WO2000067426A2 - Dispositif et methode permettant de faciliter un accord sur un reseau - Google Patents

Dispositif et methode permettant de faciliter un accord sur un reseau Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2000067426A2
WO2000067426A2 PCT/US2000/011701 US0011701W WO0067426A2 WO 2000067426 A2 WO2000067426 A2 WO 2000067426A2 US 0011701 W US0011701 W US 0011701W WO 0067426 A2 WO0067426 A2 WO 0067426A2
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
parties
resolutions
computer
negotiation
session
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/US2000/011701
Other languages
English (en)
Other versions
WO2000067426A3 (fr
Inventor
Eric Collins
Alan Price
Original Assignee
Thoughtbridge
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Thoughtbridge filed Critical Thoughtbridge
Priority to AU46841/00A priority Critical patent/AU4684100A/en
Publication of WO2000067426A2 publication Critical patent/WO2000067426A2/fr
Publication of WO2000067426A3 publication Critical patent/WO2000067426A3/fr

Links

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
    • G06Q10/10—Office automation; Time management

Definitions

  • the present invention relates to devices and methods of network communications and processing, and in particular to those facilitating an agreement over a netwoik
  • One p ⁇ or art system allows parties wishing to reach an agreement to submit a plurality of blind settlement offers Once the data has been entered, the system automatically determines whether an agreement is possible Thus, the system may not produce a resolution in a substantial number of cases Also, this system is limited to situations involving resolution of only one issue, and more particularly, an issue involving a monetary amount Another prior art system is capable of resolving a situation involving a plurality of issues. This system requires each party to rank the relative importance of each issue and to specify satisfaction levels corresponding to preferences associated with various possible resolutions to the situation. However, the set of possible resolutions to the situation is confined to resolutions based on the input of the parties.
  • a method for facilitating agreement pertaining to a situation over a network among a plurality of parties is disclosed. First, position data is received from each of the plurality of parties over the network, and the position data is stored. Next, a set of resolutions is retrieved, the set having at least one member, from a database containing resolutions and associated statistical data, the set of resolutions being based upon the combined position data presented by the plurality of parties. The retrieved set of resolutions is sent to each of the plurality of parties. Further, the situation may comprise a plurality of issues, each requiring a separate resolution. A plurality of retrieved sets of resolutions is sent to each of the plurality of parties.
  • the plurality of retrieved sets of resolutions is sent to each of the plurality of parties in the form of a plurality of templates.
  • alternative sets of resolutions which are tailored based on additional data provided by at least one of the parties are interactively retrieved.
  • the method may be further refined by producing an agreement based upon resolutions agreed to by each of the parties.
  • a system for negotiating a situation among a plurality of parties connected to a network may include a processor connected to the network for receiving position data, the position data being representative of a position with respect to an issue pertinent to a situation, from each of the plurality of parties.
  • the system may also include a digital storage medium, in communication with the processor, having a database containing statistical data of possible resolutions which may be accessed by the processor based upon the combined position data presented by the plurality of parties.
  • the storage medium passes the resolutions associated with the statistical data to the processor and the processor sends the resolutions to each of the plurality of parties.
  • system further comp ⁇ ses a negotiation log composed of multiple fields for sto ⁇ ng position data sent by the parties
  • system further includes a plurality of computer nodes coupled to the network for sending data and receiving resolutions from the processor, each computer node being operated by one of the plurality of parties.
  • a data arrangement of computer readable code on a computer readable medium for providing a negotiation history is disclosed.
  • the data arrangement may include a plurality of fields for use with a database for containing position data, the position data being representative of a position with respect to at least one issue pertinent to a situation, for each of a plurality of parties through stages of a negotiation in a computer-based negotiation process and an output template for use with the fields that arranges the fields m chronological order
  • a method of facilitating agreement, pertaining to a situation over a network among a plurality of parties is disclosed.
  • data identifying the situation and other potential participating parties is obtained from a first party over the network.
  • the potential participating parties are notified of an existence of a session and of an opportunity to enter an appearance in the session.
  • Position data from each party that has entered an appearance is obtained and stored.
  • a party that has entered an appearance is allowed to define an issue having a scope, the issue pertaining to the situation, by a process including a succession of at least one step, wherein at each successive step position data defining the scope of the issue is obtained from the party by providing a new template which leads toward narrowing the scope of the issue.
  • a method for facilitating a finalized agreement pertaining to a situation in a computer negotiation system wherein multiple issues have been resolved producing multiple agreements du ⁇ ng a negotiation session among a plurality of parties is disclosed.
  • the multiple agreements are presented to each of the parties in the form of a total agreement.
  • each of the parties is allowed to make suggestions for improvements to the total agreement by engaging in inter-issue bargaining.
  • the suggestions are merged presented to each of the parties forming a finalized agreement.
  • a method for facilitating agreement pertaining to a situation over a network among a plurality of parties is disclosed.
  • a compute ⁇ zed negotiation log is maintained, the negotiation log being representative of all communications occumng within a structured computerized negotiation session If the structured negotiation session does not produce an agreement, a human mediator is provided with a transcript representative of the negotiation log of the structured compute ⁇ zed negotiation session for use within a mediation session A compute ⁇ zed mediation log is maintained, the mediation log being representative of all communications occumng within the mediation session. If the mediation session does not produce an agreement, an arbiter is provided with a transc ⁇ pt representative of the compute ⁇ zed mediation log for use within an arbitration session.
  • the method may also include the step of receiving position data from each of the plurality of parties from the network.
  • a set of resolutions is ret ⁇ eved from a database containing resolutions and associated statistical data.
  • the set of resolutions is based upon the combined position data presented by the plurality of parties.
