Group Decision Making

The Delphi technique is an iterative process involving subject matter experts (SMEs) on a topic at hand where the SMEs provide their thoughts and ideas concerning the topic via a survey or interview.  The most critical elements of the Delphi method are recursion and the prospect of near immediate feedback and appraisal of one’s own thoughts or ideas (Lilja, Laakso, & Palomäki, 2011).  Application of the Delphi technique for data collection can be used in either qualitative or quantitative research.  When first devised, the Delphi process was through multiple iterations, resulting in consensus of experts, characterizing the outlook of the phenomenon under study (Lilja et al., 2011).  According to Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson (1975) the following objectives can be accomplished through the Delphi technique:

1.     To determine or develop a range of possible program alternatives;

2.     To explore or expose underlying assumptions or information leading to different judgements;

3.     To seek out information which may generate a consensus on the part of the respondent group;

                  4.     To correlate informed judgements on a topic spanning a wide range of disciplines, and;

                  5.     To educate the respondent group as to the diverse and interrelated aspects of the topic (p.                         11).

 The iterations typically employed in the Delphi method are three iterations, with occasionally four iterations being employed.

The second group decision-making method to be discussed is the Why-What’s Stopping Us method.  This outcome of this method is seeing the big-picture of a problem/topic, showing relationships between problems and sub-problems, providing personnel making decisions the ability to see the relevant outcome to the topic/problem. 

The process of the Why-What’s Stopping Us method is made up of a set of ideas that diverge and converge through finding answers to the questions: “How might we…” (to elicit ideas on alternative solutions) “What’s stopping us…” (to provide narrower sub-problems for each response to the “How might we…” query), and “Why would we need to…” (to ensure that we work on the right problem as stated in the “How might we…” query).  The outcome of this process is to see the bigger picture of a problem, indicating relationships among problems and sub-problems; that can help decision makers select the most meaningful problem area to work on (Peniwati, 2007, p. 940).

The Why-What’s Stopping Us method is a 4-stage process that within each stage an of problems, divergent and convergent ideas occur, whereas at each stage judgement is deferred, which enables sequencing of the divergent and convergent ideas.  The method of Why-What’s Stopping Us is an interactive group exercise, that promotes different points of view to be “melded into succinct challenges leading to a more complete understanding of the problem” (Basadur, Potworowski, Pollice, & Fedorowicz, 2000).

The Delphi technique and the Why-What’s Stopping Us method are similar in that they utilize multiple iterations to arrive at a conclusion regarding the topic/problem at hand.  They are also similar in that they provide several alternative ideas within the structure of their methodology.  The Delphi technique and the Why-What’s Stopping Us method are dissimilar in that the Delphi technique’s goal is to provide a consensus, whereas the Why-What’s Stopping Us method through iteration narrows down or refines the topic/problem.  Also, use of SMEs is not necessary called out in employing the Why-What’s Stopping Us method, whereas the Delphi technique has as a requirement that participants are SMEs.  The Delphi technique has as one of its objectives, providing knowledge to the respondents of the diverse and interrelatedness of the topic.  Whereas, the knowledge of divergent and convergent ideas is made know as part of the actual process of walking through the Why-What’s Stopping Us method.  The participants may already know the divergent and convergent ideas and share that as part of the elicitation.

 

References

 

Basadur, M., Potworowski, J. A., Pollice, N., & Fedorowicz, J. (2000). Increasing understanding of technology management through challenge mapping. Creativity and innovation management, 9(4), 245-258.

Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning. Glenview, IL: Foresman, and Co.

Lilja, K. K., Laakso, K., & Palomäki, J. (2011, 31 July-4 Aug. 2011). Using the Delphi method. Paper presented at the 2011 Proceedings of PICMET '11: Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET).

Peniwati, K. (2007). Criteria for evaluating group decision-making methods. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7), 935-947. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.005

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Study of Music Industry Employing Forecasting Only

Image
  Discussion will surround the foundational knowledge of the eight-step scenario planning process.  This will be followed by an example of an organization that only employed forecasting methods and ended up being disrupted by technology which, interestingly, initially was a mutually beneficial partnership.  Lastly, the discussion will touch on the author's rationale for the future use of the eight-step scenario planning process in future innovation ventures. Scenario-type Planning Scenario planning is made up of numerous scenarios, which potential substitute prospects may occur based on today's decisions.  Typically, two to five scenarios containing adequate detail to determine the probability of success or failure of distinct strategic choices will suffice.  The scenario's aim is an important aspect that must be considered and customization to a specific context.  The scenario planning process is a systematic eight-step process consisting of 1. Issue focus, 2. Key fact
Read more

Possibilities That May Be

Image
  An innovation idea that is not possible today, but most likely in 15-20 years will be possible is brain-to-brain interfaces.  Today, rudimentary pieces that ultimately will make up brain-to-brain interfacing are being developed.  Essentially, brain-to-brain interfacing will be composed of neural lacing, brain-machine interfaces (BMI), and artificial intelligence (AI).  Currently, BrainNet (B2B) is a novel system that allows three human brains to communicate, one sender and two receivers (WAHAL, 2019) . Neural lacing has been advanced by Elon Musk and Neuralink.  Neuralink creates a link between neurons in the brain and a machine, such as smartphones and computers, helping people with clinical disorders like dis-functional sensory and motor function issues (Kulshreshth, Anand, & Lakanpal, 2019) .  The neural lace is an ultrathin rolled up mesh that is implanted in the skull at which time it spreads out and forms a body of electrodes that is able to monitor function of the brain. 
Read more