Editorial Note:
This article was originally entitled “Technology Creates Opportunities and Risks” by John Helie and originally appeared in the January 1999 issue of Consensus, a newspaper published jointly by the Consensus Building Institute and the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program.
John’s current motivation is not merely to create an additional valuable updated article, but to also model the ease and creative use of AI.
John says that he hopes to show that the use of AI is not somehow “cheating” or “devaluing.” John reports having done all of this updating in a few minutes on a rainy afternoon. John also adds that, “I really do not want readers to think I am knowledgeable about all of the technologies cited. I have never heard of half the platforms discussed.”
This updated article thus reflects today’s rapidly evolving landscape of digital communication, online collaboration, and remote dispute resolution. Here is the original article, title and abstract:
John reports having copied and pasted the text from the original article into ChatGPT (the free version) and asked it to “rewrite and expand the article based on current technology.” Here is the result, first pass with no edits.
Traditional, in-person meetings have long set the standard for strategic process design in facilitation and dispute resolution. However, the rise of digital platforms—once limited to email and basic web tools—has transformed into a complex ecosystem including video conferencing, collaborative workspaces, encrypted messaging apps, cloud-based document systems, social media, online polling tools, and artificial intelligence–powered platforms. These tools are no longer supplemental; they are now integral to how people communicate, negotiate, build trust, and reach agreements across distances and cultures.
Yet, many mediators and facilitators still underestimate or underutilize these technologies. Even when practitioners intentionally incorporate digital tools, they are often unaware of the full range of conversations happening outside structured processes—in WhatsApp groups, Slack channels, private DMs, or AI-generated drafts. These off-channel communications can dramatically influence the trajectory of a negotiation or decision-making process.
The key question today is no longer whether stakeholders are communicating online, but:
How do we strategically design dispute resolution processes that harness these technologies intentionally, inclusively, and ethically?
In the late 1990s, email and static websites were cutting-edge. Today’s technology landscape offers a layered ecosystem of tools that shape real-time influence, public perception, and stakeholder coordination. Some of the primary modern tools include:
Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet are now core spaces where negotiation and mediation occur. Features like breakout rooms, live polling, and instant transcription enable structured dialogue and private caucuses—replicating and in some ways expanding traditional in-person methods.
Apps such as Slack, Discord, Basecamp, and Microsoft Teams offer continuous, threaded discussions that blend the functions of email, forums, and chat rooms. Unlike traditional meetings, these platforms enable persistent dialogue—a negotiation may never “adjourn,” it simply continues asynchronously among stakeholders.
Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, and Notion allow stakeholders to co-author documents in real-time, track changes, and maintain transparent records of evolving proposals. AI-powered summarization can bring late participants up to speed in seconds.
Platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, LinkedIn, TikTok, and Reddit shape public opinion and can exert informal pressure on parties. Consensus-building processes, even when private, now take place against a backdrop of digital visibility and potential virality.
Generative AI tools (like GPT-5) are increasingly being used to draft proposals, summarize complex positions, and even simulate stakeholder responses. This introduces both opportunities (speed, clarity) and ethical challenges (bias, accuracy, authorship, identity verification).
Online forums, threaded chats, and collaborative documents allow participation on one’s own schedule—crucial for multi-time-zone, multi-lingual, or high-stakes engagements where participants need time to reflect before responding.
Digital platforms can empower individuals who are less comfortable speaking in live meetings. Writing responses or using AI-assisted tools can give space to underrepresented voices and improve equity in participation.
Digital records preserve every interaction, allowing for ongoing accountability, institutional memory, and easier onboarding of new stakeholders.
What once required traveling to a central meeting room can now engage hundreds or thousands of people across continents. Today’s dispute processes can combine intimate breakout conversations with large-scale digital public input.
Conversations are now spread across platforms—Zoom chats, email threads, LinkedIn comments, private messages—making it difficult to maintain a shared understanding of the process.
With deepfakes and AI-generated text, verifying who is “in the room” and ensuring integrity of voice is more complex than ever.
While more people are connected than ever, disparities remain. Some stakeholders lack high-speed Internet, private space to join video meetings, or digital fluency. Facilitators must design for mixed-access and multiple modes of participation.
Without non-verbal cues, tone is easily misinterpreted in text. And with the immediacy of messaging, reactive responses can escalate tensions quickly. AI-generated tone checks and structured reflection prompts can mitigate these risks—but only if built into the process intentionally.
Whether in-person or via video, initial synchronous meetings are vital for relationship building. They lay the groundwork for trust that sustains online discourse.
Rather than allowing unstructured digital communication, practitioners must intentionally assign purposes to each platform—for example:
Online spaces require the same level of facilitation as in-person spaces:
Practitioners should proactively address:
Consensus is no longer built in a sequence of discrete meetings, but in a continuous flow of interactions. This requires process design that supports persistence, iteration, and adaptive facilitation.
Today’s technology offers a vastly expanded toolkit for dispute resolution, but tools alone do not create consensus. What matters is process design—thoughtfully integrating these tools in ways that enhance trust, access, transparency, and equity.
We are not merely adapting traditional practices to new technologies—we are shaping a new era in which consensus-building is persistent, multi-modal, AI-enhanced, and globally connected. The question is no longer how technology will change dispute resolution. The question is:
Will practitioners shape this future thoughtfully, or let it unfold by default?
Watching the ongoing negotiations over a budget deal needed to avert a government shut-down, which are approaching the eleventh hour tonight, once again we see a pattern that is common...
By Joe MarkowitzWhat makes a mediation super-hero? And who qualifies? Is it technique or style? Ask Ken Cloke and he will say you are the technique. Is it acquired or does it...
By Geoff SharpFrom Stephanie West Allen's blog on Neuroscience and conflict resolution. I watched a wonderful video. It is of a scientist dancing some information about the brain. Be sure to take...
By Stephanie West Allen
