Professional responsibility: Clarification needed

Discussion in 'PMP' started by Deepti Bhattacharya, Sep 13, 2020 at 11:13 AM.

  1. Deepti Bhattacharya

    Deepti Bhattacharya Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2019
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    For your project, you sent a request to the procurements department for purchase of 1000 modems. A few days later, you are told that the PO has been issued in the favor of XYZ Inc. You inform Mandy, one of your friends who work for this organization, about this transaction. Per PMI is there a violation of professional responsibility?
    SELECT THE CORRECT ANSWER
    A. Yes; you have informed Mandy about the transaction. Therefore, there is violation of professional responsibility as confidential information has been leaked.
    B. No, you informed Mandy after the PO was issued. Therefore, there is no violation of professional responsibility because confidential information has not been leaked.
    C. Yes; you have made the issuance of PO public. Therefore there is violation of professional responsibility as confidential information has been leaked.
    D. Can't say

    Correct Option:B

    EXPLANATION

    No, you informed Mandy after the PO was issued. Therefore, there is no violation of professional responsibility as confidential information has not been leaked. Since the PO has already been issued and the transaction is public now, there is no confidential information being leaked. If the transaction had been shared prior to the issuance of the PO, then it would have been a violation of responsibility.

    My query is, how can we assume transaction is public now, and issuing of PO is not confidential agreement?
     
    #1
  2. Rajat_Kumar

    Rajat_Kumar Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Simplilearn Support Alumni

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    32
    #2
  3. tim jerome

    tim jerome Well-Known Member
    Trainer

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    684
    I'm not an attorney. You may want to talk to someone who has legal expertise. However, I have worked with Many attorneys, and here is my opinion.
    • The PO is between you (the buyer) and the seller - this is true. There is no breach of confidentiality here, since Mandy works for the procurements department who owns the processing of the agreement (and this includes the PO in question). You have not stepped out of bounds of the company's rules for processing POs. This is much like one detective going over the details of a crime with another detective, or an expert in another department, for clarity.
    The justification is not worded precisely, so it is a bit misleading.

    We can read more into this question, and look at alternative scenarios, I don't see any available information that allows me to consider anything further. Please feel free to ask more questions / comment on this.
     
    #3
  4. Deepti Bhattacharya

    Deepti Bhattacharya Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2019
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am more inclined to option D, as I feel we dont have enough relevant info, question says that Mandy works for the organization and not procurement department, so the explanation above cannot be concluded
     
    #4
  5. Prema.M

    Prema.M Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Simplilearn Support Alumni

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2019
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    51
    @Tim ,kindly assist.
     
    #5

Share This Page