Project Management QLS Level 3 Quiz Exam

To determine the most appropriate project management framework for a software development project, we must consider the specific needs of the project, including flexibility, stakeholder involvement, and iterative development. Agile methodologies, such as Scrum, emphasize adaptability and customer collaboration, making them suitable for projects where requirements may evolve. In contrast, traditional frameworks like Waterfall are more rigid and follow a linear progression, which may not accommodate changes effectively. Therefore, for a software development project that requires frequent adjustments based on user feedback, the Agile framework is the most fitting choice. The final answer is Agile, which is a project management framework that supports iterative development and flexibility.

To evaluate project outcomes effectively, we need to consider both qualitative and quantitative metrics. In this scenario, we have a project that was expected to deliver a return on investment (ROI) of 20% over a year. The actual ROI achieved was 15%. To calculate the variance in expected versus actual outcomes, we can use the formula: Variance = (Expected ROI – Actual ROI) / Expected ROI * 100 Substituting the values: Variance = (20% – 15%) / 20% * 100 Variance = 5% / 20% * 100 Variance = 0.25 * 100 Variance = 25% This means that the project underperformed by 25% compared to the expected ROI. Understanding this variance is crucial for project managers as it highlights areas for improvement and informs future project planning. In addition to the numerical evaluation, qualitative assessments such as stakeholder satisfaction, project team performance, and alignment with strategic goals should also be considered. A comprehensive evaluation of project outcomes combines both these aspects to provide a holistic view of project success.

To determine the total cost of a project, we need to consider both fixed and variable costs. Let’s assume the fixed costs are $10,000, which include salaries, rent, and utilities. The variable costs depend on the number of units produced, which is estimated at 500 units, with a variable cost of $20 per unit. Total Variable Costs = Variable Cost per Unit × Number of Units Total Variable Costs = $20 × 500 = $10,000 Now, we add the fixed costs to the total variable costs to find the total project cost. Total Project Cost = Fixed Costs + Total Variable Costs Total Project Cost = $10,000 + $10,000 = $20,000 Thus, the total cost of the project is $20,000. In project management, understanding the distinction between fixed and variable costs is crucial for budgeting and financial forecasting. Fixed costs remain constant regardless of the level of production or activity, while variable costs fluctuate with the volume of output. This knowledge allows project managers to make informed decisions about resource allocation, pricing strategies, and overall project viability. By accurately calculating total costs, project managers can assess profitability and ensure that the project stays within budget, which is essential for successful project delivery.

To determine the feasibility of a project, a comprehensive feasibility study is conducted, which typically includes several key components: technical feasibility, economic feasibility, legal feasibility, operational feasibility, and scheduling feasibility. In this scenario, we will focus on economic feasibility, which assesses the cost-effectiveness of the project. Assuming a project requires an initial investment of £100,000, with projected annual revenues of £30,000 for the next five years, we can calculate the Net Present Value (NPV) to evaluate its economic feasibility. The discount rate is assumed to be 10%. NPV = (Revenue / (1 + r)^t) – Initial Investment Calculating the NPV: Year 1: £30,000 / (1 + 0.10)^1 = £27,272.73 Year 2: £30,000 / (1 + 0.10)^2 = £24,793.39 Year 3: £30,000 / (1 + 0.10)^3 = £22,539.54 Year 4: £30,000 / (1 + 0.10)^4 = £20,490.49 Year 5: £30,000 / (1 + 0.10)^5 = £18,636.04 Total Present Value of Revenues = £27,272.73 + £24,793.39 + £22,539.54 + £20,490.49 + £18,636.04 = £113,732.19 NPV = Total Present Value of Revenues – Initial Investment NPV = £113,732.19 – £100,000 = £13,732.19 Thus, the NPV of the project is £13,732.19, indicating that the project is economically feasible as the NPV is positive.

In a project management scenario, a project manager is tasked with delivering a software development project within a budget of £150,000. The project is expected to take 6 months to complete. After 3 months, the project manager reviews the progress and finds that only 40% of the project has been completed, with £70,000 already spent. To determine the project’s performance, the project manager calculates the Cost Performance Index (CPI) and the Schedule Performance Index (SPI). CPI = Earned Value (EV) / Actual Cost (AC) EV = % of work completed * Total Budget = 0.40 * £150,000 = £60,000 AC = £70,000 CPI = £60,000 / £70,000 = 0.857 SPI = Earned Value (EV) / Planned Value (PV) PV = % of work planned to be completed * Total Budget = (3 months / 6 months) * £150,000 = £75,000 SPI = £60,000 / £75,000 = 0.8 The project manager concludes that the project is over budget and behind schedule, as both CPI and SPI are less than 1.

