(From IMI) We thought you would be interested to read a short summary of how the 400 delegates at the Singapore GPC voted electronically on the multi-choice answers to the 20 core questions about the future of dispute resolution.

It was summarised in a brief article entitled Data will defeat “the deadening drag of status quoism”. The Global Pound Conference Series has kicked off published this week at
http://www.mediate.com/articles/DataWillDefeat.cfm

Snippet: In response to a question about what is the greatest influence on parties when deciding which type of dispute resolution process to use, predictably Advisors ranked legal advice top. Users, as well as both Adjudicative and Non-Adjudicative providers ranked efficiency first and rated legal advice far lower. Similarly, when asked what role Users want lawyers to take in a dispute resolution process, Advisors ranked advocacy by lawyers as the top option. In contrast, Users, and all other stakeholder groups, ranked “working collaboratively with Users” as top, with advocacy by lawyers a distant second. When delegates were asked which stakeholders have the potential to be most influential to bring about change in dispute resolution, Advisors ranked themselves in the top slot, while Users placed them practically bottom, and all stakeholders, except Advisors, rated Governments/Ministries of Justice as the most influential. Another difference was that Advisors were the only stakeholder category to rank purely adjudicative dispute resolution processes highly.

Related articles on the GPC Singapore

http://www.internationalarbitrationasia.com/global_pound_conference_series_launched_in_singapore
http://www.mediate.com/articles/MasucciDbl20160401.cfm 
http://www.mediate.com/articles/MacDuffIbl20160331.cfm