Hello

In the given image there is a case study and needed the proper explanation according to the following questions.

As PMI members, review the above case study and comment on the following.

1.Code of Ethics and professional conduct. Make sure you map out Responsibilities, Respect, Fairness, and honesty.

2.Appraise the sponsors and the PMs.

Quantum Telecom In June of 1998, the executive conunittee of Quantum Telecom reluctantly ap proved two Rd'tD projects that required technical breakdiroughs. To make matters worse, the two products had to be developed by the summer of 1999 and intro reduced to the marketplace quickly. The life expectancy of both products was ese estimated to be less than one year because ofthe rate ofchange In technology. Yet despite these risks, the two projects were fully funded. Two senior executives were assigned as the project sponsors, one for each project. Quantum Ielecom had a world-class project management methodology with five life cycle phases and five gate reView meetings. The gate review meetings were going-"no-go decision points based on present performance and future risks. Each sponsor was authorized and empowered to make all decisions in realtime to projects, including termination. Company politics always played an active role in decisions to terminate a project Termination of a project often impacted the executive sponsor's ads advancement opportunities because the projects were promoted by the sponsors and funded through the sponsors organization. During the rst two gate review meetings, virtually everyone recommended the termination of both projects. Technical breakthroughs seemed unlikely, and the schedule appeared unduly optimistic. But terminating the pr0jects this early would certainly not reect favorably upon the sponsors. Reluctantly, both sponsors agreed to continue the projects to the third gate in hopes ofa "miracle." QUANTUM TELECOM During the third gate review, the projects were still in peril. Although the technical breakthrough opportunity now seemed plausible= the launch date would have to he slipped, thus giving Quantum Telecom a window of only six months to sell the products before obsolescence would occur. By the fourth gate review, the technical breakthrough had not yet occurred but did still seem plausrble. Both project managers were still advocating the cancellation of the projects, and the situation was getting worse. Yet, to "save face" within the corporation, both sponsors allowed the projects to continue to completion. They asserted that, "If the new products could not be sold in suicient quantity to recover the R&D costs, then the fault lies with marketing and sales, not with us." The sponsors were now offthe hook, so to spealc. Both projects were completed six months late. The salesforce could not sell as much as one unit and obsolescence occurred quickly. Marketing and sales were blamed for the failures, not the project sponsors