Think Tank Methods - Group decision-making

 

Group decision-making has been used in fields ranging from medicine to engineering. The issues that arise in group decision-making are of great significance and high value. However, assigning a descriptive numeric value to a given alternative more accurately and efficiently has always been a significant problem in practical decision-making processes (Tchier et al., 2021). The Delphi method and the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) will be used to explore two group decision-making methods for this board post.

The Delphi method began its legitimate adoption as a research method in academia back in the ’70s. The popular fields of study that pioneered this method were management and

marketing due to vast amounts of focus groups respondent data being collected to help develop advertising campaigns (Lund, 2020). The method derives its benefit from its rooted nature in the “theory of errors,” which dictates that the aggregated group responses generally tend to represent a statement superior to the majority of the individual experts’ ones. Aristotle’s adage explains the same, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts,” with the best ideas being elevated when considered as a collective even if they may not be the best of ideas (Lund, 2020). This method is very suitable when you blaze new territory instead of working within one already well-defined. Other benefits of this method include mitigating major weaknesses in surveys, interviews, and focus group methods. According to Lund (2020), one major drawback of this method is that researchers eliminate less popular responses when perhaps they may not want to. 

On the other hand, the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) is the best suitable tool when all participants have an equal voice in contributing ideas for possible causes during brainstorming. The method facilitates brainstorming and helps the group form a more precise consensus about prioritizing the causes (Andersen & Fagerhaug, 2000).  One benefit of this technique seems to be when a problem stems from several causes, and the team finds which cause to analyze first if lost (Andersen & Fagerhaug, 2000). According to Anderson & Fagerhaug (2000), more advantages of this technique are seen during brainstorming sessions, resulting in an unorganized, overwhelming number of possible causes within a timid and intimated group of folks who are shy to contribute their ideas.

All in all, both methods both methods involve thinking at the group level, allowing a collective thought process leading to the prevailing consensus. However, the Delphi method might cast away non-popular ideas/responses, whereas they might be needed in the research to potentially unveil certain truths.

References

 

Andersen, B., & Fagerhaug, T. (2000, Feb 2000). The nominal group technique. Quality Progress, 33(2), 144. https://coloradotech.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/nominal-group-technique/docview/214769704/se-2?accountid=144789

 

Lund, B. D. (2020, 2020

2021-09-10). Review of the Delphi method in library and information science research [Review of the Delphi method]. Journal of Documentation, 76(4), 929-960. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-09-2019-0178

 

Tchier, F., Ghous, A., Gulzar, M., Pamučar, D., & Ghorai, G. (2021, 2021

2021-09-26). A New Group Decision-Making Technique under Picture Fuzzy Soft Expert Information. Entropy, 23(9), 1176. https://doi.org/10.3390/e23091176