1 / 20

ODR and Consumers 2010 – Vancouver May-Britt Kollenhof-Bruning – mbk@juripax

ODR and Consumers 2010 – Vancouver May-Britt Kollenhof-Bruning – mbk@juripax.com. What is Juripax?. An independent, international technology and service provider with offices in the Netherlands and Germany Juripax’ solutions for Online Dispute Resolution (ODR):

dominic-kelley
Download Presentation

ODR and Consumers 2010 – Vancouver May-Britt Kollenhof-Bruning – mbk@juripax

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ODR and Consumers 2010 – Vancouver May-Britt Kollenhof-Bruning – mbk@juripax.com

  2. What is Juripax? • An independent, international technology and service provider with offices in the Netherlands and Germany • Juripax’ solutions for Online Dispute Resolution (ODR): • Suited for claim-handling and dispute-resolution practices • Built on the concept of adding advanced Web 2.0 technology to: • research-based concepts • practical experience • Dedicated prep & intake solutions for a variety of disputes like • employment • divorce • small claims/e-commerce • personal injury • Provided as an ASP solution • on demand, fee per case • no need to invest in /deploy software

  3. Juripax’ vision and mission • Modern technology and innovation is the key to continued access to justice • The Internet as a global public resource should also be able to provide disputants with tools for self-help and self-determination • Juripax’ goal is to be a leading provider of ODR models that enhance efficiency in judicial and dispute-resolution processes and create economic value for the public benefit

  4. Brief history • After having been a square trade mediator for several years, start of Juripax operations/development of ODR-software • Initial plan was to provide ODR services (4th and 5th party) for e-commerce borne cases - lack of business model for ODR in e-commerce • Transition to provider of technology (4th party) • Entered into partnership with EDR credit services • Currently Juripax’ core business is providing technology (4th party) for • traditional disputes: employment and family law (hybrid and fully online mediation) • small claims and complaint handling (direct negotiation and online mediation)

  5. What has been achieved? • Prove the case for ODR - in terms of effectiveness and efficiency • Development of process-driven software • 80% – generic • 20% – dispute (-resolution) specific and customizable/customized • Multilingual capability and cross-cultural competence • Confidentiality and data security • ODR-training: 1. system 2. dynamics of online negotiation and mediation (accredited by Legal Aids Board and Dutch Mediation Institute) • Integrating user feedback loops • Getting ready for the future: • further internationalization • interoperability • make Juripax-system suited for mobile devices/phones • up-scaling & recurring fees

  6. Prove the case for ODR • Technology assisted-/ E-negotiation: Multi-tiered service: 1. facilitating the handling of questions, issues and /or complaints - diagnosis and direct negotiation if complaint can’t be resolved, 2. assisting parties to resolve their issues effectively - facilitated settlement and arbitration • Example 1: handling of complaints between distance sellers and buyers • Dutch Complaints Board and Distance Sellers Industry Sector Organization • Example 2: facilitating direct negotiations to create and/or revise parenting and visitation plans

  7. Findings • Fast majority of cases were resolved by the system or in direct negotiation. In less than 10% of cases the assistance of a mediator was needed! • Support has been found that “structured” process as well as the availability of ”redress” options may well be the determining trust-engendering factors for parties to engage in the offered process in particular when it relates to resolving issues among themselves • Vast majority of consumers indicate they very satisfied in terms of outcome, speed and the possibility to “have a voice” • Motives of distance sellers engage differ widely. The middle-sized companies appear to be most satisfied. Larger companies that already have systems in place inquire about interoperability options

  8. Prove the case for ODR • Online mediation Either fully online or hybrid (= combination of online preparation and subsequent traditional ADR/ judicial procedures): • Example 1: Juripax provides technology to prepare for traditional ADR/judicial processes (‘add-on’): • online problem diagnosis/mediation prep tools (small claims, labor, divorce cases) – users are a wide variety of ADR/judicial services providers, sole practitioners • Example 2: Juripax provides technology to facilitate fully online processes • online mediation in divorce cases – now part of the service offerings of Dutch Legal Aid Board/Ministry of Justice Note: approx. 48% of Dutch population is eligible for legal aid, yearly approx. 90.000 applications in family law!

