|Case Larson, E. W., & Gray, C. F. (2021). Project management: The managerial process (Eighth edition). McGraw Hill. . Case 6.2: Ventura Baseball Stadium - Part A Instructions The goal of this assignment is to enable students to practically apply the concepts of Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) development, sequence planning, and critical path calculation to a simulated real-world scenario. Students are required to analyze the provided case study and respond to the instructor's questions. This exercise is designed to assess their grasp of scheduling principles and their ability to offer insightful recommendations to the organization in question, leveraging their expertise. Submission For submission into the Learning Management System (LMS), students must include: . Comprehensive answers to all posed questions. . A Gantt chart tailored to the scenario, generated using Smartsheet. Evaluation Criteria Excellent (16-20 points) Good (11-15 points) Satisfactory (6-10 points) Needs Improvement (0-5 points) Understanding of Demonstrates a comprehensive Shows a good understanding Displays a basic understanding with Demonstrates limited Theoretical Concepts understanding of WBS, sequencing, and with minor inaccuracies. significant inaccuracies or understanding with vague or critical path methods. omissions. incorrect explanations. Most concepts are explained Concepts are accurately and thoroughly clearly. Concepts lack depth. explained. Case Study Analysis Provides a detailed analysis, identifying all Offers clear analysis with Gives basic analysis with some Analysis is superficial or largely relevant elements with insightful minor omissions significant omissions or incorrect. comprehension. inaccuracies. Identifies most key elements. Fails to identify key elements. All quantitative questions are correctly Some key elements are identified. answered. Minor discrepancies with the All quantitative questions were quantitative questions. Major gaps with the quantitative incorrectly answered. questions. Application of Expert Recommendations are insightful, Provides solid Recommendations lack depth or Recommendations are vague,Submission For submission into the Learning Management System (LMS), students must include: * Comprehensive answers to all posed questions. * A Gantt chart tailored to the scenario, generated using Smartsheet. Evaluation Criteria Understanding of Theoretical Concepts Case Study Analysis Application of Expert Judgment Quality of Gantt Chart Submission Completeness and Professionalism Excellent (16-20 points) Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of WBS, sequencing, and critical path methods. Concepts are accurately and thoroughly explained. Provides a detailed analysis, identifying all relevant elements with insightful comprehension. All quantitative questions are correctly answered. Recommendations are insightful, demonstrating expert judgment. Proposals are well-supported and clearly tied to analysis findings. Gantt chart is detailed and accurate, reflecting thorough planning and sequencing. Submission is complete, well-organized, clearly written, and professionally presented. Good (11-15 points) Shows a good understanding with minor inaccuracies. Most concepts are explained clearly. Offers clear analysis with minor omissions. Identifies most key elements. Minor discrepancies with the quantitative questions. Provides solid recommendations with minor gaps. Demonstrates good judgment. Gantt chart is mostly accurate but may have minar errors. Shows good planning effort. Submission is mostly complete with minor omissions. Organized and clear with minor presentation errors Satisfactory (6-10 points) Displays a basic understanding with significant inaccuracies or omissions. Concepts lack depth. Gives basic analysis with some significant omissions or inaccuracies. Some key elements are identified. Major gaps with the quantitative questions. Recommendations lack depth or specificity. Shows an average level of judgment. Gantt chart is basic, lacking detail or containing inaccuracies. Basic planning evident. Submission meets basic requirements but lacks completeness or clarity. Some errors in organization or Needs Improvement (0-5 points) Demanstrates limited understanding with vague or incorrect explanations. Analysis is superficial or largely incorrect. Fails to identify key elements. All guantitative questions were incorrectly answered. Recommendations are vague, irrelevant, or unsupported. Limited judgment shown. Gantt chart has major errors or omissions. Reflects inadequate planning. Submission is incomplete or poorly organized. Responses are unclear or unprofessionally presented