Hampden Bridge
Words: 750
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
PICX2013 Crisis Management and Disaster Relief
Just from $13/Page
Weighting: 20%
Dear All, this assessment task has 2 parts and is a hypothetical exercise.
Part 1
Use the Risk Management Matrix (pdf attached) to help you assess a risk posed to The Hampden Bridge (pdf attached, Kangaroo Valley, NSW) from 1 type of emergency/ disaster. You can focus on any type of human induced emergency /disaster or any type of environmentally induced emergency/disaster. However, you are NOT to use a terrorist attack as an example of a human induced emergency/disaster.
Advice
You do not have to include the image of the Risk Management Matrix with the relevant rating highlighted. You can if you wish but you are not obliged to. Part 1 does NOT form part of your 750 words. The 750 words are only relevant to
Part 2
.
Part 2
Draw upon the academic literature to evaluate the following:
1. How was completing the Risk Management Matrix helpful in evaluating the risk faced by the Hampden Bridge?
2. What are the limitations of using a Risk Management Matrix?
This part of the assignment is to be written in essay style. Remember, it is only 750 so be concise. References in support of what you are saying in your paper do NOT make up part of the 750 words.
A simple example of a format & response
Part 1 – Emergency/disaster
(Put in your example)
Risk Management Matrix Determination
Overall the risk is HIGH RISK. This is based on the likelihood of the hazard happening a 3, and a severity rating of 4. (Or whatever determination you arrived at from your example)
Part 2
Completing the Risk Management Matrix was helpful in evaluating the risk faced by the Hampden Bridge becasue blah, blah, blah (this is the essay part answering the two questions)
RiskManagement Matrix
Assessment 1 – Risk Exercise
by Rifat Mahmud
Submission date: 0
5
-Apr-
2
020 02:35PM (UTC+1000)
Submission ID: 12
8
9827768
File name: 307303_Rifat_Mahmud_Assessment_1_-_Risk_Exercise_5556225_1122898366 x (25.87K)
Word count: 79
6
Character count: 4140
1
Economy of
words
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
QM
FINAL GRADE
9/20
Assessment 1 – Risk Exercise
GRADEMARK REPORT
GENERAL COMMENTS
Instructor
Rifat. See my comments on your paper for more
specific feedback. In essence you had far to much
focus on part 1 and it came at the expense of part 2.
What you had in part 2 was good but it also needed a
more academic support. Only having 1 academic
source really restricted you in exploring other issues
such as ISO, Qualitative or quantitatively information,
human error and ambiguous inputs and outputs such
as severity of risks can be subjective resulting in
different interpretations. I didnt take any marks off for
the risk rating.
Please do not take my comments as destructive but
constructive. Im here to make you a better writer and
critical thinker. My comments are in no way intended to
be malicious or hurtful.
Kind regards Vince
PAGE 1
PAGE 2
Comment 1
R, I totally agree with all of this but, its not relevant. Interesting, but not relevant. Get to the point.
You only have 750- words. Think economy of words.
Economy of words
When you have a restrictive word limit then think ‘economy of words’. Ask yourself, does this add
anything to my paper? Does it advance my argument? If yes, how can I rephrase it to be more
concise? How can I reconstruct it so it flows/reads better? Or ask yourself, as interesting as it may be
is it DIRECTLY relevant to the issue or question? If not, cull it, delete it!
Comment 2
R. Im lost. What is your final rating??
PAGE 3
Comment 3
ok so which authors? Tell the reader R. I have no idea who or what you specifically mean
Comment 4
R, it only goes to a max of 25. You have multiplied and added the individual ratings. You dont do
that. Im NOT going to penalise you for this so, dont worry about it. Its okay
Comment 5
ok R, good
PAGE 4
Comment 6
R, where is your academic support for all this?
Comment 7
R, totally agree but where is your academic support for all this? You must support your claims.
