WO2023023742A1

WO2023023742A1 - System and method for facilitating dispute resolution

Info

Publication number: WO2023023742A1
Application number: PCT/AU2022/050969
Authority: WO
Inventors: John Lewis
Original assignee: Lewis Woolcott Pty Ltd
Priority date: 2021-08-25
Filing date: 2022-08-24
Publication date: 2023-03-02

Abstract

A method for facilitating dispute resolution comprising the steps of: Providing a system for facilitating dispute resolution on an electronic computing device; Generating, using the electronic computing device, a survey relating to a dispute; Sending, using the electronic computing device, the survey to an electronic device associated with each of one or more survey recipients; Receiving, from the electronic device associated with each of the survey recipients, a completed survey; Analysing, using the electronic computing device, data contained in the completed surveys; and Generating, using the electronic computing device and based on the analysis of the data, a report configured to provide a recommended resolution to the dispute.

Description

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FACILITATING DISPUTE RESOLUTION

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001 ] The present invention relates to a method for facilitating dispute resolution. In particular, the present invention relates to a method for facilitating alternative dispute resolution in commercial projects.

BACKGROUND

[0002] In large projects, planning is generally centred around a project schedule, which identifies a plurality of activities to be performed with reference to a timeline, and dependencies between the activities. As such, the project schedule defines a sequencing of activities needed to be performed to fulfil the project scope.

[0003] As activities may be dependent on other activities, a delay in performing one activity may impact other activities, and potentially delay completion of the project. In many cases, the activities are performed by different contractors, and contractual arrangements are put in place to ensure the timely completion of each of the activities.

[0004] Even so, activities may be delayed, causing delay and/or disruption to the project. This may result in delay claims being made. One problem, however, with claims relating to delay, is that the complex relationship between different activities and their timings may make it difficult to identify the delay or impact of a delay in one activity on the project as a whole. In other words, quantifying delay claims can be complex, and, as a result, disputes between affected parties are common.

[0005] At present, an independent party may be retained in such disputes to investigate the cause of the delay and determine the party of parties at fault in order to resolve the dispute in a mediation style process. This is typically done by conducting interviews or surveys with various parties, manually analysing the collected data and then manually generating a report making claim recommendations. This process is, however, time-consuming and labour intensive, as well as being subject to bias, error, misinterpretation and subjectiveness on the part of both the survey respondent and the person conducting the analysis. As a result, the quality of the outcome is dependent on the quality of the data collected, as well as the quality of the analysis.

[0006] Thus, there would be an advantage if it were possible to provide a method for facilitating dispute resolution in projects that not only provided a faster and easier way in which to collect and analyse data, but that also had the potential to improve the quality of the data collected. [0007] It will be clearly understood that, if a prior art publication is referred to herein, this reference does not constitute an admission that the publication forms part of the common general knowledge in the art in Australia or in any other country.

SUMMARY OF INVENTION

[0008] Embodiments of the present invention provide a method for facilitating dispute resolution, which may at least partially address one or more of the problems or deficiencies mentioned above or which may provide the public with a useful or commercial choice.

[0009] With the foregoing in view, in a first aspect the present invention resides broadly in a method for facilitating dispute resolution comprising the steps of:

Providing a system for facilitating dispute resolution on an electronic computing device;

Generating, using the electronic computing device, a survey relating to a dispute;

Sending, using the electronic computing device, the survey to an electronic device associated with each of one or more survey recipients;

Receiving, from the electronic device associated with each of the survey recipients, a completed survey;

Analysing, using the electronic computing device, data contained in the completed surveys; and

Generating, using the electronic computing device and based on the analysis of the data, a report configured to provide a recommended resolution to the dispute.

