DELPHI
TECHNIQUE
AND
NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE
DELPHI TECHNIQUE
The
Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same
principle - the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and
synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a
continual evolution to "oneness of mind"
The
facilitator begins by working the crowd to establish a
good-guy-bad-guy scenario. Anyone disagreeing with the facilitator
must be made to appear as the bad guy, with the facilitator appearing
as the good guy. To accomplish this, the facilitator seeks out those
who disagree and makes them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, which
sends a clear message to the rest of the audience that, if they don't
want the same treatment, they must keep quiet. When the opposition
has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good
guy - a friend - and the agenda and direction of the meeting are
established without the audience ever realizing what has happened.
Next,
the attendees are broken up into smaller groups of seven or eight
people. Each group has its own facilitator. The group facilitators
steer participants to discuss preset issues, employing the same
tactics as the lead facilitator.
|
|
Participants
are encouraged to put their ideas and disagreements on paper, with
the results to be compiled later. Who does the compiling? If you ask
participants, you typically hear: "Those running the meeting
compiled the results." Oh-h! The next question is: "How do
you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated
into the final outcome?" The typical answer is: "Well, I've
wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn't seem to be
reflected. I guess my views were in the minority."
That
is the crux of the situation. If 50 people write down their ideas
individually, to be compiled later into a final outcome, no one knows
what anyone else has written. That the final outcome of such a
meeting reflects anyone's input at all is highly questionable, and
the same holds true when the facilitator records the group's comments
on paper. But participants in these types of meetings usually don't
question the process.
Why
hold such meetings at all if the outcomes are already established?
The answer is because it is imperative for the acceptance of the
School-to-Work agenda, or the environmental agenda, or whatever the
agenda, that ordinary people assume ownership of the preset outcomes.
If people believe an idea is theirs, they'll support it. If they
believe an idea is being forced on them, they'll resist.
Nominal
Group Technique
A
possible alternative to brain storming is NGT. This technique was
originally developed by Dulbecco and VandeVen2 and has been applied
to adult education program planning by Vedros3. This technique is a
structured variation of small group discussion methods. The process
prevents the domination of discussion by a single person, encourages
the more passive group members to participate, and results in a set
of prioritized solutions or recommendations. The steps to follow in
NGT are:
Divide
the people present into small groups of 5 or 6 members, preferably
seated around a table.
State
an open-ended question (" What are some ways we could encourage
participants to car pool?").
Have
each Person spend several minutes in silence individually
brainstorming all the possible ideas and jot these ideas down.
Have
the groups, collect the ideas by sharing them roundrobin fashion (one
response per person each time), while all are recorded in key term,
on a flipchart. No criticism is allowed, but clarification in
response to questions is encouraged.
Have
each person evaluate the ideas and individually and anonymously vote
for the best ones (for example, the, best idea gets Points, next best
4 Points, etc).
Share
votes within the group and tabulate. A group report is prepared,
showing the ideas receiving the most points.
Allow
time for brief group presentations on their solutions.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment