ࡱ> 7 8bjbjUU W7|7|3lhhh8$@h:42 2 2 &&&2@4@4@4@4@4@4@$B ;DX@&%&&&X@*2 2 m@***&2 2 2@*&2@***R;|^<2  P1Ah_'Z;^<@0@;~WE(fWE^<* 1.0 What is ODR? Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) refers to dispute resolution processes assisted by information technology, particularly the internet. This can include facilitative processes such as mediation, advisory processes such as case appraisal and determinative processes such as arbitration and adjudication. Hammond (2003) loosely describes ODR as a process of using the Internet to provide ADR. Wahab (2004) defines ODR as a merging of information technology and traditional ADR to create a new efficient, cost effective, flexible, swift, and apposite online dispute resolution system, which is not just a virtual reverberation of ADR. In a statement which simplifies the definition of ODR, Ramasastry (2004) concludes that ODR refers to the use of information technology and telecommunications via the Internet (online technology), as applied to alternative dispute resolution (ADR). 2.0 ODR in Construction An area that has never previously been considered is the application of ODR within the Construction Industry; therefore a research study, including a questionnaire survey, was conducted where the respondents of the survey included a mixture of professionals including quantity surveyors, building surveyors, legal consultants and architects. Each respondent was asked to answer a series of questions which, inta alia, investigated their awareness of ODR and offered the opportunity to alert possible barriers when discussing the future implementation of ODR within the construction industry. 3.0 ODR techniques There is no uniform process for ODR although most forms involve similar stages. These include: Initial contact Initiation of dispute resolution process, terms of use, introduction to the system Assessment and checklists to be used to determine suitability of the dispute for ODR Information exchange between the parties 3.0 ODR techniques (Contd) Opportunity for the parties to formal documentation Q & A process Facilitation, and Decision (Clark, et al. (2003) Donahey (2003) analyses ODR and determines that it is commonly used in commercial disputes where relief is sought by the payment of some amount of money. He also considers two leading online resolution services; those being Cybersettle.com and ClickNsettle.com. In respect to Cybersettle.com either the subscriber or the claimant makes the initial steps of ODR. The two parties then negotiate figures and a settlement is reached, more often than not in the median amount. In its simplest form an ODR mechanism would include a virtual platform, not too dissimilar than the chat rooms that are so popular today. Within this platform the parties can communicate and transfer documents etc. It would appear that Construction Industry disputes seem unsuited to the ODR process. There is an inherent complexity with Construction disputes that may not lend itself to this kind of dispute resolution service. Despite this the results of the research suggests that there may be an opportunity for the application of ODR in some capacity 4.0 Advantages of ODR The advantages of ODR include the following: Scheduling problems can be avoided due to the fact that most ODR sites are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is a typical problem associated with litigation. (Clark 2002) ODR increases the availability of expertise. i.e. the parties are not restricted to the ADR services in their locality. They can choose ODR services best suited to their particular dispute. 