To analyze the project scenario, we first need to identify the key factors affecting the project’s success. The project has a budget of £100,000 and is scheduled to last for 6 months. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, the project is now projected to take 8 months and incur additional costs of £20,000. To determine the impact on the project’s overall performance, we calculate the new total cost and the cost per month. New total cost = Original budget + Additional costs New total cost = £100,000 + £20,000 = £120,000 Next, we calculate the cost per month based on the new timeline: Cost per month = New total cost / New duration Cost per month = £120,000 / 8 months = £15,000 Now, we analyze the implications of this change. The project is now over budget and behind schedule, which can affect stakeholder satisfaction and project viability. The increase in duration and costs may lead to a reassessment of project goals and deliverables, necessitating a discussion with stakeholders to realign expectations. In conclusion, the project is now facing significant challenges due to the extended timeline and increased costs, which must be addressed through effective communication and potential adjustments to the project plan.

To calculate the total cost of a project using the Analogous Estimating method, we first need to gather historical data from similar projects. Let’s assume that a previous project had a total cost of £150,000 and took 6 months to complete. The new project is expected to take 4 months. To estimate the cost for the new project, we can use the cost per month from the previous project. Cost per month = Total cost / Duration in months Cost per month = £150,000 / 6 = £25,000 Now, we multiply the cost per month by the expected duration of the new project: Estimated cost for new project = Cost per month * Duration of new project Estimated cost for new project = £25,000 * 4 = £100,000 Therefore, the estimated cost for the new project is £100,000. This method is beneficial as it allows project managers to leverage past experiences to make informed estimates for new projects. However, it is essential to ensure that the projects being compared are indeed similar in scope, complexity, and other relevant factors. If the projects differ significantly, the estimate may not be accurate. Analogous estimating is often quicker and less resource-intensive than other methods, but it can also introduce bias if the historical data is not representative of the current project.

To determine the total cost of team development activities, we can use the formula for the total cost \( C \) given by: $$ C = n \cdot (c + d) $$ where: – \( n \) is the number of team members, – \( c \) is the cost per team member for training, – \( d \) is the additional cost for materials. In this scenario, we have: – \( n = 10 \) (the number of team members), – \( c = 150 \) (the cost per team member for training), – \( d = 200 \) (the additional cost for materials). Substituting these values into the formula gives: $$ C = 10 \cdot (150 + 200) = 10 \cdot 350 = 3500 $$ Thus, the total cost of team development activities is \( C = 3500 \). This calculation illustrates the importance of understanding how to budget for team development activities in project management. It requires not only knowledge of the costs associated with training but also the ability to aggregate these costs effectively. In project management, ensuring that all team members receive adequate training and resources is crucial for the success of the project. By calculating the total cost accurately, project managers can allocate resources more effectively and ensure that the team is well-prepared to meet project objectives.

To understand scope creep and its control, we first need to define what scope creep is. Scope creep refers to the uncontrolled changes or continuous growth in a project’s scope, often without adjustments to time, cost, and resources. It can lead to project delays, budget overruns, and resource strain. To control scope creep, project managers can implement several strategies, including establishing a clear project scope at the outset, using a change management process, and maintaining regular communication with stakeholders. In this scenario, if a project initially estimated at 100 hours of work experiences a 20% increase in scope due to additional stakeholder requests, the new estimated hours would be calculated as follows: Initial hours = 100 Increase = 20% of 100 = 20 New estimated hours = 100 + 20 = 120 hours. Thus, the project manager must now plan for 120 hours of work to accommodate the changes while ensuring that the project remains on track.

To determine the correct answer, we need to analyze the scenario presented in the question. The PMBOK Guide outlines various processes and knowledge areas that are essential for effective project management. In this case, we are focusing on the integration of project management processes. The scenario describes a project manager who is tasked with ensuring that all project components are aligned and working towards the same objectives. This involves coordinating various project activities, managing stakeholder expectations, and ensuring that changes are effectively integrated into the project plan. The correct answer is derived from understanding that the primary goal of project integration management is to ensure that all parts of the project are harmonized. This includes developing the project charter, managing project execution, and monitoring and controlling project work. Therefore, the answer that best encapsulates this understanding is option a), which emphasizes the importance of aligning project components.

