Group Dynimics - the Delphi Technique

THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE

PURPOSE

The purpose of the Delphi technique is to elicit information and judgments from participants to facilitate problem-solving, planning, and decision-making. It does so without physically assembling the contributors. Instead, information is exchanged via mail, FAX, or email. This technique is designed to take advantage of participants' creativity as well as the facilitating effects of group involvement and interaction. It is structured to capitalize on the merits of group problem-solving and minimize the liabilities of group problem-solving.

REQUIREMENTS

The Delphi technique requires a Coordinator to organize requests for information, information received, and to be responsible for communication with the participants. The Delphi technique requires an efficient communication channel to link the Coordinator with each of the participants.

PROCESS

1. Identify the issue and solicit ideas. For example:

What action could be taken to provide faster response to patient inquiries between visits?

Prepare and send the first questionnaire, which asks each participant to engage in individual brainstorming so as to generate as many ideas as possible for dealing with the issue.

2. Response to first questionnaire. Each participant lists his/her ideas (Questionnaire #1) in a brief, concise manner and returns the list anonymously to the Coordinator. These ideas need not be fully developed. In fact, it is preferable to have each idea expressed in one brief sentence or phrase. No attempt should be made to evaluate or justify these ideas at this point in time.

3. Create and send Questionnaire #2. The Coordinator prepares and sends a second questionnaire to participants that contains all of the ideas sent in response to the first questionnaire and provides space for participants to refine each idea, to comment on each idea's strengths and weaknesses for addressing the issue, and to identify new ideas.

4. Response to second questionnaire. Participants anonymously record their responses to Questionnaire #2 and return them to the Coordinator.

5. Create and send Questionnaire #3. The Coordinator creates and sends a third questionnaire that summarizes the input from the previous step and asks for additional clarifications, strengths, weaknesses, and new ideas.

6. Continuation of the process. If desired, the Coordinator performs iterations of the preceding process until it becomes clear that no new ideas are emerging and that all strengths, weakness, and opinions have been identified.

7. Resolution. Resolution may occur in one of two ways.

* If dominant, highly evaluated ideas emerge via consensus, the exercise is declared finished. The end product is a list of ideas with their concomitant strengths and weaknesses.

* The Coordinator conducts a formal assessment of the group's opinions of the merits of the ideas. There are a number of ways to conduct a formal evaluation. In one method, the Coordinator prepares a questionnaire that lists all the ideas and asks participants to rate each one on a scale. For example, a 7-point scale could be used that ranges from 0 (no potential for dealing with the issue) through 7 (very high potential for dealing with the issue). If this approach is used, participants send the rating forms to the Coordinator, who compiles the results and rank-orders the ideas based on the evaluations.

Nominal Group Technique: An Alternative to Brainstorming

Extension educators have for a long time used various techniques in the. hopes of ensuring Involvement and commitment of 'fair and their client/consumers. Many of these techniques are group oriented, Brain storming, for example. has the obective of giving Participants an opportunity to engage in creative Problem solving. Another approach, the nominal group technique (NGT), uses a more structured format to obtain multiple inputs from several people on a particular problem or issue. Each technique may be appropriate given a specific situation; however, NGT is probably not used as often as it should be.

A possible alternative to brain storming is NGT. This technique was originally developed by Delbecq and VandeVen2 and has been applied to adult education program planning by Vedros3. This technique is a structured variation of small group discussion methods. The process prevents the domination of discussion by a single person, encourages the more passive group members to participate, and results in a set of prioritized solutions or recommendations. The steps to follow in NGT are:

1. Divide the people present into small groups of 5 or 6 members, preferably seated around a table.

2. State an open-ended question (" What are some ways we could encourage participants to car pool?").

3. Have each Person spend several minutes in silence individually brainstorming all the possible ideas and jot these ideas down.

4. Have the groups, collect the ideas by sharing them roundrobin fashion (one response per person each time), while all are recorded in key term, on a flipchart. No criticism is allowed, but clarification in response to questions is encouraged.

5. Have each person evaluate the ideas and individually and anonymously vote for the best ones (for example, the, best idea gets Points, next best 4 Points, etc).

6. Share votes within the group and tabulate. A group report is prepared, showing the ideas receiving the most points.

7. Allow time for brief group presentations on their solutions.

NGT Advantages and Disadvantages

8. As with any technique, there are advantages and disadvantages. NGT Is no exception. Some of the obvious advantages are that voting is anonymous, there are opportunities for equal participation of group members and distractions (communication "noise") inherent in other group methods are minimized. As to disadvantages, opinions may not converge in the voting process, cross-fertilization, of ideas may be constrained, and the process may appear to be too mechanical.

9. NGT can be one more tool for Extension Educators to use in helping staff, volunteers. clients, and consumers improve their ability to make sound decisions.

Decision making

Decision