WHY USE DELPHI FOR THIS STUDY?

Now that a detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Delphi has been undertaken, it is important to do a comparison of the Delphi methods to some of the other similar techniques.

Chan et al. (2001) suggested that Delphi can be utilised to structure the group communication process, to ensure that the process is effective in facilitating a group of individuals as a whole to address complex issues. The Delphi method is generally conducted by several rounds of questionnaires intertwined with group opinion and information feedback in the form of statistical data and trends (Lee & King, 2008). The method therefore collates and analyses the opinions of experts through several rounds of questionnaires.

While looking at the appropriateness of using Delphi, it is important to further contemplate thoroughly the context within which the method is to be applied

(Delbecq et al. 1975). A number of questions need to be asked before making the decision of selecting or ruling out the Delphi technique (Adler and Ziglio, 1996):

 What kind of group communication process is desirable in order to explore the problem at hand?

 Who are the people best suited and with expertise relevant to the problem and where are they located?

 Consideration of alternative techniques available- what are they and what results can reasonably be expected from their application?

Only when the above questions are answered can one decide whether the Delphi method is appropriate to the context in which it will be applied. Adler and Ziglio (1996) further claim that failure to address the above questions may lead to inappropriate applications of Delphi and discredit the whole creative effort.

The outcome of a Delphi sequence is nothing but opinions. The results of the sequence are only as valid as the opinions of the experts who made up the panel (Martino, 1978). The panel viewpoint is summarized statistically rather than in terms of a majority vote. There are other methods that can be used as an alternate to Delphi. Sackman (1975) has drawn parallels between Delphi technique and problem solving, He thinks that both the methods have the same framework, i.e.:

 Establishing the aims and objectives of the study

 Exploring and formulating the problem

 Analysis and solution testing

 Writing up and disseminating results

Sackman (1975) further elaborates on these parallels:

“The payoff of a Delphi is typically a presentation of observed expert concurrence in a given application area where none existed previously. This assumes that participating panelists are experts in the subject area and that the reported consensus was obtained through reliable and valid procedures.”

There are other methods that can be used in a similar situation. A survey is sometimes the only way to get a picture of the current state of a community, a

project, an organisation, an electorate or a profession (James, 1999). In fact the use of surveys to undertake investigations into a particular population is quite common. Czaja and Blair (2005) noted that this method is being commonly used not only across scientific and research activities but also business, marketing, media and a number of other areas. The fundamental of this methodology is to secure required information from a population or area under research by securing information from a smaller and accessible group that represents the larger population. The information can be gathered by face to face interviews, telephone contacts, electronic contacts and mail-outs. Babbie (2001) notes that some of the benefits of the surrey methodology, include:

 its ability to describe the characteristics of a large population which depends on the study at hand.

 they are in most cases self-administered, they make large samples feasible.

 they are quite flexible in structure to apply to a number of applications. However, the research topic under observation is quite complex as it includes a number of interrelated measures which would be quite difficult to explain through telephone or mail-outs. Also, as the topic is specifically related to knowledge-based firms, it is conjectured that only feedback from this specialist sector will add value to the research.

Furthermore, due to the number of surveys received by the average person these days and declining response rates (Berk et al, 2007), it is important that the survey is sent to a targeted group of relevant people so that the results can produce interpretable and useful information.

A Case Study approach was also contemplated to see if it can be used to validating the research model. However, it was decided not to pursue this approach due to the following short comings (Hodkinson et al, 2001 and Flyvbjerg, 2011):

 It requires too much data and in most cases researchers can be swamped with data which is not relevant to the study. This requires much more effort and time commitment.

 It is hard to simply represent the outcomes which may be based on a complex research question.

 They do not lend themselves to numerical representation.

 They can be easily dismissed by those who are not supportive of them.

 They can’t answer a large number of relevant research questions.

 Case study is more appropriate for generating a proposition rather than testing or validating it.

 One cannot generalise on the basis of one case.

However, Flyvbjerg (2011) provides justification for clarifying some of the above perceptions.

From some of the options presented above, Delphi analysis methodology offers an innovative research framework that addresses the need to widely canvas diverse opinions and information sources in forming aggregate conclusions. Substantial research work exists (Gupta and Clarke 1996, Okoli and Pawlowski 2004, Ono and Wedemeyer 1994, Rowe and Wright 1999) that confirms that Delphi analysis is relevant and robust in many contemporary research areas. These researchers also identify that like any other research methodologies, there are certain structural and operational components that need to be carefully managed to ensure sound process and outcomes. Gupta and Clarke (1996), in an extensive search, identify over 460 pieces of published research where Delphi has been substantially used in areas as diverse as education, agriculture, medicine and medical services, environmental studies, finance and economics, tourism and management. Some of the areas of its application identified by (Linstone and Turoff, 1975) are:

 Gathering current and historical data

 Evaluation of possible budget allocations

 Exploring urban and regional planning options

 Planning university curriculum development

 Putting together an educational model

Outhred (2001) successfully used the process in a thesis pertaining to the assessment of environmental impacts of pre-fabricated residential building systems in Australia.

Other contemporary means of data collection, such as the use of focus groups, have potentially serious group dynamic issues which can prejudice outcomes. These can include shortage of time, non-representative membership, and the dominance or otherwise of individuals within the group which may lead to superficial agreement, but less than valid consensus (Outhred, 2001).

Delphi provides quite different parameters to a number of other survey techniques (Okoli and Pawlowski 2004). Hefferan and Mian (2006, p 4)) note some of the strengths of the Delphi over techniques which include:

 Rather than using a random sample of the general population, this approach involves the overt selection of experts.

 It is a multi-stage process of progressive refinement and feedback at every stage. It helps in providing a progressive tightening and refinement.

 It is very effective in maintaining an anonymous communication line between the individuals with the group, but avoiding potentially negative impacts of group dynamics on outcomes (i.e. the use of a Nominated Group Technique [NGT] rather than an Interactive Group Method [IGM]).

 It is a broadly used, tested and successful technique. It is now accepted and widely used across multiple discipline areas which makes it firm in its structure but adaptable to various situations and research tasks.  Experts in the industry area aware of Delphi and keen to contribute to

it. Normally strong involvement by nominated experts and little incidence of non-responsiveness that is notable in other survey types.  Due to the iterative nature of Delphi, it allows for data enrichment

through interaction, the opportunity to add further information and for respondents to be aware of how the research is evolving and to react

and respond to that. This keeps the respondents interested and keen to input robust ideas.

 As pointed out by previous researchers (Outhred, 2011 and Linstone & Turoff, 2011), Delphi attempts to address a range of these issues and to establish a methodology that is relatively quick, inexpensive, and justifiable and that leads, in a structured and predictable way, to sound outcomes.

In light of the above analysis where the benefits of the Delphi overweigh its shortcomings, it was decided that Delphi will be used to facilitate the involvement and communication of multiple, knowledgeable participants in order to validate the innovation model developed through the literature review.