To determine the capability index (Cpk) for a process, we first need to calculate the process mean (μ) and the standard deviation (σ). Let’s assume we have a process with a target value (T) of 100, a lower specification limit (LSL) of 95, and an upper specification limit (USL) of 105. The process data shows a mean (μ) of 98 and a standard deviation (σ) of 2. Cpk is calculated using the formula: Cpk = min[(USL – μ) / (3σ), (μ – LSL) / (3σ)] Substituting the values: Cpk = min[(105 – 98) / (3 * 2), (98 – 95) / (3 * 2)] Cpk = min[(7 / 6), (3 / 6)] Cpk = min[1.1667, 0.5] Cpk = 0.5 Thus, the capability index (Cpk) is 0.5. This indicates that the process is not capable of consistently producing products within the specification limits, as a Cpk value below 1.0 suggests that the process is not centered and has a high likelihood of producing defects.

In project management, understanding cultural and social impacts is crucial for the success of a project. Cultural differences can influence communication styles, decision-making processes, and stakeholder engagement. For instance, in a project involving teams from different countries, a project manager must consider how cultural norms affect team dynamics. If a project manager fails to recognize these differences, it could lead to misunderstandings, decreased morale, and ultimately project failure. To illustrate, consider a project where a Western team collaborates with an Asian team. The Western team may prioritize direct communication and quick decision-making, while the Asian team might value consensus and indirect communication. If the project manager does not facilitate a mutual understanding of these cultural differences, it could result in conflict and delays. Therefore, the correct approach involves actively engaging with team members to understand their cultural backgrounds and adapting management strategies accordingly. This ensures that all team members feel valued and understood, leading to a more cohesive and productive project environment.

In project management, methodologies provide structured approaches to planning, executing, and closing projects. The Agile methodology emphasizes flexibility and iterative progress, allowing teams to adapt to changes quickly. In contrast, the Waterfall methodology follows a linear and sequential approach, where each phase must be completed before moving on to the next. When considering a project that requires rapid changes in response to stakeholder feedback, the Agile methodology would be more suitable. This is because Agile promotes continuous collaboration and allows for regular reassessment of project goals and deliverables. Therefore, in scenarios where adaptability and stakeholder engagement are critical, Agile is often preferred over Waterfall.

To effectively manage stakeholder expectations, it is crucial to identify and analyze the needs and concerns of each stakeholder group. This involves conducting a stakeholder analysis, which typically includes categorizing stakeholders based on their influence and interest in the project. The analysis may reveal that stakeholders can be classified into four categories: high influence/high interest, high influence/low interest, low influence/high interest, and low influence/low interest. By prioritizing communication and engagement strategies according to these categories, project managers can ensure that the most critical stakeholders are kept informed and their expectations are managed appropriately. For instance, stakeholders with high influence and high interest should receive regular updates and be involved in decision-making processes, while those with low influence and low interest may only require periodic updates. This strategic approach helps in aligning stakeholder expectations with project objectives, ultimately leading to a smoother project execution and higher satisfaction levels.

In project management, the initiation phase is crucial as it sets the foundation for the entire project. During this phase, the project manager must identify the project stakeholders, define the project scope, and establish the project’s objectives. The success of the project heavily relies on how well these elements are defined and communicated. A project charter is typically created during this phase, which outlines the project’s purpose, objectives, and key stakeholders. This document serves as a reference point throughout the project lifecycle. Additionally, understanding the feasibility of the project, including potential risks and resource availability, is essential. This phase also involves gathering initial requirements and ensuring that all stakeholders have a shared understanding of the project’s goals. By effectively managing the initiation phase, project managers can significantly increase the likelihood of project success and stakeholder satisfaction.