  • the ret ⁇ eved set of resolutions is sent to each of the plurality of parties.
  • a method for facilitating agreement pertaining to a situation over a network among a plurality of parties in a session is disclosed.
  • position data is received over the network, the position data being representative of a position with respect to one or more issues pertinent to a situation.
  • the position data is received from each of the plurality of parties from the network and stored in a computer readable medium.
  • a plurality of methods of achieving a resolution of the respective positions of each of the plurality of parties is provided
  • each of the plurality of methods of achieving a resolution is applied in a resolution sequence until an agreement is produced.
  • the session is monitored, and the parties are provided with an option to discontinue the session p ⁇ or to achievement of a resolution.
  • the parties may also be allowed an option to alter the resolution sequence.
  • the resolution sequence may proceed from negotiation, mediation, and arbitration.
  • a compute ⁇ zed transc ⁇ pt representative of all communications to or from each of the parties occumng within the session is maintained.
  • the compute ⁇ zed transc ⁇ pt may be provided to a computenzed negotiation stage, to a human mediator for use du ⁇ ng a mediation stage, or to an arbiter for use du ⁇ ng an arbitration stage.
  • Fig. la is a block diagram showing an exemplary system for facilitating agreement over a network.
  • Fig. lb is a block diagram showing an alternative embodiment of the system of
  • Fig. 2 is a flow chart of an embodiment of a method m accordance with the present invention.
  • Fig. 3 is a flow chart of an embodiment of the Negotiation Initialization process 300 of Fig. 2.
  • Fig 4 is a flow chart of an embodiment of the Issue Definition and Cla ⁇ fication process 400 of Fig. 2.
  • Fig. 5a is a flow chart of an embodiment of the Issue Resolution using a Zone of Possible Agreements process 500 of Fig. 2.
  • Fig. 5b is a more detailed flow chart of one of the elements of Figure 5a showing a prefe ⁇ ed embodiment.
  • Fig. 5c is a more detailed flow chart of one of the elements of Figure 5a.
  • Fig. 5d is a more detailed flow chart of one of the elements of Figure 5a.
  • Fig. 6 is a flow chart of an embodiment of the Post-Negotiation process 600 of Fig. 2.
  • Figs. 7a and 7b are examples of screens that would be presented in accordance with Step 300 of Fig. 2.
  • Fig. 8a is a flow chart of an alternate embodiment of a method in accordance with the present invention using a three-tiered approach to facilitating agreement using methods of dispute resolution.
  • Fig. 8b is a more detailed flow chart of the embodiment shown m Fig. 8a.
  • Fig. 8c is a flow chart of an alternate embodiment of the method shown in Figs 8a and 8b.
  • Fig. 9 is a flow chart of an alternate embodiment of a method in accordance with the present invention.
  • Fig. 10 is a flow chart of an embodiment of the negotiation Initialization process
  • Fig. 11 is a flow chart of an embodiment of the Issue Definition process 1100 of
  • Fig. 12a is a flow chart of an embodiment of the Issue Resolution process 1200 of Fig. 9.
  • Fig. 12b is a more detailed flow chart of process 1210 of Fig. 12a.
  • Fig. 12c is a more detailed flow chart of process 1230 of Fig. 12a.
  • Fig. 12d is a more detailed flow chart of a process 1250 of Fig. 12a.
  • Fig. 12e is a flow chart of an alternate embodiment of the Issue Resolution process 1200 of Fig. 9.
  • Fig. 13 is a flow chart of an embodiment of the Post-Negotiation process 1300 of
  • Fig. 14a is a block diagram showing a conceptual overview of the Negotiation Log and Mediation Log.
  • Fig. 14b is a block diagram showing an exemplary system for facilitating agreement over a network using a Negotiation Log and a Mediation Log.
  • Fig. la illustrates a method of facilitating agreement over a network among a plurality of participants.
  • the agreement being sought pertains to what is referred to as a "situation.”
  • a "situation” may be a dispute between a customer and a merchant, or a “situation” may be the negotiation of an agreement.
  • the terms “transaction”, “situation” and “dispute” will be used interchangeably herein. In the resolution of the situation multiple issues may be presented.
  • template as used in the following desc ⁇ ption and appended claims shall mean a graphical user interface for display on a computer for the entry of information or the selection of one or more listed choices
  • a series of remote computer terminals may be in communication over a network with a server.
  • the server may generate hypertext markup language (HTML) encoded pages to be displayed on the screens of the terminals, and approp ⁇ ate HTML encoded pages may be used for supplying pertinent data to the server.
  • HTML hypertext markup language
  • a customer may have a dispute with a merchant.
  • the dispute may arise in connection with a transaction occurring over the Internet or the dispute may involve a transaction that occurred under other circumstances
  • a dispute may also a ⁇ se in connection with multiple transactions related to one customer or one customer account.
  • a customer with a credit card account may dispute one or more items appea ⁇ ng on a credit card statement, each item corresponding to a purchase transaction. The customer may contact the issuer of the credit card to resolve such a dispute.
  • two parties may seek a resolution to a situation p ⁇ or to the occurrence of a transaction
  • the parties may seek to negotiate an agreement.
  • the terms of the transaction may be contained in an agreement reached by the two parties.
  • a customer may desire to purchase a vacation package.
  • the vacation package may include many details relating to issues such as itinerary, methods of transportation to each destination, hotel accommodations, meal arrangements, and the like.
  • a vendor of vacation packages may sell preset vacation packages with preset terms including a preset itinerary and other arrangements. However, the vendor may be able to sell more vacation packages by offe ⁇ ng customized vacation packages, since many customers may have individual preferences that differ from the terms of the preset vacation package.
  • the customer may wish to customize a preset vacation package by suggesting alterations to some of the preset terms.
  • the vendor may not agree to all of the suggested alterations, but may be willing to customize the vacation package subject to va ⁇ ous limitations. In such a case, the customer may contact the vendor in order to reach an agreement regarding the terms of the customized vacation package.
  • Embodiments of the invention may be used on the one hand for post- transaction dispute resolution and pre-transaction agreement negotiation on the other hand.
  • Fig. la Party A and Party B engage in a negotiation session to resolve a situation.
  • Fig. la shows only two parties there may be more than two parties engaged in a negotiation session.
  • Each party preferably has a computer 110 and each party's computer 110 is connected to a central server 120 through a network
  • Party A initiates a negotiation session by connecting with the central server 120 and providing data to the central server 120 concerning the nature of the situation and the identity of Party B.
  • Party B is then contacted by the central server 120 and asked to engage in the negotiation. If Party B accepts, each of Party A and Party B sends position data over the network to the central server 120.
  • the data sent by the parties may include, for example, information defining the situation and desired resolutions, but the data is not limited to these types of information.
  • the server Based on the data provided, the server generates data characterizing a zone of possible agreements (ZOPA) 130, and the data is rendered as a set of components in a template.
  • the template is provided to each party and shows the nature of the situation as presented by both parties.
  • the template includes components showing possible resolutions to the positions of the parties.
  • the central server process generates these components by accessing a database 140 stored on a digital storage medium in communication with the server.
  • the database 140 may be implemented, for example, as a relational database.
  • the relational database associates the data from each party to components in the database to form the ZOPA template 130.
  • the relational database contains statistical information concerning acceptable resolutions previously agreed to by other parties involved in a similar situation.
  • Each party may then respond to the central server 120 by providing additional data, which may, for example, be entered via a provided ZOPA template.
  • the central server 120 receives the new data, and based on this data creates a new ZOPA template 130 which narrows the issues of the situation. After an iterative process, a resolution is reached or a negotiation log is finalized for presentation to a mediator.
  • the negotiation log 150 is a se ⁇ es of data fields constructed from the parties' answers posed by the server process.
  • the data fields are a collection of structured data forming a database
  • Va ⁇ ous display templates may be created for accessing specific fields and presenting them to the mediator, arbitrator, the parties or a third party. These display templates allow the data fields to be presented using a standard form. Accessing data fields and creating templates is known to those of ordinary skill in the art. The fields in general will be presented their totality to each requestor, however, the data displayed in the templates may be amended, abbreviated, etc. based upon the requestor.
  • expletives and derogatory statements may be removed p ⁇ or to transmittal to a party.
  • consumer specific information such as credit card numbers may be absent from a template which is to be viewed by a mediator or third party.
  • the negotiation log is activated du ⁇ ng the intake process and it is attached to a system assigned transaction number. The log is updated continually and remains archived and accessible indefinitely.
  • one of the parties may be directly connected to the central server process, rather than being connected by a remote network connection.
  • the ZOPA database is shown connected directly to the central server process, it should be understood that the ZOPA database may reside on a remote system connected by a network connection.
  • Fig. lb shows an alternative embodiment in which Party B has an attached database 160.
  • Party B is a merchant that maintains records concerning customers. Data which may be maintained includes the number of transactions that the customer has had with the merchant, the amount of merchandise purchased with the merchant, an associated rating of the customer, and any other data perceived of as pertinent by the merchant concerning the customer.
  • the associated rating of the customer provides a mechanism for the corresponding server process to select the level that the customer should begin resolution. As explained with respect to Fig. 8a there are three possible levels for resolution of the situation. The first being computerized negotiation, the second being mediation, and the third being arbitration. The second and third levels both involve interaction with a live third party for resolving the conflict.
  • a customer has a high customer rating which indicates the loyalty of the customer as represented by the number, volume, or value of purchases the merchant may wish to bypass the computer negotiation phase and move directly to level two or level three. Additionally, this customer rating may allow the customer with a high rating to select the resolution mechanism. For example, a customer with a high rating which needs resolution of the situation quickly may indicate that mediation or arbitration is the preferred method of resolution.
  • the server process having the data concerning the customer as provided by the merchant's database, would grant the customer's request based upon the customer rating.
  • the customer rating additionally provides a mechanism for queuing negotiations. For example, if there are multiple situations and only limited resources, for example, the number of mediators and arbitrators or the capacity of the server process, the server process uses the customer rating for adjusting the order for which the situations will be addressed.
  • Fig. 2 is a flow chart showing the steps taken by parties in communication with a central processor to begin a negotiation.
  • Step 300 begins the negotiation initialization. This stage might also be called the registration stage, as it includes identification of relevant parties and determination of eligibility to participate. Following the registration stage, the method proceeds to Step 400 which involves issue definition and clarification.
  • the parties define the situation in terms of one or more issues.
  • the issues are defined by the server process which first presents a template containing general issues from a database to the parties. Based on the issues selected by the parties the server process selects narrower issues from the database refining the original issues to more specific issues. The issues are also clarified by the parties to ensure that there is agreement regarding which issues must be resolved in order to reach an agreement.
  • a zone of possible agreements (ZOPA) for an individual issue serves as a guideline for resolution of that issue.
  • the ZOPA comp ⁇ ses a set of possible resolutions to an issue, each of which may be called a ZOPA component
  • Each ZOPA component is a general resolution of an issue, which may be further refined by the parties to include details specific to the situation. Resolution of an individual issue results in a tentative agreement contingent on the whole (TACOW).
  • TACOWs are refined and combined into a total agreement at the Post-Negotiation process 600.
  • negotiation initialization begins with Step 310 with a first party being introduced to the system and educated about the use of the system.
  • Introduction and education may, for example, be achieved by displaying one or more screens to the first party In Step 320.
  • the first party may choose whether or not to participate in a negotiation session. For example, a screen providing the terms of use may be displayed to the first party If the first party does not agree to the terms of use, the process ends.
  • Position data obtained from the first party may, for example, include the first party's identity (name, address, phone # etc.), the identity of a second party with whom a dispute exists, and the date of the dispute, but is not limited to such data.
  • the first party may complete a template that will provide structure to the data supplied by the first party, so that the data may be usefully managed in accordance with the method of the embodiment.
  • the next step is to determine whether the first party is eligible, in accordance with a set of c ⁇ teria, to appear in a session with respect to the situation, as shown in Step 340.