  9. Findings • Online mediation: 80% settlement rate, 80% of users would use it again and/or recommend to others • <3 % of end-users used the technical helpdesk or otherwise indicated that they had problems coping with the technology (90% of problems reported refer to login problems) • compared to the average length of a face-to-face procedure, savings in time and costs of 30% to 40% are feasible • Strong evidence that the online setting can help reduce perception of biases and power imbalances

  10. Statistics – part I Rating factors Degree of Satisfaction • Settlement rate(s) 80% • Satisfaction with the outcome/agreement 75% • Opportunity to express views and interests 90% • Quality and competence of the mediator 85% • The overall quality and “appropriateness” of the process 85 % • The user-friendliness of the platform 8,5 (score 1-10) • Likelihood that agreement will hold 70% • Likelihood that users will use online mediation again/recommend to others 80%

  11. Statistics – part II Most-heard comments on the usefulness of the anonymous online intake: • It provided early access to relevant information • It provided an opportunity to address emotional concerns and interests • It provided insight into my own underlying interests • It provided insight into the underlying interests of the other party • As the answers that I provided were only visible to the mediator, I felt more at ease to communicate my concerns • It enhanced the overall effectiveness of the mediation

  12. Multilingual and cross-cultural capability • suitability for any language character set • option to file a complaint/dispute in a questionnaire format in the language of user’s preference. The Juripax system subsequently translates it into the language of the respondent • on-demand online translation services, performed by certified professional translation services (at extra pay) • if there are changes in source language  automatic notification/assignments to the team of Juripax translators • multilingualism goes far beyond translation from one language into another! • Take into account differences in dispute resolution culture • Take into account differences in ‘proficiency/literacy’ amongst users • Adapt conflict-specific elements (=non-generic part) to differing legal jurisdictions and best-practices

  13. Confidentiality and data security • Personal data: compliance with Privacy Directives • Web-based application protected by name and password • Secure areas of Juripax are protected by 256-bit SSL certificate • Multiple servers - protected by reliable firewall software, housed in secure data-centre • Encrypted downloadable PDF’s (agreement) • At the user’s option, communications can be encrypted for enhanced security (on demand)

  14. Interoperability “To make solutions to disputes more accessible we need to make our ODR platform open and participatory” http://juripax.com/en/vision.html

  15. Data- and case management • Interfacing, Interoperability etc. • retrieval of contact information and/or transaction details from the (referral) source – CRM systems, eBay/ PayPal etc. • interoperability among ODR systems and services is an absolute necessity to provide the appropriate forum shopping possibilities and redress options for consumers • Partial or fully electronic case management (information) • sophisticated case-management capabilities • chain integration (‘question’  issue  claim  conflict  etc ) • mediation communications • destroyed after 365 days • written records may be printed and/or archived • settlement agreements • available until 7 yrs. after completion proc. (password protected) • downloadable PDF format (encrypted PDF)

  16. Engineered to run on cell phones (PDA support)

  17. Commercial involvement? “Commercial involvement in the development of ODR is a prerequisite for establishing the right balance between commercial goals and public benefit” http://juripax.com/en/vision.html

  18. The need for ‘common grounds’ Commercial interest Public interest due process requirements Impartiality, predictability, transparency, affordability etc. protection of consumers consumer wants redress without having to pay additional money forum shopping possibility/interoperability escalate to other out-of court or/and court redress mech. availability of appellate process communication in native language “Internationalization” of conflict and / or settlement agreement (jurisdictional issues, enforceability etc. ) • business model and ‘credibility’ • critical mass needed • obtaining ‘legitimacy’ • how to engender ‘trust’, as long the public associates ADR/ODR with ‘the law’? • liability issues • separating 3rd, 4th and 5th party • complex contractual relationships • lack of clear guidelines/ regulation • ‘information society- ‘or ‘ODR ‘provider ? • data retention • Adhere to distance selling directive? • accreditation of ODR-providers

  19. Opportunities • find ways to bypass existing ‘redress’ mechanism  initial focus on areas were ODR is not a ‘threat’ (no offline equivalents) • Technology is available, we need the context… • focus on increased added-value along the chain (questions  issues  complaints  disputes) • apply ODR to solve cases within the norm and apply more costly (human) and legal resources only if these are really needed (80/20%) • focus on enhanced intelligence and automation (reduce human factor) • achieve critical mass  necessary to keep costs as low as possible • find other alternatives for funding/’restructure’ current funding schemes • the Internet is increasingly giving consumers more and more power .Is it likely that this trend will ultimately result in consumers organizing themselves (empowering, self-determination etc.) and have them take a share in the cost? • legal protection insurers? • separate ODR-technology and ODR-services provider • Engaging ODR-technology providers through RFP  as an add-on to current and new services provider

  20. Contact details – www.juripax.com The Netherlands • Juripax B.V. Loire 192-1982491 AM Den HaagTel: +31 (0)70 452 5252May-Britt Kollenhof-Bruningmk@juripax.com

More Related