Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved...docx

*
Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved..
Chapter 5
Protective Barriers
Effective Physical Security
Fourth Edition
The University of Adelaide, School of Computer Science
*
Chapter 2 — Instructions: Language of the Computer
*
*
OverviewProtective barriers form perimeter of controlled,
limited, and exclusion areasNatural protective barriers—terrain
features (mountains and deserts, cliffs and ditches,
etc.)Structural protective barriers—human-made devices
(fences, walls, floors, roofs, etc.)
#5 Protective Barriers

*
*
*
OverviewImportant benefits in physical security:Create a
psychological deterrentDelay or prevent passageDirect impact
on number of security posts needed and frequency of use
*
Overview Considerations for type of structural barrierWeighing
cost of completely enclosing area against threat and cost of
alternate securitySizing restricted area based on degree of
compartmentalization required
*
OverviewBarrier size should be kept to a minimum consistent
with operational efficiencyRestricted area size driven by
likelihood of tactics that may be usedExample: Protecting area
from vehicle bomb

*
OverviewEstablish protective barriers for:Controlling
vehicle/pedestrian traffic flowEntry control points for ID
checksPrecluding visual compromiseDelaying forced
entryProtecting individual assets
*
OverviewTemporary limited or exclusion area can be
established with temporary barriersBarriers may not be needed
in limited or exclusion areas or integrated with other
controlsInspect and maintain barriers at least weekly.
*
Perimeter EntrancesShould be designated to maintain full
control without delaying trafficEnough entrances to
accommodate peak flowAdequate lighting for inspectionDuring
nonduty hours:Lock gatesIlluminate during darknessRoving
patrol
*
Entry-Control StationsAt main perimeter entrances where

security personnel are presentConstruction and use based on
info outlined in USACE STD 872-50-01Located as close as
practical to perimeter entrance to allow constant surveillance
*
Entry-Control StationsAdditional considerations:Establish
holding area for unauthorized vehiclesEstablish control
measures (window decals, specially marked vehicles)
*
Entry-Control StationsIf manned 24 hours:Interior and exterior
lightingInterior heatingGlassed area for adequate observationIf
needed, design for optimum personnel ID and movement
controlShould have telephone and radio
*
Entry-Control StationsSigns to:Assist in controlling authorized
entryDeter unauthorized entryPreclude accidental entryShould d
be plainly displayed and legible
*

Entry-Control StationsShould be hardened against attack, using
methods such as:Reinforced concrete or masonrySteel
platingBullet-resistant glassSandbags (two layers in
depth)Bullet-resistant building components
*
Internal BarriersBarriers—psychological deterrents allowing
unauthorized accessPhysical barriers—control entry points and
complement security program and officersExamples: Turnstiles,
access control
*
Internal BarriersFunctions of structural/natural barriers:Define
protection area boundariesDelay—slow traffic or accessDirect
access to garages, parking lots, etc.Deny unauthorized access
*
Internal BarriersDesigning security and layout of site:Can begin
with either exterior or interiorIf begun on outside:Main lines of
defense—perimeter barriers on outer edge of propertySecond
line of defense—exterior of buildingThird line of defense—
interior

*
Internal BarriersPassive Structural BarriersJersey barriersLarge
boulders or rocksLarge, round cement
stonesFencesGatesBollards at entrancesActive Structure
BarriersHydraulic bollardsMotor-operated lift-arm gatesPop-up
wedgesAll geared to control traffic at entrances and exits
*
Barrier PlanningRemember (con’t):Walls more expensive than
fences/other componentsFences/walls provide only limited
delay.For substantial protection, combine a fence/wall with
security lighting, intruder detection system, etcPerimeter should
be short as possible.Emergency gates for safe evacuation
*
Barrier Planning Remember (con’t):Perimeters should run in
straight lines between corner posts.Drains/culverts should be
protected.Ground on both sides of a perimeter barrier should be
cleared.
*

Barrier PlanningRemember (con’t)Sterile zone protected by a
double fence may be requiredSecurity guard force to support
perimeterExterior emergency phones connected to security
officer’s deskBarriers are deterrents.
*
Fence StandardsPerimeter fence/wall should meet requirements
of local planning/licensing authorities.More than 7 feet
highConcrete fence posts with 3 strands of barbwire on top,
embedded in concrete curb45-degree angle point up and outward
*
Fence StandardsIf value of site assets high or if a known risk,
consider augmenting fence with:Security lightingCCTVIntruder
detection systemSecurity guard fence
*
Types of Security FencesIn ascending order of
effectiveness:Industrial security chain-link fenceStandard anti-
intruder chain-link fenceStandard steel palisade fenceHigh-
security steel palisade fencePower fencingUpgraded palisade
fences