[0010] The electronic computing device may be of any suitable form. For instance, the electronic computing device may comprise a desktop computer or server. Alternatively, the electronic computing device may be a portable electronic device, such as a mobile telephone, a computing tablet, a smart watch and the like. In this embodiment of the invention, the system may be operated or housed on the electronic computing device. Alternatively, a user may access the system through, for instance, a website or an electronic application downloaded to the electronic device. Thus, in this embodiment of the invention, it is envisaged that the system may be housed on one or more servers. In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the system may comprise a Cloud based system, in that the electronic computing device and one or more databases associated therewith may be remotely hosted. In this embodiment of the invention, it is envisaged that the system may be provided in the form of software as a service (SaaS). [0011 ] In some embodiments of the invention, the system may analyse one or more claims made in relation to the dispute. The system may then generate the survey based on the analysis of the one or more claims and, more specifically, the nature of the claims (i.e. the delays to which the claims relate, any specific incidents that occurred during the project etc.). In other embodiments of the invention, the one or more claims may be analysed manually and information regarding the claims may be entered into the system, and the survey may be generated based on the entered information.

[0012] The survey may be generated using any suitable technique. Preferably, however, the survey may contain one or more survey questions relating to the dispute. More specifically, the survey may contain one or more survey questions relating to one or more incidents that lead to the dispute. The incidents may be of any type, although it is envisaged that the incidents may be incidents that occurred during a project that resulted in a delay to the completion of at least a portion of the project. It is envisaged that the cause of the delay (and the responsibility for the delay) may be the subject of the dispute.

[0013] In some embodiments, multiple incidents and/or delays may have occurred during a project, and each of the incidents and/or delays may be the subject of a separate claim. Therefore, the survey may contain survey questions relating to each claim within a dispute.

[0014] The one or more survey questions may be of any suitable type. However, it is envisaged that the one or more survey questions may relate to a survey recipient’s role in the dispute. More preferably, the one or more survey questions may relate to a survey recipient’s role in the one or more incidents that led to the delay. Thus, it is envisaged that the survey recipients may comprise individuals that were involved in the project. In this embodiment of the invention, the survey recipients may comprise labourers, tradespeople, supervisors, administrators, clerks, accountants, controllers, managers and forepersons, engineers, designers, occupational health and safety personnel, external experts and the like, or any suitable combination thereof.

[0015] It is envisaged that the system of the present invention may comprise a database of survey questions. The database of survey questions may be in electronic communication with the electronic computing device using any suitable technique. The survey questions in the database of survey questions may be manually generated and/or may include survey questions included in previous surveys.

[0016] In some embodiments, the system may generate a survey that is tailored to the survey recipient. In this embodiment, the survey may be tailored depending on the role and involvement of the survey recipient in the project or dispute. Therefore, it is envisaged that, in some embodiments, survey recipients may be provided with surveys in which at least a portion of the survey questions differ. Alternatively, each survey recipient may be provided with the same survey.

[0017] The survey questions may be configured to elicit certain information, such as the survey recipient’s usual work practices, observed work practices during the project, observations relating to environmental factors experienced during the project, specific information relating to the one or more incidents that lead to the delay and so on. In a particular embodiment, the survey questions may be configured to elicit responses aimed at discovering causation, liability, financial impact, and risk to recovery in relation to the dispute, or to each claim within a dispute.

[0018] The survey may comprise any suitable number of survey questions, and it will be understood that the survey may contain as many questions as required to elicit sufficient and/or relevant information from the survey recipient.

[0019] In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the system may generate the survey by selecting survey questions from the database of survey questions in order to build a suitable survey. The survey questions may be selected from the database of survey questions based on whether the dispute and/or the claims within the dispute and/or the survey recipients are analogous to surveys provided previously to other survey recipients. The system may also select survey questions based on a previously-proven ability of a particular survey question (or set of survey questions) to elicit the most relevant, complete and/or honest answers from survey recipients.

