The Real Time Delphi Oct 2007
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

The Real Time Delphi Oct 2007

on

  • 2,096 views

A presentation of the Real-Time Delphi Futures Methodology

A presentation of the Real-Time Delphi Futures Methodology

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,096
Views on SlideShare
1,959
Embed Views
137

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
94
Comments
0

6 Embeds 137

http://www.mpcollab.org 122
http://gmoutsiaki.blogspot.com 6
http://www.slideshare.net 3
http://gmoutsiaki.blogspot.gr 3
http://www.linkedin.com 2
http://www.slideee.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

The Real Time Delphi Oct 2007 The Real Time Delphi Oct 2007 Presentation Transcript

  • The Millennium Project October, 2007
    • Conference room problems
    • Now the “classic” means for combining expert opinions
      • Anonymity
      • Feedback
    • The 1964 S&T Study
    • Developed in a DARPA study
    • Web based
    • Does not use “rounds” as in conventional Delphi
    • Permits revisits during the study
    • Some applications to date
      • Energy
      • MP Priorities
      • Education and learning
      • Decision making
    • Asynchronous, round based
      • Pencil and paper: mail or fax back
      • On line sequential questionnaires
    • Synchronous, round based
      • Consensor
      • Specialized machines, laptops
    • Real Time Delphi, roundless
    • An on-screen form presents a series of questions to each participant, and for each:
      • The average (or median) response of the group so far (and possibly the distribution of responses)
      • The number of responses made so far
      • A button that opens a window showing reasons that others have given for their responses.
      • A button that opens a window that allows the respondent to type in justifications for their own answer.
      • A space for the new numerical estimate, answering the question.
    • If an answer is beyond a pre-specified distance from the average an indicator flags the question
    • When the flag is “up” reasons become particularly important
    • There is no explicit second round
    • When the respondent comes back to the study in a minute or a day, the input form is presented with prior answers
    • By then others may have contributed judgments, the averages or medians may have changed and other questions may be flagged
    • The respondents are now not shown the group average until after they had inserted an answer
    • The answers can be submitted cell by cell rather than the entire document at once.
    • To avoid crowding, the reasons can appear on a separate page.
    • A notation appears after the respondent submits an answer indicating that the response has been received and entered into the database.
    • One, two, or four columns of questions
    • Inclusion of extensive hyperlink reference material permits the respondents to retrieve data on line while completing the questionnaire.
    • Reference material can appear directly on the questionnaire
  • No Questions Your Responses Group Reasons 1 When will Israel be recognized as a nation by the Palestinian Authority? Link go Your estimate: 2008 Num Responding: 16 Average: 2010 Your reasons: Conciliation is mandatory Things will happen fast when the suicide bombing stops Conciliation is mandatory 2 When will cell phones replace 75% of standard phones? Link go Your estimate: 2010 Num Responding: 15 Average:2010 Your reasons: Cells phones leap frog infrastructure Cells phones leap frog infrastructure Too many towers required 3 When will a method be found to denature spent uranium rods? Link go Your estimate: 2050 Num Responding:5 Average:2100 Your reasons DIFFERENT THAN AVERAGE Immensely valuable Tough to do
  • Number Possible Project Importance to the MP . 1 Promotion of 2007 SOF (translations, launchings, reviews, Foreign Affairs ad, mailings, etc.) Are there any new techniques that we have not tried that may prove effective? Should the Nodes have responsibility for selling in their countries? Should we print free copies for the General Assembly?   Your answer has been entered, and you may change it at any time. The average group answer 6.1 Respondents: 8 Submit only this cell Reasons click here 2 Complete and issue a new CD ROM: Futures Research Methodology 3.0 (Jerry) We have the raw materials already in hand but not the time to complete. What else can we do to finish this project?   The average group answer will appear after you have entered a value above Respondents: 5 Submit only this cell Reasons click here
  • 72 65 Submit Submit Number Possible Development Likelihood by 2030 (%) 1 National programs for improving collective intelligence Some richer as well as lower income countries have (by this year of 2030) made improving collective intelligence a national goal; this includes improving individual as well as intelligence for their nations-as-whole. Click here to see references Likelihood by 2030 The average group answer: 61,7 Respondents: 195 Comments on this possibility (page 2) click here 2 Just in time knowledge and learning Rote learning has diminished in importance. With ubiquitous computing and education for life-long learning, 'just in time knowledge' has become the norm. Reasoning, problem solving, and learning strategies form the core focus of public educational systems. Click here to see references Likelihood by 2030 The average group answer: 71.1 Respondents: 185 Comments on this possibility (page 2) click here
