Our Delphi Process Rounds 6-7

1
Our Delphi ProcessRounds 6-7

• Helen Ivy Rowe

2
Procedure

• A set of carefully designed sequential
  questionnaires interspersed with summarized
  information and opinions feedback derived from
  earlier responses.

3
Past Delphi Rounds

• Delphi 1 and 2 (between Denver and SLC)
• Worked on finding common ground through
  developing mission and vision statements.
• Delphi 3, 4, and 5 (between SLC and Reno)
• Reached agreement on definition of rangelands
• Finalized a vision/mission package
• Received input on most important issues work
  produced at SLC meeting

4
Between Reno and here

• Delphi 6 and 7
• Goal Receive input on system to classify
  indicators

5
Indicator Classification System

• Will continue to classify according to what
  indicators measure (criteria).
• This indicator classification system would
  further sort the indicators according to methods,
  procedures and data.
• Not exclusive of other forms of classification.
  We may chose additional factors such as
• quality
• economic feasibility
• technological availability
• scale/aggregation

6
Indicator Classification System

1. Methods and procedures and data set(s) of useable
   quality exist at the regional-national level
2. Standardized methods and procedures exist at the
   regional-national level, but useable data set(s)
   do not exist at the regional-national level
3. Some data set(s) exist at the regional-national
   level, but methods and procedures are not
   standardized at the regional-national level
4. Conceptually feasible or initially promising, but
   no regional-national methods, procedures or data
   sets currently exist.

7
Indicator Classification System Purpose

• To sort indicators according to their readiness
  for adoption and clarify what work remains.
• A category would be ready to be implemented
  immediately.
• Classification of indicators into categories B-D
  would target the general work required for each
  indicator.
• This process should help define and set a
  direction for working on each indicator.

8
Delphi 7, Question 1 Rate your level of
acceptance for adopting the Modified Indicator
Classification System.
Response (n23)
Unacceptable disagree fundamentally with this classification and oppose its adoption 0
Slightly acceptable acceptable only with further modification 2
Moderately acceptable acceptable, but there is room for improvement 9
Highly acceptable acceptable without modification 12
9
Objections

• Prefer to see quantitative assessment of
  indicators.
• Want to see practical and economic feasibility to
  carry out indicators.
• Will it be robust in the face of climatic or
  cultural changes?

10
What factors would be important to use to
classify indicators?

• General agreement on
• Quality
• Economic feasibility
• Scale/aggregation

11
Redundancy

• Factors covered in the classification system
  (availability of methods/procedures and data
  sets)
• Technological availability
• Data availability

12
Measurable Datum Initially Promising and conceptually feasible Standardized methods/ proceedures exist Maintained data set exists Economically feasible Scale appropriate /Aggregatable Quality of existing data
Indicator 1, Data Set 1
Indicator 1, Data Set 2
Indicator 2, Data Set 1
Indicator 2, Data Set 2
13
Next steps

• Refine classification factors such as quality,
  economic feasibility, and scale/aggregation.

14
Discussion points

• Whether to use the matrix as classification
  format.
• How to determine acceptability of each indicator
  and then the set of CI as a whole?
• The importance of applying the CI at a smaller
  scale to test the validity of the CI as a whole.

15
Criteria group use of Delphi

• Criteria groups may request to use the Delphi.
  Here are some suggestions for application
• Technical questions that are not answerable yet,
  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.