4.0 Advantages of ODR (Contd) ODR is also believed to level the playing field insofar as the consumer is less likely to feel intimidated whilst using ODR when compared to using a process such as litigation. In addition, if a person is physically attractive, articulate, well educated or members of a dominant ethnic racial or gender group they may hold certain advantages in a courtroom. These are eliminated when using ODR (ibid. pp211) 5.0 Possible Disadvantages of ODR It is thought that people who are involved in adjudication, mediation etc may have an aversion to ODR owing to the fact that the interactions available through face-to-face processes are lost (Ramasastry 2004). Privacy of a hearing is imperative for many parties involved in a dispute, and the internet is an open network of communications and platforms, this may be inherently less secure than mail, fax or telephone. The risk of hackers is a very real threat and the prospect of unauthorised persons intercepting private documents may be enough to deter some from using ODR. Burger (2003) reports that while online communication eliminates some hierarchies, it creates others, for example individuals who are more comfortable in the online environment have a distinct advantage over the more lay user. Furthermore individuals with a physical or visual handicap would also be at a disadvantage. ODR does not accommodate disputes involving many parties as many present platforms restrict the number to two principal disputants. Negotiation, mediation or arbitration involving many parties would be difficult to control online a particular problem with construction industry disputes? In addition most ODR platforms allow parties to submit false personal details, paving the way for deception. Although a genuine email address is required this does not necessarily point to a genuine identity. Also even deleted details are never entirely lost and are always retrievable; hence a party may be constantly reminded of harsh words that have been spoken in past conferences. 6.0 Existing Knowledge of ODR within the Construction Industry The respondents of the survey were asked about their existing knowledge of ODR, the results are presented in the pie chart below;  The results show that 49% of the participants have no knowledge of ODR and that only 23% of the participants have even heard of ODR. Hence, is the Construction Industry falling behind in terms of technological advancement in dispute resolution or is it merely a reflection of the unsuitability of such a process within the industry? The participants were also asked to provide their thoughts on the perceived barriers of using the internet as a dispute resolution provider. The results are listed in table 1 below. What are your perceived barriers to using the Internet as a dispute resolution provider?1 problematic issue2  SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT 46  SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT 7 unconcerned by this issueSecurity issues548710Absence of face-to-face interaction1610732Distrust in technology0431119Technical phobia042625Access problems273817Unfamiliarity with the technology 385516It will not be able to cope with the various technical issues associated with construction industry disputes712846Table 1. 