Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:
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 Delphi No 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 Delphi As 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 1 st and 2 nd meetings): Worked on finding common ground through developing mission and vision statements. Delphi 3, 4, and 5 (between 2 nd and 3 rd 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 3 rd and 4 th meetings): Received input on Indicator Classification System.
Criteria group use of Delphi 1. 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.