Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Active Threat and Opportunity Management Discussion
Please respond to the following:
Compare and contrast the differences in the ATOM methodology for large versus small projects. Analyze the key reasons why it is important to address these differences when preparing the initial project plan.
After posting your response, respond to at least one of your classmates on their suggestions.
Please respond to student’s comment below:
Professor and Fellow Classmates,
Understanding the Active Threat and Opportunity Management (ATOM) allows me to see that it can be adjusted to any size or shape of a project. Each project has its uniqueness and has some form of risk.
The ATOM can be customized to meet particular project requirements; smaller projects can take advantage of a cut-down risk process, while larger ones need a more rigorous approach however, other risk methods, ATOM starts with a project scaling step, categorizing each project as Large, Medium or Small (The ATOM Methodology, 1).
The ATOM methodology is designed to target both upside and downsides of risk. The ATOM Methodology has a clear end-point where other risk processes are presented as never-ending cycles going around forever.
ATOM insists on a post-project risk review when the project completes to identify risk-related lessons to be learned for future projects (The ATOM Methodology, 1). It is essential to address multiple size risk of the project during the initial planning phase to ensure the appropriate infrastructure is developed and managed from beginning to end of the project.
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Active Threat and Opportunity Management Discussion |
Active Threat and Opportunity Management Discussion