Competition and US Antitrust Law - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 11 Words: 3188 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Analytical essay Level High school Tags: Competition Essay Did you like this example? INTRODUCTION The boundaries of a business conduct that can be defined as anticompetitive and exclusionary is still one of the most debated issues in the United States Antitrust Law (hereinafter US Antitrust Law) today. The business conducts that intends to decrease the competition in the relevent market is widely considered as violation under the Sherman Antirust Act dated 1890 (hereinafter Sherman Act), which aims to prevent the trusts and monopolization. As mentioned above by way of protecting the competition, Sherman Act foresees some provisions where it prohibits the contracts, combinations or conspiracies that are to preclude competition and harm other competitiors. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Competition and US Antitrust Law" essay for you Create order Therefore these forms shall be illegal under Sherman Act to the extent they limit the commerce(KUSSE, 1984).[1] Under the US Antitrust Case Law and also by many leading scholars, it is widely accepted that a company is free to refuse to deal with a competitor if this behavior is not an attempt to monopolize the market. This paper will mainly focus on this assumption in light of the present US Law. In particular, in general, the Colgate doctrine revelaed that a competitor has the right to refuse to deal with a rival and if a monopoly power firm is not intended to create monopolization, the Sherman Act does not restrict the monopolist to freely choose the person/rival to deal. [2] When considering the Colgate doctine as starting point, this essay will argue the well known Aspen Case, in order to examine to what extent monopolists have an affirmative duty to deal with a rival. The limits of this right were drawn later by other US Supreme Court decision by considering the essetial fac ilities doctrine. Aspen is one of these cases where the Supreme Court concluded that the competitors right to refuse to deal with a rival competitior is not unquantified however the Court did not adopted the essential facilities doctrine. Therefore this doctrine will not be the subject of this paper instead it will be referred slightly when necessary. The facts of the Aspen case will be analyzed below further however just to give an overview it is noteworthy to mention beforehand that the dispute arose between two ski resort companies namely; Aspen Skiin and Aspen Highlands, which for many years contributed to a joint marketing of a ticket to the skiers which gives access to eachothers mountains.[3] However Aspen Skiing discontinued its participation in this joint ticket program with Aspen Highlands. In Aspen Case, the Supreme Court concluded that since the defendant monopolist could not prove the justification to its refusal to cooperate to market a joint ski lift ticket that it formerly supplied to the Claimant was to obtain or at least was to cause monopoly violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act.[4] RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE Aspen Case between two ski resort companies in Aspen, Colorado in the USA i.e. Aspen Highlands (hereinafter Aspen Higlands) and Aspen Skiing Co. (hereinafter Aspen Skiing) is a United States Supreme Court case dated 1985 which has significance effect with regard to the abuse of dominant position. By the time of the dispute was first brought to the US Federal District Court, tehere were four ski resorts in Aspen Mountain; only one of them was owned by Aspen Higland and the rest of the resorts were owned by a single resort namely Aspen Skiing. The Parties had, for several years, to be more specific-until 1978- contributed into a joint marketing plan to sell a ski ticket called a 4-area All Aspen ticket which allowed the skiers to visit all of the Mountains without considering at which resort they stay and the revenues from these sales were shared between the parties in accordance with the coupons collected everyday. However, in 1978, Aspen Skiing abused its dominant position by it will not continue to sell its visitors the all-Aspen ticket if Aspen Highlands would not accept a fixed share of revenue which will in long term will hamper rival competition and therefore not considered as normal competition.[5] After long negotiations, Highlands accepted a fixed percentage which is a bit higher than what was offered by Aspen Skiing, which was leter further decreased by Aspen Skiing. [6] Because this offer was unaccapteble for Aspen Highland and therefore had not been accepted by Aspen Highlands, Aspen Skiing discountinued to sell the all-Aspen tickets. Notwithstanding Aspen Skiing started to act in a way where it stoped to offer any lift tickets to Aspen Highlands visitors to enable them to ski at the the Aspen Skiing Mountains as well. This attitude economicly harmed Aspen Highlands since it prevent Aspen Highlands from offering skiers visiting its resort any ticket for giving acces to all mountains (multi- area ticket). In spite of this Aspen Skiing was a ble to offer a 3-area, 6-day ticket which made it the only resort in the market that can give oppourtunity to visit more than one mountain during their visit and therefore the visitor who wants to ski on different mountains had to visit the Aspen Skiings resort. In addition to that, to promote this ticket, Aspen Skiing started an advertising campaign that influenced people who were unfamiliar with Aspen where it changed its picture of the four mountains in the Airport-Aspen Airways waiting room. The new sign referred to its three mountains only.