[0020] The survey may be sent to the one or more survey recipients using any suitable technique. Preferably, however, the survey may be sent to the one or more survey recipients in electronic form. For instance, the survey may be sent by email, text message, or the like, or may be transmitted wirelessly by Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, near-field communication (NFC) and so on. In other embodiments of the invention, the survey may be configured to be displayed on an electronic interface accessed using the electronic device associated with each of the survey recipients. Preferably, the electronic interface may be displayed on a display of the electronic device. Thus, in a preferred embodiment of the invention, the electronic device may comprise a mobile telephone, computer, smartwatch, computing tablet or the like.

[0021 ] Preferably, the electronic interface may be accessed on a website displayed on the display of the electronic device, or via an app downloaded to the electronic device. In a preferred embodiment, the survey recipient may be provided with a fixed period of time in which to complete the survey. The time taken to complete the survey and/or each individual question may be recorded by the system. [0022] Preferably, the survey may be updated as a survey recipient enters answers to the one or more questions into the electronic interface. Preferably, as the survey recipient enters answers to the survey questions, the system for facilitating dispute resolution may add additional questions to the survey, substitute questions and/or delete questions from the survey based on the answers provided by the survey recipient. In this way, the survey may be updated substantially in real-time by the survey recipient in response to answers provided.

[0023] The survey may be updated using any suitable technique. For instance, the survey may be configured to update when certain answers are provided to certain questions. For instance, if a survey recipient answers “yes” or “no” to a question, an additional question may be added to the survey to elicit further information from the survey recipient.

[0024] In other embodiments of the invention, the system may update the survey in response to the behaviour of the survey recipient. More specifically, the system may update the survey in response to the behaviour of the survey recipient during completion of the survey. For instance, if a survey recipient displays certain behaviours (such as, but not limited to, changing their answer, hesitating for a period of time before answering a question, going back to a previously answered question and the like) the system may update the survey. The reason for this is that these behaviours may indicate an attempt by the survey recipient to provide false or misleading answers to the survey questions, for example in an attempt to reduce or eliminate the possibility of responsibility for the incident that lead to the delay being placed on the survey recipient.

[0025] It is envisaged that, in order to determine whether these behaviours exist in survey recipients, the system may record behavioural data of the survey recipients. For instance, the system may record keystrokes, mouse clicks, time taken by the survey recipients to answer individual questions and/or the survey as a whole, and so on.

[0026] In embodiments of the invention in which the time taken to answer individual questions within the survey is recorded, this data (potentially coupled with other information such as one or more of the nature of the question, the role of the survey recipient in the dispute and/or project, the number of keystrokes, mouse clicks and the like and so on) may be used to determine the behaviour of the survey recipient. For instance, the data may be used to determine whether, if a relatively long period of time was taken to answer a question, whether this was due to the survey recipient doing something else other than answering the survey during this period, or whether the survey recipient was investing the time into a question in order to provide the best response. The latter may be an indication that the answer to the question may be deceptive or misleading. Thus, the system may analyse the answers to the survey questions and the behavioural data to identify a potentially deceptive or misleading answer.

[0027] If the system recognises a potentially deceptive answer provided by a survey recipient (based on answers to the survey questions and/or the behavioural data), the system may update the survey to include additional questions regarding the subject of the question to which the potentially deceptive answer was given. In other embodiments, the system may include additional questions that ask similar questions in different ways in order to determine the consistency of the survey recipient’s answers. If the survey recipient answers these questions in an inconsistent manner, the system may identify the survey questions and/or the survey as a whole as being potentially misleading or deceptive.

[0028] In a preferred embodiment, the system for facilitating dispute resolution may comprise one or more machine learning modules. Any suitable machine learning module may be provided. However, in a preferred embodiment of the invention, the one or more machine learning modules may comprise an intelligent agent or a processor comprising an intelligent agent may comprise artificial intelligence, machine learning algorithms, deep learning models and the like. Preferably, the one or more machine learning modules may be configured to analyse the answers to the survey questions, the behavioural data and/or any other suitable information or data to more effectively identify potentially misleading or deceptive answers to the survey questions.

