Published by:
Harvard Business Publishing
Length: 11 pages
Topics:
Conflict; Legal aspects of business
Share a link:
https://casecent.re/p/45814
Write a review
|
No reviews for this item
This product has not been used yet
Abstract
In the 1980s, experts and executives alike heralded alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 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. 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 disputes.
About
Abstract
In the 1980s, experts and executives alike heralded alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 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. 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 disputes.