6.0 Existing Knowledge of ODR within the Construction Industry (Contd) These results demonstrate that 10 respondents were unconcerned that security issues posed by the Internet would be a problem. However, the most interesting and perhaps unsurprising result was that for many, the absence of face-to-face interaction was a concern. Although, a possible argument would be that due to the fact that computer aided communication is not limited to text and words but can be enhanced by other forms of visual expression such as imaginative use of images, graphics, shapes and symbols, the impact of the absence of face-to-face interaction can be curtailed? It was also interesting to discover that distrust in technology is not seen as a problem to many. A total of 19 were totally unconcerned by this issue. Furthermore, 25 of the participants are of the opinion that technical phobia is not a problem in the slightest. In fact, out of distrust in technology and technical phobia, not a single respondent thought that issue was very problematic. Finally, the general consensus of the respondents was that the Internet will not be able to cope with the various technical issues associated with Construction Industry disputes. The respondents were then asked to rank a list of various factors that appealed to them, or would encourage them to use the internet as a tool of dispute resolution. The results are listed below; Which of the following factors would encourage you to use the Internet in a dispute1 very little encouragement2  SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT 4 encouraging6 7 extremely encouragingGuaranteed security of documents etc641809A final binding decision1051039Content in the knowledge that the need for travel is completely eliminated4712410Loss of face-to-face interaction259201Ability to use chat rooms/ video conferencing as a means of communication8101540If others had tried ODR and had been successful/ pleased with the process531577The ability to access case details 24/76412510The ability to communicate with other parties/ neutral third party 24/7681157Table 2. It is evident from the table above that the respondents would be encouraged to use ODR if the process included a final binding decision and guaranteed security of documents. The fact that ODR would eliminate the need for travel appeals, although the ability to use chat rooms/video conferencing as a means of communication does not. Conclusion The research provided a sound argument for the application of ODR, in some capacity, within Construction industry disputes. The respondents showed a real enthusiasm of the process although it is questioned whether their lack of knowledge of ODR prevents cognisance relating to the suitability and the dangers that using ODR would pose to the industry? The main concerns emanate from the fact that the face-to-face interaction between the parties are too important to lose. This combined with the belief that ODR will not be able to cope with the various technical issues associated with Construction Industry disputes provide a very real and serious barrier that is preventing the success of ODR within the Construction Industry. Despite these concerns there does seem to be some genuine belief and enthusiasm that combined with various encouraging factors; Guaranteed security of documents, the ability to access case details 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and the ability to communicate with other and neutral parties 24 hours a day 7 days a week appeal to many. It is perhaps true that ODR could never fully replace the traditional forms of dispute resolution there does seem an opportunity for its use at some level on the dispute resolution hierarchy. For instance, an online negotiation facility is a very real possibility. The technologies that could be incorporated here include; Internet platforms, emails and video conferencing. The process would actually be defined as assisted negotiation, 7.0 Conclusion (Contd) whereby the ODR organisation would provide the parties with a secure site on which to communicate. It must not be forgotten though that the process of negotiation has been served well in the past without the use of any automated