[7] These actions of Aspen Skiing harmed Aspen Highlands so deeply that it became very hard to survive in the market as a result of which Aspen Highlands became a day ski area. Consequently, Aspen Highlands market share faced a steady downfall after it discountinued to sell the multiarea tickets.[8] Aspen Highlands revenues from associated skiing facilities and services declined sharply as well. Eventually in 1979, Aspen Highlands filed a case before the United States District Court alleging that Aspen Skiings unilateral refusal to continue selling a joint ticket launced by the competitors was to attempt to monopolize the market under Sherman Act- Section 2. In 1985, the case was taken to the Supreme Court, wherein the Supreme Court concluded that Aspen Skiings refusal to deal with a rival competitor was exclusionary since it made a change in the longlasting joint marketing program between the parties on some basis other than efficiency which can be defined as predatory.[9] The Supreme Court more specifically reasoned its decision based on the fact that refusal to deal violates antirust law only when it is to maintain a monopoly power and Aspen Skiing without any justified reason cut a longlasting cooperation with its rival.[10] Prior to Aspen Case, almost al of the US Supreme Court case have evaluated the refusal to deal concept within the framework of essential facilities doctrine under which a monopolist is to deal with a competitior if a monopolist has the control of a facility essential for its rival to compete and it has denied the use of this facility to a rival without a valid business reason. Aspen Case is therefore important that it did not adopt the essential facilities doctrine, which was being critizied by many leading scholars.[11] The reason of the criticism was that most of the courts interpreted the essential facilities doctrine and concluded that it gives a general duty to deal with a rival. This was negated by the Aspen case where the court concluded that Aspen Skiings refusal to deal with Aspen Highlands was exclusionary when considering the fact that Aspen Skiing could not be able to prove an efficiency justification for its refusal and further the Court did not evaluated whether or not the product (facility) was essential. In my opinion Aspen case has a great importance where the Supreme Court did not consider the essential facilities doctrine instead the justific ation for a monopolist resfusal to deal with a rival. ASPEN CASE- REFUSAL TO DEAL WHAT IS MONOPOLY POWER? In the event that one firm has the majority of the market share and that one firm can determine the conditions of the market as being in a dominant position, it is worth to note that this firm has monopoly power, which can in practice use this power to determine the conditions that can have a negative impact on the smaller competitors. The US Antitrust Law prohibits the monopolies unless they are are not as a result of a natural success or superior product of a firm (legitametely gained monopoly). In other words, it is fair to say that the general standard under Sherman Act is that the criter of harm the rival and competition will be considered exclusionary conduct by a monopolist, for which sanctions were foreseen by the Sherman Act. DOES A MONOPOLY POWER FIRM HAVE THE DUTY TO ENGAGE IN BUSINESS WITH A COMPETITOR? Section 2 prohibits any concerted and unilateral conducts that are to acquire monopolies. As emphasized by RIEVMAN, due to a lack of a clear definition of an unilateral and anticompetitive conduct in the Act itself, the courts usually define and formalize the elements for an anticompetitive behaviour on a case by case basis (RIEVMAN, 2012).[12] As briefly mentioned above in the Colgate case the court concluded that if a monopolist did not intent to maintain monopoly, its can freely decide whether to deal or with whom to deal. Mostly after the Colgate Case, US Supreme courts adopted the same apporac. Similarly, in Lorain Journal and Aspen Case, the Courts and besides leading scholars revealed that the there is a duty to aid a rival unless a monopolist did not have a valid reason for refusal.[13] Therefore, the entrepreneur has the right to exercise independent discretion in choosing the customers or class of customers with whom he will deal unless this right to choose the customer e xcludes competition.[14] In Aspen Case it was decided that the offense of monopolization has two element as similarly explained in United States v. Grinnell Corp. that is to say if a firm has a monopoly power in the market who uses this power to create monopoly power which is not an outcome of a superior product or business of this firm. These elements set out by the vested practice of the US Supreme Courts decision determines the boundaries of the monopolization which will be considered as a violation of law. In a sense, the refusal to cooperate with a rival can be anticompetitive only under the above mentioned circumstances which is more basically the intent of the monopolist. The Court of Appeal in the Aspen Case took the same approach. The Court of Appeal emphasized that a monopolists intent should be taken into account when determining whether the challenged conduct is fairly characterized as exclusionary, anticompetitive, or predatory.