BUS 377 Assignment 2: Escend Technologies

Assignment 2: Escend Technologies

Due Week 4 and worth 150 points

PLEASE FOLLOW ALL INSTRUCTIONS BELOW.

Review your readings and discussions on the company Escend Technologies described in Chapter 5. These resources will help you complete this assignment. I HAVE ATTACHED A COPY OF BOTH OF THE POWER POINTS BELOW. IT WILL HELP YOU COMPLETE THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLEASE NO PLAGIARISM THEY ARE LOOKING FOR IT!!! MAKE SURE YOU LOOK AT THE GRADING CRITERIA WHICH I HAVE INCLUDED AT THE BOTTOM.

Write a two to three (2-3) page paper in which you:

1. Examine the risks and explain how they were managed.
2. Compare the double-loop learning with that of Escend Technologies, using the project from Week 1, Discussion 1.
3. Recommend at least three (3) lessons learned for a project manager to know for future projects.
4. Use at least two (2) quality resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar Websites do not qualify as quality resources.

Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:

• Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
• Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:

• Evaluate the types of learning in projects.
• Use technology and information resources to research issues in managing project risk.
• Write clearly and concisely about managing project risk using proper writing mechanics.

Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic / organization of the paper, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric.

Points: 150

Assignment 2: Escend Technologies

Criteria

1.Examine the risks and explain how they were managed.

Weight: 25%

Did not submit or incompletely examined the risks and did not submit or incompletely explained how they were managed.

Insufficiently examined the risks and insufficiently explain how they were managed.

Partially examined the risks and partially explained how they were managed.

Satisfactorily examined the risks and satisfactorily explained how they were managed.

Thoroughly examined the risks and thoroughly explained how they were managed.

2.Compare the double-loop learning with that of Escend Technologies, using the project from Week 1, Discussion 1.

Weight: 30%

Did not submit or incompletely compared the double-loop learning with that of Escend Technologies, using the project from Week 1, Discussion 1.

Insufficiently compared the double-loop learning with that of Escend Technologies, using the project from Week 1, Discussion 1.

Partially compared the double-loop learning with that of Escend Technologies, using the project from Week 1, Discussion 1.

Satisfactorily compared the double-loop learning with that of Escend Technologies, using the project from Week 1, Discussion 1.

Thoroughly compared the double-loop learning with that of Escend Technologies, using the project from Week 1, Discussion 1.

3. Recommend at least three (3) lessons learned for a project manager to know for future projects.

Weight: 30%

Did not submit or incompletely recommended at least three (3) lessons learned for a project manager to know for future projects.

Insufficiently recommended at least three (3) lessons learned for a project manager to know for future projects.

Partially recommended at least three (3) lessons learned for a project manager to know for future projects.

Satisfactorily recommended at least three (3) lessons learned for a project manager to know for future projects.

Thoroughly recommended at least three (3) lessons learned for a project manager to know for future projects.

4. 2 references

Weight: 5%

No references provided

Does not meet the required number of references; all references poor quality choices.

Does not meet the required number of references; some references poor quality choices.

Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices.

Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices.

5. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements