Hannu Linturi © Metodix Oy (published 13.12.2020, updated 26.2.2024

Between Delphi rounds, the baton is passed as ingredients from the content of the previous round are picked for the questions and ”votes” of the next round. New openings are mined from the panelists’ comments, which expand or deepen the handling of the phenomenon. In addition, contentious issues from the original question formulations are carried forward, whose discussion divides opinions in a way that necessitates further discussion. The same question content but from a different perspective may lead the discussion to a new phase, where dispute is replaced by dialogue. In the recycling of questions and queries (iteration), it is about peeling the onion, as per the familiar analogy. Facilitated by the manager, discussion and argumentation evolve and mature. Often, the original contentious question softens into a nuanced weighing of different aspects of the phenomenon and eventually into a solution-focused (relative) consensus on the best path forward, which is the goal of the so-called classical Delphi (Classical Delphi).

In the Delphi process, perspectives, hypotheses, and statements are produced, which are subjected to open expert testing and argumentation. A polyphonic panel is naturally divided over the likelihood and desirability of different options for the phenomenon under examination. A Delphi round aims to sift and discuss initially different views into shared or dissenting community views. Both outcomes are valuable. A consensus-seeking panel seeks a common ground for choices and justifications by particularly pressuring views at the edges. In the opposite Delphi variation, the goal is to produce as strong arguments as possible for all options. From this setup, drafts for multiple future scenarios emerge. Different goals guide the manager’s actions, but common to all is proactive communication with the panel. The manager keeps experts up to date and raises interesting issues during the round.

When the manager invites panelists to respond to the survey, a Delphi round begins. The panelist’s response consists of two parts, where the first is typically a scale response and the second is a justification for this scale choice. Panelists, regulated by the manager’s schedule, also get to see other panelists’ responses, which they can comment on as well as change their own original responses throughout the round or response time. The initial invitation is often timed for the beginning of the week, i.e., Monday morning, when respondents theoretically come to work refreshed after the weekend. A typical Delphi round lasts two workweeks from the first week’s Monday to the second week’s Friday. It is advisable to reserve at least a weekend’s worth of flexibility at the end of the period, as many panelists are busy and tend to respond only at the last minute. It is common for some panelists to request an extension.

Before it gets to the point of granting extra time, the manager has offered the panel several opportunities to update their responses and has also highlighted which questions divide the panelists. During the Delphi round, the manager’s communication is not only directed at the entire panel, but he also selects subgroups or even individual panelists for personalized communication based on expertise and stakeholder classification. A good rule of thumb is to share ”news” (numbers of respondents and comments, content tensions, etc.) with the entire group, but to target encouragement and motivation letters to such small groups that the text can include appeals related to the respondents’ competence and interest. It is useful for the manager to make a day-to-day communication plan even before sending the invitation. The plan may not be executed exactly as intended, but it provides a safe model of operation, from which it is also easy to deviate if the situation develops differently.

The above plan is divided into four cycles (response phase, reading phase, discussion phase, finalization of view phase), whose order is clear even though individual panelists may proceed at different times in their own processes. This phasing can also be utilized in communication with the panel even when recruiting panelists. In the future, the application platform will likely support the panelist in recognizing these phases.

The main tasks of the manager include supporting interaction between panelists and the consequent learning. The structure of the panel and the tensions between different perspectives contained within it are potential news fodder for the manager’s communications. In many Delphi processes, a rough division can be applied between the inner and outer panel, where the latter examines the phenomenon from the outside and the former from the inside.

Let’s recap! Most often, Delphis are conducted in two or more rounds, during which the questions also evolve throughout the process. The typical duration of one round is two weeks, as previously described. New questions are raised from the comments and arguments of the previous round, which is why there is a gap of a few days to a week between rounds, allowing managers time to analyze results and formulate new questions.

In recent years, the use of the so-called Real-Time Delphi variation (RTD), where questions and answers are open in real-time throughout the round, has increased. In Real-Time Delphi, only one round is conducted, making it translatable to a one-round Delphi (English: roundless). The roundless Delphi is attractive due to its fast implementation and less burden on panelists compared to round-based Delphi. However, in Real-Time Delphis, it is not uncommon for 1-3 new questions to be raised from the comment material for voting within a single round.

The above plan is divided into four cycles (response phase, reading phase, discussion phase, finalization of view phase), whose order is clear even though individual panelists may proceed at different times in their own processes. This phasing can also be utilized in communication with the panel even when recruiting panelists. In the future, the application platform will likely support the panelist in recognizing these phases.

The main tasks of the manager include supporting interaction between panelists and the consequent learning. The structure of the panel and the tensions between different perspectives contained within it are potential news fodder for the manager’s communications. In many Delphi processes, a rough division can be applied between the inner and outer panel, where the latter examines the phenomenon from the outside and the former from the inside.

Let’s recap! Most often, Delphis are conducted in two or more rounds, during which the questions also evolve throughout the process. The typical duration of one round is two weeks, as previously described. New questions are raised from the comments and arguments of the previous round, which is why there is a gap of a few days to a week between rounds, allowing managers time to analyze results and formulate new questions.

In recent years, the use of the so-called Real-Time Delphi variation (RTD), where questions and answers are open in real-time throughout the round, has increased. In Real-Time Delphi, only one round is conducted, making it translatable to a one-round Delphi (English: roundless). The roundless Delphi is attractive due to its fast implementation and less burden on panelists compared to round-based Delphi. However, in Real-Time Delphis, it is not uncommon for 1-3 new questions to be raised from the comment material for voting within a single round.

Literature

1. Ahvenharju, Sanna (2022) Futures Consciousness as a Human Anticipatory Capacity – Definition and Measurement. Turun yliopisto. PDF Full Text https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-29-8892-1 .
2. Airaksinen Tiina, Halinen Irmeli, Linturi Hannu (2016) Futuribles of Learning 2030  – Delphi supports the reform of the core curricula in Finland. European Journal of Futures Research. Special topic: Education 2030 and beyond. Internet https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40309-016-0096-y. 
3. Bell, Wendell (1997, 2003) Foundations of futures studies, Vol I-II, New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
4. The Delphi Technique: Past, present and future prospects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 78, Issue 9, Pages 1487-1720 (November 2011)
5. Dimitrow, Maarit (2016) Development and Validation of a Drug-Related Problem Risk Assessment Tool for Use by Practical Nurses Working with Community-Dwelling Aged. Helsingin yliopisto, farmasian tiedekunta. Helsinki. Verkossa https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/167914
6. Gordon, T.J. (1994) The Delphi Method. Futures Research Methodology. Millennium Project.
7. Gordon, T.J. (2008) The Real-Time Delphi Method. The Millennium Project. Futures Research Methodology – V3.0. Verkossa http://www.millennium-project.org/FRMv3_0/05-Real-Time_Delphi.pdf .
8. Kauppi, Antti ja Linturi, Hannu (2018) Kansalaisfoorumin viisi tulevaisuutta. Internetissä https://metodix.fi/2018/11/30/kansalaisfoorumin-viisi-tulevaisuutta/ .
9. Korhonen-Yrjänheikki, Kati (2011) Future of the Finnish Engineering Education – A Collaborative Stakeholder Approach. ISBN 978-852-5633-48-1. TEK. Miktor. Helsinki. Verkossa  http://www.tek.fi/ci/pdf/julkaisut/KKY_dissertation_web.pdf.
10. Koskimäki Teemu (2022) Expert perspectives on achieving global sustainability with targeted transformational change. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of The Australian National University. PDF-julkaisu https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/274587/1/TK%20-%20PhD%20thesis%20-%20Revised%20version%202022%20FINAL.pdf .
11. Kuusi, Osmo (2000) Delfoi-metodi. Internetissä https://metodix.fi/2014/05/19/kuusi-delfoi-metodi/ .
12. Kuusi, Osmo (1999) Expertise in the Future Use of Generic Technologies. Epistemic and Methodological Considerations Concerning Delphi Studies. Interneissä http://bit.ly/3ayzN4e .
13. Laakso, K., Rubin, A. & Linturi, H. 2010. Delphi Method Analysis: The Role of Regulation in the Mobile Operator Business in Finland. Phuket, Thailand: PICMET 2010: Technology Management for Global Economic Growth. 18.-­ 22.7.2010, 2698-­2704.
14. Laukkanen, Minttu (2020) Sustainable business models for advancing system-level sustainability. Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensis -tutkimussarja 889. ISBN 978-952-335-470-8 ja ISSN 1456-4491. LUTPub-tietokanta www.urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-335-471-5 .
15. Linturi, Hannu & Rubin, Anita (2011) Toinen koulu, toinen maailma. Oppimisen tulevaisuus 2030. Turun yliopiston Tulevaisuuden tutkimuskeskus. Tutu-julkaisu 1/2011.
16. Linturi, Hannu, Rubin, Anita, Airaksinen, Tiina (2012) Lukion tulevaisuus 2030 – Toinen koulu, toinen maailma. Otavan Opiston Osuuskunta. 978-952-6605-00-5 (pdf), ISSN-L 2242-1297, ISSN 2242-1297.
17. Linturi, Hannu, Linturi, Jenni ja Rubin Anita (2013) eDelphi – metodievoluutiota verkossa. Metodix https://metodix.fi/2014/11/26/edelfoi-metodievoluutiota-verkossa/ .
18. Linturi, Hannu, Rubin Anita (2014) Metodi, metafora ja tulevaisuuskartta. Futura 2/2014.
19. Linturi, Hannu (2007) Delfoin metamorfooseja. Futura 1/2007.
20. Linturi, Hannu (2017) OPH:n Oppimisen tulevaisuus 2030-barometri. Internetissä https://metodix.fi/2017/01/11/oppimisen-tulevaisuus-2030-blogi-2017/ (https://metodix.fi/2016/12/31/oppimisen-tulevaisuus-2030/) .
21. Linturi, Hannu (2020) Delfoin monet tarkoitukset. Metodix  https://metodix.fi/2020/03/08/delfoin-tarkoitukset/ 
22. Linturi, Hannu (2020) Delfoi-prosessin vaiheet. Metodix 
23. Linturi, Hannu (2020) Delfoi-pedagogia. Internetissä https://metodix.fi/2019/11/15/delfoi-pedagogia/.
24. Linturi, Hannu (2020) Ilmastot@komo: viisi työkalua ilmastokasvatukseen. Internetissä https://metodix.fi/2019/12/01/ilmastotakomo/ .Rand (2020) Delphi Method https://www.rand.org/topics/delphi-method.html 
25. Linturi Hannu (2023) Delfoin seitsemän ideaa. Blogisarja https://metodix.fi/2023/10/09/delfoin-seitseman-ideaa/. Metodix Oy.
26. Linturi Hannu & Kauppi Antti (2021) Miten tutkimme tulevaisuuksia Delfoi-menetelmällä, Artikkeli teoksessa Delfoilla tulevaisuuteen, toim. Merja Kylmäkoski & Päivi Raino. Humak-ammattikorkeakoulu https://www.humak.fi/julkaisut/delfoilla-tulevaisuuteen/ .
27. Linturi Hannu & Kuusi Osmo (2022) Tulevaisuuksia ennakoiva Delfoi-menetelmä. Artikkeli teoksessa Tulevaisuudentutkmus tutuksi. Perusteita ja menetelmiä. (toim. Hanna-Kaisa Aalto, Katariina Heikkilä, Pasi Keski-Pukkila, Maija Mäki, Markus Pöllänen). Turun yliopisto https://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/153465 .
