The Delphi Technique.

What Is It?
"The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a predetermined outcome, while giving the illusion of taking public input and under the pretext of being accountable to the public."

The Delphi Technique is a calculated method some administrators (such as school superintendents), committees (such as a school committee or school building committee), group facilitators and special interest groups (some ballot question groups and less-thanhonorable architectural firms) use to achieve "consensus." Through the use of the Delphi Technique and the promotion of an "us" vs "them" mentality among the citizens of a community, dissenting voices are identifed, marginalized and discredited and the (often hidden) agendas of various groups and controlling individuals promoted. Lynn M. Stuter's web site includes what is perhaps the finest comprehensive explanation of the Delphi Technique on the 'net: "About Consensus and Facilitation." Since the redesigned learn-usa website's javascript and frames react incredibly badly with some browsers... here's a copy of the incredibly useful information on the site - follow the link: Lynn Stuter / Learn USA Consensus Information Such information should always be made available to as many people as possible! Delphi Audio Recordings - Lights, camera, action! sc_03_18_03_architect_selection_concerns.mp3 [3.35 MB] - If you can't prove the speaker's points are wrong or invalid, attack him personally. Also, accuse him of doing exactly what you are doing. sc_03_18_03_public_input.mp3 [4.15 MB] - You've got to confuse the issue, make it hard for the opposing speakers to get their points across. Remember that everyone has their own equally valid opinions and suggestions (that can be disregarded). sc_03_18_03_designer_selection_process.mp3 [442 KB] - Create your own reality. Say what you need to say to achieve your goals, other people can check the validity of your statements later. If no one questions you, you must have been right. [According to a May 30, 2002 legal opinion from Town Counsel, Ms. Joan Langsam, requested by Dr. Harutunian on his inquiry into the procedures for Designer Selection (for the School Building Committee), Ms. Langsam clearly states that three finalists need to be selected after the ranking process occurs.

Following the 03/18/03 meeting and after futher investigation by questioning School Committee Members, the concerned resident received a call from the Superintendent confirming that, after consulting with counsel, three finalists needed to be selected and that an additional firm would be asked to participate in the re-interview process (and publicly stated this at a 3/20 School Committee Meeting).] sc_03_14_03_classic_delphi_technique_bandwagon.mp3 [1.51 MB] - Everybody's doing it. It may not be right but everybody's doing it. You should too. Help us achieve a comfortable consensus... sc_03_14_03_school_concerns_no_comment.mp3 [1.59 MB] - Ignore all questions that make you feel foolish or uncomfortable. Meeting adjourned. How To Disrupt The Delphi Technique, tips on how to protect yourself from those who would use the "Delphi Technique." How To Deal With Difficult Parents describes how some administrators are trained to deal with questioning, opposing and dissenting individuals. Dealing With Difficult People, the information referenced in "How To Deal With Difficult Parents" from the Association of California School Administrators, EDCAL Volume 25, - April 22, 1996 Unmasking The Crime Against Parents: In many ways, the experiences described in this article about Plano, Texas parallel those encountered by parents and community members in Reading, Massachusetts. Reading school administration "mantra" says one thing but their actions reveal a different intent. A Reference Guide For Recognizing Political / Social Control Tactics - Useful for recognizing the tactics of some school officials and school administrators. Are You Being Delphied? - The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a predetermined outcome, while giving the illusion of taking public input and under the pretext of being accountable to the public.

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.

Via: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method

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, 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 (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] 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 34% compared with actual sales. Quantitative methods produced errors of 1015%, 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. Potentially quicker forecasts if experts are readily available. Software

Principles of Forecasting A free service to support Delphi forecasting and references are available on this site. However source code is not currently available.

See also

The Wisdom of Crowds Wideband delphi John Brunner's description of a Delphi pool in his novel The Shockwave Rider DARPA's ill-fated Policy Analysis Market Prediction markets Forecasting Need of Forecasting in Online Business The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, edited by Harold A. Linstone and Murray Turoff a comprehensive book on Delphi method (free download, 11Mb PDF, 618 pages) RAND publications on the Delphi Method Downloadable documents from RAND concerning applications of the Delphi Technique.

Basics of The Delphi Method

THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE

How to achieve a workable consensus within time limits
by Lynn Stuter The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In Educating for the New World Order by Bev Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is "Lay, or community, participation in the decisionmaking process), while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out." 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 she is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. He/she 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." He/she dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, he/she 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." He/she 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. If they do suspect this is happening, they 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. He/she 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 welltrained 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. DISRUPTING THE DELPHI Note: The Delphi is being used at all levels of government to move meetings to preset conclusions. For the purposes of this dissertation, "facilitator" references anyone who has been trained in use of the Delphi and who is running a meeting. There are three steps to diffusing the Delphi Technique when facilitators want to steer a group in a specific direction. 1. Always be charming. Smile. be pleasant. Be Courteous. Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive. 2. Stay focused. If at all possible, write your question down to help you stay focused. Facilitators, when asked questions they dent want to answer, often digress from the issue raised and try to work the conversation around to where they can make the individual asking the question look foolish or feel foolish, appear belligerent or aggressive. The goal is to put the one asking the question on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Always be charming, thus deflecting any insinuation. Innuendo, etc. that may be thrown at you in their attempt to put you on the defensive, but bring them back to the question you asked. If they rephrase your question into an accusatory statement (a favorite tactic) simply state, "That is not what I stated. What I asked was... [repeat your question.]" Stay focused on your question. 3. Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn't work, facilitators often resort to long, drawn out dissertations on some offthewall and usually unrelated or vaguely related subject that drags on for several minutes. During that time, the crowd or group usually loses focus on the question asked (which is the intent). Let them finish with their dissertation or expose. Then nicely with focus and persistence, state, "But you didn't answer my question. My question was...[repeat your question.]" Always be charming, stay focused and be persistent. Never, under any circumstance, become angry. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This defeats the purpose which is to make you the victim. The goal of the facilitator is to make those they are facilitating like them, alienating anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. [People with fixed belief systems, who know what they believe and stand on what they believe are obvious threats.] If the participant becomes the victim. the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, why objections are written on cards, not voiced aloud where they are open to public discussion and public debate. It's called crowd control. It is always good to have someone else, or two or three others who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd; who, when the facilitator digresses from the question. will stand up and say nicely, "But you didn't answer that lady (/gentleman)'s

question The facilitator, even if suspecting you are together, certainly will not want to alienate the crowd by making that accusation. Sometimes it only takes one occurrence of this type for the crowd to figure out what s going on. Sometimes it takes more than one. If you have an organized group, meet before the meting to strategize. Everyone should know their part. Meet after the meeting to analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time around. Never meet during the meeting. One of the favorite tactics of the facilitator if the meeting is not going the way they want if they are meeting measurable resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his/her spotters (people who wander the room during the course of the meeting, watching the crowd) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered measurable resistance. If the resistors congregate in one place, a spotter will usually gravitate to that group to join in the conversation and will report back to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes. the facilitator wi11 steer clear of those who are resistors . Do not congregate. Hang loose and work the crowd. Move to where the facilitators or spotters are. Listen to what they have to say, but do not gravitate to where another member of your team is. This strategy also works in a face to face, one on one, meeting with anyone who has been trained in how to use the Delphi Technique. FROM A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC TO A PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY With the advent of education reform, the ensuing turmoil among the citizenry, and the grassroots research that has been sparked therefrom, a consistent pattern with respect to public participation and input has emerged, giving cause for alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our founding fathers. Recent events, both inside and outside education have brought the emerging picture into focus. In the not too distant past. The hiring of a consultant by the City of Spokane to the tune of $47.000 to facilitate the direction of city government brought a hue and or from the populace at large. Eerily, this scenario held great similarity to what has bean happening in education reform. The final link came in the form of an editorial comment made by Chris Peck regarding the "Pizza papers." The editorial talks about how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to enter into a discussion of what they felt (as opposed to know) needed to be changed at the local level . The outcome of the compilation of those discussions influenced the writing of the city/county charter. Sounds innocuous enough. But let s examine this a little closer, Let's walk through the scenario that occurs in these facilitated meetings. First, about the facilitator. The facilitator is hired to facilitate the meeting. While his/her job is supposedly nondirective, neutral, nonjudgmental, the opposite is actually truethe facilitator is there to move the meeting in a preset conclusion. This is done through a process known as the Delphi Technique, developed by the RAND Corporation for the US. Department of Defense as a psychological warfare weapon in the 50s and 60s. Comforting, no doubt. With this established, let's move on to the semantics of the meeting.

It is imperative to the success of the agenda that the participants like the facilitator. Therefore. the facilitator first works the crowd to cause disequilibriumestablishing a bad guy, good guy scenario. Anyone who might not agree with the facilitator must be seen by the participants as the bad guy, the facilitator the good guy. This is done by seeking out those who might not agree with the facilitator and making them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, sending a clear message to the audience that it if they don't want the same treatment to keep quiet. The facilitator is well trained in how to recognize and exploit many different psychological truisms to dothis. At the point that the opposition has bean identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guya friendand the agenda and direction of the meeting is established without the audience ever being aware of th same. Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups usually of seven or eight people each group with a facilitator. Discussion ensues wherein the participants are encouraged to discuss preset issues, the group facilitator employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator. Usually participants are encouraged to put on paper their ideas and disagreements, these to be later compiled by others. Herein lies a very large problem. Who compiles what is written on the sheets of paper, note cards, etc.? When you ask the participants, you usually get, "Well, they compiled the results." Who is "they?" "Well, those running the meeting." Ohh! The next question is How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome? The answer you usually get is, "Well, you know, I've wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't seem to be reflected here. I guess my viewpoint was in the minority." And there you have the crux of the s situation If you have fifty people in a room, each writes his/her ideas and dislikes on a sheet of paper, to be compiled later into a final outcome, each individual having no idea of what any other individual wrote. How do you know that the final outcome reflects anyone's input? The answer is you don't. The same scenario holds when there is a facilitator recording your comments on paper. But the participants usually don't question this, figuring instead that their viewpoint was in the minority and thus not reflected. So why have the meetings at all if the outcome is already established? Because it is imperative to the continued wellbeing of the agenda that the people be facilitated into ownership of the preset outcome. If people believe the idea is theirs, they support it: If the people believe the idea is being foisted on them, they will resist. Likewise, it is imperative to the continued wellbeing of the agenda that the people perceive that their input counts. This scenario is being used very effectively to move meetings to a preset conclusion, effectively changing our form of government from a representative form of government in which individuals are elected to represent the people. to a "participatory democracy" in which citizens, selected at large, are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes, perceiving that their input resulted therein, when the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the citizen participants.

