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 Theoretical Concepts Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of WBS, sequencing, and critical path methods. Concepts are accurately and thoroughly explained. Shows a good understanding with minor inaccuracies. Most concepts are explained clearly. Displays a basic understanding with significant inaccuracies or omissions. Concepts lack depth. Demonstrates limited understanding with vague or incorrect explanations. Case Study Analysis Provides a detailed analysis, identifying all relevant elements with insightful comprehension. All quantitative questions are correctly answered. Offers clear analysis with minor omissions. Identifies most key elements. Minor discrepancies with the quantitative questions. Gives basic analysis with some significant omissions or inaccuracies. Some key elements are identified. Major gaps with the quantitative questions. Analysis is superficial or largely incorrect. Fails to identify key elements. All quantitative questions were incorrectly answered. Application of Expert Judgment Recommendations are insightful, demonstrating expert judgment. Proposals are well-supported and clearly tied to analysis findings. Provides solid recommendations with minor gaps. Demonstrates good judgment. Recommendations lack depth or specificity. Shows an average level of judgment. Recommendations are vague, irrelevant, or unsupported. Limited judgment shown. Quality of Gantt Chart Gantt chart is detailed and accurate, reflecting thorough planning and sequencing. Gantt chart is mostly accurate but may have minor errors. Shows good planning effort. Gantt chart is basic, lacking detail or containing inaccuracies. Basic planning evident. Gantt chart has major errors or omissions. Reflects inadequate planning. Submission Completeness and Professionalism Submission is complete, well-organized, clearly written, and professionally presented. Submission is mostly complete with minor omissions. Organized and clear with minor presentation errors Submission meets basic requirements but lacks completeness or clarity. Some errors in organization or presentation. Submission is incomplete or poorly organized. Responses are unclear or unprofessionally presented.