Traditionally construction has been an industry that favoured ADR over formal litigation due to the complexity of technical issues. However, over the past decade construction arbitration has come under increasing attack for its rising costs and growing delays, and expansion of arbitration processes to the point that those processes are approaching the more complex and formal processes followed to resolve disputes litigation. As a result, parties are looking for new methods of resolving their disputes in a more efficient and economical manner, such as ODR. A review of the history of ODR and the practical applications of ODR in use today lead to the conclusion that the concept of ODR for construction dispute resolution appears to be possible and realistic. The advantages seem to outweigh the disadvantages, especially given the solutions suggested to overcome many of the disadvantages. While ODR may not be a realistic venue for large complex construction cases, it may be just the ideal venue for smaller and simple construction disputes. In conclusion, given the advantages that ODR arbitration does offer, the most realistic use of ODR in the short term would involve disputes consisting of a simple, one-dimensional dispute within which the parties can stipulate to the facts in the case. In such simple disputes ODR may be not only an appropriate vehicle within which the dispute can be resolved; it might be more easily accepted by the parties as the preferred platform for resolution. Hopefully, international institutions of arbitration will be successful in their development of a international standards and platform fir disputes that can be adapted for use in construction and will serve as the first step in developing ways to handle small construction claims, thereby allowing parties to resolve their disputes in a faster and more economical manner.