Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
GLAMoURous Delphi
James Kirwan, Damian Maye, Dilshaad Bundhoo
and Dan Keech
CCRI Seminar Series
13.02.2014
GLAMUR
• 7th Framework project

• Full title: "Global and Local food chain Assessment: a
Multidimensional performance-base...
WP2 Objectives
• Conduct a systematic analysis of how both ‘local and global
food’ and the ‘performance of food chains’ ar...
WP2 rationale
• To align the multiple meanings that are attributed to
food chains, having regard for the contexts involved...
Comparative Report
• Identify the principal discourses and controversies
concerning G&L FSC in the 12 countries
• Draw out...
Draft Composite Matrix
Dimension
/ Sphere

Economic
•Affordability
•Creation & distribution of
added value
•Contribution t...
WP2 Methodology
• Task 2.2: Desk-based analysis of how food chain
performance is currently assessed (in the 12
countries)
...
What is a Delphi survey?
• A group facilitation technique that is designed to
gradually build individualised opinion into ...
What is a Delphi survey?
• Anonymity. Those taking part are not then subject to
pressure from others. It means that the pr...
Key advantages of Delphi
• Its validity as a forecasting tool has been proved
• Less effort required than for other qualit...
Task 2.4: Delphi Survey
• Facilitate an exchange of information between
international food chain experts.
• Explore how un...
Delphi expert panel
• Aim to recruit 50-80 experts

• 12 countries x 5-10 people
• Obtain members from a variety of backgr...
Delphi panel:
68 experts recruited
(12 Policy, 15 Scientific, 24 Market, 17 Public)
Belgium
• 8 recruited
• (2 Policy, 3 M...
Round 1 Questionnaire
• Structure of the questionnaire. Five sections:
– Section 1: basic expert details
– Section 2: glob...
Round 1 Report
• 46 responses (38 responses for round 2)

• Criteria used to distinguish global and local FSC
• Key actors...
Criteria used to distinguish between global and local FSCs
Sphere

Distinctive characteristics identified

Total

SCI

Geo...
Key actors in the FSC
2013

Actors

2018

MEAN

MODE

IQR

MEAN

MODE

IQR

Consumers

4.72

3

3.25

5.34

5

2

Retailer...
Key factors affecting FSC
performance
• Five main elements:
• 1) economic (price, costs of production, policy (national,
w...
Round 1 results to examine
within round 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Consumer engagement
Transparency
Affordability and accessibilit...
Table 1: Food chain performance statements
Likelihood
Theme

Statements

Consumers

Importance
Mean

Mode

IQR

1. Consume...
Ranking of food chain performance attributes
at global and local levels
Level
G
l
o
b
a
l

L
o
c
a
l

Attributes

Overall ...
Conclusions on the use of Delphi
Advantages:
• Less effort required than for other qualitative
methods such as attending m...
Conclusions on the use of Delphi
BUT:
• Linguistic and cultural difficulties and the use of
terminologies
• The need for t...
References
Ilbery, B., Maye, D., Kneafsey, M., Jenkins, T. and Walkley, C. (2004). "Forecasting food supply chain
developm...
Thank you for your attention

26
The Delphi Method - James Kirwan
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The Delphi Method - James Kirwan

11,006 views

Published on

James Kirwan, CCRI Reader http://www.ccri.ac.uk/kirwan/ discusses the application of the Delphi method with regard to an EU project http://www.glamur.eu/

