The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes.

Ven, Andrew H. Van de; Delbecq, André L.

doi:10.2307/255641

Cited by 499 publications

(147 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other methods are brainwriting (Geschka, Schaude, & Schlicksupp, 1976) where ideas are anonymously shared in written format rather than spoken and the nominal group technique (Van de Ven & Delbecq, 1974) where the group ranks the ideas after a brainstorming or brainwriting session. Most people believe that groups outperform equivalent sets of non-interacting individuals, or what Paulus et al (1993) has termed, the "illusion of group productivity."…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can experienced designers learn from new tools? A case study of idea generation in a professional engineering team

Yılmaz

Daly

Christian

et al. 2013

International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Generating novel ideas is a challenging part of engineering design, especially when the design task has been undertaken for an extended period of time. How can experienced designers develop new ideas for familiar problems? A tool called Design Heuristicsprovides strategies that support engineers in considering more, and more different, concepts during idea generation. Design Heuristics have been shown to help novice engineers create a set of more diverse and creative candidate concepts. In this case study, we extended this approach to a group of professional engineers who had worked on a specific product line for many years. In a workshop format, a small group of engineers worked with the heuristics in two separate sessions and generated ideas collaboratively. Video recordings were analyzed to reveal how the heuristics were used to stimulate new designs for their product line. We found that Design Heuristics bring order in ideas and elaboration on ideas, perhaps through coordinating effort on idea evaluation, increasing capacity to improve the ideas of others, and facilitating interaction between participants. This case study shows using Design Heuristics can assist even expert engineers to increase the variety of concepts generated, resulting in a larger set of ideas to consider. Keywords engineering design, idea generation, teamwork in design Disciplines Industrial and Product Design Comments This is a manuscript of an article from Can experienced designers learn from new tools? A case study of idea generation within a professional engineering teamGenerating novel ideas is a challenging part of engineering design, especially when the design task has been undertaken for an extended period of time. How can experienced designers develop new ideas for familiar problems? A tool called Design Heuristics provides strategies that support engineers in considering more, and more different, concepts during idea generation. Design Heuristics are strategies for idea generation based on empirical analyses of idea generation from professional and student engineers and industrial designers working on a wide variety of product designs. Design Heuristics have been shown to help novice engineers create a set of more diverse and creative candidate concepts. In this case study, we extended this approach to a group of professional engineers who had worked on a specific product line for many years. In a workshop format, a small group of engineers worked with the heuristics in two separate sessions, and generated ideas collaboratively. Video recordings were analyzed to reveal how the heuristics were used to stimulate new designs for their product line. This case study shows using Design Heuristics can assist even expert engineers to increase the variety of concepts generated, resulting in a larger set of ideas to consider.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can experienced designers learn from new tools? A case study of idea generation in a professional engineering team

Yılmaz

Daly

Christian

et al. 2013

International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The town hall meetings were co-led by different clinician-scientist-patient pairings who used principles of the nominal group technique 42 to generate research questions to be included in subsequent phases of the priority-setting process. These town hall meetings included 83 patients.…”

Section: Phase 1-generating Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Researching what matters to improve chronic pain care in Canada: A priority-setting partnership process to support patient-oriented research

Poulin

Shergill

Romanow

et al. 2018

Canadian Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Chronic pain affects more than 6 million Canadians. Patients need to be involved in setting research priorities to ensure a focus on areas important to those who will be most impacted by the results. Aims The aim of this study was to leverage patient experiences to identify chronic pain research priorities in Canada. Method The process was informed by the James Lind Alliance. After gathering an exhaustive list of questions using surveys, town hall meetings, interviews, and social media consultations, we used a computerized Delphi with four successive iterations to select the final list of research priorities. The final Delphi round was conducted by a panel of ten patients living with chronic pain and ten clinicians from different disciplines. Results We received more than 5000 suggestions from 1500 people. The Delphi process led to the identification of 14 questions fitting under the following 4 themes: (1) improving knowledge and competencies in chronic pain; (2) improving patient-centered chronic pain care; (3) preventing chronic pain and reducing associated symptoms; and (4) improving access to and coordination of patient-centered chronic pain care. Challenges included the issue of chronic pain being ubiquitous to many diseases, leading to many initial suggestions focusing on these diseases. We also identified the need for further engagement efforts with marginalized groups in order to validate the priorities identified or identify different sets of priorities specific to these groups. Conclusion The priorities identified can guide patient-oriented chronic pain research to ultimately improve the care offered to people living with chronic pain.

show abstract

“…Research has shown that moderate levels of structure provide better results than no or poor structure, while too much structure also provides worse results than moderate structure (Van de Ven & Delbecq, 1974;White, Dittrich, & Lang, 1980). It may be reasonable to suppose that implementation of increased process structure will increase the probability of even participation in a CW group, which can increase a group's output quantity.…”

Section: Literature On the Effects Of Process Structure On Productivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the research tying satisfaction to low and high levels of structure is clearly mixed, it may be reasonable to assume that groups with no structure will have a higher probability of experiencing less satisfaction than groups that have some structure, on the assumption that most groups desire some process guidance. For example, several field studies suggest that tasks that are more complex need more structured facilitation to achieve success Van de Ven & Delbecq, 1974;White et al, 1980).…”

Section: Literature On the Effects Of Process Structure On Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research on Process Structure for Distributed, Asynchronous Collaborative Writing Groups

Lowry

2002

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates using higher levels of scripted process structure (procedural explicitness) to improve outcomes of distributed, asynchronous collaborative writing (CW) teams that work on the Internet. This paper reports preliminary results of a one-and-a-half month field experiment on asynchronous collaborative writing using 550 participants. It is found that the highest levels of process structure provide the most benefits to the examined distributed work teams, which has important implications for optimizing distributed group work.

show abstract

The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes.

Cited by 499 publications

References 11 publications

Can experienced designers learn from new tools? A case study of idea generation in a professional engineering team

Can experienced designers learn from new tools? A case study of idea generation in a professional engineering team

Researching what matters to improve chronic pain care in Canada: A priority-setting partnership process to support patient-oriented research

Research on Process Structure for Distributed, Asynchronous Collaborative Writing Groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About