*
Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Chapter 6
Physical Barriers
Effective Physical Security
Fourth Edition
*
*
*
Physical BarriersPhysical barriers used since before Roman
EmpireRoman garrisonsFortresses in Revolutionary WarArmy
forts in Indian territoriesBase camps in war zonesImproved
concept of physical barriers over the years
6 Physical Barriers

*
*
*
DoorsFunction is to provide a barrier at entry/exitIn maximum
security, provides barrier but:Must be impenetrable by ordinary
meansMaximum delay time by extraordinary meansIn building
maximum security facility, must define function of all doors
and relationship to total protection system
*
Doors—Personnel Average industrial personnel door:Hollow
steel composite door with 18-gauge metal facingButt hinges
with nonremovable pinsOpens in either directionMay have
ventilation louvers or glass panels
*
Doors—PersonnelCan be penetrated in 1 minute or less
by:Breaking locking mechanism with pipe wrenchPry bar to pry
door openUsing a fire axe to penetrate the doorTo make more
resistant:Bolting or welding steel plateInstall several dead
boltsWelding steel louvers on insideReplace or upgrade

hardware with more resistant ones
*
Doors—PersonnelSubstantial steel or security class doors:¾-
inch steel on one side, 1/8-in steel on otherReady-made security
panels (DELIGNIT®)Highly-tempered plate material (hardwood
veneers, cross-laminated, bonded with phenolic
resinsThicknesses of 20, 30, 40, and 50 mm
*
Doors—Personnel Frames should be anchored to the wall to
make it penetration-resistantHinges should be inaccessible from
side of door facing the likely threat orIndividual hinges should
be case hardened or replaced with heavy-duty hinges and pins
*
Doors—Personnel<Insert Figure 6-2>
*
Doors—PersonnelOther protection methods:Consider installing

¼-inch steel plates over exposed hingesMortise hinges into door
jamb and doorInstall piano hinge on outside of door
*
Doors—PersonnelDead bolt principle:Install ½-inch steel rods
equidistant between support hinges on inside of doorInstall ¼-
inch steel plate on inside of door jamb
*
Doors—PersonnelExisting door can be hardened by welding
heavy angle iron or an I-beam to form a grid on inside of front
door panel.Doors should open toward likely threat
directionConsider turnstile-type doors.
*
Retrofit Upgrading of Existing DoorsTo harden an existing door
against tool attack:Customary—clad with heavy-gauge sheet
metal or steel plateCan be implemented quickly with local
materialsOnly to solid or laminated wood, substantial hollow
metal doors

*
Retrofit Upgrading of Existing DoorsThinnest recommended
material12-gauge sheet metalShould be securely fastened using
carriage boltsNuts from the protected side and no less than 5/16
inches in diameterAs close to edge of door frame as possible
*
Retrofit Upgrading of Existing DoorsIf cladding applied to
outward-opening door:Provide protection to free edgeWrap
sheet metal cover around door edges
*
Retrofit Upgrading of Existing DoorsTake into account:Effects
of door fit due to additional thicknessProblems of additional
weightProvide for mounting with heavy-duty hingesProtect
against hinge-pin removal and hinge destruction
*
Retrofit Upgrading of Existing DoorsRecommended
door:Hollow door with skin of 12-gauge cold-rolled steel
reinforced by:Internal channel stiffeners of 22-gauge or thicker
steelCan fill hollow spaces for thermal insulation

*
Door FramesFor full resistance to attack:Harden frame and
attachments like door.Fabricate frame of at least 16-gauge
steel.Fill with cement grouting.Bond to wall structure
surrounding the door system.
*
Hinge VulnerabilityHinge on exterior frame vulnerable to:Drive
out hinge pin with drift punch/hammerCut off with hacksaw,
cold chisel, torchTo inhibit/prevent removal of hinge
pins:Peening over or tack-welding ends of pinsInstall set screw
in knuckle.Use a continuously interlocking hinge system.
*
Door and Frame InterlockingCountermeasures to prevent
destruction or removal or hinge pin/knuckle assembly:Install
substantial protruding steel dowel pin in hinge edge of door or
frame with a mating socket or hole in frame or doorPin engages
in socket when door is closedDoor/frame automatically
interlock when closed