[0029] In some embodiments of the invention, the system may further comprise a database of survey responses. Preferably, the one or more machine learning modules may communicate with the database of survey responses to identify analogous situations, survey recipients and/or survey answers. The survey may then be updated based on prior survey responses. The database of survey responses may be the same database as the database of survey questions, or may be a different database.

[0030] Once the survey recipient has completed the survey, the completed survey may be returned to the system. The completed survey may be returned using any suitable technique. For instance, the completed survey may be returned by email, text message, or the like, or may be transmitted wirelessly by Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, near-field communication (NFC) and so on.

[0031 ] In embodiments of the invention in which the survey is displayed on the display of the display of the electronic device, the survey recipient may return the completed survey by submitting the completed survey through the website or app accessed by the survey recipient.

[0032] Upon receipt of the completed survey, the system analyses the data contained in the completed survey. Preferably, the completed survey comprises answers to the one or more survey questions. The analysis may be based on the answers to the survey questions, or may be based on a combination of the answers to the survey questions and one or more additional pieces of data. The one or more additional pieces of data may be of any suitable form, although in a preferred embodiment of the invention, the one or more pieces of data may comprise the behavioural data recorded during the completion of the survey.

[0033] In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the behavioural data may comprise data relating to one or more of the following: the total time spent answering an individual question, the time taken to provide an initial answer, answer choice change counts, answer choice change deltas, the number of times a survey recipient returned to a particular question, the average time taken to change a response and the longest time taken to change a response.

[0034] The collected data may be analysed using any suitable technique. In some embodiments, the collected data from each survey recipient may be analysed in isolation to one another. More preferably, however, the analysis of a survey recipient’s data may be informed by data collected from one or more of the other survey recipients. For instance, the answers of a survey recipient who has more reason to be deceptive or misleading in their answers (for instance, the general manager of a party that may be more likely to be responsible for the delay) may be compared against the answers to the same questions provided by a survey recipient who has no reason to be deceptive or misleading in their answers (for instance, an employee of a party to the dispute that is less likely to be responsible the delay).

[0035] In other embodiments, the system (and, in particular, the one or more machine learning modules) may be configured to communicate with the database of survey responses to identify analogous situations, survey recipients and/or survey answers to identify the risk or likelihood of deceptive or misleading answers being provided by a survey recipient. In these embodiments, the analysis of the survey questions may involve applying a response bias correction formula based on the data collected in previous surveys.

[0036] Preferably, the system may assign weightings to one or more of the answers to the one or more survey questions. The weightings may be applied based on the role of the survey recipient and the risk or likelihood of the survey recipient to provide deceptive or misleading answers to the survey questions.

[0037] It is envisaged that, in some embodiments of the invention, a survey recipient may inadvertently provide a false or incorrect answer to a survey question. In these circumstances, the false or incorrect answer may not be the result of an attempt to deceive, but may instead simply be a misinterpretation of a question, a false keystroke or the like. In these embodiments, it is envisaged that the system may be configured to determine that the provision of the false or incorrect answer may have been accidental or inadvertent. This may be achieved by determining the risk or likelihood of the survey recipient to attempt to deceive (based on their level of responsibility, the party to the dispute to which they belong and so on), the nature of the question to which the false answer was provided (for instance, the false answer may have been provided to a non-contentious question to which there is no reason to be deceptive) and so on.

[0038] In these embodiments, the system may identify that the false or incorrect answer is an outlier and the question may be removed from the analysis of the survey. Thus, the system may be configured to perform data cleansing functions to remove data that falls outside statistical error limits.

