The Collaborative Delphi

Helen Ivy Rowe

Purpose

Introduce a new variant to the Policy Delphi that I will call “collaborative”.

Describe its use by the SRR.

Delphi Defined

The Delphi is a research technique used for gathering and developing expert opinion through iterative surveys.

Conventional Delphi

Choose expert panel.Send questionnaires.Summarize responses.Send responses with further questions.Individuals given the opportunity to revise their original answers in response to group feedback. Continues until a pre-determined level of consensus is achieved.

Delphi benefits

Anonymity removes fear of embarrassment for: Presenting views in public. Contradicting superiors.

“Fresh” input untainted by the opinions of others. Process cannot be domineered by the few.Opportunity to freely change an opinion in response to group feedback.

Delphi Variations

conventional Delphi (1950s)Forecasting Research using expert opinion

Policy Delphi (1960s)Social sciences as an aid in decision

making

Design Delphi (1979)Consciously develop a field of interest

Contrasting Delphi Approaches

Policy DelphiNo “experts” only advocates and referees.Gather differing opinions on a specific policy area for use in a small workable committee. A small committee can

use the input of many with a less cumbersome decision making process.

Collaborative Delphi

Experts in their field, advocates of the SRR process.

Gather opinions on topics as they arise in meetings. Make progress on an

issue to help the larger group of SRR make decisions.

Policy Delphi

Iterative until pre-determined level of consensus achieved.

Self contained process with specific topic.

Collaborative DelphiAs time permits.Consensus may not be achieved, but progress made.In conjunction with meetings.Topics chosen at each meeting.

Uses for Collaborative Delphi in SRR

1) Develop group statements.2)Illicit feedback on documents,

decisions, or other work produced at meetings.

3) Evaluate draft proposals presented by Steering Committee.

4) Allow work groups to obtain input from the larger group.

Past Delphi Rounds

Delphi 1 and 2 (between 1st and 2nd meetings): Worked on finding common ground through

developing mission and vision statements.

Delphi 3, 4, and 5 (between 2nd and 3rd meetings): Reached agreement on definition of rangelands. Finalized a vision/mission “package”. Received input on “most important issues” work

produced at SLC meeting.

Past Delphi Rounds

Delphi 6 and 7 (between 3rd and 4th meetings):Received input on Indicator Classification

System.

Criteria group use of Delphi1. Questions on rangelands to get an

expert spread of opinion.

2. If a group gets “stuck” and wants help from the SRR.

3. Theoretical questions that need “buy in” from the group or SRR.

4. Indicator review for individual indicators or as sets to check for gaps/overlaps/ acceptability.

Delphi 8

Questions requested by Criteria groups at November 2001 meeting:What should be used as a reference point

or time zero?Feedback to the Soil/Water group for

dropping an indicator.

Limitations“The strength of Delphi is, therefore, the ability to

make explicit the limitations on the particular design and its application. The Delphi designer who understands the philosophy of his approach and the resulting boundaries of validity is engaged in the practice of a potent communication process. The designer who applies the technique without this insight or without clarifying these boundaries for the clients or observers is engaged in the practice of mythology” (p. 586, Linstone 1975).

Limitations

Anonymity disadvantage: specificity of expertise should not be “watered down” by SRR input. Avoid Delphi on specific technical questions.

“Tyranny of the majority” overwhelming small minority with insight. Highlight minority opinion. Use Delphi to pinpoint areas of agreement and

disagreement. Decisions tend to be made at meetings.

Advantages

Saves valuable time in meetings. Delphi makes progress on topics between

meetings.

May reduce the number of meetings needed.

Allows the planners to involve more people in the process.

Lends continuity and keeps participants engaged in the process.

Advantages

An excellent tool for sharing ideas, gathering support, and eliciting input.

Appears to be representative.