DELPHI METHOD
The Delphi method is a structured
communication technique, originally developed as
1. a
systematic,
2. Interactive
3. forecasting method
which relies on a panel of experts.
In the standard version, the experts
answer questionnaires in two or more rounds. After each round, a facilitator
provides an anonymous summary of the experts’ forecasts from the previous round
as well as the reasons they provided for their judgments.
Thus, experts are encouraged to revise
their earlier answers in light of the replies of other members of their panel.
It is believed that during this process the range of the answers will decrease
and the group will converge towards the "correct" answer. Finally,
the process is stopped after a pre-defined stop criterion and the mean or median scores of the final
rounds determine the results.
Other versions, such as the Policy
Delphi, have been designed for normative and explorative use, particularly in
the area of social policy and
public health.
In Europe, more recent web-based
experiments have used the Delphi method as a communication technique for
interactive decision-making and e-democracy.
Delphi is based on the principle that
forecasts (or decisions) from a structured group of individuals are more
accurate than those from unstructured groups. This has been indicated with the
term "collective
intelligence". The technique can also be adapted for use in
face-to-face meetings, and is then called mini-Delphi or Estimate-Talk-Estimate
(ETE). Delphi has been widely used for business forecasting and has certain advantages
over another structured forecasting approach, prediction
markets.
Key characteristics
The following key
characteristics of the Delphi method help the participants to focus on the
issues at hand and separate Delphi from other methodologies:
Structuring of information flow
The initial
contributions from the experts are collected in the form of answers to questionnaires
and their comments to these answers. The panel director controls the
interactions among the participants by processing the information and filtering
out irrelevant content. This avoids the negative effects of face-to-face panel
discussions and solves the usual problems of group dynamics.
Regular feedback
Participants
comment on their own forecasts, the responses of others and on the progress of
the panel as a whole. At any moment they can revise their earlier statements.
While in regular group meetings participants tend to stick to previously stated
opinions and often conform too much to group leader, the Delphi method prevents
it.
Anonymity of the participants
Usually all
participants remain anonymous. Their identity is not revealed, even after the
completion of the final report. This prevents the authority, personality, or
reputation of some participants from dominating others in the process.
Arguably, it also frees participants from their personal biases, minimizes the
"bandwagon effect"
or "halo effect", allows
free expression of opinions, encourages open critique, and facilitates
admission of errors when revising earlier judgments.
Role of the facilitator
The person
coordinating the Delphi method can be known as a facilitator, and
facilitates the responses of their panel of experts, who are selected
for a reason, usually that they hold knowledge on an opinion or view. The
facilitator sends out questionnaires, surveys etc. and if the panel of experts
accept, they follow instructions and present their views. Responses are
collected and analyzed, then common and conflicting viewpoints are identified.
If consensus is not reached, the process continues through thesis and
antithesis, to gradually work towards synthesis, and building consensus.
Use in forecasting
First applications
of the Delphi method were in the field of science and technology forecasting.
The objective of the method was to combine expert opinions on likelihood and
expected development time, of the particular technology, in a single indicator.
One of the first
such reports, prepared in 1964 by Gordon and Helmer, assessed the direction of
long-term trends in science and technology development, covering such topics as
scientific breakthroughs,
2. Automation,
3. Space
progress,
4. War
prevention and
5. Weapon
systems.
Other forecasts of
technology were dealing with
1. Vehicle-highway
systems,
2. Industrial
robots,
3. Intelligent
internet,
4. Broadband
connections, and
5. Technology
in education.
Later the Delphi method was applied in
other areas, especially those related to public policy issues, such as economic
trends, health and education.
It was also applied successfully and
with high accuracy in business forecasting. For example, in one case reported
by Basu and Schroeder (1977), the Delphi method predicted the sales of a new
product during the first two years with inaccuracy of 3–4% compared with actual
sales. Quantitative methods produced errors of 10–15%, and traditional unstructured
forecast methods had errors of about 20%.
The Delphi method has also been used as
a tool to implement multi-stakeholder approaches for participative
policy-making in developing countries.
The governments of Latin America and the
Caribbean have successfully used the Delphi method as an open-ended
public-private sector approach to identify the most urgent challenges for their
regional ICT-for-development eLAC Action Plans.
As a result, governments have widely
acknowledged the value of collective intelligence from
1. Civil
society,
2. Academic
sector participants of the Delphi and
3. Private
sector participants of the Delphi, especially in a field of
4. Rapid
change, such as technology policies.
In this sense, the Delphi method can
contribute to a general appreciation of participative policy-making.
Acceptance
Overall the track record of the Delphi
method is mixed. There have been many cases when the method produced poor
results. Still, some authors attribute this to poor application of the method
and not to the weaknesses of the method itself.
It must also be realized that in areas
such as science and technology forecasting the degree of uncertainty is so
great that exact and always correct predictions are impossible, so a high
degree of error is to be expected.