  • Variables  What is the best plausible value this variable can achieve in 2016?  What is the worst plausible value this variable can achieve in 2016?  How important is this variable to the future of the world over the next 10 years (10= essential)  How important is this variable to the future of your country over the next 10 years (10= essential)  1 Infant mortality (deaths per 1,000 births) World (1983)= 89.1 World (2005)= 50.0 Singapore (2005)= 2.29 Angola (2005)= 187.5 Click here to see references Best plausible global value in 2016? 38 The average group answer: 40.5 Respondents: 17 Reasons click here (after submitting a numerical answer above.) Worst plausible global value in 2016? 90.0 The average group answer: 100 Respondents: 11 Reasons click here (after submitting a numerical answer above.) Its importance to the future of the world? 7.0 The average group answer: 8.0 Respondents: 6 Reasons click here (after submitting a numerical answer above.) Its importance to the future of your country? 5.0 Respondents: 4 Reasons click here (after submitting a numerical answer above.) 2 Food availability (Cal/cap) World (1980)= 2549 World (2002)= 2798 Egypt (2002)= 3300 Eritrea (2002)= 1500 Click here to see reference Best plausible global value in 2016? 3000 The average group answer: 3,166.5 Respondents: 21 Reasons click here (after submitting a numerical answer above.) Worst plausible global value in 2016? 2300 The average group answer: 2,400.0 Respondents: 11 Reasons click here (after submitting a numerical answer above.) Its importance to the future of the world? 6 The average group answer: 4.5 Respondents: 21 Reasons click here (after submitting a numerical answer above.) Its importance to the future of your country? 7 Respondents: 11 Reasons click here (after submitting a numerical answer above.)
  • . No serious negative effects Likely to be effective Implement quickly Plausible Provides useful feedback Reasonable cost Weights Avg.: 4 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 4 Justify Avg.: 6 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 5 Justify Avg.: 7 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 6 Justify Avg.: 8 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 7 Justify Avg.: 3 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 4 Justify Avg.: 6 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 5 Justify Governments modify school curricula to remove cultural biases Avg.: 10 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 10 Justify Avg.: 6 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 1 Justify Avg.: 4 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 6 Justify Avg.: 5 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 4 Justify Avg.: 9 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 8 Justify Avg.: 9 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 10 Justify The world implements a vastly improved disease early warning system Avg.: 2 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 1 Justify Avg.: 3 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 2 Justify Avg.: 1 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 2 Justify Avg.: 5 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 7 Justify Avg.: 9 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 8 Justify Avg.: 2 Responses: 5 Reasons. Input 1 Justify
    • URL: www.realtimedelphi.com
    • Just sign in and use one of the following codes:
      • mp 0 8
      • edu
      • xsofix
    • Average, median, standard deviation
    • Distribution of opinions
    • Summaries by region
    • Reasons could be identified and associated with a particular numerical response,
    Analysis techniques had also progressed. In the case of the later priorities study the analysis included not only computation of average scores, but also the distribution of responses, so that it was possible to identify distribution of responses, and thus proposed projects about which there was high agreement and those which may have shown similar average scores, but were in fact bi-modal.
  • Client Price
      • Node initiated studies; limit 1 study per year per node, total 5 node initiated studies max per year.
    Free; but if external funding is available for the node’s study then, $1,500 or 10% whichever is greater Consulting firms for internal use, limit two studies per year for evaluation and familiarity $15,000 per year/first year Sponsors for internal use, limit two studies per year for evaluation and familiarity $10,000 per year/first year Consulting firms for external use with clients, limit 500 participants per external study. $50,000 per study Universities for teaching purposes $8,000/year Corporations, NGO’s, government agencies, limit 500 participants per study. $35,000 per study Consulting firms for external use with clients, limit 500 participants per external study. $50,000 per study