FUTURREG
Futures for Regional Development
2nd Steering Committee
Thessaloniki, 24 January 2006
FUTURREG
Futures tools report
The Delphi Method
Definition of the Delphi Method
Delphi may be characterised as a method for structuring a
group communication process so that the process is effective in
allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a
complex problem.
Linstone and Turoff (1974)
The Delphi method is an exercise in-group communication
among a panel of geographically dispersed experts
Adler and Ziglio, (1996)
The essence of the technique
It comprises a series of questionnaires sent either by mail or
via computerised systems, to a pre-selected group of experts.
These questionnaires are designed to elicit and develop individual
responses to the problems posed and to enable the experts to
refine their views as the group’s work progresses in accordance
with the assigned task. The main point behind the Delphi
method is to overcome the disadvantages of conventional
committee action.
Anonymity, controlled feedback, and statistical response
characterise Delphi. The group interaction is anonymous, in the sense
that comments, forecasts, and the like are not identified as to their
originator, but are presented to the group in such a way as to suppress
any identification.
Fowles (1978)
Main types of the technique
The most common is the paper-and-pencil version, the "Delphi Exercise." In this
situation a small monitor team designs a questionnaire, which is sent to a larger
respondent group, after the questionnaire is returned the monitor team summarizes
the results and, based upon the results, develops a new questionnaire for the
respondent group. The respondent group is usually given at least one opportunity to
re-evaluate its original answers based upon examination of the group response. This
form can be labelled as conventional Delphi.
A newer form, sometimes called a "Delphi Conference", replaces the monitor team to
a large degree by a computer, which has been programmed to carry out the compilation
of the group results. This approach has the advantage of eliminating the delay caused in
summarising each round of Delphi. However, it does require that the characteristics of
the communication be well defined before Delphi is undertaken, whereas in a paperand-pencil Delphi exercise the monitor team can adjust these characteristics as a
function of the group responses. This latter form can be labelled real-lucre Delphi.
Phases
The first phase is characterised by exploration of the subject under
discussion, wherein each individual contributes additional information
he feels is pertinent to the issue. The second phase involves the
process of reaching an understanding of how the group views the
issue (i.e., where the members agree or disagree and what they
mean by relative terms such as importance, desirability, or
feasibility). If there is significant disagreement, then that
disagreement is explored in the third phase to bring out the
underlying reasons for the differences and possibly to evaluate them.
The last phase, a final evaluation, occurs when all previously
gathered information has been initially analysed and the evaluations
have been fed back for consideration
Applications and main uses
Delphi is mainly known as a forecasting procedure because of its significant
use in that area. However, there is a surprising variety of other application
areas:
• Gathering current and historical
data not accurately known or
available
• Examining the significance of
historical events
• Evaluating possible budget
allocations
• Exploring urban and regional
planning options
• Planning university campus and
curriculum development
• Putting together the structure of a
model
• Delineating the pros and cons
associated with potential policy
options
• Developing causal relationships in
complex economic or social
Phenomena
 Distinguishing and clarifying real
and perceived human motivations
 Exposing priorities of personal
values, social goal
Other Modern Applications
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Advanced materials
Nanotechnology
Microelectronics
Photonics Software and simulation
Molecular electronics or bioelectronics
Cellular biotechnology
Information, production and management engineering
Results expected already in the fields of:
• manufacturing
• food production
• medicine
• energy
• environment
• transportation
Time Horizon and length
It better addresses the near future (one to two years) as time horizon, but
even in the long run it might prove to be useful (more than 20 years).
Does the method produce an accurate view of the future? It is no more
accurate, probably, than any expert, single or composite. Or suppose we
wanted to explore the range of future events that could affect population
growth or weaponry or war. No better way exists to collect and
synthesize opinions than Delphi.
The Delphi method is quite time consuming. A single round can easily
require three weeks; a three-round Delphi is at least a three to four month
affair, including preparation and analysis time.
The Group Judgement
The data from a Delphi can be displayed in several ways. The group judgment should be
based on the median rather than the mean, since single extreme answers can "pull"
the mean unrealistically.