[0039] The analysis of the data collected from the survey recipients may be conducted using any suitable technique and, in particular, any suitable statistical technique. In a preferred embodiment of the invention, however, the system may generate a decision tree based on the data collected from the survey recipients. The decision tree may be generated by ranking the questions included in the survey based on, for example, statistical confidence calculations in order to reduce or eliminate error and/or generalised collective expert knowledge in order to reduce or eliminate bias. It may also consider and utilise nested risks, that is risks within a broader group of risks with interdependencies forming varied potential outcomes. It is envisaged that the analysis of the data may include, or be followed by, modelling of the data in order to generate the report.

[0040] Once the system has generated a decision tree, the system may be configured to apply a mathematical simulation to the decision tree to generate a recommended resolution to the dispute. In particular, the recommended resolution may be in the form of a determination of the probability of a party (or each party) to the dispute being responsible for the delay or delays that occurred during the project. The system may determine the probability based on the dispute as a whole or to each claim within the dispute.

[0041 ] It is envisaged that delays during a project may result in financial damages to contractors and/or financial loss to either party to the project. Thus, it is envisaged that, based on the recommended resolution, the system may assign a monetary value (or range of monetary values) to the dispute or to each claim within the dispute. In particular, the monetary value (or range of monetary values) may be determined based on the financial damages and/or loss that resulted from the action (such as a delay) that lead to the dispute and the probability that a party to the dispute was responsible for the action (such as a delay) that lead to the dispute. The monetary value (or range of monetary values) may also be determined based on the probability of another party being at least partially responsible for the delay. [0042] Any suitable mathematical simulation may be applied to the decision tree. However, in a preferred embodiment of the invention, the mathematical simulation may comprise a Monte Carlo simulation.

[0043] The report generated by the electronic computing device may be of any suitable form and may include any suitable information. In a simple form, however, the report may include an identification of the range of award to either party to which the dispute relates, or to the party determined to be responsible for the delay associated with each claim within the dispute. In other embodiments, the report may include an identification of the probability that a party is responsible for the delay to which the dispute relates, or for the delay associated with each claim within the dispute. The probability may be identified in any suitable terms. For instance, the probability may be identified as a percentage likelihood or may simply be identified in terms of high probability, low probability and so on.

[0044] In some embodiments, it is envisaged that the system may assign no probability of responsibility to certain claims within a dispute. For instance, if a delay was caused by circumstances outside the control of the parties to the dispute (such as a weather event that prevented work on the project), the system may assign no responsibility (and therefore no monetary value) to the claim.

[0045] Preferably, the report may also identify the monetary value (or a range of monetary values) on which settlement recommendations may be based.

[0046] In other embodiments of the invention, the report may include information relating to the weighting of survey questions, statistical confidence in the answers to the survey questions, decision tree probability simulation statistic, probability distribution curves, comparisons of probability between parties to the dispute, estimated monetary value of the dispute or claims within the dispute, an analysis of risk consequence and so on.

[0047] It will be understood that the report provides a recommended resolution, in that the parties to the dispute may not be bound to accept the recommended resolution. In some instances, the recommended resolution may be provided to the parties as a part of an alternative resolution process, such as mediation. Thus, the recommended resolution may serve as a starting point for a negotiation towards a commercial settlement between the parties. In other instances, a party or parties may choose to reject the recommended resolution, and the dispute may be settled through more traditional dispute resolution, such as litigation.

[0048] In a second aspect, the invention resides broadly in a system for facilitating dispute resolution including at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:

Generate a survey including one or more survey questions relating to a dispute;

Send the one or more surveys to an electronic device associated with each of one or more survey recipients;

Receive, from the electronic device associated with each of the survey recipients, one or more completed surveys;

Analyse data contained in the completed surveys; and

Generate, based on the analysis of the data, a report configured to provide a recommended resolution to the dispute.

