Ase study Tetra Tech EC and risk management case

last feedback from last case:
You did a nice job with the case. The elevator pitch should talk more to your primary premise (position) in the analysis and less about the sections that the case will cover.

I liked the way you finished the analysis.

With that said, on question one, whose responsibility is it to ensure that all the staff are ready for the conversion? Later in the analysis you state that it was Youngs responsibility. This analysis should have elaborated on that item further as that was key.

Some questions Id like you to ponder: How many future projects do you think this staff will entrust to Young if she doesnt take proactive responsiblity to resolve all the issues they raised? If Young is not responsible for resolving these project issues, who is?

What should Young have done to encourage and stress the importance of collaboraton and preparedness?
he case analysis was clearly written, however it was very general without detail or more specifc context.

The elevator pitch should grab the readers attention about your primary premise in the analysis. It is not necessary to explain to the reader what the purpose of a case analysis is for example. (-5pts)

The answer to the first analysis question needs to be more specific. Instead of citing poor planning, what specifically was it about the planning that you thought was poor? the estimate? the budget? the resource assignments? Same with ineffective leadership. What was it about DiFonso leadership that was ineffective? did he not make proper decisions as critical times, did he not manage the changes to the project? (-5pts)

Question 2 was answered much better it was very specific to the stakeholders and specifically the airlines.

Question 3 could have been more detailed again Set criterionsis mentioned but not described more fully what criterions are you referring to (specifically)? what was the main criterion to negotiate around? (-5pts)

The recommendation was very general. The article you found was quite interesting. There was more you could have done to pull in valuable points in the article for example tying in a premise in your analysis around the Square Root concept would have been very compelling. As it stands, the way the article was used to tie into the analysis should have been stronger. (-10pts)