[15] Unless there is a valid reas on for a monopoly power firm to refuse to deal with a rival, it will not be considered as a violation of Sherman Act Section 2, which shall be evaluated by examining the the firmss intent. Aspen Skiing was not able to support its position that it had a valid business reason when discontinuing to sell a joint marketing product launced and developed by both of the Parties. Aspen Skiing became the only ski resort that could offer a multiare ski-ticket to its visitos. Aspen Highlands had a great interest in continuing to sell the all-Aspen tickets and Aspen Skiings insistence first on a fixed percentage of the market share of the revenues from these tickets and secondy cancelling a long-lasted practice between the Parties. Without being able to sell tickets to the other mountains, Aspen Highlands market sahere and revenues declined where at the same time Aspen Skiings shares increased sharply. Aspen Skiings refusal for a 4 area-mountain ticket also had adverse affect on the skiers as well. Appeal Courts decision was later affirmed by the Supreme Court where it rendered that Aspen Skiing had monopolized the market in Aspen. The Supreme Court clerarly stated no monopolist monopolizes unconscious of what he is doing by making reference to  Borks book where he stated that improper exclusion that are not a consequence of a superior business or products is always intended therefore the intend shall be investigated (BORK, 1978). In the actual case, the Supreme Court cocluded that Aspen Skiing did not only rejected to contiune a joint marketing program long lasting between in the Parties but is actually without a valid reason stopped the availability of a tiket that was preferred by the skiers.[16] Therefore paralel to the Supreme Courts decision one can argue that Aspen Skiings decision to terminate the all-Aspen wa to determine the conditions of the market and harm the other competitor in the market. Not only to the rival competitor, also consumers were also affected by Aspen Skiings unilateral decision. The Supreme Court concluded that where a firm with monopoly power attempts to create monopoly power by restraining the competition in the market with our efficiency concerns, it will be considered a violation of Section 2. If one should examine the consequences of Aspen Highlands refusal to deal. For whatwever the reason is the strong demand of the skiers for all-Aspen ticket formed over the years, which remained unreciprocaed. Aspen Skiing cancelled a product that allowed the skiers to be flexibale about the mountain to ski each day which was preferred by the the majotiy of the skiers. Besides the consumers, due to Aspen Skiings pattern of conduct on Highlands together with the additional actions taken by Aspen Skiing Aspen Highlands was prevented from marketing its own product to compete with Aspen Skiing and therefore survive in the market. The Court indicated that underlying norm of efficieny was not met as a result of which i t is not fair to say that there is a proper exclusion of the monopolist. Aspen Skiing refusal to deal with Aspen Highland was to enforce a power to exclude the competition in the relevant market and could not be explained by a any valid business reason. I belive that the Supreme Courts decision was right in this respect when considering the reason for termination of the multi area tickets by Aspen Skiing. The reason was that Aspen Skiing was not happy with the accuracy of the ticket monitoring system. However it was later revealed by thevidences before the Supreme Court that Aspen Skiing itself monitored the use of the 3-area passes based on the same system which it claimed to be unproper during the cancellation of the joint product.[17] Therefore this is enough to have a clear indication that Aspen Skiing was enjoying to exclude competition in the market by hamparing a smaller rival. [18] As emphasized by the Supreme Court if there was any valid reason for the refusal then Aspen Sk iing would not be considered to be violating Section 2. Because having a monopoly power alone is not a base for a violation instead the conduct itself is important. One should consider whether the conduct namly the refusal of the monopoist to deal is to handicap competitior and whether it benefits the consumers by this conduct, which is definitely not the case in the instant case.[19] When considering the above, parallel to the Supreme Courts decision, I am of the understanding that the monopolist made an effort to hinder the skiers (customers) to prefer the smaller rival for skiing services and it had no valid reason when doing so. Therefore the monopolist conduct in an anticompetitive or exclusionary way for instance by harming a rival to get higher profit in the market shall be illegal. In other words there are limits of a right of a competitors refusal to deal. These limits are vested in the rivals ability to find new customers and make higher profits. This will be conside red sucessful competition.[20] Therefore as emphasized in many US Supreme Court decision a monopolist right to refuse to deal with a rival competitor is not unqauntified.