system. Bearing this in mind the advantages that an online negotiation system will offer might not necessarily outweigh those already akin to the traditional negotiation process, but it will however, provide a very reasonable alternative. ODR is no longer conjecture; the sheer volume of sites gives ODR the potential to become a major part of dispute resolution practice worldwide. If the growth of ODR continues, especially by traditional dispute resolution institutions such as the Courts, ODR will become an important part of dispute resolution practice. It may be too much however, to expect the Construction Industry as a whole, to embrace this radical procedure straight away. ODR needs to evolve and it needs to evolve in such away that it eliminates all of the incompatibilities and dangers that it currently has. Furthermore, it needs more exposure, ODR is not all that new; it has been used worldwide since 1996 yet few are aware of it. 8.0 Bibliography Burger, W.E, (2003), Resolving Consumer Disputes Online: A review of Consumer ODR, Commercial Law Practitioner, August/September 2003, pp 207- 215 Clark, B. (2002), ODR: The New Kid in Town, New Law Journal, November, pp 1710 - 1711 Clarke, E. Cho, G and Hoyle, A. (2003) Online Dispute Resolution: Present Realities, Pressing Problems and Future Prospects. International Review of Law Computers and Technology, 17, 1, pp 7-25 Donahey, M. (1999) Current Development in Online Dispute Resolution. Journal of International Arbitration, 16(4): pp 115-130 Hammond, A, G. (2003) How Do You Write Yes?: A Study on the Effectiveness of Online Dispute Resolution. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20, 3, pp 261- 285 Hrnle, J. (2003) Online dispute resolution: The Emperors New Clothes? International Review of Law Computers and Technology, 17, 1, pp 27-37 Ramasastry, A. (2004) Government-to-Citizen Online Dispute Resolution: A Preliminary Inquiry. Washington Law Review, 79, pp 159-174 Wahab, M. (2004) The Global Information Society and Online Dispute Resolution: A New Dawn for Dispute Resolution. Journal of International Arbitration. 21, 2, pp 143-168 Liam Potts BSc (Hons) BS, MSc CL May 2006 An Investigation into the Application of ODR in Construction Industry Disputes PAGE  PAGE 1  FILENAME \p C:\DOCUME~1\MParsons\LOCALS~1\Temp\ODR Article1.doc   } ~ % & N O T b l m  jkocd569:۬ 6>*]CJH*OJQJ^JaJB*CJOJQJ^JaJph3f6>*CJOJQJ]^JaJ>*CJOJQJ^JaJCJOJQJ^JaJ6CJOJQJ]^JaJ>  m n ~ & O P $ & Fdha$$a$$`a$ $dh^a$$dha$78P l m 23dh^ & Fdhdhdh`$a$ $dh^a$ $ & Fdha$$dha$ijkcd569:dh^$a$dh & Fdh $dh^a$$a$$dha$,-.0678OPQRS?J a$$$$$$$$$$qj CJOJQJU^JaJ>*CJOJQJ^JaJB*CJOJQJ^JaJphjCJOJQJU^JaJ.j5CJOJQJU\^JaJmHnHu(jCJOJQJU^JaJmHnHu5CJOJQJ\^JaJCJOJQJ^JaJjCJOJQJU^JaJ,1356TVckq $$Ifa$$dha$ $dh^a$$a$qr;p2222 $$Ifa$$$Iflֈ @d $ t0644 la2$$Iflֈ @d $ t0644 la $$Ifa$2$$Iflֈ @d $ t0644 la $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$;t2222 $$Ifa$$$Iflֈ @d $ t0644 la2p$$Iflֈ @d $ t0644 la $$Ifa$2$$Iflֈ @d $ t0644 la $$Ifa$?ACEGJ $$Ifa$JK;2222 $$Ifa$$$Iflֈ @d $ t0644 la2--$a$$$Iflֈ @d $ t0644 la $$Ifa$_!`!""##`$a$$$$$$$$%%%%%% $$Ifa$ $dh^a$$dha$$a$$%%C%N%h%t%%%%%D&P&&&&&$'/'(())))v+w+....r0s011R3^3u333344J4K4r44!5R555(6)6;6p667N77777f8g8h8 j0JU5CJOJQJ\^JaJ6CJOJQJ]^JaJ>*CJOJQJ^JaJB*CJOJQJ^JaJph(jCJOJQJU^JaJmHnHuCJOJQJ^JaJ@%%C%E%G%J%=4444 $$Ifa$$$IflֈDHlt" T t0"44 laJ%L%N%O%h%k%4$$IflֈDHlt" T t0"44 la $$Ifa$k%m%p%r%t%u%4`$$IflֈDHlt" T t0"44 la $$Ifa$u%%%%%%% $$Ifa$%%%%%%=4444 $$Ifa$$$IflֈDHlt" T t0"44 la%%%%D&F&4\$$IflֈDHlt" T t0"44 la $$Ifa$F&I&L&N&P&Q&4X$$IflֈDHlt" T t0"44 la $$Ifa$Q&&&&&&& $$Ifa$&&&&&&=4444 $$Ifa$$$IflֈDHlt" T t0"44 la&&&&$'&'4P$$IflֈDHlt" T t0"44 la $$Ifa$&'('+'-'/'0'4$$IflֈDHlt" T t0"44 la $$Ifa$0'9':'(((())v+w+,,--....../r0s011;3$dha$ & F $dh^a$$a$;3<3=3>3?3@3A3B3C3D3E3F3G3H3I3J3K3L3M3N3_3`333J4K4 555$a$$dha$55(6)666<7=7777788e8f8g8p8q8r8}8~88888&`#$^$dha$h8n8o8p8r8s8y8z8{8|8}8~888888888øèøCJOJQJ^JaJCJ OJQJ^JaJ mHnHuCJ OJQJ^JaJ jCJ OJQJU^JaJ 0JOJQJ^JmHnHu0JOJQJ^Jj0JOJQJU^J j0JU0J,1h. A!"