  • Eligibility will necessa ⁇ ly depend on the context of use of the method of this embodiment. For example, if the method is used for dispute resolution in connection with goods sold by a merchant over the Internet, and the first party has indicated that his dispute is unrelated to a transaction with the merchant, the c ⁇ te ⁇ a used in this determination will usefully be structured to render the first party ineligible to appear in the session. Similarly, it may be that the first party has a dispute that arose in connection with such a transaction, but the dispute is not really brought in good faith. For example, a party claims that a product does not perform a task even though the product was never intended for that task.
  • Step 350 a second party is invited to participate in the negotiation.
  • a negotiation Log file is created which records the position data obtained from the first party. It should be understood that the Negotiation Log file may be created at any other time following the first party's introduction to the system. In some embodiments, the negotiation Log file may be provided to a human mediator or arbiter should the parties require live negotiation or arbitration.
  • the second party is provided with the first party's position data which b ⁇ efly outlines the situation that will be the subject of the negotiation session.
  • the second party is also educated in a method similar to Step 310
  • the second party decides whether or not to participate as in Step 320 For example, if the second party agrees to the terms of use, the method proceeds to Step 370 and the second party's position data may be obtained in a method similar to the method of Step 330.
  • the second party's position data is then recorded and added to the Negotiation Log file. If the second party does not agree to participate, the second party's non-agreement is recorded in the Negotiation Log file, and at Step 365 the second party enters into a first recovery stage.
  • the first recovery stage is designed to persuade the second party to participate in a negotiation session.
  • the first party specifies issues which define a situation in Step 410.
  • the first party completes one or more templates to define the issues.
  • the issues defined by the first party are captured and recorded to the Negotiation Log file.
  • the issues defined by the first party are presented to the second party (for example, by displaying a message on the second party's screen).
  • the second party then has the opportunity to add issues which further define the situation by completing one or more templates.
  • the additional issues defined by the second party may be captured and recorded to the Negotiation Log file.
  • Step 410 further includes refinement of the issues.
  • each template that is presented to a party is provided by the server process after accessing fields in a database based upon the parties' previous template selections.
  • refinement of an issue is achieved by completing one or more templates m a se ⁇ es. Each successive template narrows the scope of the issue.
  • the result of the issue refinement is a set of c ⁇ te ⁇ a which will be used to determine the zone of possible agreements (ZOPA) in step 500 of Fig. 2
  • ZOPA zone of possible agreements
  • the server process creates a template for the parties based upon the results from the search in the ZOPA database.
  • This set of c ⁇ te ⁇ a shall be refe ⁇ ed to as the ZOPA c ⁇ te ⁇ a set (ZCS).
  • the first party may also specify a personal resolution for each issue at this time.
  • the personal resolution reflects the first party's interests with respect to resolution of that issue. For example, a party may indicate that a particular issue is more important for overall resolution than another issue. Refer ⁇ ng again to Fig 4. each party independently has the opportunity to vent and to clarify the issues at Step 420. Venting and cla ⁇ fication by a party may involve a text-based approach.
  • venting and cla ⁇ fymg The output of one party's venting and cla ⁇ fymg is transmitted to the other party, and in some embodiments, may also be captured and recorded to the Negotiation Log file.
  • the purpose of venting and cla ⁇ fymg is to allow each party to justify including or excluding an issue from the situation. It also presents the parties with an opportunity to desc ⁇ be the situation as they believed it to be in order to identify any miscommunication that may have occurred.
  • Step 430 if the parties do not agree which issues define the situation, they may eliminate issues as shown by Step 435. Elimination of an issue may be followed by more venting and cla ⁇ fymg. It should be clear that the parties to the situation are m communication with one another through the network via the server process as shown with respect to Fig. la.
  • each party may have two separate opportunities to vent and to cla ⁇ fy the issues. If, at the end of such venting the parties are still not in agreement over which issues define the situation, the system treats the situation as though the parties are in agreement and proceeds to Step 440.
  • the set of issues which defines the situation includes all mutually-agreed upon issues as well as those issues which at least one party has included and which has not been eliminated.
  • an issue resolution time line is determined by the parties Since the issues will be resolved individually du ⁇ ng the course of a negotiation session, the issues must be addressed according to some chronology determined by the parties.
  • the issue resolution time line therefore includes an ordinal ranking of the individual issues as well as an absolute time frame for the negotiation session
  • a proposed issue resolution time line is presented to the parties If the parties agree on such a time line, the method proceeds to Step 500 of Fig 2. If the parties do not agree on the proposed time line, the first party may present an alternate proposed time line to the second party The second party may review the alternate proposed time line and accept it, or the second party may present yet another alternate proposed time line Each party may have, for example, two opportunities to make a proposal before the method assigns an issue resolution time line to the negotiation session
  • Step 510 an issue to be resolved is taken from the issue resolution time line, and the ZOPA cnte ⁇ a set (ZCS) for that issue is ret ⁇ eved
  • ZCS ZOPA
  • a zone of possible agreements (ZOPA) will be determined based on the ZCS
  • a ZOPA is simply a set of possible resolutions to an issue
  • Step 520 a set of ZOPA components is presented to the parties
  • a ZOPA component is simply a single resolution to the issue within the ZOPA
  • a set of ZOPA components is presented to the parties in Step 522.
  • Step 524 each party selects and rates ZOPA components and offers a resolution If the parties agree on the resolution at Step 526, the method proceeds to Step 580 If the parties do not agree on the resolution, the parties are presented in Step 528 with a list of ZOPA components mutually chosen by the parties, according to the ratings given by the parties. In an alternate embodiment, Step 520 does not involve the parties independently choosing ZOPA components and rating them In another embodiment of the invention, when the va ⁇ ous ZOPA components are presented the server process includes statistical data from previous negotiations having similar issues. For instance, if the dispute is over the quantity of goods shipped one resolution might be "Send additional goods (87%) " The 87% would represent the percentage of parties that had accepted this ZOPA component. Providing the statistical data assists the parties in determining whether to accept the ZOPA component by providing insight into how other similar negotiations were resolved