[21] It may give rise to a responsibility unless there is any valid reason to do so. In Lorain Journal Case it was concluded by the Supreme Court that a refusal to deal with a competitor can harm this smaller competitors right to select his customers and therefore make benefit in the market. In Lorain Journal case the publisher was considered to be in an attempt to monopolize the market by trying to destroy its small competitor which was a radio station when refusing to sell advertising to persons that patronized the radio station. Finally, in my opinion, In Aspen Case, Aspen Skiing refusal of continuing a joint marketing product with Aspen Highlands resulted in a wane of Aspen Highlands share in the relevant market. The Court is right in concluding that although there is no general duty to deal with a competi tior, monopolists refusal to sell a joint ticket program with its rival should be considered as illegal to the extent that this refusal has no valid reason and harms the small competitor(s). CONCLUSION A monopolist duty to deal is considered by case by case approach. As emphasized by many US Supreme Court cases, monopolisy duty to deal with the competitor depends wherher monpolist has a valid reason for that refusal. In Aspen Case, Aspen Skiings conduct was to maintain a monopoly without a valid business reason. When considering the essential nature of the All-Aspen Ticket featuring access to all four maountiains Aspen Skiings refusal to deal with Aspen Highlands, had limited its facilites to offer its visitors. In my opinion within the framework of the objectives of the competition and consumer welfare, if a monopolists refusal to deal harms the smaller competitor and also the consumer, which will be negatively effected by the refusal, this should be considered as violatio n of Sherman Act if there is no valid reason to refuse and one will be able to argue that a monopoly power firm then has a duty to cooperate with its rival. REFERENCES KUSSE, Kathryn A., Refusal to Deal as a Per Se Violation of the Sherman Act: Russel Stover Attacks the Colgate Doctrine, (1984) Retrieved from https://www.americanuniversitylawreview.org/pdfs/33/33-2/kusske.pdf RIEVMAN, David M., Boston College Law Review, Volume 28, Issue 2, Number 2, Article 7, 3-1-1987, The Grinnell Test of Monopolization Sounds a False Alarm: Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. (1987) KÃÆ'„SEBERG, Thorsten Intellectual Property, Antitrust and Cumulative Innovation in the EU and the US, p.187 (2012) KAPEN Alon Y., Duty to Cooperate Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act Aspen Skiings Slippery Slope, Cornell Law Review Volume 72 Issue 5 July 1987 Article 5 ELHLAUGE Einer, GERADIN Damien, Global Competition Law and Economics, 2011, p. 425 R. BORK, The Antitrust Pa radox (1978) CASE REFERENCES Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985) United States v. ColgateCo., 250 U.S. 300 (1919) Lorain Journal v. United States, 342 U.S. 143, 154 (1951) United States v. Citizens Southern National Bank 422 US 86 1 [1] KUSSE, p. 463 (1984) [2] Colgate, 250 U.S. at 307 [3] Parties had a interchangable ticket program which gives acces to all of the four mountains for the skiers visiting these resorts. [4] Aspen, 472 U.S. 585, at 610-11 [5] Id. at 591; ELHAUGE/GERADIN, p. 415 [6] Id. at 593 [7] Id. at 593 [8] Id. at 590 [9] BORK, p. 344 [10] Id. at 603 [11] ELHAUGE/GERADIN, 447. 415 [12] RIEVMAN (2012), p.415 [13]Lorain Journal v. United States; Verizon vs. Trinko, ifra 524 [14] JONES/ SUFRIN, p.524 [15] Id. at 602-04 [16] Id at 603 [17] Id at 608-10. [18] Id at 608-10. [19] Id at 597 [20] United States v. Citizens Southern National Bank 422 US 86 [21] Id. at 602

The Movement Of The Negro World - 1407 Words

Introduction In a decade’s time, Marcus Moziah Garvey entered United States, at the age of 28, and cultivated the American Negro through his oratory that is seen as the awaken of Black Nationalism. Garvey’s work does not end in America, he’s efforts were world-wide but not limited to Africa to Nova Scotia, and South America. It has been stated that Garvey raised more money and grew a membership than any other Negro organization to date. Coined as the Black Moses, Garvey’s stated â€Å"I know no national boundary where the Negro is concerned. The whole world is my province until Africa is free.† Garvey evoke the message to his listeners that black skin was not to be shamed but black skin exemplifies national greatness. It is stated that his†¦show more content†¦I wish to further analyze how the organizing strategy with the United Negro Improvement Association has been utilized, its impact, strengths and weaknesses of the approach, contemporary relevance, and implications for practice. Biography Marcus Garvey was born to Marcus and Sarah Garvey, on August 17, 1887 in a little town named St. Ann’s Bay in Jamaica. Hoping that one day her new born son would lead his people, his mother, Sarah, wanted to make his middle name Moses. Garvey’s father was not a religious man, but comprised with Moziah as Garvey’s middle name. His parents were of the unmixed Negro stock, and his father was of the Maroons. Maroons were descendants of Africans who fought and escaped from slavery and established free communities in the mountainous interior of Jamaica during the era of slavery. Marcus Garvey was recognized a glorified as a full-blooded black man with no taint of a white in his blood. Marcus Garvey was the youngest of eleven children. Most of his siblings died young. Marcus and his sister, Indiana, were the only two to live to maturity. The family were very well-off; however, Garvey Sr. experienced some misfortune and lost most of his property. At the age of 14, Marcu s Garvey was forced to quit school and begin working. It was too at this age that Garvey describe the first moment he heard of the term,

