Why Delphi? - Done professionally it is anything but reading the tea leaves!

Delphi is the name of a well-recognized group process technique to collect expert insight and gain the most reliable consensus of opinion in a group of experts in a situation where the state of knowledge is incomplete for obvious reasons (Efstathioua, Ameenb, & Coll, 2008; Graham, Regehr, & Wright, 2003; Hasson, Keeney, & McKenna, 2000; Linstone & Turoff, 1975; Powell, 2003).

Based on a series of sequential questionnaires with controlled feedback in-between, it is a method to structure and organize group communication (Powell, 2003). It is a popular technique for forecasting and aid in decision-making based on opinions of experts in health and social care (Hasson et al., 2000; Landeta, 2006).

The main advantages of the Delphi technique as compared to other methods, such as expert panels or traditional surveys are the following (Okuli & Pawlowski, 2004; Powell, 2003):

• Experts do not meet in person, there is no direct confrontation of experts, hence input can be gathered from all participating experts in an uninfluenced fashion

• Experts can express their opinions uninfluenced as they are mutually anonymized

• The Delphi group size can be adapted to the need to cover all expert areas

• Responses in writing (e-mail) allow to save the expert’s rare time

• By formulating open questions, the experts can be asked in a very broad fashion and a priori restrictions can be avoided

• With the feedback rounds in between the rounds, the collective knowledge in the expert panel increases and new ideas might be stimulated

In order to get the best possible idea on what the future would look like companies and organizations want to rely on the knowledge and expertise of the experts available in their network. However, a common psychological problem of expert round tables or expert panel discussions is that experts are very sensitive to the expertise and status of others and a higher status in a group makes group members more participating than a lower status (Sinaceur, Thomas-Hunt, Neale, O’Neill, & Haag, 2010; Stasser, Stewart, & Wittenbaum, 1995; Thomas-Hunt, Ogden, & Neale, 2003). This can lead to an information bias because the opinion of some experts (with a higher status) are predominant whereas on the other hand, important information is held back (from experts with a lower status). This would be, however, very harmful for the best possible idea on what the future would look like.

Therefore, the Delphi technique is an efficient method to get the best possible idea on what the future would look like based on a most reliable consensus of opinion from a group of experts in a situation where the state of knowledge is incomplete.

If you need to run a Delphi study, rely on an expert with experience in running Delphi studies. Please get in contact with me for more detailed information.

Literature:

• Efstathioua, N., Ameenb, J., & Coll, A. (2008). A Delphi study to identify healthcare users’ priorities for cancer care in Greece. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 12, 362–371.

• Graham, B., Regehr, G., & Wright, J.G. (2003). Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 1150–1156.

• Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing 32(4), 1008-1015.

• Landeta, J. (2006). Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 73, 467–482.

• Linstone, H.A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. Retrieved July 16, 2017, from https://web.njit.edu/~turoff/pubs/delphibook/index.html

• Okuli, C., & Pawlowski, S.D. (2004). The Delphi Method as a Research Tool: An Example, Design Considerations and Applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29. Retrieved July 16, 2017, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002

• Powell, C. (2003). The Delphi technique: myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(4), 376–382.

• Sinaceur, M., Thomas-Hunt, M.C., Neale, M.A., O’Neill, O.A., & Haag, C. (2010). Accuracy and Perceived Expert Status in Group Decisions: When Minority Members Make Majority Members More Accurate Privately. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 423–437.

• Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244-265.

• Thomas-Hunt, M. C., Ogden, T. Y., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Who’s really sharing? Effects of social and expert status on knowledge exchange within groups. Management Science, 49, 464-477.