple stakeholder groups with competing interests. You may choose a real project that has been publicly documented or construct a realistic hypothetical project based on published industry data.

Your task is to produce a formal risk management report addressed to the client’s project board. The report must accomplish four things. First, develop a risk breakdown structure (RBS) that categorises risks across at least four levels, including technical, external, organisational, and project management risk categories. Second, produce a comprehensive risk register containing a minimum of fifteen identified risks, with each risk assessed for probability, impact, and overall risk score using a standard 5×5 probability-impact matrix. Third, conduct a quantitative risk analysis for at least three high-priority risks using either Monte Carlo simulation, decision tree analysis, or expected monetary value (EMV) calculations. Fourth, propose a mitigation strategy for each high-priority risk, specifying the risk response type (avoid, transfer, mitigate, or accept), the responsible owner, and the expected residual risk level after mitigation.

The report must follow a professional consultancy structure: executive summary, introduction, risk management methodology, risk identification and RBS, qualitative risk analysis, quantitative risk analysis, mitigation strategies, and reference list. The risk register and any supporting calculations should be included as appendices and do not count towards the word count.

Assessment Requirements

Use at least ten academic or professional sources, including a minimum of five peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2020 and 2026.
Apply the PMBOK Guide’s risk management processes and reference the PRINCE2 risk theme where relevant.
Include a completed risk register within the appendices, with clear risk IDs, descriptions, categories, probability ratings, impact ratings, risk scores, response strategies, and owners.
Conduct quantitative analysis for at least three risks, showing all calculations and assumptions.
Cite all sources using the Harvard referencing system. In-text citations must include page numbers where you quote directly.
Write in formal academic English. Avoid first-person pronouns except in the executive summary, where “this report” or “the analysis” is preferred.
Submit as a single Word document (.docx). Font: Calibri or Arial, size 12. Line spacing: 1.5. Margins: 2.54 cm.
The executive summary must not exceed 250 words and does not count towards the word limit.

Marking Rubric

Criteria	Weight	Distinction (70–100)	Merit (60–69)	Pass (40–59)	Fail (0–39)
Risk identification and RBS	25%	RBS demonstrates sophisticated categorisation across four or more levels; risk register contains well-defined, context-specific risks with clear ownership and interdependencies.	RBS is well-structured; risk register contains relevant risks with adequate definition and categorisation.	RBS is present but lacks depth; risk register contains basic risks with limited contextual relevance.	RBS is absent or poorly structured; risk register is incomplete or contains irrelevant risks.
Qualitative and quantitative analysis	30%	Qualitative analysis demonstrates nuanced probability and impact assessment; quantitative analysis uses appropriate techniques with transparent assumptions and sensitivity analysis.	Analysis is competent; probability and impact ratings are justified; quantitative techniques are applied correctly with minor limitations.	Analysis is basic; ratings are provided but poorly justified; quantitative analysis is attempted but contains errors.	Analysis is absent or incorrect; quantitative techniques are not applied or are fundamentally flawed.
Mitigation strategies and feasibility	25%	Mitigation strategies are specific, actionable, and proportionate; residual risk assessments are realistic; alternative responses are considered and dismissed with justification.	Mitigation strategies are logical and mostly well-justified; residual risk assessments are adequate.	Mitigation strategies are present but generic; residual risk assessments are vague or unrealistic.	Mitigation strategies are absent, vague, or disconnected from the analysis.
Structure, presentation, and academic writing	20%	Report is professionally structured; writing is clear, concise, and error-free; executive summary captures the essential argument and recommendations.	Report is well-structured; writing is clear with minor errors; executive summary is adequate.	Report follows the required structure; writing is comprehensible but contains noticeable errors.	Structure is unclear; writing contains frequent errors that impede understanding.

Sample Answer: Supply Chain Resilience and Risk Management in Complex Projects

Constructing a Risk Breakdown Structure for Infrastructure Projects

A strong response to this brief begins by establishing a clear risk taxonomy that reflects the specific complexities of the chosen project. For a renewable energy infrastructure project, for example, the RBS might categorise risks under technical (turbine reliability, grid connection delays), external (planning permission challenges, supply chain disruption), organisational (funding constraints, stakeholder misalignment), and project management (scope creep, resource shortages) headings. Each category then branches into sub-categories, creating a hierarchical structure that ensures no significant risk domain is overlooked. Research by Rostamkhani and Ramayah (2023) in A Quality Engineering Techniques Approach to Supply Chain Management demonstrates how a structured RBS [improves risk identification completeness by up to 40% compared to unstructured brainstorming approaches](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6236-7), particularly in projects with multiple supplier interfaces and regulatory dependencies. The risk register should then translate each RBS leaf into a specific, measurable risk statement. A weak entry would read “supply chain problems,” while a strong entry would read “delay in delivery of turbine blades exceeding 8 weeks due to port congestion, affecting critical path activities.” The difference between these two formulations is the difference between a pass and a distinction, because the second enables meaningful probability and impact assessment while the first does not.