Comment 8
R, I had no idea this was the end. You would have been far better to cut down the first two sections
and do more of part 2. At best this is about 500 words Im guessing
PAGE 5
RUBRIC: HAMPDEN BRIDGE
PART 2 (1) (25%)
HIGH DISTINCTION
(20)
DISTINCTION
(16)
CREDIT
(13)
PASS
(10)
FAIL
(0)
RESEARCH (30%)
HIGH DISTINCTION
(20)
DISTINCTION
(16)
CREDIT
(13)
PASS
(10)
FAIL
(0)
RA SYNTAX (10%)
0 / 20
0 / 20
Response to “How was completing the RMM helpful in evaluating the risk faced by the HB?” Degree to which
level of academic research was applied and integrated. Evidence is appropriate.
Outstanding integration of wide range of evidence and all points are substantiated by
primary resources
Excellent integration of evidence into material and primary sources used to support most
points
Most points are supported by third party evidence
Some points are used but only of a basic nature
Little or no use of evidence to support content requirements
0 / 20
Degree to which level of academic research was applied and integrated. Evidence is appropriate.
Demonstrates a sophisticated engagement with the current literature, correctly identifying
both the arguments that support the position taken, and successfully addressing concerns
raised by different or opposing views. All sources are current and valid. Diverse sources
directly relevant to the topic, including refereed academic journals, books and reports.
Demonstrates a solid engagement with the literature and acknowledges the concerns
raised by alternative positions in the literature. Some sources are less directly relevant to
topic. Diverse sources directly relevant to the topic, including refereed academic journals,
books and reports.
Demonstrates a “for and against” approach to the literature, with some attempt to
integrate and address the difference between these positions. Sources are in general less
directly relevant to topic. Diverse sources directly relevant to the topic, including refereed
academic journals, books and reports..
Demonstrates some supportive academic literature, but does not account for the different
positions of authors within the ongoing debate within the discipline. Sources are generally
poorly selected. Diverse sources directly relevant to the topic, including refereed
academic journals, books and reports.
The paper does not demonstrate engagement with the relevant literature. Sources are of
marginal quality. Fewer independent sources (not including text book, study guide or
course readings).
0 / 20
Syntax is correct, concise & clear and spelling is correct
HIGH DISTINCTION
(20)
DISTINCTION
(16)
CREDIT
(13)
PASS
(10)
FAIL
(0)
RM DETERMINAT (5%)
HIGH DISTINCTION
(20)
DISTINCTION
(16)
CREDIT
(13)
PASS
(10)
FAIL
(0)
RA WORD LIMIT (5%)
HIGH DISTINCTION
(20)
DISTINCTION
(16)
CREDIT
(13)
PASS
(10)
FAIL
(0)
PART 2 (2) (25%)
Very few (if any) grammatical errors. The meaning of each sentence is always clear and
easily understood.
Few grammatical errors. Mostly the meaning of what is written is clear
Some grammatical errors. Generally the meaning of what is written is clear.
Many grammatical errors. At times the meaning of what is written is affected by these
errors.
Numerous grammatical errors are present, and this affects the ability to understand the
meaning of what is said
0 / 20
Gave a Risk Management Matrix Determination
Included with rating
Included with rating
Included with rating
Included with rating
Not included
0 / 20
Word limit is adhered to +/- 10%
Meets word limit
Meets word limit
Meets word limit
Meets word limit
Does not meet word limit
0 / 20
HIGH DISTINCTION
(20)
DISTINCTION
(16)
CREDIT
(13)
PASS
(10)
FAIL
(0)
Response to ” What were the limitations of using the RMM?” Degree to which level of academic research was
applied and integrated. Evidence is appropriate.
Outstanding integration of wide range of evidence and all points are substantiated by
primary resources
Excellent integration of evidence into material and primary sources used to support most
points
Most points are supported by third party evidence
Some points are used but only of a basic nature
Little or no use of evidence to support content requirements
