Delphi Tutu2 Ptapio 050217


Published on

Petri Tapion tietoisku

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Delphi Tutu2 Ptapio 050217

  1. 1. Delphi applications Some problems and solutions Case: Traffic CO 2 Policy in Finland Petri Tapio Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki Finland Futures Research Centre
  2. 2. P. Tapio: TUTU 2, 17.2.2005 Delphi features Traditional Disaggregative <ul><li>Similarities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ideal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transparency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Iterativity </li></ul></ul>Best argument wins Anonymity of arguments Multiple rounds <ul><li>Differences </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Philosophy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Goal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feedback </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Statistical test </li></ul></ul>Consensus Accurate prediction Median & interquartiles ANOVA between rounds Dissensus Alternative scenarios All responses eg. Cluster analysis <ul><li>Extra in this study </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Case </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transparency after study </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Form of data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Role of manager </li></ul></ul>Individual expert Anonymity Questionnaire Passive Interest group No anonymity Questionnaire & interview Active
  3. 3. Delphi approaches P. Tapio: TUTU 2, 17.2.2005 Interest of knowledge Method, eg. Timing of investments Estimate a year when something happens New innovations Open question for new technologies Scenarios for ’old’ issues Give background data from the past and draw a line to the future Policy Delphi Probable and preferred future Argument Delphi Make them argue
  4. 4. Whatever approach you choose… <ul><li>The main problem is to get the panel involved, committed and to make them argue </li></ul>P. Tapio: TUTU 2, 17.2.2005
  5. 5. Buy our method 9999€… <ul><li>How to form scenarios that would be relevant for public decision-making? </li></ul><ul><li>Relevant considering… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the points of view of the interest groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the substance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the environment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Case: Traffic CO 2 policy for Finland </li></ul><ul><li>An intermediate between committee work and mathematical modelling </li></ul>P. Tapio: TUTU 2, 17.2.2005
  6. 6. Case: GDP, Road traffic and CO 2 from road traffic in Finland in 1970-1996 How about the future? P. Tapio: TUTU 2, 17.2.2005
  7. 7. Fourteen interest groups <ul><li>AKT Transport Workers’ Federation </li></ul><ul><li>AL Automobile and Touring Club of Finland </li></ul><ul><li>DODO Dodo-The Living Nature of the Future </li></ul><ul><li>ENE Traffic Policy Association Majority </li></ul><ul><li>LILI Traffic League </li></ul><ul><li>LM Ministry of Transport and Communications </li></ul><ul><li>LAL Bus Transport Federation </li></ul><ul><li>RHK Finnish Rail Administration </li></ul><ul><li>STY Finnish Road Association </li></ul><ul><li>TT The Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers </li></ul><ul><li>TL Finnish Road Administration </li></ul><ul><li>YM Ministry of the Environment </li></ul><ul><li>YTV * Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council /Transport. Dept. </li></ul><ul><li>ÖKKL * Finnish Oil and Gas Federation </li></ul>P. Tapio: TUTU 2, 17.2.2005
  8. 8. Delphi with two rounds <ul><li>Round I: Questionnaire </li></ul><ul><ul><li>drawing the lines for probable and preferable futures of GDP, road traffic volume and CO 2 emissions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>writing down open arguments for ’why’ and ’how’ </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Round II: Interview </li></ul><ul><ul><li>aspects of a thematic as well as a structured interview </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>quantitative estimates of the key factors, and qualitative arguments for ’why’ and ’how’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>open questions, counter-arguments </li></ul></ul>P. Tapio: TUTU 2, 17.2.2005
  9. 9. Posing questions: problematic  <ul><li>1) </li></ul><ul><li>Statement: Road traffic volume will increase by 50% up to 2025 </li></ul><ul><li>very probable ………………………….. very improbable </li></ul><ul><ul><li>___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ </li></ul></ul><ul><li>very desirable …………………………. very undesirable </li></ul><ul><li>___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ </li></ul><ul><li>2) </li></ul><ul><li>How many % will road traffic volume increase or decrease up to 2025? </li></ul><ul><li>Probable future: ____ </li></ul><ul><li>Preferable future: ____ </li></ul>P. Tapio: TUTU 2, 17.2.2005
  10. 10. Posing questions: problematic  <ul><li>3) </li></ul><ul><li>What is the percentual increase or decrease of road traffic volume up to 2025? </li></ul><ul><li>Probable future: ____ </li></ul><ul><li>Preferable future: ____ </li></ul>P. Tapio: TUTU 2, 17.2.2005
  11. 11. Posing questions – better  <ul><li>1) </li></ul><ul><li>How many % will road traffic volume increase or decrease up to 2015 and 2025 from 2005? Please indicate increase with + and decrease with –. </li></ul><ul><li>2015 2025 </li></ul><ul><li>Probable future: ____ ____ </li></ul><ul><li>Preferable future: ____ ____ </li></ul>P. Tapio: TUTU 2, 17.2.2005
  12. 12. Posing questions: better  <ul><li>2. Draw a line for the most probable future and the most preferable future of road traffic volume up to 2025 </li></ul>P. Tapio: TUTU 2, 17.2.2005
  13. 13. What will you do with the gathered data? <ul><li>Think about it before you gather it! </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Concentrate on statements or arguments? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gathering of authentic statements/arguments or content analysis? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quantitative data? Think about scales! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>do not use 5-Likert (or other ordinal scale) scale if you do not have to </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>use rather interval scale or relative scale </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>use only one or two scale types </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Feedback from the first round may include </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Answers from the previous round + same questions again </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Separate report and better questions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Each participant’s own answers related to others </li></ul></ul>P. Tapio: TUTU 2, 17.2.2005 ? ? ? ? ?
  14. 14. Reference <ul><li>Tapio, P. 2003. Disaggregative Policy Delphi: Using cluster analysis as a tool for systematic scenario formation, </li></ul><ul><li>Technological Forecasting and Social Change 70(1): 83-101. </li></ul>P. Tapio: TUTU 2, 17.2.2005