Quantitative Risk Analysis Techniques for Project Managers

Students often default to qualitative risk matrices alone, which limits the analytical depth of their reports. Quantitative techniques provide the numerical basis for contingency budgeting and schedule reserve allocation, which is precisely what project boards need to make informed decisions. Monte Carlo simulation, for instance, can model the combined effect of multiple uncertain variables on project cost and schedule outcomes, producing probability distributions rather than single-point estimates. A student analysing a digital transformation project might model the uncertainty in software development productivity rates, third-party API delivery dates, and user acceptance testing durations, then run 10,000 iterations to estimate the probability of completing within the baseline budget. Decision tree analysis offers a complementary approach when the project faces discrete decision points with uncertain outcomes, such as whether to procure a customised system or adopt an off-the-shelf solution. Expected monetary value calculations then provide a single risk-adjusted figure that can be compared against the baseline. The key to a distinction-level report is transparency about assumptions; state the basis for each probability distribution, document the data sources, and acknowledge the limitations of the model. Research on supply chain resilience during macroeconomic disruption by Ivanov (2024) in Omega demonstrates how simulation-based approaches [outperform static risk matrices in capturing the ripple effects of interdependent risks](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2024.103081), particularly when supplier networks span multiple geographies and regulatory regimes.

From Mitigation to Monitoring: Sustaining Risk Controls

The mitigation strategy section is where many reports lose marks because students propose generic responses without specifying how the risk will be monitored after the mitigation is implemented. A distinction-level response treats mitigation as a continuous process, not a one-off action. For a high-priority risk such as “delay in planning approval due to local authority resource constraints,” the mitigation might involve early engagement with the planning authority, submission of a pre-application enquiry, and allocation of a contingency budget for legal support. The residual risk assessment would then specify the expected reduction in probability and impact, the trigger conditions that would activate the contingency plan, and the monitoring frequency. This approach aligns with the PMBOK Guide’s emphasis on risk monitoring and controlling as an ongoing process throughout the project lifecycle, as well as PRINCE2’s principle of “manage by exception,” which requires defined tolerances and escalation triggers. The strongest reports also include a risk monitoring schedule or dashboard concept, showing how the risk register will be updated and reviewed at stage gates or monthly project board meetings.

Research, Writing, and Citation Guidance

Why This Matters in Practice

Risk management skills are among the most sought-after competencies in project management recruitment. The UK’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority reported in its 2024 Annual Report that major government projects with mature risk management practices were 23% more likely to deliver within budget and schedule tolerances. Professional bodies including the APM and PMI require demonstrable risk management competence for chartership and certification. The ability to construct a defensible risk register, conduct quantitative analysis, and propose practical mitigation strategies is therefore directly transferable to roles in infrastructure delivery, consultancy, and programme management.

Frequently Asked Question

How many risks should a risk register contain for a 3,000-word project risk management report?

Aim for fifteen to twenty-five risks. Fifteen is the minimum specified in the brief, but a stronger report will typically identify twenty or more, distributed across the RBS categories. The number matters less than the quality of each entry. A register with fifteen well-defined risks, each with clear probability and impact ratings, specific owners, and actionable responses, will score higher than a register with thirty vague or duplicated entries. Prioritise depth over volume. At least three risks should be carried forward into quantitative analysis, and these should be the ones with the highest risk scores and the greatest potential impact on project objectives.

Next Assessment: Week 9 Discussion Post

Module: LOG704 Project Management
Week: 9
Assessment type: Discussion board post and peer responses
Weighting: 10% of total module mark
Initial post deadline: Wednesday of Week 9, 23:59
Peer response deadline: Sunday of Week 9, 23:59

Drawing on your Week 8 seminar on stakeholder engagement and project governance, write an initial discussion post of 300–400 words that addresses the following question: “To what extent should project managers prioritise stakeholder satisfaction over adherence to baseline scope and schedule constraints?” Use one example from a UK or international project to support your argument. Your post must engage with at least one academic source from the module reading list and one contemporary project management case study. After posting, respond to at least two peers with substantive comments of 100–150 words each. Responses must advance the discussion by introducing new evidence, challenging an assumption, or connecting the peer’s argument to a different project management framework. Marks are awarded for the quality of the initial argument, the integration of evidence, and the analytical depth of peer responses.

The post Risk Register and Mitigation Strategy Development appeared first on EssayBishops.

Risk Register and Mitigation Strategy Development

University of Salford – LOG704 Project Management Assessment Brief: Supply Chain Resilience and Risk Management in Complex Projects