Aid of Project Management Methodology †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Aid of Project Management Methodology. Answer: Introduction Project Management is a discipline that provides the guidelines and measures to the Project Managers for efficient management of the projects, its resources, requirements and stakeholders. There are several methodologies that have been defined for project management, such as Projects In Controlled Environment (PRINCE2), Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), agile framework for project management and many more. Each of these methodologies has its own set of features, pros and cons. The applicability of a project management methodology to a project is based on numerous factor such as the project size, requirements, resources, critical areas, risk areas etc. The project which is required to be managed with the aid of project management methodology is the project costing bespoke system. There are various phases that are involved in the project like project development, procurement of hardware, implementation and testing, training of users, go live and review of deliverables. Project Management Methodologies Project Management Body of Knowledge Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) is a project management methodology that organizes the entire project management activities and tasks in five process groups. These process groups include initiation, planning, execution, control and closure (Rose, 2013). The first process group is the project initiation. In this stage, the project is defined at a broad level. The feasibility of the project is evaluated in this stage of the project with the aid of feasibility studies on technical, economical, operational and environmental aspects. A charter document is prepared in this stage to gain approval from the stakeholders on the project go-ahead. The second process group is project planning. It is the phase in which the project goals are defined which shall be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely) goals. There are a number of planning tasks and activities that are carried out in this stage. These include the project estimations in terms of project budget, project schedule, risk assessment, communication planning and resource planning. The scope of the project is defined in this project group with the aid of the scope statement. The list of deliverables and milestones is also defined (Randolph, 2014). The third process group include the project execution that begins with a kick off meeting. The procurement of the tools and equipment is done followed by the design and developmental activities. The plans created in the previous stage are executed in this stage. The next process group include the monitoring and control of the project. It is this stage in which implementation of the project along with the testing of the same is performed. There may be many changes that may come up during the project in terms of the change in the project requirements and specifications along with changes for the project team members. These changes are also managed in this stage. The performance of the resources is also evaluated in this phase and the performance measurement is carried out in this phase. Project control and evaluation is carried out in this stage with the aid of processes as reviews, inspections and walkthroughs (Chou Yang, 2012). The last process group includes the closure of the project. All of the project deliverables are accepted and signed off in this stage by the project stakeholders. The process groups also include the system documentation along with the development of the closure report. The report covers all of the project activities that are carried out during the project life cycle. There are a number of knowledge areas that are managed under PMBOK. Some of the knowledge areas cover integration management, scope management, time management, cost management, communication management, risk management, resource management and likewise. These knowledge areas provide the specific guidelines that shall be followed during the management and organization of a particular project (Jamali Oveisi, 2016). Agile Project Management Another project management methodology that is widely applicable is the adaptive methodology using agile framework. The nature of this project methodology is adaptive whereas most of the other project management methodology are predictive in nature. Agile project management is an ad-hoc project management methodology that is value based in nature. There are no project stages or defined phases that are included under this management methodology. However, there are certain steps that shall be followed under this particular project management framework. It is a value driven approach for project management that allows the project managers to deliver the project deliverables with better quality and accuracy (Juricek, 2014). In the agile project management, there is SCRUM framework that is used. In this framework, there is a product backlog that is present that comprises of all of the project related requirements and specifications. This backlog is created with the aid of the project owner. The management process is carried out in an iterative