[0049] The present invention provides numerous advantages over the prior art. For instance, the present invention allows for the ability to evaluate the behaviour of survey recipients as well as the survey answers provided. Not only does this reduce or eliminate the effect of bias or deceit (whether deliberate or inadvertent) in the survey responses, but allows for a deeper analysis of claims within a dispute, as well as more accurate reporting on liability for a claim, and the monetary value that should be apportioned based on a party’s liability for the action (such as a delay) that lead to the dispute. In addition, the present invention results in the relatively fast generation of a report, and therefore faster resolution of a dispute.

[0050] Any of the features described herein can be combined in any combination with any one or more of the other features described herein within the scope of the invention.

[0051 ] The reference to any prior art in this specification is not, and should not be taken as an acknowledgement or any form of suggestion that the prior art forms part of the common general knowledge.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

[0052] Preferred features, embodiments and variations of the invention may be discerned from the following Detailed Description which provides sufficient information for those skilled in the art to perform the invention. The Detailed Description is not to be regarded as limiting the scope of the preceding Summary of Invention in any way. The Detailed Description will make reference to a number of drawings as follows:

[0053] Figure 1 illustrates a schematic view of a system and method for facilitating dispute resolution according to an embodiment of the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0054] Figure 1 illustrates a schematic view of a system and method 10 for facilitating dispute resolution according to an embodiment of the present invention. The system is housed on an electronic computing device in the form of a server 11 . The server 11 is in electronic communication with a database 12 configured to store a plurality of survey questions, as well as a plurality of survey responses gathered from previous surveys completed as part of the dispute and/or completed during previous disputes. The server 11 and the database 12 are Cloud hosted 16 and are therefore typically remotely located. Thus, the system and method 10 are provided to users in the form of software as a service (SaaS).

[0055] Information relating to one or more claims 13 that form part of the dispute is manually entered into the system via the electronic computing device 11 . Based on the information entered in relation to the claims 13, the electronic computing device 11 interrogates the database 12 to locate survey questions that relate to the nature and/or circumstances of the claims 13, the role of the survey recipients 14 in the project and/or dispute and so on.

[0056] Once suitable survey questions are identified, the electronic computing device 1 1 generates a survey and communicates the survey to electronic devices 15 associated with the survey recipients 14. The survey is accessed by the survey recipients 14 on an electronic interface (such as a website or app downloaded to the electronic devices 15) displayed on the display of the electronic devices 15.

[0057] Ideally, the survey recipients 14 have a fixed time period in which to complete the survey. Once completed, the completed surveys are sent via the internet 16 to the electronic computing device for analysis.

[0058] Analysis of the completed surveys comprises an analysis of the answers provided by the survey recipients 14. Such an analysis includes not just analysing the answers themselves, but also whether the survey recipient 14 has been consistent in answering questions that are related to one another (for instance, questions with different phrasing that relate to the same claim or incident).

[0059] In addition, the electronic computing device 11 conducts an analysis of the behaviour of the survey recipients 14 when completing the survey. For instance, the data transmitted from the electronic devices 15 to the electronic computing device 11 includes information regarding the manner in which the survey recipients 14 completed the survey. Such information may include the time taken to complete certain questions, whether answers to certain questions were changed following an initial answer, whether the survey recipient 14 returned to an earlier question later in the survey and so on.

[0060] Once all data has been received by the electronic computing device 11 , an analysis of the data is performed. In the analysis, both the answers to the survey questions are considered, along with data relating to the behaviour of the survey recipients 14. Weightings are given to answers depending on the role of the survey recipient 14 (and therefore the likelihood of bias or attempted deceit in the survey recipient’s answers), the behaviour of the survey recipient 14 during completion of the survey and so on. In this way, any bias present in the survey answers may be reduced or eliminated.

[0061 ] Upon completion of the analysis, the electronic computing device 1 1 generates a report 17. The report 17 sets out the likelihood that a party to the dispute is responsible for each claim 13 that forms part of the dispute. The likelihood of responsibility may be presented as a percentage, or as a low probability, high probability and so on. The report 17 also includes a monetary value (or range of monetary values) for which the responsible party is liable for each claim 13 within the dispute.