*
Door and Frame InterlockingA variety of devices:Pin-in-
socketTongue-in-groveLarge fabricated steel doors:Orient
channel-iron framing member to create a cavity where a
corresponding angle iron can engage
*
Hinges Appropriate for Door WeightSecurity vehicle
doors:Standard—corrugated steel, roll-up variety16-guage steel
with stiffness to withstand 20 lb per sq. foot of wind
pressureEasily penetrated (a 6-ft. pry bar and a 2 x 4 plank
weighing 20 to 25 lb can penetrate in less than a
minute)Hardening door is difficult—not useful in maximum-
security environment
*
Hinges Appropriate for Door WeightSpecifically designed
doors:At least ¼-inch steel plate Explosions—standard doors,
no resistance Hand-carried tools can penetrate a vehicle
doorVehicular attack also used
*
Hinges Appropriate for Door WeightTo harden (upgrade)

vehicle doors:Rubber tiers installed directly behind outer
doorClad door with sheet metalInsert redwood for resistance to
thermal toolsIncreased weight—upgrade hardwareLaid steel
channels welded together and covered by sheet metal
*
Hinges Appropriate for Door WeightIf lateral wall space not a
consideration:Consider manual or mechanically actuated sliding
doorHardened to same standard and methods as for personnel
doorsTop runner track must be reinforcedSubstantial channel
for door bottom
*
Hinge Appropriate for Door WeightSecurity advantages of
sliding door:Structural steel members to support a roll-up door
of greater bulk and complexity than sliding doorJoints in
corrugated steel roll-up a weaknessSliding door a single, solid
entityForced entry difficult
*
Hinge Appropriate for Door WeightMain vulnerability of
sliding door:Prying against opening edgeInstall manually
activated drop pins that drop into receiver holes drilled into
inner rail of bottom track or the floorMust remain undetectable

from the outside and be spaced randomly
*
Hinges Appropriate for Door WeightAnother high-security
vehicle door similar to garage door:A series of rigid panels
constructed of panels made of corrugated metal stiffener
between aluminum plates Joined together along horizontal edges
by hingesRolls up along a track, stores self under spring
tensionTrack reinforcedSusceptible to vehicle attack
*
Hinges Appropriate for Door WeightBefore deciding on vault
doors, ask:Expected maximum period protection
neededRegulations require vault protection for assetsSize and
configuration make removal difficultCan asset be made
unusable by removing key components?Movement of assets kept
at minimum
*
doors, ask (con’t):Large numbers requiring daily accessTheft of
assets have adverse effect on:Remaining in businessGeneral
public health and welfareEnvironmentNational security

*
doors, ask (con’t):Vault construction lower insurance
premiumsVault construction without extensive
renovationPresent facilities sufficient in event of company
growth
*
Hinges Appropriate for Door WeightStrong room doors:An
enclosed interior space constructed of solid building materials,
one door, no windowsDoors should be of:Heavy-gauge metal or
solid hardwood/metal plateDoor louvers and baffle plates
reinforced with:9-gauge, 2-in sq. wire mesh on interior of
doorHeavy-duty hardwareSet door in suitable frame
*
Hinges Appropriate for Door WeightStrong room (con’t)Air
conditioning, heating ducts, sewers should be equipped with
personnel barriersDuct barriers of heavy-gauge wireSewer,
utility tunnel barriers of steel bars or rods to form grill

*
Hinges Appropriate for Door WeightEmergency doors:Use often
mandated—keep to minimumNumber and location depend
on:Type of work performedWork space configuration
*
Hinges Appropriate for Door WeightAsk the following:
Location vs. assets being protected (easy to divert assets
through door)Type of emergency door installedWhat areas do
they allow personnel to passAlarms
*
Hinges Appropriate for Door WeightDoors, hinges, and frames
should match other security doors in facilityMethod of
mounting should match door Locking mechanism requirements
usually decided by ordinancesUsually require panic bar, which
is often vulnerableDo not chain or lock emergency exits
*
Hinges Appropriate for Door WeightTo ensure exit doors keep
people out but allow safe exit of those inside:Overlapping
sections fastened to stiles that met and overlap when door
closesNo equipment exposed but when panic bar is depressed,