manner in a series of sprints. Each of these sprints lasts for 2-4 weeks and the managerial activities are accordingly carried out. There are three sets of planning activities that are involved in each of these sprints viz. project level planning, release level planning and iteration level planning (Indelicato, 2016). The planning activities allow the project team members to get details around the project specifications and highlights, project schedule along with the planning regarding the execution of the work sets. There is also a daily sprint meeting that is carried out among all the team members that includes the discussion of the project progress and also aids in the resolution of the project risks and conflicts. There are a number of benefits that are offered by agile project management in terms of its ad-hoc nature. There may be cases during the project life cycle wherein it may become necessary to make sudden changes and modifications. Such changes can be handled with ease using the agile project management methodology. Also, the customers and project owners are kept in close contact during the entire project life cycle. It makes sure that all of the processes being carried out at the managerial level are informed to all the project stakeholders and their valuable feedback is also collected (Rasnacis Berzisa, 2015). The user and customer satisfaction level that is earned using agile project management and its application is usually high. Comparison between PMBOK Agile Project Management Parameter PMBOK Agile Project Management Type Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) is a methodology for the management of the projects Agile project management is a framework for the management of the projects Management Team Responsibilities The primary responsibility and accountability for the management of the project tasks and activities is on the Project Manager. The primary responsibility of the project management is on the SCRUM master and there are self-managed teams and groups that are involved. Phases and Steps The entire project management activities and tasks in five process groups. These process groups include initiation, planning, execution, control and closure. The management process is carried out in an iterative manner in a series of sprints. Each of these sprints lasts for 2-4 weeks and the managerial activities are accordingly carried out (Gemunden, 2015). Flexibility Change Management The project tasks and activities that are managed as per PMBOK methodology are less flexible in nature. The change control method is also not very flexible and there is a lot of rework that is normally associated with the projects (Matos Lopes, 2013). The level of flexibility that is involved in this case is extremely high. The changes can be easily incorporated in the projects and there is also minimal rework involved. Level of Planning There is an extensive planning that is involved for the entire project that includes project estimations in terms of project budget, project schedule, risk assessment, communication planning and resource planning. The scope of the project is defined in this project group with the aid of the scope statement. The list of deliverables and milestones is also defined. There are three sets of planning activities that are involved in each of the sprints viz. project level planning, release level planning and iteration level planning. Monitoring Activities The project meetings take place on a weekly basis and the monitoring activities are carried out using additional mechanisms such as daily or weekly status reporting. There is a daily sprint meeting that is carried out among all the team members that includes the discussion of the project progress and also aids in the resolution of the project risks and conflicts (Dalcher, 2011). Advantages The methodology is easy to understand and apply as the phases are clearly defined along with the definition of the roles, responsibilities and all the knowledge areas (Saleh Al-Freidi, 2015). It provides a standard process and mechanism for the management of project activities and associated steps. The management methodology is recognized at the global level which makes it easier for the project clients to represent the project at a global scale. The changes can be easily made in the projects leading to the ability to meet the budget and schedule that is estimated for the project. The project quality is high as the business value is kept as the prime focus. The customers and project owners are kept in close contact during the entire project life cycle. It makes sure that all of the processes being carried out at the managerial level are informed to all the project stakeholders and their valuable feedback is also collected. It leads to better customer and stakeholder engagement and satisfaction levels (Serrador Pinto, 2015). Set of Challenges This management methodology may not be applicable in the projects that may be changing frequently. The flexibility and the adaptability is limited in this case. The success criteria is not clearly defined and stated which may make it difficult to track the project success. Ongoing business input is required in this case. Applicability for the Project The project costing bespoke system that has to be developed includes a number of phases as project development, procurement of hardware, implementation and testing, training of users, go live and review of deliverables. There