  • the first party offers an ideal resolution with legitimization and an initial ZOPA component in Step 530.
  • the first party may select one of the ZOPA components as an ideal resolution or may choose a unique resolution.
  • the offered resolution must be legitimized The first party legitimizes the offered resolution by giving reasons supporting the offered resolution If the offered resolution is a ZOPA component, then legitimization could be based on the fact that the chosen ZOPA component has been previously used as a resolution in a situation involving the same set of ZOPA c ⁇ teria If the offered resolution is not one of the ZOPA components but is a unique resolution, legitimization could be based on another type of reason offered by the first party (i.e.
  • Step 540 the first party must also offer an alternative resolution which must be a ZOPA component from the suggested ZOPA This ensures that at least one ZOPA component is selected by the first party
  • the first party's resolution with legitimization and initial ZOPA component is transmitted to the second party If the parties agree on the resolution in Step 540, then the individual issue is resolved If there are remaining issues in Step 580, then the next issue to be resolved is handled in Step 590 and the process loops back to Step 510 If there are no remaining issues in Step 580 then the method proceeds to Step 600 of Fig 2 If the parties do not agree on the resolution in Step 540, then the second party offers a unique resolution with legitimization and a different or refined ZOPA component in Step 550 Refer ⁇ ng now to Fig.
  • the second party chooses a refined or a different ZOPA component based on the result of Step 552. If the second party agrees with the ZOPA component offered by the first party, that particular ZOPA component may be refined in Step 556.
  • the purpose of refinement is to more specifically define a particular ZOPA component. For example, if the ZOPA component is "Apology,” then possible refined ZOPA components might include "W ⁇ tten Apology" and "W ⁇ tten Apology with Gift Certificate.” Refinements could be automatically suggested or the parties could suggest refinements. If, at Step 552, the second party does not agree with the ZOPA component offered by the first party, then the second party chooses a different ZOPA component in Step 554.
  • the second party's unique resolution with legitimization and new (refined or different) ZOPA component is transmitted to the first party.
  • Step 580 If the parties do not agree on the resolution, the method proceeds to Step 570, which is shown more detail in Fig. 5d
  • Step 570 the method proceeds in a manner similar to the method shown in Fig. 5c, except that the first party is involved rather than the second party.
  • the method proceeds from Step 570 and loops back to Step 540.
  • Step 610 the Post-Negotiation process begins at Step 610 with a recap of the mutually agreed upon resolutions to the individual issues.
  • a resolution to an individual issue is referred to as a tentative agreement contingent on the whole
  • TACOW Total resolution or a TACOW set.
  • the parties may engage in what might be called inter-issue bargaining. Inter-issue bargaining involves a first party making concessions on a first issue in exchange for the second party making concessions on a second issue. Because the issues are resolved separately and individually in Step 500, the initial TACOW set at Step 610 does not reflect the results of any inter-issue bargaining.
  • the parties engage in inter-issue bargaining to refine the TACOWs. Once the TACOWs have been refined into a total agreement, the total agreement is incorporated into a binding agreement at Step 630.
  • this step further includes generation of a written contract of which the parties can print copies.
  • the parties evaluate their experience in Step 640.
  • the parties may evaluate their experiences, for example, in terms of their satisfaction with the process and the resolution.
  • This data is then captured and recorded to the ZOPA database.
  • Fig. 9 an alternate embodiment of a method in accordance with the present invention is shown.
  • the method described may be particularly suited, for example, to resolution of a post-transaction dispute between a consumer and a merchant. This is because the method does not require obtaining the second party's consent to participate in the process, as it may be implicitly determined if, for example, the second party is a merchant who has previously agreed to participate in sessions to resolve post- transaction disputes.
  • the negotiation Initialization process begins with and introduction and education in Step 1010
  • Introduction and education may, for example, be achieved by presenting a senes of HTML-encoded web pages to a first party accessing a website
  • Terms and conditions of use may be supplied to the first party du ⁇ ng this process
  • the method proceeds to Step 1030, at which point registration data may be obtained from the first party Registration data may include, for example, identification information such as name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, a password, and the like
  • the first party specifies issues which define a situation in Step 1110
  • the first party may completes one or more templates to define the issues
  • the issues defined by the first party are captured and recorded to the Negotiation Log file
  • Step 1110 further includes refinement of the issues
  • refinement of an issue is achieved by completing one or more templates in
  • Step 1210 Fig 12b shows a more detailed flow chart of Step 1210
  • the first party's proposed resolution set is presented in Step 1211.
  • Step 1212 a set of ZOPA components is ret ⁇ eved for each issue.
  • the second party may select a desired resolution in Step 1213 from the set of ZOPA components, or may choose the first party's proposed resolution. If there are remaining issues in Step 1214 the process loops back to Step 1212.
  • Step 1215 the second party's desired resolutions are summa ⁇ zed in a proposed resolution set
  • Step 1220 the first party's proposed resolution set and the second party's proposed resolution set are compared in Step 1220 If the two parties have agreed on a resolution set, the method proceeds to Step 1300 Otherwise, the first party supplies a modified resolution set in Step 1230.
  • Fig. 12c shows a more detailed flow chart of Step 1230 With reference now to Fig 12c, the second party's proposed resolution set is presented in Step 1231.
  • Step 1232 a set of possible resolutions is retrieved for each issue.
  • the set of possible resolutions may include, for example, ZOPA components ret ⁇ eved in Step 1212 of Fig. 12b as well as the second party's proposed resolution obtained in Step 1213 of Fig. 12b.
  • the first party may select a desired resolution in Step 1233 from the this set of possible resolutions or may choose to modify one of these resolutions. Modification of a resolution may be achieved, for example, via completion of a template. If there are remaining issues in Step 1234 the process loops back to Step 1232. In Step 1235, the first party's modified desired resolutions are summa ⁇ zed in a proposed modified resolution set.