barrier springs freeAnother type—replaces bar with a rim device
that is harder to be snagged from outside
*
Hinges Appropriate for Door WeightPersonnel exiting
emergency doors should be channeled by physical barriers to a
central assembly areaInhibits employee theft or diversion of
assetsStops insider allowing accomplices into buildingProvide
monitoring of evacuation.
*
Hinges Appropriate for Door WeightAlarms should be
mandatoryLocal alarmAlarm at central alarm stationPeriodically
check alarms, at least twice a dayEach should have a tamper-
indicating seal
*
Hinges Appropriate for Door Weight<Insert Figure 6-4>
*

RoofsConsiderations for roof/ceiling design:Loading roof will
be subjected toIf ceiling in multistory facility, will space
directly above protected area be guarded or by alarm
systemWill roof or ceiling have piping, ductwork, access
hatches
*
RoofsConsiderations for roof/ceiling design (con’t):Will
portions of roof be accessible from outside protected area or
grant access outsideRoof or ceilings alarmed, monitored by
security or CCTV, adequate lighting, places of concealment?
*
RoofsWorked out between building architect or room designer
and security plannerInclude security directorBe prepared to
discuss with staff for inputOther site visits helpful
*
RoofsPrime requisite in maximum-security settingAble to
withstand/defeat forced entry attemptMost commonly selected
roof:Concrete, about 5 ½ in, with steel reinforcing rods on 8 x
12-in centersIn tests—4 lb of bulk explosives and 20-lb bolt
cutters took about 3 minutes to penetrate

*
RoofsAnother type:16-gauge sheet metal on ribbed steel
decking, covered by 2 inches of insulation, with a final covering
of ½-inch of asphalt and gravelA 10-lb fire axe and 5-lb shovel
achieved penetration in about 2.5 to 3 minutes20 lb of
explosives penetrated in about 1 minute
*
RoofsBest solution:Construct best roof possible but
also:Establish protected area around buildingProvide assessment
capabilities, alarms, and other security to detect threats in the
protected area
*
RoofsIf constructing a strong room in an existing maximum-
security setting, best composite materials:0.1-in sheet of 6061-
T6 aluminum over ½-in. plywood on both sides of 19-guage 304
stainless steel sheet
*

Roofs To defeat attempts to dissasmble the roof when
composite in standard-sized panelsSubstrate laid in random
patternBond components together with:Nuts and bolts (preen to
prevent removal)Tempered screwnailsRinged nails
*
RoofsComposite should be covered by insulation and possibly
several different layers of weatherproof roofing.Add
substantially to penetration resistanceNot recommended if no
alarm or not easily visible to guards
*
RoofsUpgrading Existing RoofsMore difficult to upgradeMust
consider installation of:AlarmsLightsDoorsWallsGates
*
RoofsA firsthand look important to find liabilities:Fire escape
access to roofRoof hatches, skylightsDuctsPipingAir-
conditioningDownspouts or coamings
*

RoofsConsult plant services maintenance to determine which
are necessities.Many can be replaced by more modern
equipmentHole filled so physical integrity/strength of repair
equal to rest of roof
*
RoofsLow flat roofs—install shielding behind coaming to
prevent grappling hook anchor<Insert Figure 6-5>
*
RoofsAttack by helicopter a possibilityFlat roofsOther roofs—
landing attack force from hovering helicoptorConsider
installing tall, lightweight metal light poles to prevent
helicopters from landing or coming close.
*
FloorsGive as much thought to floor security as wall and roof
design.Typical floor—poured concrete 6 to 8 in. thick,
reinforced with rebar steel rods or 6-in sq. mesh of no. 10
wirePenetration time – 2 to 4 minutes

*
FloorsIf target in multistory building, penetration could come
from above or belowFloor must offer same amount as resistance
as rest of security featuresTo reinforce:Increase thickness with
layers of rebar, reinforcing wire, and concreteBe sure building
design can handled extra tons of weight
*
FloorsIf cost of building redesign/renovation not
possible:Relocate objective to ground floor or belowPlace away
from exterior walls, with several intervening wallsIf basement
or utility space is below site, seal off or set up sophisticated
alarms.
*
FloorsGreatly increasing penetration resistance of walls that can
be adaptable to floors:Anchor steel I-beams into concrete walls,
interlocking more beams across width of floor Covered with
simple wooden floor
*
FloorsI-beams increase penetration resistance to 2 to 4

hoursRestricted to new construction or a facility where redesign
can ensure proper engineering for extra weight<insert Figure 6-
6>
*
FencesUsed to:Define particular areaPreclude
inadvertent/accidental areaPrevent/delay unauthorized
entryControl/channel pedestrian/vehicular traffic
*
FencesIn maximum-security situationsUse walls of solid
construction if possibleFencing may be necessary instead.Base
fence type on:One or two or more in series neededVehicle
barriers addedDistance from area of chief concernClosest area
of concealmentAlarms
*
FenceEnvironmental conditions to consider:Erosion under
fenceCorrosion of fenceNatural features or vegetation that may
interfere with detection of activity assessment in area

*
FenceConsider:Choice of fabricHeightMeans to anchor posts
and bottomType of toppingAnything placed between fencesType
of tools necessary for penetration
*
FenceMost frequent—no. 11 American wire gauge or heavier,
with 2-in. mesh openings, 7 ft. high, with 3 strands of
barbwireCan be breached in about 5 seconds with no aids but
assistance of one personInstalling V-shaped overhangs with
concertina barbwire will raise that time to 8 to 9 seconds
*
FenceOther fences include:V-fence—3-in. posts at 60o angle in
30-in diameter by 24-in. high concrete footings 12 in below
grade.Posts in 10-ft. centers and staggered 5 ft. front to back,
with chain-link mesh at 10 ft. high and corrugated steel sheet on
outside posts and nine rolls of barbed tape obstacle inside the V
*
FenceIn this fence:All rolls secured to chain-link mesh with
wire ties.Cutting through fence takes about 4 minutesClimb-
over using breaching aids—40 secondsTo add resistance:Razor

ribbon instead of GPBTOSecond sheet of corrugated steel,
forming a V-shaped trough filled with rocks, poles, and barbed
tapeResistance—10 minutes
*
FenceBottom rail can double penetration timeWithout
anchoring, crawl-under is simpleBurying lower 3 to 6 inches in
concrete precludes crawl-underAnchoring bottom with 3-in.
reinforcing rods to precast concrete sills
*
FenceTopping fence with barbwire/barbed tape:NCR requires at
least three strands of barbwire angled outwardDoes not
significantly increase penetration resistance
*
FenceCutting through fence slower than climbing or crawling
underSecure bottom anchors increases penetration timeInterlace
metal or wood lattice in fabricReduces visibility
*

Entry and Exit PointsConsider when erecting security
fence:First criterion—integrity of gates/doors should be same or
better than that of fenceNumber kept to minimumGate—open
out if possible and equipped with a jamb or frameMost
common—swing gates and sliding gates
*
Entry and Exit PointsMost vehicle gates have access
roadsFacilitates vehicle intrusionsPenetration resistance of
fabric-type gates equivalent to fence Drive-through easier at
gate than other parts of fence
*
Entry and Exit PointsUse of metal doors set in jambs—higher
resistance than gatesCost not always worth itEmergency fence
doors—should be mandatoryOpening facilitated by panic bar on
insideSet so intruder cannot get to panic bar
*
Entry and Exit PointsControlling pedestrian traffic:Turnstile
gates—penetration time about 1 min.Easier to breach fence than
turnstile gateWeak link at gate usually hardware:Hinges and
locks

*
Entry and Exit PointsFence locks should be accessible only
from inside.Built-in locks depend on fence
alignmentSupplement with piece of case-hardened or stainless
steel chain and padlock<Insert Figure 6-8>
*
Entry and Exit PointsSecurely anchor a double-leaf swing gate
where both leaves meetSolid foot bolt on each leaf dropped into
steel anchoring hole in the ground.<Insert Figure 6-9>
*
Walls and MoatsThick, high wall most penetration resistantCost
may be prohibitiveDo not allow visual access to area
outsideAlternative—modern equivalent of a moat
*
Walls and MoatsMoats—completely surround protected areaAll
entry/exit points bridged with fixed or movable structuresKeep

