|
A consumer in Orlando purchases a brand-name watch for several hundred US dollars on the Internet from an online merchant in Boston. The purchaser and online merchant both meet the agreed conditions of the transaction. The watch is paid for by the purchaser and is dispatched and received by post. When, a few days following its receipt, the watch no longer functions, the purchaser telephones the online merchant, who advises the buyer to place a new battery in the watch. However, this fails to rectify the problem. The buyer takes the watch to an authorized dealer, who questions the authenticity of the watch. The buyer is angry and feels deceived. The online merchant is a small company of good standing and the fact that the watch is not what it appears to be comes as an unpleasant surprise. He is keen to solve the problem and it is in his best interests to maintain his good name in the online market.
The case is referred to IndustrySector.com, whom the online merchant is affiliated with.
In this example, the complaint procedure offered by IndustrySector.com contains the following steps:
- The buyer registers a complaint at a dedicated webpage of IndustrySector.com.
Optionally, before the complaint is considered, the system may ask the complainant whether he has given the online merchant the opportunity to make his point of view and interests known and to discuss them. The system advises taking all necessary steps to prevent miscommunication and an escalation of the problem.
- As a next step, the independent case manager at IndustrySector.com contacts the online merchant through the secure website and forwards the reported problem.
Based on the input provided by the buyer, this report may be generated automatically by the system, eliminating the need for human intervention. Also, generic reminders can be sent through the system when one of the parties fails to respond within the set timeframe and/or when a deadline in the procedure has expired, to alert the case manager.
- Subsequently, both the buyer and online merchant are provided with the same opportunity to answer several multiple-choice questions and to suggest possible solutions to the problem.
- Facilitated by the discussion-room and conference facility the buyer is in direct negotiation with the online merchant.
Result: With the assistance of ODR technology and relatively little time spent by the facilitator at IndustrySector.com, the parties reach an acceptable settlement. The settlement is put down in writing. The actual time taken was a little less than one hour for each party. All communication is administered via the Internet; there is no necessity for the parties to actually meet. For this type of conflict, which arises from the Internet, this is the ideal solution.
On-demand Sollutions.com have just moved into their new offices. They have contracted AdvancedTelecom.org to provide the necessary telecommunications infrastructure for these offices. Parties are now disputing the delay in establishing the connection for telephone and Internet. The contractually agreed upon term of 8 weeks for AdvancedTelecom.org to provide the connection is long overdue and the client is furious. Moreover they are completely at a loss as they have no means of contacting their clients. A little more than 60% of their turnover is generated through the Internet and On-demand Sollutions.com is predicting considerable losses in revenues if the problem is not resolved without further delay.
Multiple phone calls with various representatives of AdvancedTelecom.org have taken place without any success. On-demand Sollutions.com insists on compliance with the terms of the agreement. AdvancedTelecom.org’s representatives, however, refer to external factors that are beyond their control, due to which a firm commitment to effectuate the connection can only be given two weeks from now.
AdvancedTelecom.org offers a form of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) technology that is geared towards resolving claims at an early stage. In this specific example, it facilitates the following steps and procedures:
- On-demand Sollutions.com decides to file a formal complaint at the designated webpage of AdvancedTelecom.org.
- If no agreement can be reached or if the telecom provider does not respond or participate, an independent review by a pre-designated dispute-complaint board can be requested.
Based on AdvancedTelecom.org‘s best practices with this type of complaint, the interactive website gives On-demand Sollutions.com the opportunity to describe the events, provide their view, explain their position and make suggestions for resolution. As such, the carefully designed questions as well as the information provided on the website, will establish a resolution-based dialogue rather than is the case when the system refers exclusively to AdvancedTelecom.org’s applicable rules and policies. Finally, the site may show claimants effectively the way to alternative venues that are most suited to dealing with their claim.
- Once the above-referenced first step has been completed, parties start negotiating their disagreements directly through the web-based discussion forum.
Result: Although in practice 70–80% of all claims supported by ODR technology can be resolved in direct negotiations, the parties in this specific example, were not able to reach a mutually acceptable solution. The case is being submitted to independent review. The digital file that comprises all of the important information and documentation will considerably shorten these subsequent proceedings.
Similar complaint-handling processes are applied by, e.g., utility companies to resolve disagreements about invoices that are perceived as incorrect by their clients or between aviation companies and passengers over a denied-boarding issue..
|