[0062] The report 17 may also indicate that no party bears a responsibility for certain claims 13 within the dispute. This may occur if, for example, the circumstances that lead to the delay (which is the subject of a claim 13) was beyond the control of the parties (such as a weather event).

[0063] In the present specification and claims (if any), the word ‘comprising’ and its derivatives including ‘comprises’ and ‘comprise’ include each of the stated integers but does not exclude the inclusion of one or more further integers.

[0064] Reference throughout this specification to ‘one embodiment’ or ‘an embodiment’ means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiment is included in at least one embodiment of the present invention. Thus, the appearance of the phrases ‘in one embodiment’ or ‘in an embodiment’ in various places throughout this specification are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment. Furthermore, the particular features, structures, or characteristics may be combined in any suitable manner in one or more combinations.

[0065] In compliance with the statute, the invention has been described in language more or less specific to structural or methodical features. It is to be understood that the invention is not limited to specific features shown or described since the means herein described comprises preferred forms of putting the invention into effect. The invention is, therefore, claimed in any of its forms or modifications within the proper scope of the appended claims (if any) appropriately interpreted by those skilled in the art.

Claims

1 . A method for facilitating dispute resolution comprising the steps of:

2. A method according to claim 1 wherein the system is a Cloud based system.

3. A method according to claim 1 or claim 2 wherein the system analyses one or more claims made in relation to the dispute.

4. A method according to claim 3 wherein the survey is generated based on the analysis of the one or more claims.

5. A method according to any one of the preceding claims wherein the survey is updated in real-time in response to answers provided to survey questions within the survey by the one or more survey recipients.

6. A method according to any one of claims 1 to 4 wherein the survey contains one or more survey questions relating to one or more incidents that lead to the dispute.

7. A method according to claim 6 wherein the one or more survey questions related to a to the one or more survey recipients’ role in the one or more incidents.

8. A method according to claim 6 or claim 7 wherein the completed survey comprises answers to the one or more survey questions. A method according to any one of the preceding claims wherein the system records behavioural data of the one or more survey recipients. A method according to claim 8 or claim 9 wherein the system analyses the answers to the survey questions and the behavioural data to identify a potentially deceptive or misleading answer. A method for facilitating dispute resolution according to any one of the preceding claims wherein the system is configured to communicate with a database of survey responses to identify analogous situations, survey recipients and/or survey answers in order to identify the risk or likelihood of deceptive or misleading answers being provided by a survey recipient. A method according to claim 11 wherein the system further comprises one or more machine learning modules in communication with the database of survey responses. A method according to claim 8 wherein the system assigns weightings to one or more of the answers to the one or more survey questions based on the role of the survey recipient and a risk or likelihood of the survey recipient to provide deceptive or misleading answers to the survey questions. A method according to any one of the preceding claims wherein the system is configured to perform data cleansing functions to remove data that falls outside statistical error limits. A method according to any one of the preceding claims wherein the analysis of the collected from the survey recipients generates a decision tree. A method according to claim 15 wherein the system is configured to apply a mathematical simulation to the decision tree to generate a recommended resolution to the dispute. A method according to claim 16 wherein the recommended resolution is in the form of a determination of a probability of a part to the dispute being responsible for a delay or delays that occurred during a project. A method according to claim 16 or claim 17 wherein the mathematical simulation comprises a Monte Carlo simulation. A method according to any one of claims 16 to 18 wherein, based on the recommended resolution, the system assigns a monetary value, or range of monetary values, to the 16 dispute. A method according to claim 19 wherein the monetary value, or range of monetary values, is determined based on financial damages and/or loss that resulted from an action that lead to the dispute and the probability that a party to the dispute was responsible for the action that lead to the dispute. A system for facilitating dispute resolution including at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:

Generate a survey including one or more survey questions relating to a dispute;

Analyse data contained in the completed surveys; and