While much of the world is mourning the loss of the great basketball player Kobe Bryant, I also want to take a moment to mark the passing of the influential thinker and researcher Clayton Christensen, author of The Innovator’s Dilemma and the father of the theory of disruption, which has shaped technological change ever since. A few of his quotes relevant to the growth and evolution of ODR:

“Empowering innovations transform something that is complicated and expensive into something that is so much more simple and affordable that a much larger population can enjoy it.”

“When an entrant competitor attacks the low end of any market, the rational reaction of the incumbent firms is to abandon rather than defend it – because the low end is the least profitable of their possible investments.”

“The reason why it is so difficult for existing firms to capitalize on disruptive innovations is that their processes and their business model that make them good at the existing business actually make them bad at competing for the disruption.”

“There just isn’t anything more invigorating than to read an article or hear about an entrepreneur using the term ‘disruptive technology’ that makes no reference to me as the source. When it’s clear they really got the idea and they use it as if it were in everyday parlance, that’s the ultimate triumph.”

It’s never easy to say goodbye to those who inspire us, but we can carry forth their influence if we remember the lessons they taught us and the example set by their hard work and achievements. RIP. (h/t Orna)

Great set of comprehensive statistics around Franklin County’s ODR program have now been released. Two results that stood out to me:

Kudos to the Franklin County team for their great work in compiling these metrics and key performance indicators, and for embracing transparency by sharing them widely. Check the full set out here:

https://sites.google.com/view/fcmcdataproject/about

New article in India’s Economic Times on ODR. An excerpt:

‘ODR offers a more accessible, transparent and faster option, particularly for companies dealing with high volume and low value transactions done online. With more Indians transacting online — whether for e-commerce or banking — stakeholders say the timing is right for ODR to gain acceptance as an easy mechanism to resolve grievances. A year ago, a Nandan Nilekani -led panel on digital payments suggested that all payment system operators “must implement a fast and fair online dispute resolution system”.

Globally, ODR growth was fuelled by the e-commerce boom, with eBay and PayPal resolving millions of disputes online. “ODR can be used across sectors — from insurance to banking – and also for family disputes. It is about leveraging tech to prevent and resolve disputes,” says Chittu Nagarajan, a pioneer in ODR who headed Community Court initiatives at eBay and PayPal.

After the acquisition of her last ODR firm Modria by Tyler Technologies, Nagarajan in 2019 launched CREK ODR, an industry- and dispute-agnostic platform, which can be accessed by clients anywhere in the world. She underlines the need for a strong technology layer while implementing ODR. Her startup is an end-to-end SaaS platform with multiple features like virtual mediation rooms. “ODR is not just about applications. You need a fantastic tech platform. The design can’t be the same for platforms resolving family and e-commerce disputes.”

Players are aware of the challenges in the adoption of ODR in India — from the lack of enough arbitrators to building trust among consumers. “People need to accept that disputes can be resolved without the parties seeing each other,” says Jaswal. “The bigger test will be dealing with people who are not used to the digital ecosystem.”

Sama’s Sinha says capacity building is also a concern. “Lawyers can now explore providing online arbitration and mediation services as a viable career option too.”

Nevertheless, there is growing conviction that it is only a matter of time before ODR is adopted at scale in India. CODR’s Mahendra points to two recent judgements. In the first case, the Bombay High Court pulled up Tata Capital Financial Services when it was found to have used the same arbitrator for over 2,200 cases, paying him Rs 1,000 per case, which highlights the need for a large number of arbitrators at acceptable price points.’

Read more at:
https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/online-dispute-resolution-is-beginning-to-find-takers-in-india/73219590

Doug Van Epps and Michelle Hilliker of the Michigan Court System (and the creators of MI-Resolve) have just shared a document that consolidates their experience to date in designing, implementing, and testing a court ODR system.  The resulting “Considerations” document also includes items gleaned from conversations with their colleagues around the country, publications, and web materials. 

As they describe the document, “Perhaps more than other resources we’ve seen to date, this document also suggests that it may be helpful to differentiate between the goals of ‘disposing of cases’ and ‘resolving disputes,’ the ‘DR’ of ‘ODR,’ as well as between ‘ODR’ and ‘Online Court.’  It remains to be seen whether these distinctions are helpful to others, but they have guided our thinking along the way.” 

I think this document is very well considered and put together, and it will be extremely helpful for other court leaders in thinking through how ODR can and should be integrated into court operations.

Check out the document here:   courts.mi.gov/ODRConsiderations