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

The Delphi Method - James Kirwan

  1. 1. GLAMoURous Delphi James Kirwan, Damian Maye, Dilshaad Bundhoo and Dan Keech CCRI Seminar Series 13.02.2014
  2. 2. GLAMUR • 7th Framework project • Full title: "Global and Local food chain Assessment: a Multidimensional performance-based approach“. • A comparative analysis of global versus local food supply systems • To develop and validate a ‘multi-criteria performance matrix’ • Involves 15 partners and 12 countries
  3. 3. WP2 Objectives • Conduct a systematic analysis of how both ‘local and global food’ and the ‘performance of food chains’ are perceived, defined and communicated in the public, scientific, market and policy spheres across a range of dimensions (economic, social, environmental, health and ethical). • Assess how each of these dimensions is framed in different contexts, and to identify the dilemmas and contradictions within each, as well as the interaction between them, that potentially affects attitudes and behaviour in relation to food chain performance. • Develop a matrix that catalogues ‘local and global food’ performance across a range of criteria including real costs and benefits, as well as resilience and security. (with the matrix being composed of ‘attributes’. 3
  4. 4. WP2 rationale • To align the multiple meanings that are attributed to food chains, having regard for the contexts involved, and to create a common understanding of food chain performance that has been developed and substantiated by scientific evidence. 4
  5. 5. Comparative Report • Identify the principal discourses and controversies concerning G&L FSC in the 12 countries • Draw out the diversity of meanings and perceptions associated with the performance of both G&L FSC • Identify the potential for reaching a common understanding of the relative performance of FSC • Develop a MCPM that incorporates the performance of both G&L FSC in the public, market, policy and scientific spheres against a range of dimensions (economic, social, environmental, health and ethical).
  6. 6. Draft Composite Matrix Dimension / Sphere Economic •Affordability •Creation & distribution of added value •Contribution to economic development Social Environmental Health Ethical •Resource Use •Pollution •Nutrition •Food safety •Traceability •Animal Welfare •Responsibility •Labour relations •Fair Trade •Consumer behaviour •Territoriality •Resource Use •Biodiversity •Efficiency •Technological innovation •Food waste •Nutrition •Food safety •Fair Trade •Animal welfare Market •Efficiency •Profitability / competitiveness •Connection •Technological innovation •Resilience •Information & communication •Territoriality •Connection •Efficiency •Traceability •Food safety •Fair Trade •Territoriality Policy •Creation & distribution of added value •Contribution to economic development •Efficiency •Resilience •Food waste •Consumer •Food Waste behaviour •Pollution •Labour relations •Traceability •Nutrition •Food Safety •Food Security •Governance •Information & communication •Food security Scientific •Contribution to economic development •Technological innovation •Governance Public
  7. 7. WP2 Methodology • Task 2.2: Desk-based analysis of how food chain performance is currently assessed (in the 12 countries) • Task 2.3: Interviews • Task 2.4: Delphi Method • Task 2.5: National-level Reports (based on tasks 2.2 & 2.3) • Task 2.6: Comparative Report (based on tasks 2.4 & 2.5) 7
  8. 8. What is a Delphi survey? • A group facilitation technique that is designed to gradually build individualised opinion into group consensus • Anonymous forecasts and issues being made by those involved, across 2 or 3 rounds of interaction • "A method of structuring a group communication process, so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem". Linstone & Turoff (1975: 3)
  9. 9. What is a Delphi survey? • Anonymity. Those taking part are not then subject to pressure from others. It means that the process in nonadversarial. • Iteration. This involves panel members reviewing and changing their forecasts over a number of rounds until consensus or stability is reached. It may be that this never happens. • Controlled feedback. The experts are consulted more than once. The panellists receive a copy of the synthesised responses between each round. • Statistical aggregation. The spread of forecasts can be used as a measure of the consensus reached.
