ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION - WHY IT DOESNT WORK AND WHY IT DOES

In the 1980s, experts and executives alike heralded alternative dispute resolution as a sensible, cost-effective way to keep corporations out of court and away from the kind of litigation that devastates winners almost as much as losers. But the great hopes for ADR faded quickly. Damage awards, legal billings, and the number of lawsuits in the United States continued to rise-even for many of the companies that had embraced ADR. What had gone wrong? Was ADR just an empty promise? The authors found that the problem was not with ADR itself, but with ADR as currently practiced by many companies. Indeed, ADR procedures often include so much excess baggage - motions, briefs, discovery, depositions, judges, lawyers - that the entire process can end up costing as much as the litigation it's supposed to prevent. What characterizes ineffective ADR? An emphasis on winning at any price, a lack of commitment to ADR on the part of both top-level management and company counsel, and the misconception that ADR is not really that different from litigation. But some companies are using ADR effectively-lowering costs, resolving disputes rapidly, and preserving business relationships. Few companies have made the commitment to ADR more effectively than NCR. In addition to boosting the commitment of top management to ADR, NCR has defined a number of goals to be pursued in the event of a dispute. Goals like streamlining the proceedings help ensure that arbitration will really be arbitration and not litigation-in-disguise. Finally, the company has created a systematic process, called the Dispute Avoidance Resolution Process, that mandates ADR as the first step in every legal action.