The Delphi Technique — What Is It?

The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of
experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In recent times,
however, it has taken on an all new meaning and purpose. In Educating for the New
World Order by B. Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to
preserve the illusion that there is "…lay, or community, participation (in the decision-
making process), while lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out." The Delphi
Technique is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process, effecting
a left-wing take over of the schools.

A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method"
(ibid, p.123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial; the point is that people
in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable
characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a
basic technique.

The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer,
getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a
program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms
"task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While s/he is doing this, the
facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He identifies
the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the
argument — the "weak or noncommittal".

Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." S/He dons his
professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates
one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who
are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic."
S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions
to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is
able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the
policy or program will be shut out of the group.

The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and
any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being
manipulated. Or, if they suspect this is happening, do not know how to end the
process.

The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become
accepted as a member of the group and group process. S/He will then throw the
desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her
associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and
pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.

This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial

topic in group settings. It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately
escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to
make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is
warranted or not.

The Delphi Technique is based on the Hegelian Principle of achieving Oneness of Mind
through a three step process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In thesis and
antithesis, all present their opinion or views on a given subject, establishing views
and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new
thesis. All participants are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it,
changing their own views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of
evolution, Oneness of Mind will supposedly occur.

The theory of the Delphi and the reality of the Delphi are, obviously, quite different
— the reality being that Oneness of Mind does not occur but only the illusion of
Oneness of Mind with those who refuse to be Delphi'd being alienated from
participating in the process.

While proponents of education reform feel they are quite justified in this, the effect
of this unethical manipulation of people is to create polarized camps. In an effort to
maintain the process, advocates have marketed a plethora of publications (such as
What's Left After the Right, No Right Turn and If You Don't, They Will) intended to
label, castigate, and alienate anyone who does not go along with them. As a result,
parents come to understand that their role in education reform is merely perfunctory;
that the outcome is preset, that they are not but the rah-rah team so when
opposition does arise, advocates of education reform can say, "we had community
input."

To make sure that the situation is controlled, only those parents who agree with the
process are allowed on the restructuring teams. New participants are carefully
screened to ensure that education reform goes forward unquestioned.

If measurable opposition persists, advocates are told, get the local ministers on
board. Take steps to neutralize, by whatever means necessary, the opposition. In
some places, opponents have been harassed, both at home and on the job, personal
property has been damaged and vandalized, people have lost their jobs. Anyone who
does not go along with the restructuring of our society is susceptible to the
totalitarian tactics of those promoting education reform – whether it be parents,
teachers, principals, superintendents or board members. The need exists for
advocates to maintain an iron grip on the process. They cannot, for instance,
withstand open public debate of the issues. Therefore, they do not partake in public
forums. They cannot withstand the criticism, so they close every avenue for parents
to address the issues. They are rapidly creating, through their divisive tactics, a
volatile situation. America is being torn apart.

Parents, citizens, teachers, principals, superintendents who are opposed to the new
purpose being given our American education system need tools to withstand the
process being used to bring it in — against the Delphi Technique and consensus which,
through their basis in the Hegelian Principle, have Marxist connections and purposes.
First, no opportunity must be left untaken to expose this unethical, divisive process.
Second, when this process is used, it can be disrupted. To do so, however, one must
be able to recognize when the Delphi Technique is being used, and how to disrupt it.

With thanks to Sandy Vanderberg, Peg Luksik and others.

