Skip to main content

Methods for Group Decision Making

 

The following discussion highlights two methods for group decision making: the Delphi Technique and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The details of each approach are highlighted, and recommendations are given to help determine the suitable scenarios where each can be applied.


Goodman (1987) explained that the Delphi Technique was established in the 1950s when California’s Rand Corporation was inspired to develop a method for eliminating the negative influence of interpersonal interactions during expert meetings for group decision making. As such, its ultimate objective was to generate dialogue and present a medley of vantage points that could facilitate judgements and ensuing policies and/or recommendations. Named after the Greek god and Delphi oracle, Apollo Pythios, whose skills at predicting the future were highly regarded, the Delphi Technique was given ties to an idyllic extreme of unquestioned wisdom and infallible authority (Yousuf, 2007). 

According to Rowe and Wright (2001), a Delphi Technique is characterized by four underlying conditions: (a) anonymity that is guaranteed by private and self-administered questionnaires; (b) iteration with several rounds of administered questionnaires; (c) controlled feedback which means that each new round of questionnaires is prefaced with a summary of the anonymized responses; and (d) statistical aggregation in the form of means, ranked summaries, or other measures of central tendency that are incorporated into the between-round feedback. These distinct elements create an environment that is free from various social pressures (e.g., having a minority opinion, having a non-dominant personality, being nervous to change your mind, etc.) and treats all opinions equally.

Green (2014) further clarified the Delphi process by explaining that it typically includes three rounds and consists of eight distinct steps: (a) creating the initial prompt or set of questions; (b) selecting the panel of approximately 5-20 experts; (c) distributing the first round of questionnaires; (d) summarizing the responses from the first collection; (e) providing feedback to the panel and using it to construct a second questionnaire for dissemination; (f) repeating the fourth and fifth steps to generate a third questionnaire; (g) analyzing the final results; and (h) debriefing the final results to the panel. Yousuf (2007) noted that this general approach has been successfully applied to a variety of domains such as determining budget allocations, selecting policy options, conducting urban planning, setting organizational priorities, and performing operations management. Additionally, Goodman (1987) delineated a set of helpful guidelines to determine the situations in which the Delphi Technique is most appropriate. For example, the Delphi is recommended in instances where the topic to be discussed is sensitive and/or polarizing.

While the Delphi Technique has many merits, it is not without its drawbacks. Goodman (1987) touched upon some of its potential issues, raising the point that the built-in feedback loop has been criticized for forcing a convergence of opinion. Lai, Wong, and Cheung (2002) also added that following the Delphi method can be very time consuming and the luxury of time is not always available if decisions need to be quickly made. Additionally, Lai et al. (2002) noted that although variations of the original Delphi design have been proposed to better fit the field of information systems (IS), published guidelines of these adaptations are lacking.

Lai et al. (2002) were thus inspired to employ an AHP technique to facilitate group decisions within the context of multi-media computing and technology. Dating back to the 1980s, the AHP framework can be applied to individuals or groups and is often used for problems of prioritization and choice. Within the individualized setting, four steps are involved: identifying all the distinct options and their associated ranking criteria, conducting all pairwise comparisons, calculating each criterion’s weight of importance, and employing a utility function to identify the highest ranked choice. When applied to a group setting, these four steps are still involved but a preliminary step for setting priorities is also needed. Assuming a common objective context, priorities can be established by reaching a consensus, voting or compromising, calculating the geometric mean of each individual opinion, and forming a common player model (Lai et al., 2002).  

Lai et al. (2002) tested the AHP approach in six software engineers who were ultimately tasked with ranking three distinct multi-media authorizing systems (MAS). Additionally, a survey and interview were given to all participants to gather their opinions on how the AHP compared to the Delphi Technique which was previously the standard. The results indicated that the panelists significantly preferred the AHP method over the Delphi when it comes to decision quality and satisfaction with the process, although it was not found to be much different regarding flexibility and necessary time commitment. As such, it was concluded that the AHP is a better choice for situations when objectives need to be discussed, while the Delphi Technique is better suited for discussing alternatives (Lai et al., 2002).

In conclusion, each group decision-making process offers its own set of benefits. It is recommended to consider the context of the situation and the topics to be discussed before choosing which approach to select.

References

Goodman, C. M. (1987). The Delphi technique: A critique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 12(6), 729-734. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1987.tb01376.x

Green, R. A. (2014). The Delphi Technique in educational research. SAGE Open, 4(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014529773

Lai, V. S., Wong, B. K., & Cheung, W. (2002). Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 137, 134-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00084-4

Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2001). Expert opinions in forecasting: The role of the Delphi Technique. Principles in Forecasting. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, 30, 125-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-47630-3_7

Yousuf, M. I. (2007). Using experts’ opinions through Delphi Technique. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12, 4. https://doi.org/10.7275/rrph-t210

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Eastman Kodak: A Scenario Planning Case Study

  Chermack (2004) defined scenario planning as a process for posing and ruminating upon a variety of future trajectories. Such an approach sets the stage for strategic conversations as it enables key decision makers to engage in a dialogue about organizational priorities, goals, and long-term plans. According to Verity (2003), scenario planning helps overcome some of the weaknesses associated with traditional forecasting and its strict reliance on the stability of past events. Companies that recognize, embrace, and confront the concept of uncertainty, instead of assuming a more simplistic continuation of trends, are equipped with a competitive edge, and well positioned for future success (Courtney, Kirkland, & Viguerie, 1997). Moreover, companies that resist widening their lens to incorporate paths of potential ambiguity risk staying afloat during times of societal change. The following discussion focuses on one such company, Eastman Kodak, and after highlighting its early achievem
Post a Comment
Read more

The Prediction and Reality of Organ Transplants

  Hancock and Bezold (2017) clarified that instead of studying the nonexistent future, futurists are concerned with studying ideas  about  the future and operate under the assumption that the future is a moldable thing that can be shaped by the decisive actions of today. The following discussion highlights a prediction within the medical community that eventually came to fruition. The original idea is introduced and the history of its subsequent origin and evolution is reviewed. Concluding remarks summarize the main discussion points. According to Northfield (2019), Robert Boyle’s scientific research conducted during the 1660s earned him the recognition of being hailed as the father of modern chemistry. Although he is most known for Boyle’s Law and its explanation of the behaviors of gas, Keller (2012) also emphasized his forward-thinking visions of a potential future. His futurist thoughts were penned in a private journal and itemized as a wish list of possibilities which at the time
Post a Comment
Read more

Exploring the Collapse of Tower Records

As noted by Marks (2017), the “No Music, No Life” outlook of Tower Records, an international retail music chain, launched its brand into almost 200 locations and, at its peak in the late 1990s, yielded annual sales topping one billion dollars. In 2006, however, Tower Records filed for bankruptcy. The following discussion explores two of the external forces contributing to this demise, emphasizing the fact that deterioration sometimes occurs because of factors beyond the control of the organization. Concluding remarks focus on the relevance of the identified forces. Marks (2017) detailed the origin story of Tower Records and explained that it was the brainchild of Russell Solomon who opened the first location in Sacramento, California in 1960. While it started as a record retailer, it eventually grew to include posters, plants, books, DVDs, games, toys, and accessories. Stores popped up across the globe to respond to its increase in demand and, in addition to becoming a place to purch
Post a Comment
Read more