28. Myllylä, Yrjö (2007) Logistic and Social Future of the Murmansk Region until 2020. Joensuun yliopisto, Yhteiskunta- ja aluetieteiden laitos. Joensuu. Verkossa http://joypub.joensuu.fi/publications/dissertations/myllyla_murmanskin/myllyla.pdf.
29. Mäkelä, Marileena (2020) The past, present and future of environmental reporting in the Finnish forest industry. Turun yliopiston julkaisua – Annaels Universitatis Turkuensis, Ser. E: Oeconomica. URN:ISBN:978-951-29-8087-1. Verkossa https://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/149753?show=full .
30. Osaamisen ennakointifoorumi: The Finnish National Agency for Education’s Skills Forecasting Forum conducted a multi-phase development project from 2016 to 2019 to explore the future of the workforce and vocational education, employing the Delphi technique as a method to open up futures. Initially, all actors within nine sectoral clusters assessed future developments up to 2035 according to the dynamic multi-level model described by Geels and Schot. From this data, four scenarios were constructed, two of which were selected as the basis for further work. In the second Delphi round, separate Delphi processes were implemented for the nine clusters, which also were based on three levels examining changes in the operating environment, regime adaptation, and signal-level innovation phenomena. See the eDelphi main panel at https://www.edelphi.org/oef and Jukka Vepsäläinen’s video presentation at https://youtu.be/8o2v5nNWqIo?si=T1FyVIibVfX5LdSK.
31. Paaso, Aila (2010) Osaava ammatillinen opettaja 2020. Tutkimus ammatillisen opettajan tulevaisuuden työnkuvasta. Rovaniemi: Lapin yliopisto 2010, Acta Universitatis Lapponiensis 174. ISBN 978-952-484-348-5. ISSN 0788-7604.
32. Palo, Teea (2014) Business model captured?: variation in the use of business models. University of Oulu, Oulu Business School, Department of Marketing. PDF Full Text http://urn.fi/urn:isbn:9789526203430 .
33. Pernaa, Hanna-Kaisa (2020) ”Hyvinvoinnin toivottu tulevaisuus – tarkastelussa kompleksisuus, antisipaatio ja osallisuus”. URN:ISBN:978-952-476-910-5. Osuva http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-476-910-5
34. Pihlainen, Vuokko (2020) Asiantuntijoiden käsityksiä johtamisosaamisen nykytilasta ja tulevaisuuden suunnista suomalaisissa sairaaloissa 2030. Experts’ perceptions of the present state of management and leadership competence and future directions in Finnish hospitals by 2030 Kuopio: Itä-Suomen yliopisto, 2020 Publications of the University of Eastern Finland Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies; 223. ISBN: 978-952-61-3377-5 (print), ISBN: 978-952-61-3378-2 (PDF), ISSN: 1798-5757 (PDF). Verkossa https://erepo.uef.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/22263/urn_isbn_978-952-61-3378-2.pdf
35. Rand Corporation: Delphi Method https://www.rand.org/topics/delphi-method.html 
36. Rubin, Anita (2007) Pehmeä systeemimetodologia. Internetissä https://metodix.fi/2014/05/19/rubin-pehmea-systeemimetodologia/ .
37. Rönkä, Anu-Liisa (2019) Kohti vuorovaikutteista riskiviestintää : Tapausesimerkkinä langattoman viestintätekniikan säteily. University of Helsinki, Faculty of Social Sciences. Doctoral Programme in Interdisciplinary Environmental Sciences. Internet https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/301671  .
38. Soini-Salomaa, Kristiina (2013) Käsi- ja taideteollisuusalan ammatillisia tulevaisuudenkuvia. HY. Käyttäytymistieteellinen tiedekunta. Helsinki. Verkossa https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/41734 
39. Sunell, Otto (2016) Turvallisuuskulttuuri julkisen hallinnon organisaatiossa vuoteen 2025 tultaessa: Nykytilan kartoitus ja neljä skenaariota. Tampereen teknillinen yliopisto. Tampere.  Verkossa https://tutcris.tut.fi/portal/en/publications/turvallisuuskulttuuri-julkisen-hallinnon-organisaatiossa-vuoteen-2025-tultaessa(d16cf10d-2d88-4bcb-8dad-62349f74bf36).html .
40. Tamminen, Nina (2021) Mental Health Promotion Competencies in the Health Sector. Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä. Permanent link to this publication: http://urn.f/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-8666-7 .
41. Tapio, Petri (2002) The limits to traffic volume growth : The content and procedure of administrative futures studies on Finnish transport CO2 policy. Internetissä https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/22446 .
42. Tapio, Petri (2002) Disaggregative policy Delphi Using cluster analysis as a tool for systematic scenario formation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
43. Toivonen, Annette (2022) The emergence of New Space – A grounded theory study of enhancing sustainability in space tourism from the view of Finland. Acta electronica Universitatis Lapponiensis 336. ISBN: 978-952-337-311-2, ISSN 1796-6310. University of Lapland, Rovaniemi 2022. Sähköisen julkaisun pysyvä osoite: https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-337-311-2 .
44. Turoff, Murray (2002) The Delphi Method, Techniques and Applications. Internetissä  https://web.njit.edu/~turoff/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf .
45. Valtonen, Vesa (2010) Turvallisuustoimijoiden yhteistyö. Maanpuolustuskorkeakoulu, 

Kategoriat:artikkeli, Artikkelit, blogi, Tie

Avainsanat:delfoi, edelphi, future, methodology, metodix