  10. 10. Key advantages of Delphi • Its validity as a forecasting tool has been proved • Less effort required than for other qualitative methods such as attending meetings • More people can participate in a Delphi than could practically be included in meaningful face-to-face discussions • Allows contributions from experts who are geographically dispersed and cannot be brought together • Removes the 'bandwagon effect of majority opinion' often found in group interactions.
  11. 11. Task 2.4: Delphi Survey • Facilitate an exchange of information between international food chain experts. • Explore how underlying assumptions or perspectives might lead to differing judgements as to the performance of particular food supply chains. • Forecast what will need to be assessed in the future when judging the performance of both local and global FSCs in different national food systems, in order to help ensure their resilience and security.
  12. 12. Delphi expert panel • Aim to recruit 50-80 experts • 12 countries x 5-10 people • Obtain members from a variety of backgrounds and positions; if possible, experts distributed across the four spheres • Global and/or local FSC expertise • Have a strategic view of food chain performance.
  13. 13. Delphi panel: 68 experts recruited (12 Policy, 15 Scientific, 24 Market, 17 Public) Belgium • 8 recruited • (2 Policy, 3 Market, 1 Scientific, 2 Public) Latvia • 5 recruited • (1 Policy, 2 Market, 1 Scientific, 1 Public) Serbia • 6 recruited • (1 Policy, 3 Market, 2 Scientific) Denmark • 15 invited • None recruited yet. Netherlands • 10 recruited • (1 Policy, 3 Market, 2 Scientific, 4 Public) Spain • 10 recruited • (3 Policy, 2 Market, 2 Scientific, 3 Public) France • 8 recruited • (1 Policy, 2 Market, 2 Scientific, 3 Public) Peru • 2 recruited • (1 Public, 1 Market) Switzerland • 4 recruited • (1 Policy, 2 Market, 1 Scientific) Italy • 7 recruited • (2 Policy, 3 Market, 2 Public) Senegal • 1 recruited • (Scientific) UK • 7 recruited • (3 Market, 3 Scientific, 1 Public)
  14. 14. Round 1 Questionnaire • Structure of the questionnaire. Five sections: – Section 1: basic expert details – Section 2: global/local distinctions; relative importance of different FSC actors – Section 3: 5 key factors most important to national food system now and in future – Section 4: methods used to assess performance – Section 5: opportunity for experts to comment • Vital to pilot the questionnaire 15
  15. 15. Round 1 Report • 46 responses (38 responses for round 2) • Criteria used to distinguish global and local FSC • Key actors in the FSC • Key factors currently affecting FSC performance • Key factors affecting FSC performance over the next 5-10 years
  16. 16. Criteria used to distinguish between global and local FSCs Sphere Distinctive characteristics identified Total SCI Geographical distance (Origin) Number of links in the chain 17 14 5 2 4 5 5 7 3 0 Power Relations 9 1 3 3 2 Quality of supply 4 1 1 1 1 Labelling 3 1 2 Price 3 1 2 Trends and food habits of consumers 3 2 1 Packaging 2 Traceability 1 Seasonality 1 Consumers targeted 1 SCI: Scientific, POL: Policy; PUB: Public; MAR: Market 0 POL PUB MAR 1 0 1 1 1 1
  17. 17. Key actors in the FSC 2013 Actors 2018 MEAN MODE IQR MEAN MODE IQR Consumers 4.72 3 3.25 5.34 5 2 Retailers 5.7 6 2 5.52 6 2 Food processors 4.73 5 2 4.7 5 2 Primary producers 3.93 4 3 4.25 4 3 World-level policy (e.g. WTO) 3.61 4 3 3.86 2 3.25 EU-level policy 4.5 5 3 4.77 5 2.25 National-level policy 4.34 4 2.25 4.16 2 3.25
  18. 18. Key factors affecting FSC performance • Five main elements: • 1) economic (price, costs of production, policy (national, wage and employment), and infrastructure); • 2) social (consumer awareness, food safety and health, culture and food habits, skills and knowledge of producers); • 3) acknowledgement of the asymmetry that exists in the FSC worldwide (“oligopoly of large retailer”); • 4) environmental concerns (input availability and the need for innovation); and • 5) ethical questions (transparency).
  19. 19. Round 1 results to examine within round 2 • • • • • • • • Consumer engagement Transparency Affordability and accessibility Trade relationships Nutritional quality Equity (in terms of fairness) Asymmetric power relations in FSCs The need for more integrated evaluation methodologies.
