Bellucci et al. (2004) and Lodder and Zeleznikow (2005) have developed a three-step model for Online Dispute Resolution. The Online Dispute Resolution environment should be envisioned as a virtual space in which disputants have a variety of dispute resolution tools at their disposal. Participants can select any tool they consider appropriate for the resolution of their conflict and use the tools in any order or manner they desire, or they can be guided through the process. The proposed three-step model is based on a fixed order. In this chapter, we discuss the model in detail. At the end of this chapter we add to the model some considerations on how fairness in negotiation can be obtained.

The three-step model

In considering the principles and theory underlying their integrated Online Dispute Resolution environment, Lodder and Zeleznikow first evaluated the order in which online disputes are best resolved. The system that they propose conforms to the following sequencing, which in our opinion produces the most effective Online Dispute Resolution environment:

1. (1) First, the negotiation support tool should provide feedback on the likely outcome(s) of the dispute if the negotiation were to fail – i.e. the ‘best alternative to a negotiated agreement’ (BATNA).

2. (2) Second, the tool should attempt to resolve any existing conflicts using argumentation or dialogue techniques.

3. (3) Third, for those issues not resolved in step two, the tool should employ decision analysis techniques and compensation/trade-off strategies in order to facilitate resolution of the dispute.

Finally, if the result from step three is not acceptable to the parties, the tool should allow the parties to return to step two and repeat the process recursively until either the dispute is resolved or a stalemate occurs.