Time to Resolve Disputes is a critical KPI that directly impacts cash flow and customer satisfaction.
A shorter resolution time enhances operational efficiency, leading to improved financial health and customer loyalty.
Companies that excel in this metric often see reduced costs associated with disputes and increased ROI.
By focusing on this performance indicator, organizations can streamline their processes and enhance strategic alignment across departments.
This KPI serves as a key figure in management reporting, allowing executives to make data-driven decisions that drive business outcomes.
Ultimately, improving this metric can lead to significant competitive positioning in the market.
High values indicate inefficiencies in dispute resolution, potentially leading to customer dissatisfaction and cash flow issues. Conversely, low values reflect effective processes and strong customer relationships. Ideal targets typically fall below 30 days for most industries.
We have 25 relevant benchmarks in our benchmarks database.
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | calendar days | threshold | Directive 2013/11/EU | consumer disputes submitted to ADR entities | cross-industry | European Union |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | percentage | 2013-2016 | LCIA cases with amounts in dispute under USD 1 million | 224 cases |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | months | median | 2013-2016 | LCIA cases with amounts in dispute under USD 1 million | 224 cases |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | months | average | 2013-2016 | LCIA cases | 224 cases |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | days | threshold | Emergency Arbitrator applications |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | percentage | since 2017 | final awards rendered under the Expedited Procedure Provisio | 341 final awards |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | months | median | 2023 | cases that concluded by way of final award |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | months | average | 2023 | cases that concluded by way of final award |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | distribution | three-arbitrator cases under the SCC Arbitration Rules | 80 arbitral awards |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | distribution | sole arbitrator cases under the SCC Arbitration Rules | 80 arbitral awards |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | months | median | cases reviewed under the SCC Arbitration Rules | 80 arbitral awards |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | months | median | cases reviewed under the SCC Arbitration Rules | 80 arbitral awards |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | months | median | cases reviewed under the SCC Arbitration Rules | 80 arbitral awards |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | months | median | disputes decided under the SCC Rules for Expedited Arbitrati |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | percentage | 2023 | final awards in cases administered under the SCC Rules for E |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | percentage | 2015-2022 | cases under the SCC Arbitration Rules | 221 qualifying arbitral awards |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | distribution | 2015-2022 | three-arbitrator cases under the SCC Arbitration Rules | 221 qualifying arbitral awards |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | distribution | 2015-2022 | sole arbitrator cases under the SCC Arbitration Rules | 221 qualifying arbitral awards |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | percent | percentage | 2023 | arbitral awards under the SCC Arbitration Rules |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | months | mean | 2015-2022 | qualifying arbitral awards under the SCC Arbitration Rules | 221 qualifying arbitral awards |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | months | mean | 2015-2022 | qualifying arbitral awards under the SCC Arbitration Rules | 221 qualifying arbitral awards |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | months | mean | 2015-2022 | qualifying arbitral awards under the SCC Arbitration Rules | 221 qualifying arbitral awards |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | months | median | 2015-2022 | qualifying arbitral awards under the SCC Arbitration Rules | 221 qualifying arbitral awards |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | months | median | 2015-2022 | qualifying arbitral awards under the SCC Arbitration Rules | 221 qualifying arbitral awards |
Source: Subscribers only
Source Excerpt: Subscribers only
Formula: Subscribers only
Additional Comments: Subscribers only
| Value | Unit | Type | Company Size | Time Period | Population | Industry | Geography | Sample Size |
| Subscribers only | months | median | 2015-2022 | qualifying arbitral awards under the SCC Arbitration Rules | 221 qualifying arbitral awards |
Many organizations underestimate the complexity of dispute resolution, leading to systemic inefficiencies that can erode customer trust.
Enhancing the Time to Resolve Disputes requires a multifaceted approach focused on efficiency and customer engagement.
A leading telecommunications provider faced a significant challenge with its Time to Resolve Disputes, which averaged 45 days. This prolonged resolution period strained customer relationships and negatively impacted cash flow. The company initiated a comprehensive review of its dispute resolution processes, identifying key bottlenecks in communication and workflow.
The provider implemented a new digital platform that centralized all dispute-related information, allowing teams to collaborate more effectively. Additionally, they introduced a training program focused on best practices for dispute resolution, ensuring that employees were equipped to handle issues swiftly.
Within 6 months, the average resolution time dropped to 20 days, significantly improving customer satisfaction scores. The streamlined process not only enhanced operational efficiency but also reduced costs associated with prolonged disputes. The company was able to reinvest the savings into customer service enhancements, further solidifying its market position.
This KPI is associated with the following categories and industries in our KPI database:
KPI Depot takes you from KPI intelligence to finished deliverable. Consultants, strategy teams, FP&A leaders, and analytics teams use it to answer the two hardest questions in performance management, what to measure and what the target should be, and then to produce the scorecard itself.
The difference is intelligence, not just data. Anyone can list metrics. Every KPI in KPI Depot carries 13 practical attributes, from formula and measurement approach to diagnostic questions, risk warnings, and Balanced Scorecard perspective, across 15 corporate functions and 153 industries. And every target you set is grounded in our database of 34,304 source-attributed benchmarks, each detailing metric value, company size, time period, industry, geography, sample size, and source. Benchmark data at this scale is otherwise the domain of research services costing thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
When your metrics are selected, KPI Depot finishes the job: export an interactive Strategy Map, a Balanced Scorecard with formulas and tracking columns, or a CSV KPI pack, and go from research to working deliverable in hours instead of weeks.
Formerly the Flevy KPI Library, KPI Depot is trusted by teams at organizations including Accenture, EY, IBM, PepsiCo, Samsung, and Vodafone.
Got a question? Email us at [email protected].
Several factors can affect this KPI, including the complexity of the dispute, the efficiency of internal processes, and the level of communication with customers. Organizations must analyze these elements to identify areas for improvement.
Technology can streamline workflows by automating routine tasks and providing real-time data access. This reduces manual errors and accelerates the resolution process, ultimately enhancing customer satisfaction.
Yes. By analyzing the correlation between resolution times and customer retention rates, organizations can quantify the financial implications. Shorter resolution times often lead to higher customer loyalty and increased revenue.
Regular reviews, ideally quarterly, help organizations stay ahead of potential issues. Continuous improvement ensures that processes remain efficient and responsive to changing customer needs.
Absolutely. Gathering and analyzing customer feedback can provide valuable insights into common pain points. This information can guide process improvements and enhance overall customer experience.
Employee training is crucial for equipping staff with the skills needed to resolve disputes effectively. Well-trained employees can handle issues more efficiently, leading to shorter resolution times and improved customer satisfaction.
Each KPI in our knowledge base includes 13 attributes.
A clear explanation of what the KPI measures
The typical business insights we expect to gain through the tracking of this KPI
An outline of the approach or process followed to measure this KPI
The standard formula organizations use to calculate this KPI
Insights into how the KPI tends to evolve over time and what trends could indicate positive or negative performance shifts
Questions to ask to better understand your current position is for the KPI and how it can improve
Practical, actionable tips for improving the KPI, which might involve operational changes, strategic shifts, or tactical actions
Recommended charts or graphs that best represent the trends and patterns around the KPI for more effective reporting and decision-making
Potential risks or warnings signs that could indicate underlying issues that require immediate attention
Suggested tools, technologies, and software that can help in tracking and analyzing the KPI more effectively
How the KPI can be integrated with other business systems and processes for holistic strategic performance management
Explanation of how changes in the KPI can impact other KPIs and what kind of changes can be expected
NEW Mapping to a Balanced Scorecard perspective (financial, customer, internal process, learning & growth)