  20. 20. Table 1: Food chain performance statements Likelihood Theme Statements Consumers Importance Mean Mode IQR 1. Consumers will become more influential in the food supply chain in the future. 5.16 6 1.75 6.13 6 1 3.66 5 3 4.5 5 3 2.92 2 2 5.05 6 2 4. Ethics will increasingly inform consumer decisions. 4.11 4 2 5.47 6 2 5. EU and global food supply chain policies will continue to dominate national-level policies. 5.36 6 1 5.08 6 2 6. Global and local food supply chains will not be seen in opposition, but rather as complementary forces for achieving resilience and sustainability. 4.16 4 2 5.62 7 2 7. National policies will remain largely constraining sustainable models of food supply. 4.46 4 1 4.61 6 3 8. Current evaluations of the food supply chain give precedence to economic factors, in future they will need to be more integrated and systemic. 4.46 5 1 5.87 6 2 9. It will be necessary to account for all the resources used throughout the food supply chain (e.g. water and energy), when assessing its sustainability. 5.13 5 2 6.37 7 1 10. In future, the reduction of food waste will become an increasing priority within the food supply chain. 5.45 5 1 5.73 7 2 11. The quality of food will increasingly be assessed in relation to its nutritional content and health benefits. Power IQR 3. Price will no longer be the over-riding concern of consumers Food chain assessment Mode 2. Consumer choice will need to be constrained in future in order to help ensure food supply chain sustainability Policy Mean 4.82 5 2 5.6 7 2 12. Information and communications technology (ICT) will be a key asset in balancing power relations between international retailers and consumers. 5.03 6 2 5.08 6 2 13. Sustainable intensification will heighten power asymmetries within the food supply chain. 3.92 4 2 4.3 4 1 14. The third sector (for example, NGOs) will increasingly inform debates about the supply and consumption of food 5 5 1.75 5.42 5 1.75 agriculturally-oriented,
  21. 21. Ranking of food chain performance attributes at global and local levels Level G l o b a l L o c a l Attributes Overall mode Affordability Accessibility Trade Relationships Nutritional Quality Transparency Consumer Engagement 1 2 3 4 4 6 Asymmetrical Power Relations 7 Equity/Fairness Consumer Engagement Affordability 8 1 2 Accessibility Nutritional Quality Transparency 3 4 5 Equity/Fairness 6 Asymmetrical Power Relations 7 Trade Relationships 8
  22. 22. Conclusions on the use of Delphi Advantages: • Less effort required than for other qualitative methods such as attending meetings (?!) • More people than could practically be included in meaningful face-to-face discussions • Allows contributions from experts who are geographically dispersed • Removes the 'bandwagon effect of majority opinion' often found in group interactions.
  23. 23. Conclusions on the use of Delphi BUT: • Linguistic and cultural difficulties and the use of terminologies • The need for translation in some cases • Needs to be kept relatively straightforward • Crucial that it is piloted • Difficult to get continued engagement, and yet vital • Running the survey via Google Docs.
  24. 24. References Ilbery, B., Maye, D., Kneafsey, M., Jenkins, T. and Walkley, C. (2004). "Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK". Journal of Rural Studies 20 (3), pp. 331344. Okoli, C. and Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). "The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications". Information & Management 42 (1), pp. 15-29. Hasson, F., Keeney, S. and McKenna, H. (2000). "Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique". Journal of Advanced Nursing 32 (4), pp. 1008-1015. Frewer, L. J., Fischer, A. R. H., Wentholt, M. T. A., Marvin, H. J. P., Ooms, B. W., Coles, D. and Rowe, G. (2011). "The use of Delphi methodology in agrifood policy development: Some lessons learned". Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78 (9), pp. 1514-1525. Chamorro, A., Miranda, F. J., Rubio, S. and Valero, V. (2012). "Innovations and trends in meat consumption: An application of the Delphi method in Spain". Meat Science 92 pp. 816–822. Korten, F., De Caluwé, L. and Geurts, J. (2010). "The Future of Organization Development: A Delphi Study Among Dutch Experts". Journal of Change Management 10 (4), pp. 393–405. Gnatzy, T., Warth, J., von der Gracht, H. and Darkow, I.-L. (2011). "Validating an innovative real-time Delphi approach - A methodological comparison between real-time and conventional Delphi studies". Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78 (9), pp. 1681-1694. Rowe, G. and Wright, G. (2011). "The Delphi technique: Past, present, and future prospects — Introduction to the special issue". Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78 (9), pp. 1487-1490. Bigliardi, B. and Bottani, E. (2010) Performance measurement in the food supply chain: a balanced scorecard approach. Facilities, 28 (5/6), pp. 249-260
  25. 25. Thank you for your attention 26

×