Introduction and Overview
This paper provides an overview of the application of Lean Enterprise methodology to arbitration to reduce time and cost while preserving quality and due process.
A structured framework has been developed for designing an efficient case-specific arbitration procedure.
Between the autumn of 2025 and the summer of 2026, Patrick Noonan led a multidisciplinary workshop comprising corporate counsel, arbitration counsel, arbitrators, and a Lean Enterprise specialist,[1] focusing on international arbitration. The outcome of the workshop is a Lean Arbitration Process Design Framework (the “Lean Arbitration Framework”): a practical Toolkit consisting of templates and a guide to their implementation using Lean Enterprise principles.
The Lean Arbitration Framework is intended for collaborative use by company counsel and arbitration counsel at the outset of an arbitration to develop a tailored proposal for inclusion in the initial procedural order or orders. This is also the appropriate stage to use the Lean Arbitration Framework to construct and agree on a budget and, where appropriate, a fee arrangement.
When needed, the underlying reasoning for the proposals for the procedural order could also be shared with the Tribunal to facilitate informed case management and justify proposed procedural choices.
Efficiency Measures are Underutilized
Many measures have been proposed for rendering arbitration more efficient in cost and time.[2] The use of such measures, however, appears in practice to be sporadic. None of the participants in the arbitration process typically drive their systematic adoption. This may reflect a lack of incentive, the absence of an appropriate opportunity at the outset of the case, or simply the absence of a structured methodology through which counsel and clients can collaboratively design a case-specific arbitration procedure.
There is a tendency for a standard Procedural Order no. 1 (“PO1”) to be adopted unquestioned at the beginning of the process, prior to full statements of claims and responses having been exchanged. The PO1 is therefore often not specifically adapted to the particular case, as inadequate information has been tabled.
Moreover, the parties’ counsel may not be comfortable to deviate on her/his own initiative from standard practice, which is a safe and conservative approach (and counsel frequently prioritize leaving no stone unturned in order to justify having maximized the chances of success, as opposed to minimizing cost and time, absent client instructions to the contrary). The arbitrators may also feel that standard practice is a safe and conservative approach, particularly at an early stage when insufficient information is available to adapt the procedure to the case at hand, or in order to avoid either party raising due process concerns in relation to simplification. Company counsel frequently will not challenge the use of standard practices in reliance on the implicit consensus between arbitration counsel and the arbitrators as to their adoption.
Applying Lean Enterprise principles
Lean Enterprise methodology was used to challenge such conventional approach by applying some core Lean concepts:
–Every procedural step must be justified as producing an output that becomes an input used in a later step.
-Only undertake necessary actions
-Decide procedures “just in time” , i.e. only when sufficient information exists to confirm necessity
– Design by working backward from the desired outcome
In practice, these concepts were deployed as follows.
The workshop first reviewed typical (international) arbitration end-to-end process steps. This was followed by reverse process mapping: working backward from the desired result (resolution of the dispute). Each prior step was examined to analyze whether, or under what conditions and to what extent, the output of each procedural step ultimately became an input used in a subsequent step. To the extent the output of any process step was not used in a subsequent process, such step or part thereof is not necessary to reach the desired end result.
Similarly, process steps were examined to test whether their inclusion in a PO1 and the timing of their deployment, was “just in time.” While an argument could be made that many procedural steps are to be undertaken “just in case” they could be useful later, this can significantly raise costs with an uncertain return. As a general rule, “just in case” processes are better deferred until their usefulness is confirmed. This illustrates a key principle of Lean Enterprise kept in mind by the workshop: “just-in-time” processing means not too late, but also not too early. If a process step is performed too early, it frequently proves unnecessary.
Lean Arbitration Examples
One illustration of these Lean Enterprise principles is the timing for making decisions on the use or scope of various procedural steps to be included in PO1 and the procedural timetable.
A complete, and “standard” Procedural Order No. 1 established at the first case management conference in cases where, at that time, each party has only provided a minimalistic notice of arbitration or response may simply be premature—“too early”.
This can deprive parties, counsel, and arbitrators of the opportunity to make pertinent decisions about the appropriate process steps to include, limit (or possibly expand), as a function of the case at hand. And consequently the PO1 can frequently include costly and lengthy procedural steps, or step scopes, which are not necessary.
A few additional examples of the application of Lean principles (these and other examples are treated in more detail in the Guide to Constructing the Templates below) are:
Example 1. Document Production decided too early: Providing in a PO1 for document production at an initial stage before each party’s case has been fully briefed is often “too early”. Can the parties determine—and can the arbitrators appreciate—whether there are evidentiary gaps that can only be filled by documents possessed by the other party?