to a minimum and control around the clockCan be equipped
with ability to prevent breach by vehicle ramming
*
Walls and MoatsMoats are dry and equipped with drainage
systemAt least 8 feet deepMinimum of 10 feet from edge to
edgeStandard chain-link fence at inner edgeLittle or no lip to
support a ladderFence posts minimum of 3 inchesBottom edge
of fence fabric embedded in concrete
*
Walls and MoatsDepth and width specifications decided with
entire barrier designMinimum depth of 8 feet
recommendedLadder needed to breach would be bulkyDeterrent
to vehicle crashing through fenceMinimum width of 10 feet
recommendedPrecludes use of bridgesTo prevent ladder to be
used as a hook bridge:Attach aluminum or galvanized steel
sheet to outside of fence to height of 3 feet
*
Walls and MoatsEasiest way to bridge barrier:20-foot extension
ladder with hook on upper end.Extended to full height and allow
to fall behind top of fence as an inclined planeTo defeat:Use a
double moat system

*
Walls and MoatsDouble moat:Second 8 x 10-ft (or more)
moatFence installed between moats on a 12- to 15-in thick
reinforced concrete wallTopped with Y-type of barbed tape with
concertina tape installed at Y center
HOLMES INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION
HC2121 – Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility
– Individual Assignment V01
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester T1 2020
Unit Code HC2121

Unit Title Comparative Business Ethics & Social Responsibility
Assessment Type Individual Assessment
Assessment Title Individual Case Study Report on ‘The
Volkswagen Scandal: An Admission to Emission
Fraud’
Purpose of the
assessment (with ULO
Mapping)
Students able to:
1. Compare and contrast diverse approaches to ethical decision
making
2. Evaluate the implications of the legal pressure for ethical
behaviour in
organisations
3. Examine ethical issues as they relate to basic values and the
challenge of
determining an ethical issues in business
4. Understand how moral philosophies and values influence
individual and group
ethical decision making in business

5. Apply and enhance problem-solving skills in solving and
managing ethical
dilemmas within an organisation.
Weight 30 % of the total assessments
Total Marks 30%
Word limit Not more than 2,000 words
Due Date Regular Mode Students:
a. Report: Sunday, 7 June 2020, 5PM (week 10)
Submission
Guidelines
• All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date
along with a completed
Assignment Cover Page.
• The assignment must be in MS Word format, no spacing, 12-pt
Arial font and 2 cm
margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section
headings and page
numbers.
• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and
listed appropriately

at the end in a reference list using Harvard referencing style.
HOLMES INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION
Assignment 2 Specifications
Task: Individual case study analysis (Report)
Topic: Case Study on “The Volkswagen Scandal: An Admission
to Emission Fraud”
You are require to complete a detailed analysis and present your
case assessment, analysis, and outside
research to the class based on the case study on ‘The

Volkswagen Scandal: An Admission to Emission Fraud’.
The case study is available on your prescribed textbook:
Ferrell, O., Fraedrich, J. and Ferrell, L (2018), Business Ethics:
Ethical Decision Making and Cases, 12th ed,
Southwestern, Cengage Learning
You are required to answer the questions located at the end of
the case study and the questions are as
follows:
1. Explain how the culture of Volkwagen created this ethical
scandal
2. While Volkswagen claimed to support ethics and
sustainability, how can they recover from this
ethical disaster?
3. Do you believe this scandal will lead to tougher scrutiny of
companies environmental claims in
the future? Why or why not?
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
• The scandal explained: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-
34324772
• VW executive pleads guilty:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/07/25/jailed-

volkswagen-exec-plead-
guilty-u-s-diesel-scandal/508525001/
• How a West Virginia lab detected the VW scandal:
http://www.npr.org/2015/09/24/443053672/how-a-little-lab-in-
west-virginia-caught-
volkswagens-big-cheat
• The scandal’s impact on VW’s long-term future:
https://www.wired.com/story/vw-diesel-
scandal-future-automakers/
HOLMES INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION

Assignment Structure
Ideally, your report needs to consist at least the following
structure:
1. Executive Summary: ideally one page, but no more than two
2. Section 1: Introduction
3. Section 2: Main body of the report consists of the questions
at the end of the case study (or as
above)
4. Section 3: Conclusions
5. Reference List: In between 15-20 references
HOLMES INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION

Marking Criteria
HC2121 Indvidual Assignment Marking Rubric (Rubric)
Content Categories Substantially Exceeds Expectations Exceeds
Expectations Meets Expectations
Does Not Meet
Expectations
Unacceptable
Scope (15%)
1. Applies unit material with logical order of ideas, with no
gaps in information.
2. Completely addresses the concepts, theories and material
issues covered in unit and called for in the assignment
instructions, and is supported by text and/or other literature.
3. Best and most applicable points are presented while
unnecessary content is left out.
4. Points are logical and well- supported by evidence and
research.
1. Applies unit material with some logical

order of ideas, with minimal gaps in
information.
2. Substantially addresses issues covered in
unit and called for in the assignment
instructions, and is supported by text and/or
other literature.
3. Important points are presented while
unnecessary content is left out.
4. You make your point, but could present
more logically. Points are supported by
evidence and research.
1. Applies unit material
with gaps in information.
2. Addresses some of the
issues covered in unit and
called for in the
assignment instructions,
3. Some important points

are addressed, but not
fully covered.
4. You made some points,
but they were not
logically related to the
case itself.
1. Does not apply the unit
principles and material as
called for in the case
study.
2. Does not address the
relevant issues posed by
the case study.
3. You fail to make any
important points and
analyze the material
presented in the unit and
case study.

4. You fail to make your
point, and do not use the
concepts, theories and
material presented in the
unit.
1. Paper lacks flow from
point to point, order of
ideas is not clear, and
gaps in information are
present. Structure lacks
organization.
2. Major themes
mentioned in the
assignment instructions
have not been met and
are not supported by
literature.
3. Applicable points are

not presented and paper
is full of unnecessary
content.
4. Points are not logical
and are not supported by
evidence and research.
HOLMES INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION
Originality (5%)
Demonstrates critical thinking about the topic and the
student’s own impressions and interpretations of research.
The research is not merely presented, but is interpreted and

applied to overall themes.
1. Demonstrates critical thinking about the
topic and the student’s own impressions and
interpretations of research.
The research is presented, could be better
interpreted and applied to overall themes.
Case study lacks some
critical thinking about the
topic and the student’s
own impressions and
interpretations of
research.
The research presented
could be better
interpreted and applied
to overall themes.
1. Case study lacks critical
thinking about the topic

and the student’s own
impressions and
interpretations of
research.
The research is not
interpreted and applied to
overall themes.
1. No critical thinking
about the topic and the
student’s own
impressions and
interpretations of
research.
The research is not
interpreted and applied
to overall themes.
Presentation (5%)
Professional, no editing or revision required.

1. Proper citing of references and HARVARD REFERENCE
GUIDELINE Style, no editing or revision required.
2. Proper sentence structure, punctuation, and spelling, no
editing or revision required.
Professional, some light editing may be
useful.
1. Follows HARVARD REFERENCE GUIDELINE
format with few errors.
2. Few or no errors but sentence structure
could be improved.
Revision Suggested.
1. Follows HARVARD
REFERENCE GUIDELINE
format about 50% of the
time.
2. Overlooked errors in
sentence structure,
punctuation, and spelling.

Revision Required.
1. Follows HARVARD
REFERENCE GUIDELINE
format less than 50% of
the time.
2. Overlooked several
errors in spelling,
punctuation, and/or
sentence structure
showing carelessness.
Revision Required. 1.
Does not follow
HARVARD REFERENCE
GUIDELINE format.
2. Many errors in both
mechanics and sentence
structure; extremely
poorly written.

Integration (5%)
1. Various themes and concepts throughout the paper are
integrated and incorporated to form even stronger support for
the thesis.
Concepts are not presented independently of one another,
but as part of a whole.
1. Various themes and concepts throughout
the paper are integrated and incorporated to
form strong support for the thesis.
Concepts, overall, are presented as a whole.
1. 50% of the themes and
concepts throughout the
paper are integrated and
incorporated to support
the thesis.
50% of concepts are
presented as a whole.
1.Themes and concepts

are not integrated and
incorporated to support
the thesis.
Concepts are not
presented as a whole.
Themes and concepts do
not support the thesis.
Concepts are poorly
presented.
HOLMES INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF

HIGHER EDUCATION
Comments:
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
___________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
________________________

Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved...docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved...docx

Similar to Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved...docx (20)

More from dickonsondorris

More from dickonsondorris (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Copyright © 2013, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved...docx