  • Step 1240 the second party's proposed resolution set and the first party's proposed modified resolution set are compared in Step 1240. If the two parties have agreed on a resolution set, the method proceeds to Step 1300 Otherwise, the second party supplies a modified resolution set m Step 1250.
  • Fig. 12d shows a more detailed flow chart of Step 1250.
  • the first party's proposed modified resolution set is presented in Step 1251.
  • Step 1252 a set possible resolutions is ret ⁇ eved for each issue.
  • the set of possible resolutions may include, for example, ZOPA components ret ⁇ eved m step 1212 of Fig. 12b as well as the first party's proposed modified resolution.
  • the second party may select a desired resolution m Step 1253 from the this set of possible resolutions or may choose to modify one of these resolutions Modification of a resolution may be achieved, for example, via completion of a template If there are remaining issues in Step 1254 the process loops back to Step 1252.
  • Step 1255 the first party's modified desired resolutions are summarized in a proposed modified resolution set.
  • Fig. 12e shows a flow chart of an alternate embodiment of a method of the present invention. Resolution of one issue is achieved before the next issue is processed. Resolution of individual issues follows the same process as is shown in Fig. 12a.
  • Steps 1310, 1320, 1330. and 1340 correspond, respectively, to Steps 610, 620, 630, and 640 of Fig. 6.
  • Figs. 7a and 7b show examples of screens presented to a party during Step 300 of
  • a case reference number is requested. If this is not provided by the party ente ⁇ ng information a number is generated for the case. This number allows the parties to access case information including the negotiation log throughout the negotiation process.
  • a pull- down box on the template may be provided with a listing of the possible participating parties, such as, merchants or companies. This allows the customer to know whether the merchant other party is bound to participate in negotiations or whether the consent of the other party is necessary before negotiations will begin
  • Step 820 is a structured compute ⁇ zed negotiation session stage which comp ⁇ ses the elements of Fig. 2.
  • a compute ⁇ zed Negotiation Log which contains all of the communications occumng within the structured compute ⁇ zed negotiation session is maintained.
  • Fig. 14a shows a conceptual overview of the
  • the transc ⁇ pt provides a time line of the events and communications that have transpired among the parties
  • the live mediator preferably has a computer that is connected to the network shown in Fig la This arrangement is shown in Fig 14b
  • the live mediator 1420 monitors all communications among the parties, which are also captured and recorded to a compute ⁇ zed Mediation Log file 1410
  • the meditation Log 1410 is a separate file from the
  • Fig 14a shows a conceptual overview of the Mediation Log.
  • Party A and Party B send position data to the central server 120 du ⁇ ng the live mediation session
  • the combined position data is captured and recorded to a Mediation Log 1410
  • the parties may proceed to an arbitration session in Step 840
  • a transc ⁇ pt of the Mediation Log file 1410 which includes a transc ⁇ pt of the Negotiation Log file, is forwarded to an arbiter
  • the arbiter has a computer that is connected to the network shown in Figure la. This arrangement is shown in Fig 14b
  • the arbiter 1420 can use the information contained in the transc ⁇ pt of the Mediation Log file 1410 to resolve the situation
  • the parties participate in a structured negotiation session in Step 820
  • the parties may opt to stop negotiations, to proceed to mediation, or to proceed to arbitration
  • These options may also be presented to the parties, for example, at the expiration of a predetermined time limit or at regular time intervals throughout the structured negotiation session. If the parties have reached an agreement at Step 821, then the situation has been resolved If an agreement has not been reached and the parties do not wish to proceed to mediation at Step 822, a second recovery stage at Step 823 allows the parties to return to structured negotiation If the parties do not agree to continue negotiations, they are given the option at Step 824 to skip to an arbitration session 840.
  • Step 824 If the parties do not agree to proceed to arbitration at Step 824, then the situation remains unresolved If the parties agree to proceed to mediation at Step 822, a transc ⁇ pt representative of the compute ⁇ zed Negotiation Log file is forwarded to a human mediator and a mediation session is begun in Step 830. At any time p ⁇ or to reaching an agreement du ⁇ ng a mediation session, the parties may opt to stop mediation, to proceed to arbitration, or to return to structured negotiation.
  • a third recovery stage at Step 833 allows the parties to return to mediation If the parties do not agree to continue mediation, they are given the option at Step 834 to return to a structured negotiation session 820 If the parties do not agree to return to structured negotiation at Step 834, then the situation remains unresolved
  • Step 810 is an issue definition stage which co ⁇ esponds to Step 400 of Fig 2
  • Step 811 the parties make a decision whether or not to proceed
  • a method of issue resolution is chosen at Step 812, with three options presented to the parties
  • a compute ⁇ zed transc ⁇ pt of all communications up to this point is maintained at this stage and passed to either a structured compute ⁇ zed negotiation session Step 820, to a human mediator in Step 830, or to a human arbiter in Step 840 depending on which method of issue resolution is chosen at this stage
  • Step 820 is a structured negotiation session using a ZOPA and TACOW approach, which corresponds to Steps 500 and 600 of Fig 2
  • Step 830 is a mediation session
  • Step 840 is an arbitration session Du ⁇ ng either a structured negotiation session 830 or a mediation session 840, a compute ⁇ zed transc ⁇ pt is maintained that is representative of all
  • Preferred embodiments of the invention may be implemented as a computer program product for use with a computer system.
  • Such implementation may include a se ⁇ es of computer instructions fixed either on a tangible medium, such as a computer readable media (e.g , a diskette, CD-ROM, ROM, or fixed disk) or transmittable to a computer system, via a modem or other interface device, such as a communications adapter connected to a network over a medium.
  • Medium may be either a tangible medium (e.g., optical or analog communications lines) or a medium implemented with wireless techniques (e.g., microwave, infrared or other transmission techniques).
  • Such a computer program product may be distributed as a removable media with accompanying p ⁇ nted or electronic documentation (e g , sh ⁇ nk wrapped software), preloaded with a computer system (e.g., on system ROM or fixed disk), or dist ⁇ ubbed from a server or electronic bulletin board over the network (e.g., the Internet or World Wide Web).
  • p ⁇ nted or electronic documentation e.g , sh ⁇ nk wrapped software
  • a computer system e.g., on system ROM or fixed disk
  • dist ⁇ ubbed from a server or electronic bulletin board over the network (e.g., the Internet or World Wide Web).
  • va ⁇ ous exemplary embodiments of the invention have been disclosed, it should be apparent to those skilled in the art that va ⁇ ous changes and modifications can be made which will achieve some of the advantages of the invention without departing from the true scope of the invention.