are certain risks that are associated with the project in terms of variation in the quality of the deliverables, schedule and cost overrun, communication conflicts, testing issues, dissatisfied users and damage to the PCs or the servers. The probability of all of these risks is high in the case of this project (Attarzadeh Ow, 2008). There are lesser scope of major changes in the project that may take place. Also, it is extremely necessary to stick to the timeline and the budget that has been estimated. The quality of the deliverables as promised during the planning stage along with the completion of each of the project phases is also necessary. As per the factors associated with the project, the applicable project management methodology that has been recommended for this project is Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). This project management methodology would make sure that all of the project requirements, specifications and expectations are met (Joslin Muller, 2015). There will also be a number of benefits that will be offered by PMBOK to this project. The set of benefits include the ease of application and understanding as the phases are clearly defined along with the definition of the roles, responsibilities and all the knowledge areas. The Project Manager will have the guidelines and step of actions in case of the project risks and conflicts. There are a number of knowledge areas that are managed under PMBOK. Some of the knowledge areas cover integration management, scope management, time management, cost management, communication management, risk management, resource management and likewise. Conclusion Project management has become a necessary and essential area to be looked after during the project life cycle in the business organizations. It is because of the reason that there ae numerous projects that are required to be managed by the members of the staff at the same time. There are also numerous requirements that are required to be included during the project life cycle. The management methodologies make it easy to attain the project specifications and requirements and also it becomes easier to achieve the project goals and objectives. The selection of the project management methodology shall depend upon the nature and type of the project along with the project factors, such as project resources, project deliverables, project specifications etc. The customer satisfaction levels, type of the customer, nature of the customer, expected project quality along with the scope of changes in the project shall also be considered while making the selection for the project management methodology. References Attarzadeh, I., Ow, S. (2008). New Direction in Project Management Success: Base on Smart Methodology Selection. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1628611 Chou, J., Yang, J. (2012). Project Management Knowledge and Effects on Construction Project Outcomes: An Empirical Study. Project Management Journal, 43(5), 47-67. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21293 Dalcher, D. (2011). Project management the agile way: Making it work in the enterprise. Project Management Journal, 42(1), 92-92. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20229 Gemunden, H. (2015). Foundations of Project Management Research: Stakeholders and Agile. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 3-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21557 Indelicato, G. (2016). Agile for Project Managers. Project Management Journal, 47(1), e4-e4. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21569 Jamali, G., Oveisi, M. (2016). A Study on Project Management Based on PMBOK and PRINCE2. Modern Applied Science, 10(6), 142. https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/mas.v10n6p142 Joslin, R., Muller, R. (2015). Relationships between a project management methodology and project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal Of Project Management, 33(6), 1377-1392. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.005 Juricek, J. (2014). Agile Project Management Principles. Lecture Notes On Software Engineering, 172-175. https://dx.doi.org/10.7763/lnse.2014.v2.117 Matos, S., Lopes, E. (2013). Prince2 or PMBOK A Question of Choice. Procedia Technology, 9, 787-794. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.087 Randolph, S. (2014). Maximizing Project Value: A Project Manager's Guide. Project Management Journal, 45(2), e2-e2. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21399 Rasnacis, A., Berzisa, S. (2015). Adaptation of Agile Project Management Methodology for Project Team. Information Technology And Management Science, 18(1). https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/itms-2015-0019 Rose, K. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide)-Fifth Edition. Project Management Journal, 44(3), e1-e1. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21345 Saleh Al-Freidi, S. (2015). A Unified Project Management Methodology (UPMM) based on PMBOK and PRINCE2 protocols: foundations, principles, structures and benefits of the integrated approach. International Journal Of Business Policy And Strategy Management, 2(1), 27-38. https://dx.doi.org/10.21742/ijbpsm.2015.2.03 Serrador, P., Pinto, J. (2015). Does Agile work? A quantitative analysis of agile project success. International Journal Of Project Management, 33(5), 1040-1051. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.006