Furthermore, it is incumbent on the analyst to show the spread of opinion, which can be
done by showing the interquartile range (the range that contains the answers of 50 %
of the respondents). An example is shown below:
Strengths and other points
A great deal of attention must be given to the choice of participants;
the questionnaires must be meticulously prepared and tested to
avoid ambiguity. Multi-round studies require a great deal of time;
inevitably, some participants will drop out during the process.
The primary strength of Delphi is its ability to explore, coolly and
objectively, issues that require judgment.
Delphi is a powerful technique when used to seek answers to appropriate
questions.
Weaknesses and concerns
• Discounting the future: Future (and past) happenings are not as important
as the current ones; therefore one may have a tendency to discount the future
events.
• The simplification urge: Experts tend to judge the future of events in
isolation from other developments. A holistic view of future events, where
change has had a pervasive influence, cannot be visualized easily. At this point
cross-impact analysis is of some help.
• Illusory expertise: some of the experts may be poor forecasters. The
expert tends to be a specialist and thus views the forecast in a setting which is
not the most appropriate one.
• Sloppy execution: there are many ways to do a poor job. Execution of the
Delphi process may loose the required attention easily.
• Format bias: it should be recognised that the format of the questionnaire
may be unsuitable to some potential societal participants.
• Manipulation of Delphi: The responses can be altered by the monitors in
the hope of moving the next round responses in a desired direction.
Common reasons for the failure of a
Delphi
• Imposing monitor view's and preconceptions of a problem upon the
respondent group by over specifying the structure of the Delphi and not
allowing for the contribution of other perspectives related to the problem.
 Assuming that Delphi can be a surrogate for all other human communications
in a given situation.
 Poor techniques of summarizing and presenting the group response and
ensuring common interpretations of the evaluation scales utilized in the exercise
 Ignoring and not exploring disagreements, so that discouraged dissenters
drop out and an artificial consensus is generated
 Underestimating the demanding nature of a Delphi and the fact that tire
respondents should he recognized as consultants and properly compensated for
their time if the Delphi is not an integral part of their job function
Complementarity/synergy with other
tools
A drawback weakness of Delphi is the ease with which questions can be
asked for which better techniques exist.
The term “Technology Foresight” (TF), describes a systematic effort to
look ahead in science and technology with the aim of identifying the areas
of strategic research and the emerging generic technologies likely to yield
the greatest economic and social benefits. The distinctive characteristic of
technology foresight is the Delphi Method.
Other forms that work together with Delphi: I) The questions relate to the
value of independent variables that are used in quantitative
simulation models. II) The in-depth interviews with experts have
been used at The Futures Group and elsewhere with great success as
an alternative to questionnaires. III) For some applications, group
meetings among experts have now become practical. Delphi had its
birth in concern about spurious factors that intrude in face-to-face
meetings among experts
Case Studies
Japan has been conducting TF for a long period and in a variety of public and private
organisations and contexts. Since 1971, the Science and Technology Agency has been
conducting Delphi surveys at regular intervals, about every 5 years, to provide
information for science and technology strategies and planning. First, major
technological categories were set up, covering the fields of materials and processing,
electronics, information, life sciences, space, marine and earth science, resources and
energy, environment, agriculture, production and machinery, urbanisation and
construction, communication, transportation, health and medical care
The French survey on critical technologies (Les 100 technologies clés) that had a
narrower scope, but combined Delphi expert interviews with bibliometric studies and
patent analysis. The initial questions were very pragmatic and concerned the more
important technologies for the French industry, the European leadership in these
fields, and the actions to be taken.
French Case study implementation
procedure
The first step involved the definition of technology selection criteria. A steering
committee outlined nine selection criteria: actual and potential markets, impact on
foreign trade, social and cultural acceptability, vulnerability, contribution to national
needs, connection with the national industry, diffusion capacity, and assessment of
competitiveness.
The next step used these criteria to identify technologies; large groups were
defined, which were further analysed in 136 technology topics.
In the third step, each technology topic was assessed on the basis of
bibliometric studies, patent analysis, and interviews with experts. Additional
information was collected on markets, players, companies, R&D programmes.
In the final step, 105 technologies were identified as ‘critical’, accompanied with a
short description, a ranking of the degree of development, and the relative scientific
leadership in Europe. A good information base was produced, and the positive impact
of this TF exercise helped to reorient industrial research subsidies of the Ministry of
Industry in relation to the 100 critical technologies.