If the existence of such evidentiary gaps has not been established, it may (and does) happen that documents produced in response to requests do not become inputs into the arbitrators’ decision, and not even relied on in the party’s written submissions made after receipt of the documents produced. (This can also result from fishing if criteria for document production are not sufficiently tailored to evidence gaps.)
Example 2. Post Hearing Briefs–Output not used as input to subsequent step: Post-hearing briefs provided for in a PO1 ultimately prove unnecessary for the Tribunal decision if they merely rehash arguments made in prior written submissions. In Lean terminology, the post-hearing brief does not become an input used by the arbitrators in formulating the award.
In both examples, costs are increased and the process is prolonged, without a return on the investment.
Lean Arbitration Framework
The Lean Arbitration Framework is implemented through five interrelated templates to be used by company counsel working together with arbitration counsel in designing a case-specific arbitration procedure. The templates are intended to be constructed before the filing of a notice of arbitration or a preparing a response thereto.[3]
The process begins with identifying the issues to be decided and the evidence required to prove or refute them; the design of the arbitration is driven by evidentiary considerations.
Each of the typical process steps is then examined to determine whether its inclusion is justified, or should be excluded or limited in scope or extent in the case at hand.
Before filing a notice of arbitration, or preparing to defend, company counsel and arbitration counsel working together can design the most appropriate and efficient process for their case, with a view toward formulating proposals for the initial procedural order(s). This is also the opportunity to construct together an agreed budget (and even negotiating a fee arrangement).
It may be the case that the opposing party has divergent interests: e.g., one party may seek a fast and cost-efficient arbitration while the other may prefer delay and a scorched-earth approach. In such case, a proposal constructed on well-reasoned grounds, via the Lean Arbitration Framework, prepares the party to justify its proposed measures to the arbitrators. If well-reasoned proposals are submitted to the Tribunal, this should shift the discussion from abstract preferences to reasoned procedural choices, requiring the opposing party to justify objections to case-specific efficiency measures.
The well-reasoned proposal would provide the Tribunal with a basis to refuse opposing demands grounded primarily in general and overbroad due process arguments.
Arbitration due process means giving each party a reasonable opportunity to present its case; it does not mean requiring unlimited procedural opportunities nor the right to impose unnecessary delay or cost. When such tactics are unjustified or abusive they can undermine or act as a deprivation of due process.
Many of the Lean Arbitration Framework questions can be asked after the process has commenced, at various checkpoints, or if adaptations become appropriate depending on how the case evolves. Though the benefits and probability of adoption are strongest when deployed at the onset of the case, before measures have been adopted in a Procedural Order.
Budget Driven Process Design
Finally, in cases of budgetary constraints imposed by management as a condition to proceed with an arbitration (or, e.g. by a third-party funder as a condition to its financing), the Lean Arbitration Framework can be the basis for company counsel and external counsel to design upfront an arbitration procedure meeting such constraints. In other words, design the procedure to meet a budget target.
While costs and process may vary from the initial design in practice, this is no different from any business process where an activity is planned by objectives, process steps, timeline and budgets, and later adapted if needed as circumstances evolve while remaining within overall constraints.
Conclusion
The objectives of the Lean Arbitration Framework are not only to simplify arbitration or identify efficiency measures; a primary purpose is to enable parties, counsel and tribunals to drive the use of efficiencies by design of a case-specific arbitration procedure that is proportionate to the evidentiary needs of the dispute and aligned with agreed objectives of cost, time and quality. The Toolkit (Templates and Guide[i]) provides a structured practical methodology to translate those principles into procedural design.
Patrick Noonan
July 2, 2026
[1] Cliff Hendel, Sarah Little, Mark McNeill, John Papin, Max Thummel, Alexandra Van der Meulen ( all members of the CPR European Advisory Board which lent its support to this effort), John Papin, Lean Enterprise expert, and Patrick Noonan leader and author of this paper.
[2] See e.g. ICC Report “Controlling Time and Costs in Arbitration”; “Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration (Prague Rules)”; CPR “Protocol on Disclosure of Documents and Presentation of Witnesses in Commercial Arbitration;” Swiss Arbitration Association “Taming the Beast, A White Paper on Document Production.”
[3] The five Templates (“T”) are: T1 Evidence Identification and Source; T2 Witness Evidence; T3 Expert Evidence; T4 Process Steps; T5 Cost Budget.
[i] To be published soon
patrickjnoonan.com 