The Collaborative Delphi

1
The Collaborative Delphi

• Helen Ivy Rowe

2
Purpose

• Introduce a new variant to the Policy Delphi that
  I will call collaborative.
• Describe its use by the SRR.

3
Delphi Defined

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

4
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.

5
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.

6
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

7
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.

8

• 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.

9
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.

10
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.

11
Past Delphi Rounds

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

12
Criteria group use of Delphi

• Questions on rangelands to get an expert spread
  of opinion.
• If a group gets stuck and wants help from the
  SRR.
• Theoretical questions that need buy in from the
  group or SRR.
• Indicator review for individual indicators or as
  sets to check for gaps/overlaps/ acceptability.

13
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.

14
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).

15
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.

16
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.

17
Advantages

• An excellent tool for sharing ideas, gathering
  support, and eliciting input.
• Appears to be representative.