Another particular weakness of the
Delphi method is that future developments are not always predicted correctly by
consensus of experts. Firstly, the issue of ignorance is important. If
panelists are misinformed about a topic, the use of Delphi may only add confidence
to their ignorance. Secondly, sometimes unconventional thinking of amateur
outsiders may be superior to expert thinking.
One of the initial problems of the
method was its inability to make complex forecasts with multiple factors.
Potential future outcomes were usually
considered as if they had no effect on each other. Later on, several extensions
to the Delphi method were developed to address this problem, such as cross
impact analysis, that takes into consideration the possibility that
the occurrence of one event may change probabilities of other events covered in
the survey.
Still the Delphi method can be used most
successfully in forecasting single scalar indicators.
Despite these shortcomings, today the
Delphi method is a widely accepted forecasting tool and has been used
successfully for thousands of studies in areas varying from technology
forecasting to drug abuse.
Use in policy-making
From the 1970's, the use of the Delphi
technique in public policy-making introduces a number of methodological
innovations. In particular:
the need to examine
several types of items
1.
forecasting items but, typically,
2.
issue items,
3.
goal items, and
4.
option items
lead to
introducing different evaluation scales which are not used in the standard
Delphi.
These often
include
1.
desirability,
2.
feasibility (technical and political) and
3.
probability,
which the analysts can use to outline different
scenarios:
1.
the desired
scenario (from desirability),
2.
the potential
scenario (from feasibility) and
3.
the expected
scenario (from probability);
the complexity of the
issues posed in public policy-making leads to give more importance to the
arguments supporting the evaluations of the panelists; so these are often
invited to list arguments for and against each option item, and sometimes they
are given the possibility to suggest new items to be submitted to the panel;
for the same reason,
the scaling methods, which are used to measure panel evaluations, often include
more sophisticated approaches such as multi-dimensional scaling.
Further innovations come from the use of
computer-based (and later web-based) Delphi conferences.
According to
Turoff and Hiltz, in computer-based Delphis:
1] the iteration
structure used in the paper Delphis, which is divided into three or more
discrete rounds, can be replaced by a process of continuous (roundless)
interaction, enabling panelists to change their evaluations at any time;
2] the statistical
group response can be updated in real-time, and shown whenever a panelist
provides a new evaluation.
According to
Bolognini, web-based Delphis offer two further possibilities, relevant in the
context of interactive policy-making and e-democracy. These are:
A web-based
communication structure (Hyperdelphi).
the involvement of a
large number of participants,
the use of two or more
panels representing different groups
(such as policy-makers,
experts, citizens), which the administrator can give tasks reflecting their
diverse roles and expertise, and make them to interact within ad hoc communication
structures.
For example, the policy
community members (policy-makers and experts) may interact as part of the main
conference panel, while they receive inputs from a virtual community
(citizens, associations etc.) involved in a side conference.
These web-based
variable communication structures, which he calls Hyperdelphi (HD), are designed to make
Delphi conferences "more fluid and adapted to the hypertextual and
interactive nature of digital communication".
Delphi applications not aiming at consensus
Traditionally the Delphi method has
aimed at a consensus of the most probable future by iteration.
The Policy Delphi,
launched by Murray Turoff,
is instead a decision support method aiming at structuring and discussing the
diverse views of the preferred future.
The Argument Delphi, developed
by Osmo Kuusi, focuses on ongoing discussion and finding relevant arguments
rather than focusing on the output.
The Disaggregative Policy Delphi, developed by Petri
Tapio, uses cluster analysis as a systematic tool to construct various
scenarios of the future in the latest Delphi round.
The respondent's
view on the probable and the preferable future are dealt with as separate
cases.
Delphi vs. prediction markets
As can be seen from the Methodology
Tree of Forecasting, Delphi has characteristics similar to prediction markets as both are structured
approaches that aggregate diverse opinions from groups.
Yet, there are differences that may be
decisive for their relative applicability for different problems.
Some advantages of prediction markets derive from the possibility
to provide incentives for participation.
1.
They can motivate
people to participate over a long period of time and to reveal their true beliefs.
2.
They aggregate
information automatically and instantly incorporate new information in the
forecast.
3.
Participants do
not have to be selected and recruited manually by a facilitator. They
themselves decide whether to participate if they think their private information
is not yet incorporated in the forecast.
Delphi seems to have these advantages
over prediction markets:
1.
Potentially
quicker forecasts if experts are readily available.
Online Delphi forecasting systems
A number of Delphi forecasts are
conducted using web sites that allow the process to be conducted in Real-time Delphi. For
instance, the TechCast Project uses a
panel of 100 experts worldwide to forecast breakthroughs in all fields of
science and technology. Further examples are several studies conducted by the Center for Futures
Studies and Knowledge Management that use an online-based Delphi method.
No comments:
Post a Comment