The content of this page are a brief description of Delphi technique and related sites to Delphi study.   

Understand Delphi

SSM advocates the achievement of accomodation or at the very least consensus across stakeholder groups (‘root definitions’) as the starting point of user driven involvement. Issues of definition are of particular importance where stakeholder groups are not incorporated, meet irregularly, or have to accommodate a complex of socio-emotional perspectives (Davenport and Travica, 1995). This research incorporate Delphi technique as techniques to collect issues of NII situation.

Background

Olaf Helmer and Norman Dalkey developed the Delphi process in the 1950s. Both were scientist at the Rand Corporation, the Delphi technique was originally as an iterative consensus building process for forecasting futures. Since then it has been deployed as a generic strategy for developing consensus and making group decisions in a variety of fields (Linstone & Turoff 1975; Turoff & Hiltz 1996).

The nature of Delphi

The straightforward nature of the Delphi technique by utilizing an iterative survey to gather information sounds very simple to do. There has been diverse definitions and opinions about the Delphi technique. Some of these misconceptions are expressed in statement such as the following (Turoff & Hiltz 1996):

-It is the use of a survey to collect information

-It is a method for predicting future events

-It is the use of voting to reduce the need for long discussions

-It is a method for generating a quick consensus by a group

-It is the use of anonymity on the part of participants

-It is a method for quantifying human judgment in a group setting

Some of the above are true but a few have different meaning to the purpose of carrying out a research using Delphi technique. The following description describe the Delphi technique and its objective in more details:

Delphi may be characterised as a method for structuring a group communication process, so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole to deal with complex problems (Linstone & Turoff, 1975)

A Group communication structure used to facilitate communication on a specific task. The method usually involves anonymity of responses, feed back to the group as a whole of individual and/or collective views and the opportunity for any respondent to modify an earlier judgment. The method is usually conducted asynchronously via paper and mail but can be executed within a computerized conferencing environment. At the essence of the method is the question of how best to tailor the communication process to suit the situation (Turoff & Hiltz, 1996).

The Delphi technique were commonly applied to group of a size, for example 20 to 50 individuals, that could not function well in a face-to-face environment for reasons such as communication bias, politic, diverse area of residence, etc.

Delphi objective

The objective of most Delphi applications is the reliable and creative exploration of ideas or the production of suitable information for decision-making (Ziglio, 1996). There are five main objectives of using Delphi technique in a research (Linstone & Turoff 1975).

To determine or develop a range of possible alternatives.

To seek out information which may generate a consensus on the part of the respondent group.

To explore or expose underlying assumptions or information leading to differing judgments.

To correlate informed judgments on a topic spanning a wide range of disciplines

To educate the respondent group as to the diverse and interrelated aspect of the topic.

From the work of Linstone and Turoff (1975), three considerations are important for Delphi applications to issues related to problem situation.

The problem does not lend itself to precise analytical techniques but can benefit from subjective judgements on a collective basis.

The problem at hand has no monitored history nor adequate information on its present and future development.

The problem requires the exploration and assessment of numerous issues connected with various policy option where the need for pooled judgement can be facilitated by judgemental tecniques.

Pill (1971) and Goldschmidt (1975) mentions that there are two options when one is working on a problem under conditions of uncertainty determined by insufficient data and incomplete theory. The first option is to wait until we have and adequate theory based on tested scientific knowledge enabling us to adress the problem concerned. The second option is to make to make the most of what is, an unsatisfactory situation and to try to collect the relevant intuitive insights of experts and use their informed judgement as systematically as possible. It is within this second option that is suggested that Delphi method can be applied in the fields of policy with the aim of generating new insights and future scenarios, assessing the desirability and feasibilty of policy alternatives; and contributing to problem solving and informed decision-making.

Result of Delphi studies

The Delphi method represent an organised method for collecting views and information pertaining to a specific policy area. Ziglio (1996) point out that the results of a Delphi exercise can serve any one or any combination of the following purposes:

to ensure that all the major possible options concerning a particular issue have been put on the table for consideration;

to estimate the impact and consequences of any particular option for example; in terms of technical and economic feasibility;

to examine the acceptability of any given option (e.g. in terms of political or ethical desirability).

