QSO 340 Disc:5-1Please read the case scenario (Elite Burger: New Product Launch) included in the Module Five Case Scenario Guidelines and Rubric document.After reading the case scenario, address the f

QSO 340 Module Five Case Scenario Guidelines and Rubric Overview: For this discussion, you will review the short case scenario (Elite Burger: New Product Launch ) and describe some of the risks that may be encountered during the project. In addition, you will discuss some of the mitigation techniques the project m anager could use to minimize those risks. Elite Burger: New Product Launch Case Scenario David Smith, a project manager at Elite Burger, was called into an executive meeting on short notice. During the meeting, the executive team discussed a new burger that will be launched in 6 months called the “Big Time Burger”. Since David has successfully launched other products in the past, he was tasked with being the project manager for this new projec t. After the meeting with executives, David scheduled a meeting with his team to discuss the project. During the meeting, David expressed some of his concerns, such as the fact that upper management has a history of significantly revising the scope at v arious points throughout the project. In addition, the new burger ingredients are rare and in limited supply, which may cause complications. Unfortunately, the meeting had to be cut short and David tasked his team with identifying additional risks that s hould be considered and accounted for. Prompt : After reading the case scenario, address the following:  What are three other risks that the project manager should have identified and planned for? You can draw on the course materi al, your experience, and research to answer this question.  Describe some mitigation techniques that the project manager could use to alleviate those risks. You can draw on the course m aterial, your experience, and research to answer this question. For your response, you can draw o n the course material, your experience, and research. In your response s to your peers, address the following:  Do you agree with their assessme nt of the additional risks the project m anager should identify and account for? Why or why not ?  Summarize how th ese types of risks can be mitigated in your present profession or outside of work. Requirements for Discussion Topic Assignments Students are required to post one (1) initial post and to follow up with at least two (2) response posts for each discussion topic assignment. For your initial post (1), you must do the following:  Compose a post of one to two paragraphs. Complete the initial post by Thursday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.  Take into consideration material such as course content and other discussion topic s from the current module and previous modules, when appropriate  Use proper APA citation methods when referencing scholarly or popular resources. For your response posts (2 ), you must do the following:  Reply to at least two different classmates outside of your own initial post thread. Complete the two response posts by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.  Demonstrate more depth and thought than simply stating that “ I agree” or “You are wrong.” Guidance is provided for you in the prompt above. Rubric Critical Elements Exemplary Proficient Needs Improvement Not Evident Value Risk identification Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides an in -depth, detailed explanation (100%) Develops an initial post that clearly identifies and explains additional risks of the project (85%) Develops an initial post that identifies and explains addition al risks of the project, but response is incomplete or lacking in detail (55%) Does not develop an initial post that identifies and explains additional risks of the project (0%) 25 Mitigation Techniques Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides creative, insightful recommendations (100%) Develops an initial post that effectively explains appropriate mitigation techniques based on identified project risks (85%) Develops an initial post that explains mitigation techniques, but the explanation is superficial or incomplete (55%) Does not develop an initial post that explains appropri ate mitigation techniques based on identified project risks (0%) 25 Feedback on Risk Identification Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides nuanced, detailed feedback (100%) Constructively c riti ques the risks identified in peers’ original post s (85%) Constructively c riti ques the risks identified in peers’ original post s, but response lacks depth or details (55%) Does not constructively crit ique the risks identified in peers’ original post s (0%) 15 Examples of Risk Mitigation Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides rich, detailed, or creative examples (100%) Clearly summarizes in response posts how risks can be mitigated in real -world situations (85%) Summarizes in responses posts how risks can be mitigated in real -world situations, but the summary is i ncomplete or lacks authenticity (55%) Does not summarize in response posts how risks can be mitigated in real -world situations (0%) 15 Timeliness Submits initial post on time (100%) Submits initial post one day late (55%) Submits initial post two or more days late (0%) 10 Articulation of Response Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization (100%) Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization (85%) Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas (55%) Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organiza tion that prevent understanding of ideas (0%) 10 Total 100%