Landscapes

  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
  • Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
  • Operations Research (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • Data Mining & Analysis (AREA)
  • Quality & Reliability (AREA)
  • Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
  • Financial Or Insurance-Related Operations Such As Payment And Settlement (AREA)

Abstract

Cette invention a trait à des systèmes, à des méthodes ainsi qu'à des produits informatiques permettant de faciliter un accord relativement à une situation existant dans un réseau entre plusieurs correspondants. Chaque correspondant du réseau reçoit tout d'abord des données de position, lesquelles données sont alors mémorisées. Un ensemble de résolutions est ensuite extrait, lequel ensemble possède au moins un élément, d'une base de données contenant des résolutions et des données statistiques associées. Cet ensemble de résolutions se base sur les données de position combinées présentées par les correspondants. Une fois extrait, cet ensemble de résolutions est envoyé à chaque correspondant. La situation peut, de surcroît, comporter plusieurs points en suspens réclamant chacun une résolution séparée. Plusieurs ensembles de résolutions sont envoyés à chaque correspondant sous forme d'un ou de plusieurs modèles. L'affinage des points peut provenir de l'un des correspondants, ce qui entraîne l'existence d'un ensemble de résolutions de rechange reposant sur des données complémentaires fournies par l'un au moins des correspondants. Chaque point qui constitue une partie de la situation est affiné et un nouvel ensemble de résolutions est fourni. Les points en suspens sont affinés jusqu'à conclusion d'un accord ou jusqu'à ce que les correspondants estiment qu'un mécanisme de débats de rechange est nécessaire. Si ce mécanisme est choisi, les communications résultantes entre les correspondants sont transmises à un médiateur ou à un arbitre.
PCT/US2000/011701 1999-04-30 2000-04-28 Dispositif et methode permettant de faciliter un accord sur un reseau WO2000067426A2 (fr)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
AU46841/00A AU4684100A (en) 1999-04-30 2000-04-28 Apparatus and method for facilitating agreement over a network

Applications Claiming Priority (6)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US13169099P 1999-04-30 1999-04-30
US60/131,690 1999-04-30
US14118299P 1999-06-25 1999-06-25
US60/141,182 1999-06-25
US14860599P 1999-08-12 1999-08-12
US60/148,605 1999-08-12

Publications (2)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2000067426A2 true WO2000067426A2 (fr) 2000-11-09
WO2000067426A3 WO2000067426A3 (fr) 2001-04-05

