Identify a project schedule or cost topic for this case study and state specific best practice, process or tool that would assist this case study

Missouri State, UNIVERSITY Quantum Telecom Directions Students submit 3 case study papers that explore a project schedule and cost topic. Submit a PDF copy of a 2 to 4page paper (excluding title and reference page) using APA format in Blackboard. Each paper is worth 50 points for a cumulative total of 150 points. Case study papers are due by 11:59 pm Sunday. The third case study paper is the course's capstone assignment used for program assessment. Read the case study narrative and identify a project schedule or cost topic from the last third of the course that applies to the case study. Your paper should present a specific best practice, process, or tool that would assist the case study. Your short paper will not resolve the entire case study; but it should address your narrow topic with some details. Case Study In June of 1998, the executive committee of Quantum Telecom reluctantly approved two R&D projects that required technical breakthroughs. To make matters worse, the two products had to be developed by the summer of 1999 and introduced into the marketplace quickly. The life expectancy of both products was estimated to be less than one year because of the rate of change 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 Telecom had a world-class project management methodology with five life cycle phases and five gate review meetings. The gate review meetings were golno-go decision points based upon present performance and future risks. Each sponsor was authorized and empowered to make any and all decisions relative 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 advancement opportunities because the projects were promoted by the sponsors and funded through the sponsor's organization. During the first two gate review meetings, virtually everyone recommended the termination of both projects. Technical breakthroughs seemed unlikely, and the schedule appeared unduely optimistic. But terminating the projects this early would certainly not reflect favorably upon the sponsors. Reluctantly, both sponsors agreed to continue the projects to the third gate in hopes of a \"miracle.\" 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 be 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 plausible. Both project managers were still advocating the cancellation of the projects, and the Source: Kerzner, H. (2013). Project management: Case studies (4th ed). Wiley. situation was getting worse. Yet, in order 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 sufficient quantity to recover the R&D costs, then the fault lies with marketing and sales, not with us.\" The sponsors were now off the hook, so to speak. 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. Source: Kerzner, H. (2013). Project management: Case studies (4th ed.). Wiley