Michigan State University Extension Issue Identification Information - III00006 10/01/94

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.

The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications

Harold A. Linstone and Murray Turoff, Editors The digital version has been created by the efforts of a number of Ph.D. students in the Information Systems Department at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. There are in fact a number of thesis efforts that have been undertaken to utilize the concepts of the Delphi Method to design and evaluate groups communication systems for large groups dealing with complex problems. The authors of this book are providing this digital version free to visitors of this Web Site. http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/

Table of Contents Clicking any of the chapter titles below will take you to the HTML page. Alternatively, you can download each chapter or the whole book in PDF format by clicking the PDF icons to the right of each chapter title.

Download the whole book in PDF form. (11.1MB)

I.Introduction
A.Introduction

Harold A. Linstone and Murray Turoff II.Philosophy

A.Introduction

(38k)

Harold A. Linstone and Murray Turoff

B.Philosophical

(12k)

and Methodological Foundations of Delphi Ian A. Mitroff and Murray Turoff (68k)
C.Reality Construction

D. Sam Scheele

as a Product of Delphi Interaction (1081k)

II.General Applications
A.Introduction

Harold A. Linstone and Murray Turoff

(36k)

B.Government and Planning Delphi

1.

The Policy Delphi Murray Turoff (60k) Delphi Inquiries and Knowledge Utilization John Ludlow (840k) The National Drug-Abuse Policy Delphi Irene Anne Jillson (1003k) A Delphi Evaluation of Agreement Between Organizations Chester G. Jones (122k)

2.

3.

4.

C.Business and Industry Delphi

1.

Delphi Research in the Corporate Environment Lawrence H. Day (986k) Plastics and Competing Materials by 1985: A Delphi Forecasting Study Selwyn Enzer (864k) A Delphi on the Future of the Steel and Feroalloy Industries Nancy H. Goldstein (508k)

2.

3.

II.Evaluation
A.Introduction

Harold A. Linstone and Murray Turoff

B.Toward

(32k)

a Theory of Group Estimation Norman C. Dalkey (452k)

C.Experiments

in Delphi Methodology M. Scheibe, M. Skutsh, and J. Schofer

D.Propensity to

(772k)

Change Responses in a Delphi Round Norman W. Mulgrave and Alex J. Ducanis (77k)
E.The

Performance of Forecasting Groups in Computer Dialogue and Face-toFace Discussion Klaus Brockhoff (109k)

II.Cross-Impact Analysis
A.Introduction

Harold A. Linstone and Murray Turoff

B.An

(12k)

Elementary Cross-Impact Model Norman C. Dalkey (88k)

C.An Alternative Approach

to Cross-Impact Analysis

Murray Turoff
D.A Primer

(362k)

for a New Cross-Impact LanguageKSIM (with Examples Shown from Transportation Policy) Julius Kane (108k) II.Specialized Techniques
A.Introduction

Harold A. Linstone and Murray Turoff

B.A Delphi

(18k)

Study of Factors Affecting the Quality of Life Norman C. Dalkey (132k)

C.Multidimensional

Scaling: Models, Methods, and Relations to Delphi J. Douglas Carroll and Myron Wish (845k)
D.Differential

Images of the Future Marvin Adelson and Samuel Aroni

(2086k)

E.Architecting

the Future: A Delphi-Based Paradigm for Normative System(209k)

Building John W. Sutherland

II.Computers and the Future of Delphi

A.Introduction

Harold A. Linstone and Murray Turoff

B.Conferencing

(35k)

via Computer: Cost Effective Communication for the Era of Forced Choice Charlton R. Price (73k)
C.Group

communication Through Electronic Media: Fundamental Choices and Social Effects Robert Johansen, Richard H. Miller, and Jacqes Vallee (293k)
D.Technology for

Group Dialogue and Social Choice Thomas B. Sheridan (79k)

E.Computerized

Conferencing in an Educational System Robert Johansen and James A. Schuyler (71k)

F.Meeting

of the Council on Cybernetic Stability: A Scenario Murray Turoff (29k)

II.Eight

Basic Pitfalls: A Checklist Harold A. Linstone (75k) Appendix: Delphi Bibliography (121k)