To determine the critical path in a project, we first need to identify all the tasks, their durations, and the dependencies between them. Let’s assume we have the following tasks with their respective durations and dependencies: – Task A: 4 days (no dependencies) – Task B: 3 days (depends on A) – Task C: 2 days (depends on A) – Task D: 5 days (depends on B and C) Now, we can calculate the earliest start (ES) and finish (EF) times for each task: 1. Task A: – ES = 0, EF = 0 + 4 = 4 2. Task B: – ES = EF of A = 4, EF = 4 + 3 = 7 3. Task C: – ES = EF of A = 4, EF = 4 + 2 = 6 4. Task D: – ES = max(EF of B, EF of C) = max(7, 6) = 7, EF = 7 + 5 = 12 Next, we calculate the latest start (LS) and finish (LF) times, starting from the end of the project: 1. Task D: – LF = 12, LS = 12 – 5 = 7 2. Task C: – LF = LS of D = 7, LS = 7 – 2 = 5 3. Task B: – LF = LS of D = 7, LS = 7 – 3 = 4 4. Task A: – LF = min(LS of B, LS of C) = min(4, 5) = 4, LS = 4 – 4 = 0 The critical path is determined by identifying tasks where the earliest start and latest start times are the same. In this case, Task A, Task B, and Task D are on the critical path. The total duration of the critical path is the EF of Task D, which is 12 days. Thus, the critical path duration is 12 days.

To assess the impact of a proposed project on the local environment, a project manager must consider various factors, including potential changes in land use, effects on local wildlife, and alterations to water quality. In this scenario, the project manager identifies three primary areas of concern: land use change (40%), wildlife disruption (30%), and water quality impact (30%). To calculate the overall impact score, we assign a weight to each area based on its significance and then sum these weighted impacts. Let’s assume the project manager rates the severity of each impact on a scale of 1 to 10: – Land use change: 8 – Wildlife disruption: 6 – Water quality impact: 7 Now, we calculate the weighted impact for each area: – Land use change: 8 (severity) * 0.40 (weight) = 3.2 – Wildlife disruption: 6 (severity) * 0.30 (weight) = 1.8 – Water quality impact: 7 (severity) * 0.30 (weight) = 2.1 Next, we sum these weighted impacts: 3.2 + 1.8 + 2.1 = 7.1 Thus, the overall impact score for the project is 7.1. This score indicates a significant potential impact, suggesting that the project manager should consider mitigation strategies to address these concerns. Understanding how to quantify and assess these impacts is crucial for effective project management, as it allows for informed decision-making and stakeholder communication.

To determine the most effective quality management tool for a project that is experiencing frequent defects and delays, we need to analyze the options based on their ability to identify root causes and implement corrective actions. The tools considered are: 1. **Fishbone Diagram**: This tool helps identify potential causes of defects by categorizing them into different categories (e.g., people, processes, materials). It is effective for root cause analysis. 2. **Control Charts**: These are used to monitor process stability and control over time, helping to identify variations that may lead to defects. 3. **Pareto Analysis**: This tool focuses on identifying the most significant factors contributing to defects, based on the 80/20 rule, which states that 80% of problems come from 20% of causes. 4. **Flowcharts**: These visualize the steps in a process, which can help identify inefficiencies but may not directly address root causes of defects. Given the scenario of frequent defects and delays, the Fishbone Diagram (also known as the Ishikawa or cause-and-effect diagram) is the most suitable tool as it allows the team to systematically explore all potential causes of the issues, facilitating a deeper understanding of the underlying problems.

In the change control process, it is essential to evaluate the impact of proposed changes on the project scope, schedule, and budget. When a change request is submitted, the project manager must assess the implications of the change. For instance, if a change request is expected to increase the project budget by 15% and extend the timeline by 10%, the project manager must analyze how these changes affect the overall project objectives. If the original budget was $100,000, a 15% increase would result in an additional $15,000, bringing the new budget to $115,000. Similarly, if the original timeline was 12 months, a 10% extension would add an additional month, resulting in a new timeline of 13 months. Therefore, the project manager must present these findings to the change control board for approval, ensuring that all stakeholders understand the implications of the change.

To calculate the Cost Performance Index (CPI) using Earned Value Management (EVM), we use the formula: CPI = EV / AC Where: – EV (Earned Value) = 60% of the total project budget of $200,000 = $120,000 – AC (Actual Cost) = $150,000 Now, substituting the values into the formula: CPI = $120,000 / $150,000 = 0.8 A CPI of less than 1 indicates that the project is over budget. In this case, the project has spent more than it has earned in value, which is a critical insight for project managers to understand the financial health of the project. A CPI of 0.8 suggests that for every dollar spent, only 80 cents of value has been earned, highlighting inefficiencies in resource allocation or execution. This information is vital for making informed decisions about corrective actions to bring the project back on track.

