We present a model for designing consumer dispute resolution mechanisms which makes three contributions: (1) it draws on and synthesises existing dispute system design (DSD) models (2) it proposes a non-prescriptive, context-sensitive approach and (3) it addresses the particular context of consumer-business disputes.
This poster presents a new model for designing consumer dispute resolution (CDR) mechanisms.
The expansion of CDR in recent years has occurred in a largely ad hoc fashion, with a lack of consistency both in the design of individual schemes and the resulting landscape. Dispute system design requires attention to ensure that the design of future CDR mechanisms is based on a coherent set of principles and approaches.
We propose a five step model for the systematic design of consumer redress mechanisms. A research phase, to understand the context in which the CDR mechanism is being designed.
A goal-setting phase where the various legitimate goals which a CDR mechanism might fulfil are considered and prioritised.
A process design phase, involving 2nd order choices in areas such as process architecture and powers.
A system design phase, involving 1st order design choices in areas such as governance and jurisdiction.
An evaluation stage, whose outcomes feed back into the continual re-design of CDR mechanisms.
Rather than being prescriptive, our model seeks to facilitate choice between legitimate alternatives. Five design areas need to be considered when designing the overall CDR system.
As with system design, five areas need to be considered when designing CDR processes: process options, process and technology architecture, powers and scope, and decision maker attributes.
Jurisdiction E.g. What and who can be complained about? Who can complain?
Process options E.g. Which forms of dispute resolution will be used (conciliation, adjudication, etc.)?
Governance E.g. Who is the scheme accountable to? What information must the scheme report publicly?
Process architecture E.g. Will multiple processes be used? How will processes be sequenced? What filtering processes will be used?
Funding E.g. Is funding public or private? What funding mechanism will be used?
Technology architecture E.g. Will scheme be technology based or assisted? Will technology support advice provision?
Accessibility E.g. How will the scheme be advertised? How much advice and support will be provided?
Powers and scope E.g. Will decisions be binding? How will compliance be assured? What standards will be applied?
Dispute resolution philosophy E.g. Is approach interest or rights based? Inquisitorial or adversarial? individual or collective redress?
Decision maker attributes E.g. What qualifications will staff require? Will decision makers operate alone or in panels?
Our model provides legislators, policymakers and practitioners involved in designing CDR schemes with a systematic and rational framework for making good design choices. It also provides those who are reviewing or evaluating existing schemes with a template to ensure that a comprehensive set of issues are considered. The model’s contributions to the dispute system design scholarship include: • The synthesis of existing approaches • The focus on design choices rather than design prescriptions • The focus on CDR as a distinct form of disputing
The model presented here was initially devised in the course of research funded by the Legal Ombudsman. A working paper describing the model in more detail will be available shortly. For further information, please contact
[email protected].