The Delphi process

Kaynak, Bloom and Leibold (1994) point out that a Delphi study involves a number of considerations, including the selection of panelists, the design of questionnaire, the provision of feedback and a decision on the number of rounds to be conducted. An interest group is typically assembled, either through correspondence or face-to-face discussion, to assess issue(s) of mutual concern (Kaynak, Bloom & Leibold, 1994). While the individuals in the group share a common interest (the subject of the research), they (usually) represent different points of view. The panel of experts should be selected by their knowledge of the subject under review. In order to ensure a wide range of ideas and views the selected experts should not be permitted to interact with one another during the mullet round process to avoid any form of bias. Everybody in a group will then be asked to give their comments regarding a particular set of issues. A facilitator will then calculate all the individual comments and produce a report documenting the response of the group. The individuals then have to compare what they said to the group’s normative response as a basis for discussion. The discussion, again via remote or face to face conversation, is used to share, promote and challenge the different points of view (Linstone & Turoff, 1975).

Once this is done, the participants, having the benefit of the previous discussion, anonymously comment on the issues again. This process continues until the group reaches consensus or stable disagreement (Linstone & Turoff, 1975).

Design of Delphi questionnaires

A questionnaires, compiled and adapted by the authors for the subject conditions and interest, as well as inputs from other relevant personnel should be used. Design of the questions should reflect the need for the targeted respondents to think about their answer , not just simply answer the questions. The first round questionnaires (Q1) should be mailed to a panel of selected experts following an introductory letter which briefly explain the Delphi method, the research objectives(s) and how respondents’ co-operation will be utilized (Ziglio, 1996). The Q1 poses the problem in broad terms and invites answers and comments. In most cases, stamped, self-addressed envelopes can be included to ensure high return rate. A follow-up letter can be sent to those who have not yet reply within certain period. Prior to sending questionnaire form researcher must agree on the minimum number of respondents to allow valid research (Ziglio, 1996). The replies to Q1 are summarised and used to construct a second questionnaire (Q2) (Ziglio, 1996). Q2 presents the result of Q1 and gives the respondents an opportunity to re-evaluate their original answers in the light of comprehensive feedback on the responses of the whole group. This whole interactive process can be repeated as many times as are judged appropriate with further questionnaire; Q3 or Q4, when issue can be clarified, areas of agreement and disagreement can be identified, and understanding of the priorities can be developed (Ziglio, 1996).

Two phase of Delphi

In Delphi technique application, Ziglio (1996) identified two phase.

The exploration phase, it usually characterises Q1, sometimes also Q2, where the subject under discussion is fully explored and additional information is provided.

The evaluation phase, it usually involves the process of assessing and gathering the experts’ views: consensus or disagreement, on various ways of adressing the issues under investigation. In many cases, the evaluation phase characterises Q2 and Q3. If there is significant disagreement, then this can be explored further (e.g in Q4) to bring out the underlying reasons for the differences among experts and possibly to evaluate them (Linstone and Turoff 1975, Delbecq, Van de Ven and Gustafson 1975).

Advantages of the Delphi Technique.

Rotondi, A. & Gustafson, D (1996) point out that the advantage of Delphi technique could include any or all of the following

Advantage of cost, time and geographical separation, it is possible to convene a group of people that are of higher quality using the Delphi method that otherwise could not be assembled.

It gives particpants time to think their ideas and forces them to write their ideas down before they sent their idea to the gorup. It promotes careful synthesis of participant ideas and in-depth thinking.

The whole process provides a record of a group’s thoughts which can be reviewed as needed.

The Delphi method has proven to be very effective in a variety of problems and situations. Many exmples of successful outcomes could be provided to the participants to increase their confidence in the Delphi process.

The anonimity of the participants allow them to express opinions and take positions which they might otherwise not be able to express because doing so in the open could jeopardise their position in an organisation, or the ability to accomplish certain objectives.

The Delphi technique can be used for as tools for improving data collection, generation of ideas, exploration of futures scenarios and informed decision-making in problem solving situation and policy areas. The Delphi can provide a very important tool for decision-makers facing uncertainty by: exploring the nature of particular problem situation or impact of policy; assessing its magnitude; and evaluating different possible ways of adressing it (Ziglio, 1996). The result of the Delphi technique can greatly assist policy makers to improve creativity in their decision making when accurate information is unavailable (Ziglio, 1996).

Send mail to o.b.bintoro@massey.ac.nz with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 1998-1999 Key Issues of National Information Infrastructure in South East Asia countries.
Last modified: December 08, 1998