In October 2001, Cloud Silvy's executive committee reluctantly gave approval to two R&D projects that necessitated significant technical advancements. Compounding the issue, both products needed to be developed and launched in the market by the summer of 2002, while facing a short-projected lifespan due to rapid technological advancements. Nonetheless, despite these risks, full funding was provided for both projects, with each project being assigned a senior executive as its sponsor.

Cloud Silvy boasted a top-tier project management methodology consisting of five distinct life cycle phases and five gate review meetings. These gate review meetings served as crucial decision points, allowing for a go or no-go verdict based on current performance and anticipated risks. Every sponsor possessed the authority and autonomy to make all project-related decisions, including the power to terminate them.

The involvement of company politics consistently influenced the decision-making process when it came to terminating a project. The cancellation of a project frequently had repercussions on the career advancement prospects of the executive sponsor, as these projects were championed and financed through the sponsor's organization.

In the initial two gate review meetings, nearly everyone suggested terminating both projects. The prospect of achieving technical breakthroughs seemed improbable, and the projected timeline appeared overly optimistic. However, ending the projects at this early stage would not reflect positively on the sponsors. With hesitation, both sponsors reluctantly decided to proceed with the projects until the third gate, hoping for a miraculous turnaround.

At the third gate review, the projects remained at risk. While the possibility of a technical breakthrough appeared more feasible, it would require extending the launch date. This adjustment meant that Cloud Silvy would have a narrow window of just six months to market and sell the products before they become outdated.

During the fourth gate review, the expected technical breakthrough had not materialized, although it remained a possibility. Both project managers persisted in recommending project termination, and the situation was deteriorating. However, to maintain a favorable image within the company, both sponsors opted to let the projects proceed until completion. They asserted that if the new products failed to generate enough sales to recoup the R&D expenses, the responsibility lay with the marketing and sales teams rather than themselves. In essence, the sponsors had now absolved themselves of accountability.

Both projects concluded with a delay of six months. Unfortunately, the salesforce was unable to make a single sale, and the products quickly became obsolete. The failures were attributed to the marketing and sales departments rather than the project sponsors.

Answer all the questions:

1. Identify and explain issues highlighted in the Cloud Silvy. (25 marks)

2. Analyze steps you believe can be taken to remove politics from gate review meetings. (25 marks)

3. Develop a methodology where the termination of a project is not viewed as a failure. (25 marks)

4. Evaluate alternatives can a project manager explore in situations where there is a disagreement between the sponsor and the project manager. (25 marks)