Family

ID=27384192

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/US2000/011701 WO2000067426A2 (fr) 1999-04-30 2000-04-28 Dispositif et methode permettant de faciliter un accord sur un reseau

Country Status (2)

Country Link
AU (1) AU4684100A (fr)
WO (1) WO2000067426A2 (fr)

Cited By (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US7529679B1 (en) * 2000-04-05 2009-05-05 Brenda Pomerance Automated alternative dispute resolution
US11855831B1 (en) 2022-06-10 2023-12-26 T-Mobile Usa, Inc. Enabling an operator to resolve an issue associated with a 5G wireless telecommunication network using AR glasses

Citations (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5495412A (en) * 1994-07-15 1996-02-27 Ican Systems, Inc. Computer-based method and apparatus for interactive computer-assisted negotiations
WO1997004410A1 (fr) * 1995-07-18 1997-02-06 Sloo Marshall A Appareil et procede de negociation de contrat en direct

Patent Citations (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5495412A (en) * 1994-07-15 1996-02-27 Ican Systems, Inc. Computer-based method and apparatus for interactive computer-assisted negotiations
WO1997004410A1 (fr) * 1995-07-18 1997-02-06 Sloo Marshall A Appareil et procede de negociation de contrat en direct

Cited By (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US7529679B1 (en) * 2000-04-05 2009-05-05 Brenda Pomerance Automated alternative dispute resolution
US11855831B1 (en) 2022-06-10 2023-12-26 T-Mobile Usa, Inc. Enabling an operator to resolve an issue associated with a 5G wireless telecommunication network using AR glasses

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
WO2000067426A3 (fr) 2001-04-05
AU4684100A (en) 2000-11-17

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US20020007362A1 (en) Apparatus and Method for Facilitating Agreement Over a Network
US10475095B2 (en) Method and apparatus for efficiently responding to electronic requests for quote
US7630903B1 (en) Electronic dispute resolution system
US8650407B2 (en) Applicant screening
US20030014265A1 (en) Online dispute resolution method and system
US20120226589A1 (en) System and method for ticket selection and transactions
US20090012887A1 (en) Method And System For Provision Of Personalized Service
US20070244740A1 (en) Systems, methods, and computer program products facilitating real-time transactions through the purchase of lead options
US20030061111A1 (en) Method and system for parent controlled e-commerce
US20100223158A1 (en) System and Method for Vehicle Retail Sales, Distribution, and Post-Sales Maintenance
JP2004517403A (ja) 製品問い合わせのための対話型検索プロセス
WO2001098997A1 (fr) Systeme et procede permettant d'ameliorer l'interaction entre acheteur et vendeur durant une vente collective
US20060173672A1 (en) Processing health care transactions using a semantic network
US20050246183A1 (en) Rate validation system and method
MXPA01012506A (es) Administrador de solicitudes interactivo.
US20020095345A1 (en) Standing order system and method
US20050033583A1 (en) Processing transactions using a structured natural language
US20050010394A1 (en) Configuring a semantic network to process transactions
US8738428B2 (en) Managing retail promotion events
Yin Interactivity of Internet-based communications: impacts on e-business consumer decisions
US20040172371A1 (en) Automated negotiation
US20080059327A1 (en) Methods & systems for electronic commerce facility client-based presentation offer management
US7467114B1 (en) System for collecting commodity specifications and related customer information
WO2000067426A2 (fr) Dispositif et methode permettant de faciliter un accord sur un reseau
WO2007121305A2 (fr) Commercialisation, notification, et système et procédé d'interface utilisateur dans un contexte transactionnel automatisé

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
AK Designated states

Kind code of ref document: A2

Designated state(s): AE AL AM AT AU AZ BA BB BG BR BY CA CH CN CU CZ DE DK EE ES FI GB GD GE GH GM HR HU ID IL IN IS JP KE KG KP KR KZ LC LK LR LS LT LU LV MD MG MK MN MW MX NO NZ PL PT RO RU SD SE SG SI SK SL TJ TM TR TT UA UG UZ VN YU ZA ZW

AL Designated countries for regional patents

Kind code of ref document: A2

Designated state(s): GH GM KE LS MW SD SL SZ TZ UG ZW AM AZ BY KG KZ MD RU TJ TM AT BE CH CY DE DK ES FI FR GB GR IE IT LU MC NL PT SE BF BJ CF CG CI CM GA GN GW ML MR NE SN TD TG

121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application
AK Designated states

Kind code of ref document: A3

Designated state(s): AE AL AM AT AU AZ BA BB BG BR BY CA CH CN CU CZ DE DK EE ES FI GB GD GE GH GM HR HU ID IL IN IS JP KE KG KP KR KZ LC LK LR LS LT LU LV MD MG MK MN MW MX NO NZ PL PT RO RU SD SE SG SI SK SL TJ TM TR TT UA UG UZ VN YU ZA ZW

AL Designated countries for regional patents

Kind code of ref document: A3

Designated state(s): GH GM KE LS MW SD SL SZ TZ UG ZW AM AZ BY KG KZ MD RU TJ TM AT BE CH CY DE DK ES FI FR GB GR IE IT LU MC NL PT SE BF BJ CF CG CI CM GA GN GW ML MR NE SN TD TG

DFPE Request for preliminary examination filed prior to expiration of 19th month from priority date (pct application filed before 20040101)
REG Reference to national code

Ref country code: DE

Ref legal event code: 8642

REG Reference to national code

Ref country code: DE

Ref legal event code: 8642

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase
NENP Non-entry into the national phase in:

Ref country code: JP