Delphi: myths and reality

Mullen, Penelope

doi:10.1108/14777260310469319

Cited by 420 publications

(443 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

425

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The problem is most obvious in the third and fourth questionnaire where the response rate dropped to 30%. A considerable drop in response rate is not unusual in studies comprising a series of questionnaires (Mullen, 2003). It is probably caused by the long duration of the analyses and the anonymity of the experts, as they consequently feel less motivated or obligated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a HACCP-like system for improving animal health and welfare in organic egg production – based on an expert panel analysis

Hegelund

Sørensen

2007

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the process of developing a generic Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)-like system for securing animal health and welfare in organic egg production, an expert panel analysis was used to perform the initial hazard analysis. Eighteen advisers and researchers in organic egg production were included in the expert panel. In a series of four questionnaires, the expert panel first scored 34 health and welfare problems seen in Danish organic egg production. Based on scorings of severity and occurrence, 10 problems were selected for further analysis. The experts subsequently suggested and scored risk factors for those problems and finally suggested control points, alarm values indicating the need for corrective actions in order to control the risk factors and monitoring frequencies of these. The 10 selected problems were hunger, thirst, piling, crop impaction, blackhead, pasteurellosis, bone fractures, cannibalism, predators and red mites. A total of 154 different risk factors were suggested for these problems. The 41 risk factors which rated highest in a combined scoring of importance and occurrence were selected for further analysis. There was a high degree of consensus between experts when scoring both problems and risk factors. The level of consensus, as defined by an interquartile range <1, was 79% to 100% when scoring the health and welfare problems (scale 1-5) and 77% to 95% when scoring the risk factors (scale 1-4). On average, 5.8 control points were suggested for every risk factor. Alarm values were often not detailed enough to be of practical significance and further analysis is needed in order to define these. The experts were highly diverse in their suggested monitoring frequencies and establishment of monitoring schemes should be part of developing the farm specific systems. An expert panel analysis based on questionnaires was a useful tool during the first steps of developing a HACCP plan, conducting a hazard analysis and suggesting control points. However, care should be taken regarding the panel's size and fields of expertise in order to assure that the panel fully covers the field of interest throughout the study. A further development of the hazard analysis into a farm-specific HACCP system would include assembling an on-farm HACCP team consisting of farmers and advisors for the practical application of control points, alarm values and monitoring schemes. The results from the fourth questionnaire would be useful as input for this work.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a HACCP-like system for improving animal health and welfare in organic egg production – based on an expert panel analysis

Hegelund

Sørensen

2007

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, Delphi and the nominal group technique eliminate the problems often experienced with committees, such as one dominating person who leads the decision making; committee members who do not want to differ publicly from someone with a higher rank or status; committee members' fears of appearing foolish; a vocal minority who override the majority; members agreeing simply to avoid confrontation; and an unwillingness to give a judgement before all facts are known [34,35]. Mullen [39] also confirms that the Delphi survey is the appropriate method to obtain consensus from a panel of experts.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phasing Technology Transfer Projects for Sustainable Socio-Economic Development

Beukman¹,

Steyn

2011

The South African Journal of Industrial Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes appropriate phases and review points (or 'gates') for South African projects aimed at transferring technology for socio-economic development. Data gathering was done through a Delphi survey supplemented by a focus group session. A total of 42 knowledgeable respondents participated. The most significant phases of projects under consideration were confirmed, and relevant activities per phase and criteria for reviewing at the 'gates' between phases were identified. A total of 59% of resources should be made available for pre-and post-implementation activities, compared with the 41% of project resources to be made available during implementation. The causes of the failure of technology transfer projects under consideration were also identified. It is concluded that the use of a phased approach would improve the probability of project success. OPSOMMINGHierdie artikel beskryf die relevante fases en oorsig punte (of 'hekke') vir Suid-Afrikaanse projekte wat gemik is op die oordrag van tegnologie vir sosio-ekonomiese ontwikkeling. Die insameling van data is gedoen deur middel van 'n Delphi opname wat aangevul is met 'n fokusgroep. 'n Totaal van 42 kundige respondente het deelgeneem. Die mees beduidende fases van projekte onder bespreking is bevestig, en relevante aktiwiteite per fase asook kriteria vir oorsigpunte by die 'hekke' tussen die fases is geïdentifiseer. 'n Totaal van 59% van die hulpbronne behoort aangewend te word tydens die fases voor en na implementering, in vergeleke met 41% tydens implementering. Die oorsake vir mislukking van projekte onder bespreking is ook geïdentifiseer. Die gevolgtrekking word gemaak dat die gebruik van 'n gefaseerde benadering die waarskynlikheid van projek sukses behoort te verhoog.

show abstract

“…For comparatively unknown circumstances where the actions are highly dependent on the accuracy of forecasts (such as risk assessment) the Delphi is much popular for its consensual characteristics and ease of use (Hsu & Sandford, 2007;Bonnemaizon, Cova, & Louyot, 2007). Despite the mixed opinion of researchers about Delphi (see for example Markmann, Darkow, 2013;Tapio, 2002;Bloor, Sampson, Baker, & Dahlgren, 2013) we accredit it on grounds that it is well established, extensively adopted, and has now survived for multiple decades (Mullen, 2003). Three Point Estimates is yet another renowned method for uncertainty assessments from collective insights and experiences.…”

Section: Risk Leveling In Business Environments (Rlbe)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk leveling in business environments - A novel approach for macro risk management

Rasheed

Wang

Yaqub³

et al. 2015

JIEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Purpose: The purpose of this study is to presents a specialized risk management approach and a structured risk management methodology for optimizing the macro business environments in turbulent business spheres.Design/methodology/approach: In this work, we present a specialized approach called 'Risk Leveling', and an organized risk management methodology known as 'Risk Leveling in Business Environments (RLBE)'. The Risk Leveling approach guides on how to deal with the contextual turbulences in order to attempt the ideal business settings, and the RLBE methodology provides an operational procedure to evaluate and manage the macro risks in a designated way.RLBE follows a multi-tier approach towards divergent risks and focuses on balancing the risky macro environs facing the business (segment). While observing risk mitigations, this approach recommends utilizing the available resources in a systematic and efficient way. The RLBE procedure directs how to reduce the risks to match them with the enterprises' risk tolerance; it also attempts to diminish the mutual risk disparities giving rise a context in which no risk is seen too big or too small comparative to the others. In order to actualize the desired, the RLBE process utilizes a mix of group decision methods (i.e. Brainstorming, Delphi, Three Point Estimates), analysis tools (i.e. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)), and philosophies (i.e. As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP)) in an orderly fashion.-738-Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management -http://dx.doi. org/10.3926/jiem.1293 Findings: Risk Leveling procedure presented in the study adopts the standard risk management process, attempts to pacify macro risks, and strives to achieve risk leveled environments for the industry. During its course to pursue the best business settings, RLBE favors to conserve the scarce organizational resources by utilizing them systematically.Originality/value: This approach can be practiced by the regimes to pacify and regulate the macro risks in the turbulent market segments.

show abstract

Delphi: myths and reality

Cited by 420 publications

References 40 publications

Developing a HACCP-like system for improving animal health and welfare in organic egg production – based on an expert panel analysis

Developing a HACCP-like system for improving animal health and welfare in organic egg production – based on an expert panel analysis

Phasing Technology Transfer Projects for Sustainable Socio-Economic Development

Risk leveling in business environments - A novel approach for macro risk management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About