To determine the best approach for managing stakeholder expectations in a project, we need to analyze the effectiveness of different communication strategies. In this scenario, we consider four potential strategies: regular updates, stakeholder meetings, feedback sessions, and informal check-ins. 1. Regular updates provide consistent information, ensuring stakeholders are informed about progress and changes. This can help in managing expectations effectively. 2. Stakeholder meetings allow for direct interaction, enabling stakeholders to voice concerns and ask questions, which can lead to better understanding and alignment. 3. Feedback sessions focus on gathering input from stakeholders, which can enhance their engagement and satisfaction but may not always address their expectations directly. 4. Informal check-ins can foster relationships but may lack structure, potentially leading to misunderstandings about project status. After evaluating these strategies, regular updates emerge as the most effective method for managing stakeholder expectations, as they provide clarity and consistency.

To determine the feasibility of a project, a comprehensive feasibility study is conducted, which typically includes several key components: technical feasibility, economic feasibility, legal feasibility, operational feasibility, and scheduling feasibility. In this scenario, we will focus on economic feasibility, which assesses the cost-effectiveness of the project. Assuming the total estimated cost of the project is $500,000, and the projected revenue generated from the project over its lifespan is $750,000, we can calculate the net present value (NPV) to evaluate economic feasibility. The formula for NPV is: NPV = Total Revenue – Total Costs Substituting the values: NPV = $750,000 – $500,000 NPV = $250,000 Since the NPV is positive, this indicates that the project is economically feasible. A positive NPV suggests that the project is expected to generate more revenue than it costs, making it a viable option for investment. In summary, the economic feasibility of a project is determined by comparing the projected revenues against the costs. A positive NPV signifies that the project is likely to be a sound investment, while a negative NPV would indicate potential financial losses.

To determine the effectiveness of a Six Sigma project, we can use the formula for calculating the sigma level based on the number of defects per million opportunities (DPMO). The formula is: Sigma Level = (1.5 + (1 – (DPMO / 1,000,000)) * 3) Assuming a DPMO of 3,400 (which is a common threshold for a Six Sigma level), we can calculate the sigma level as follows: 1. Calculate the proportion of defects: DPMO = 3,400 Proportion of defects = DPMO / 1,000,000 = 3,400 / 1,000,000 = 0.0034 2. Calculate the sigma level: Sigma Level = 1.5 + (1 – 0.0034) * 3 Sigma Level = 1.5 + (0.9966 * 3) Sigma Level = 1.5 + 2.9898 Sigma Level = 4.4898 Rounding to two decimal places, the sigma level is approximately 4.49. This calculation illustrates how Six Sigma methodologies aim to reduce defects and improve quality in processes. A sigma level of 4.49 indicates a high level of process performance, suggesting that the project has successfully minimized defects and improved overall efficiency. Understanding this calculation is crucial for project managers who implement Six Sigma strategies, as it helps them assess the effectiveness of their initiatives and make informed decisions for continuous improvement.

To determine the total project cost based on the provided parameters, we first need to calculate the total duration of the project. The project consists of three phases with the following durations: Phase 1 takes $D_1 = 15$ days, Phase 2 takes $D_2 = 10$ days, and Phase 3 takes $D_3 = 5$ days. The total duration $D_{total}$ can be calculated as: $$ D_{total} = D_1 + D_2 + D_3 = 15 + 10 + 5 = 30 \text{ days} $$ Next, we need to calculate the cost per day of the project. The cost per day is given as $C_{day} = 200$ currency units. Therefore, the total project cost $C_{total}$ can be calculated using the formula: $$ C_{total} = D_{total} \times C_{day} = 30 \times 200 = 6000 \text{ currency units} $$ Thus, the total cost of the project is $6000$ currency units. This calculation illustrates the importance of understanding how to aggregate project durations and apply cost rates effectively in project management.

To assess the impact of a proposed project on the local environment, a project manager must consider various factors, including ecological, social, and economic aspects. In this scenario, the project manager identifies three primary areas of impact: air quality, water resources, and community displacement. Each area is assigned a score based on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates minimal impact and 5 indicates severe impact. The scores are as follows: air quality (4), water resources (3), and community displacement (2). To calculate the overall impact score, we sum the individual scores: Overall Impact Score = Air Quality Score + Water Resources Score + Community Displacement Score Overall Impact Score = 4 + 3 + 2 = 9 The maximum possible score is 15 (if all areas scored 5). To express the overall impact as a percentage, we use the formula: Percentage Impact = (Overall Impact Score / Maximum Possible Score) * 100 Percentage Impact = (9 / 15) * 100 = 60% Thus, the overall impact assessment indicates a moderate level of concern regarding the project’s effects on the environment.

To calculate the Earned Value (EV), we use the formula: EV = % of completion × Total Budget. In this scenario, the project has a total budget of $200,000 and is currently 40% complete. Therefore, the calculation for EV is: EV = 0.40 × $200,000 = $80,000. Next, we need to calculate the Planned Value (PV) using the formula: PV = % planned completion × Total Budget. Assuming that at this point in the project timeline, 50% of the work was planned to be completed, we calculate: PV = 0.50 × $200,000 = $100,000. Now, we can find the Cost Performance Index (CPI) using the formula: CPI = EV / Actual Cost (AC). If the actual cost incurred so far is $90,000, we calculate: CPI = $80,000 / $90,000 = 0.89. A CPI of less than 1 indicates that the project is over budget. This means that for every dollar spent, only $0.89 worth of work has been accomplished. Understanding these metrics is crucial for project managers to assess project performance and make informed decisions.

To solve the resource allocation problem, we need to determine the optimal allocation of resources to maximize efficiency while minimizing costs. Let’s assume we have three projects (A, B, and C) and a total of 100 hours of available resources. The resource requirements for each project are as follows: Project A requires 40 hours, Project B requires 30 hours, and Project C requires 50 hours. However, we can only allocate a maximum of 100 hours in total. First, we calculate the total hours required: Total hours required = Hours for A + Hours for B + Hours for C Total hours required = 40 + 30 + 50 = 120 hours Since we only have 100 hours available, we need to prioritize the projects based on their importance or return on investment. If we allocate 40 hours to Project A, 30 hours to Project B, and 30 hours to Project C, we will utilize all 100 hours effectively. Thus, the optimal allocation is: – Project A: 40 hours – Project B: 30 hours – Project C: 30 hours This allocation maximizes the use of available resources while ensuring that no project is left without the necessary resources to proceed.

To determine the most effective project management approach for the given scenario, we need to analyze the project requirements and the environment in which it operates. The project involves developing a new software application for a client with specific needs. The client has requested frequent updates and changes throughout the development process, indicating a preference for flexibility. In this case, an Agile project management approach would be most suitable, as it allows for iterative development and regular feedback from the client. This approach emphasizes collaboration, adaptability, and customer satisfaction, which aligns with the client’s request for ongoing involvement and adjustments. Therefore, the correct answer is Agile project management.

To calculate the Cost Variance (CV), we use the formula: CV = Earned Value (EV) – Actual Cost (AC). Given: – Earned Value (EV) = $50,000 – Actual Cost (AC) = $60,000 Now, substituting the values into the formula: CV = $50,000 – $60,000 CV = -$10,000 This negative value indicates that the project is over budget. In project management, variance analysis is crucial as it helps project managers understand the financial health of a project. A negative cost variance suggests that the project is not performing as planned, and corrective actions may be necessary to bring the project back on track. This could involve reassessing resource allocation, identifying areas of overspending, or adjusting project scope to align with budget constraints. Understanding the implications of cost variance allows project managers to make informed decisions and maintain control over project finances.

To create a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), we begin by identifying the major deliverables of the project. For instance, if we have a project to develop a new software application, the major deliverables might include Requirements Gathering, Design, Development, Testing, and Deployment. Each of these deliverables can be broken down into smaller components. For example, Development can be further divided into Frontend Development and Backend Development. The WBS is typically represented in a hierarchical format, where the top level represents the overall project, and subsequent levels represent the breakdown of deliverables into smaller, manageable tasks. The total number of tasks in the WBS can be calculated by summing the number of components at each level. If we assume that Requirements Gathering has 3 tasks, Design has 4 tasks, Development has 5 tasks (2 for Frontend and 3 for Backend), Testing has 2 tasks, and Deployment has 1 task, we can calculate the total as follows: Total Tasks = 3 (Requirements Gathering) + 4 (Design) + 5 (Development) + 2 (Testing) + 1 (Deployment) = 15 tasks. Thus, the total number of tasks in the WBS is 15.