©March 1996; Lynn M Stuter

╪
Delphi Technique
The delphi technique is another way of obtaining group
input for ideas and problem-solving. Unlike the nominal
group process, the delphi does not require face-to-face
participation. It uses a series of carefully designed
questionnaires interspersed with information summaries and
feedback from preceding responses.
In a planning situation, the delphi can be used to:
- Develop a number of alternatives;
- Assess the social and economic impacts of rapids
community growth;
- Explore underlying assumptions or background information
leading to different judgments;
- Seek out information on which agreement may later be
generated;
- Correlate informed judgments on a subject involving many
disciplines;
- Educate respondents on the diverse and interrelated
elements of a topic.
The delphi begins with the initial development of a
questionnaire focusing on the identified problem. An
appropriate respondent group is selected, then the
questionnaire is mailed to them. Each participant answers
the questionnaire independently and returns it. The
initiators of the questionnaire summarize responses, then
develop a feedback summary and a second questionnaire for
the same respondent group. After reviewing the feedback
summary, respondents independently rate priority ideas
included in the second questionnaire, then mail back the
responses. The process is repeated until investigators feel
positions are firm and agreement on a topic is reached. A
final summary report is issued to the respondent group. the
delphi can be modified in many ways.
In assessing community needs, the delphi technique
could be used for many of the same things as the nominal
group process - determining and prioritizing community
problems; setting goals; designing needs assessment
strategies; planning a conference or community forum;
developing improved community services; evaluating
alternative plans for community development; or aggregating
judgments of special-interest or mutually hostile group.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Delphi Technique for
community needs assessment.
Advantages
- Allows participants to remain anonymous
- Inexpensive
- Free of social pressure, personality influence and
individual dominance
- A reliable judgment or forecast results
- Allows sharing of information and reasoning among
participants
-Conducive to independent thinking and gradual formulation
- A well-selected respondent panel - a mix of local
official, knowledgeable individuals, members of impacted
community regional officials, academic social officials
academic social scientists.etc. - can provide a broad
analytical perspective on potential growth impacts
- Can be used to reach consensus among groups hostile to
each other
Disadvantages
- Judgements are those of a selected group of people and
may not be representative
- Tendency to eliminate extreme positions and force a
middle-of-the-road consensus
- More time-consuming than the group process method
- Should not be viewed as a total solution to forecasting
- Requires skill in written communication
- Requires adequate time and participant commitment (about
30-45 days)
Sources of additional help:
Library -
Delbecq, Andre, Andrew Van de Ven and David Gustafson,
"Group Guide to Nominal group and Delphi Processes."
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1975
Kaufman, Jerome and David Gustafson. "Multi-County Land Use
Policy Formation: A Delphi Analysis." Technical Report of
the Department of Industrial Engineering, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 1973.
"Effective Citizen Participation in Transportation
Planning, Vol. II, A Catalog of Techniques." U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.: Federal
Highway Administration, Socio-Economic Studies Division,
1976. pp 188-212.
Local -
College or university departments of sociology, political
science, planning, economics
Major businesses and industries that do forecasting,
innovative planning
Governors' offices where task forces and commissions have
been initiated to look at the future.

Delphi method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Delphi method is a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a

panel of independent experts. The carefully selected 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, participants are encouraged to revise their earlier answers in light of the
replies of other members of the group. 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 (e.g. number of rounds,
achievement of consensus, stability of results) and the mean or median scores of the final
rounds determine the results.[1]

Delphi [pron: delfI] is based on the principle that forecasts from a structured group of
experts are more accurate than those from unstructured groups or individuals.[2] The
technique can 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.[3]

History

The name "Delphi" derives from the Oracle of Delphi. The authors of the method were
not happy with this name, because it implies "something oracular, something smacking a
little of the occult". The Delphi method is based on the assumption that group judgments
are more valid than individual judgments.

The Delphi method was developed at the beginning of the cold war to forecast the impact
of technology on warfare.[4] In 1944, General Henry H. Arnold ordered the creation of the
report for the U.S. Air Force on the future technological capabilities that might be used
by the military. Two years later, Douglas Aircraft company started Project RAND to
study "the broad subject of inter-continental warfare other than surface".

Different approaches were tried, but the shortcomings of traditional forecasting methods,
such as theoretical approach, quantitative models or trend extrapolation, in areas where
precise scientific laws have not been established yet, quickly became apparent. To
combat these shortcomings, the Delphi method was developed by Project RAND during
the 1950-1960s (1959) by Olaf Helmer, Norman Dalkey, and Nicholas Rescher.[5] It has
been used ever since, together with various modifications and reformulations, such as the
Imen-Delphi procedure.

Experts were asked to give their opinion on the probability, frequency and intensity of
possible enemy attacks. Other experts could anonymously give feedback. This process
was repeated several times until a consensus emerged.
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 maintain anonymity. Their identity is not revealed even after the
completion of the final report. This stops them from dominating others in the process
using their authority or personality, frees them to some extent from their personal biases,
minimizes the "bandwagon effect" or "halo effect", allows them to freely express their
opinions, encourages open critique and admitting errors by 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, population control, automation, space progress, war prevention
and weapon systems. Other forecasts of technology were dealing with vehicle-highway
systems, industrial robots, intelligent internet, broadband connections, and 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%.

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 add only
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.[citation needed]

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 instead is 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.[3]

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. Built-in resistance to manipulation with no incentive structure.

2. Potentially quicker forecasts if experts are readily available.
3. Forecasts may be kept private.

[edit] References

1. ^ Rowe and Wright (1999): The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and
analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, Volume 15, Issue 4, October 1999.
2. ^ Rowe and Wright (2001): Expert Opinions in Forecasting. Role of the Delphi
Technique. In: Armstrong (Ed.): Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook of Researchers
and Practitioners, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
3. ^ a b Green, Armstrong, and Graefe (2007): Methods to Elicit Forecasts from Groups:
Delphi and Prediction Markets Compared. Forthcoming in Foresight: The International
Journal of Applied Forecasting (Fall 2007). PDF format
4. ^ "JVTE v15n2: The Modified Delphi Technique - A Rotational Modification," Journal
of Vocational and Technical Education, Volume 15 Number 2, Spring 1999, web: VT-
edu-JVTE-v15n2: of Delphi Technique developed by Olaf Helmer and Norman Dalkey.
5. ^ Rescher(1998): Predicting the Future, (Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press, 1998).