#$% @=!A2? 7oUshL<7" x\ pU>3 R!рZ24bU]bCB )NZѴ/FG(0*>ݜ̓iݳNwXS_-{v8./GaB>YX h^a^?(2(eסmk;G4@m'd YwBFވ64FH qZnw'ߒrqp6t~G\G6zX~kb}_0c蟕Gͥ^y+5Sf?1vyN/hqf?yQF:?Ky|ۙmX7.nKMyr<39^[Y)uND aޜΌy '9"mqtHEsyT"nWճs:R jJ>5^,4Vi}=˼bc;}|OӯL@.@WJhr)F=th-%НMIuw,+Sm%u d]~㭝SjU{ՏmN'!voY>e]vNGGxUs`jkD4+ArF c3E)=f`t6=dZ{6;J (fgb^w`f3~A3yC"p)&Qqru={Hܫ}Oq5ܵL^Oe'weOm]fc%HXj*q_?L+K&$:w hnplv8Upl +q˃cK?u>X2-WKu~Lޥ+>WwkVw3݊$ƶ`{"O*1㕭-s SٿwKWL̥i9sXC;-8 { w/slxϏcU>FqZ霁^r5*1,e8xx,ϱ>g̤,|OIJQy=S5RI?@&H_kϔm$݈>be(g>pHJ,.rt:dIyV(N(C^e0HQ?.6SdP|?PysEZۧ :j;/".H;鶦nyni^t&UԜ\'=g즏>66'fҏ1\_en`v`|usncw}T~b+;|Pt }}iS}|Ba#uǀcǧ#}?}|~}dV =yG?;>N2];,Ef#ԏG~7c>_G^}T3^G%Ycߎ> z}3H1sB-;ؚĎ`a!g|\'}ߐZ2gfyOwasfC5aHˮo}l* )5*ΧFO-9A(_q6ft|M_ `\=5ͬ)qד|MIfw,r %kgdG( ~kz/t|MS5je?ckkʘ.v^t|M{mQS5} l4[ W3}k|kl}5JYoMϷ"iðϹn5]i밸|پ8M+S~0])K&%: w)s5D YkڙCg.]Y\՜\y_S`P ]dl_L_te\ͥk+Ccce9c&e{Jb5 wݎW"1KTx*|,M"o!-\Eo+H'ƧܪOx|Еw.ba/YhSoM~)'!366{dDd K*D  3 @@"?Dd KSD  3 @@"?Dd dSD  3 @@"? i8@8 NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH <A@< Default Paragraph Font66  Footnote TextCJaJ8&@8 Footnote ReferenceH*:'@!: Comment ReferenceCJaJ424  Comment TextCJaJ8128 Comment Subject5\@R@  Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJ,@b, Header  9r , @r, Footer  9r &)@& Page Number4  mn~&OPlm   2 3 ijkcd569:1356TVckqr?ACEGJK_`` a !!!!!!!C!E!G!J!L!N!O!h!k!m!p!r!t!u!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!D"F"I"L"N"P"Q"""""""""""""""$#&#(#+#-#/#0#9#:#$$$$%%v'w'(())******+r,s,--;//?/@/A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I/J/K/L/M/N/_/`///J0K0 1111(2)222<3=3333344e4f4r4}4~4440000000000000000000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00000000000000 00 0000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 0}$h88#0?P qJ%J%k%u%%%F&Q&&&&'0';358 !"$%&'()*+,-./123456789:;<=>8,/7OR 4}!!l  ,"$A2? 7o).@: (   3 .S%?  3  s"*?`   c $X99?3 .S%? 3 -S%  3  s"*?`  c $X99?3 -S%  3 -S%  3  s"*?`  c $X99?3 -S% <  # ANB @ S DNB  S DNB   S DNB  @ S D B S  ?-6P !48}Httt-Itht t ht Hdt>BCGV0Y011333g4o4r4|4~4444  NRLT Vacekp/3 ^ _ !!#$9&\& * ***..u/~/0 01R11133344333333333333333333333333333^~&NPm  4i16TK !C!u!!!!!D"Q"""""$#8#$$**N/`/333~4444 Liam PottsParsons2C:\Documents and Settings\MParsons\Desktop\ODR.doc^*o(.00^`0>*o(.p0p^p`0>*o(..@ 0@ ^@ `0>*o(... xx^x`>*o( .... HH^H`>*o( ..... `^``>*o( ...... P`P^P``>*o(....... ^`>*o(........hh^h`o(.088^8`o(.p0p^p`0o(..@ 0@ ^@ `0o(... xx^x`o( .... HH^H`o( ..... `^``o( ...... P`P^P``o(....... ^`o(........"jS&]%4]g^nm         ^                 13Tqr?ACEGJKa !!!!C!E!G!J!L!N!O!h!k!m!p!r!t!u!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!D"F"I"L"N"P"Q"""""""""""""""$#&#(#+#-#/#0#4""""@(v4@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1hii*[k7!0d4~$3qHhODR refers to dispute resolution processes assisted by information technology, particularly the internet Liam PottsParsonsOh+'0 ,8DT dp   iODR refers to dispute resolution processes assisted by information technology, particularly the internetfDR  Liam PottstiamiamNormaltParsons2rsMicrosoft Word 9.0t@@V.A@V.A*՜.+,0P hp|  1e[4 iODR refers to dispute resolution processes assisted by information technology, particularly the internet Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGIJKLMNOQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrtuvwxyz|}~Root Entry FP1AData H1TablePWEWordDocumentWSummaryInformation(sDocumentSummaryInformation8{CompObjjObjectPoolP1AP1A  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q