Nominal group technique

Last updated

The nominal group technique (NGT) is a group process involving problem identification, solution generation, and decision-making. [1] It can be used in groups of many sizes, who want to make their decision quickly, as by a vote, but want everyone's opinions taken into account (as opposed to traditional voting, where only the largest group is considered). [2] The method of tallying is difference. First, every member of the group gives their view of the solution, with a short explanation. Then, duplicate solutions are eliminated from the list of all solutions, and the members proceed to rank the solutions, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and so on.

Contents

Some facilitators will encourage the sharing and discussion of reasons for the choices made by each group member, thereby identifying common ground and a plurality of ideas and approaches. This diversity often allows the creation of a hybrid idea (combining parts of two or more ideas), often found to be even better than those ideas being initially considered.

In the basic method, the numbers each solution receives are totaled, and the solution with the highest (i.e. most favored) total ranking is selected as the final decision. There are variations in how this technique is used. For example, it can identify strengths versus areas in need of development, rather than be used as a decision-making voting alternative. Also, options do not always have to be ranked but may be evaluated more subjectively.

This technique was originally developed by Andre Delbecq and Andrew H. Van de Ven, [1] [3] and has been applied to adult education program planning by Vedros, [4] and has also been employed as a useful technique in curriculum design and evaluation in educational institutions. [5] [6] [7] [8]

Taking cue from the technique, Tunde Varga-Atkins, Jaye McIsaac and Ian Willis [9] found that a two-stage combination of focus group and the nominal group technique, coined as nominal focus group, was particularly effective as an evaluation method.

Effects

NGT has been shown to enhance one or more dimensions of effectiveness of decision-making groups. Requiring individuals to write down their ideas silently and independently prior to a group discussion increased the number of solutions generated by groups. [1] [3] Round-robin polling also resulted in a larger number of inputs and fostered more equal participation. [4] The increased number of heterogeneous inputs led to high-quality decisions. [10]

As compared to interacting groups the NGT groups provide more unique ideas, more balanced participation between group members, increased feelings of accomplishment, and greater satisfaction with idea quality and group efficiency. [11]

These findings are consistent with a 1958 study [12] which found that, in response to three different problems requiring creative thinking, the number of ideas produced by "nominal groups" (whose members were actually working alone) was greater than the number of ideas produced by real, face-to-face groups. The ideas generated by the nominal and real groups were rated qualitatively and for originality, and the nominal groups scored better on both of those measures.

Usage

The nominal group technique is particularly useful:[ citation needed ]

Standard procedure

Routinely, the NGT involves five stages:

  1. Introduction and explanation: The facilitator welcomes the participants and explains to them the purpose and procedure of the meeting.
  2. Silent generation of ideas: The Facilitator provides each participant with a sheet of paper with the question to be addressed and ask them to write down all ideas that come to mind when considering the question. During this period, the facilitator asks participants not to consult or discuss their ideas with others. This stage lasts approximately 10 minutes.
  3. Sharing ideas: The Facilitator invites participants to share the ideas they have generated. She records each idea on a flip chart using the words spoken by the participant. The round robin process continues until all ideas have been presented. There is no debate about items at this stage and participants are encouraged to write down any new ideas that may arise from what others share. This process ensures all participants get an opportunity to make an equal contribution and provides a written record of all ideas generated by the group. This stage may take 15–30 minutes.
  4. Group discussion: Participants are invited to seek verbal explanation or further details about any of the ideas that colleagues have produced that may not be clear to them. The facilitator's task is to ensure that each person is allowed to contribute and that discussion of all ideas is thorough without spending too long on a single idea. It is important to ensure that the process is as neutral as possible, avoiding judgment and criticism. The group may suggest new items for discussion and combine items into categories, but no ideas should be eliminated. This stage lasts 30–45 minutes.
  5. Voting and ranking: This involves prioritizing the recorded ideas in relation to the original question. Following the voting and ranking process, immediate results in response to the question is available to participants so the meeting concludes having reached a specific outcome.

The number of nominal group meetings to be held will depend on the nature of the question and accessibility to the key stakeholders best suited to help address the problem.

Advantages and disadvantages

One major advantage of NGT is that it avoids two problems caused by group interaction. First, some members are reluctant to suggest ideas because they are concerned about being criticized, or are reticent and shy. Second, some members are reluctant to create conflict in groups. (Many people want to maintain a pleasant climate.) NGT overcomes these problems (e.g. [13] ). NGT has the clear advantage in ensuring relatively equal participation. It may also, in many cases be a time-saving technique. Other advantages include producing a large number of ideas and providing a sense of closure that is often not found in less-structured group methods.[ citation needed ]

A major disadvantage of NGT is that the method lacks flexibility by being able to deal with only one problem at a time. Also, there must be a certain amount of conformity on the part of the members involved in NGT. Everyone must feel comfortable with the amount of structure involved. Another disadvantage is the amount of time needed to prepare for the activity. There is no spontaneity involved with this method. Facilities must be arranged and carefully planned. Opinions may not converge in the voting process, cross-fertilization of ideas may be constrained, and the process may appear to be too mechanical.[ citation needed ]

One of the key issues about 'nominal' group technique is that it does not depend on normal group processes. It is a method to work with a collection of people and involve them in decision making but does not depend on existing group processes. This is according to the originators an advantage in decision making using this tool.

Adaptation for ill-structured problems

Modification of NGT, undertaken by Bartunek and Murnighan, [14] helps to deal with ill-structured problems. Normal ideas are generated and listed, followed by the facilitator questioning if the ideas are relevant to the same problem. If not, the problem is said to be ill-structured, and the ideas generated are clustered into coherent groups. These clusters of ill-structured ideas are then treated as problems in their own right, and the NGT procedure is applied to them. Regular breaks are taken by the participants to ensure that the group feels they are still working on the original problem.[ citation needed ]

See also

Footnotes

  1. 1 2 3 Delbecq, A. L.; VandeVen, A. H (1971). "A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning". Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 7 (4): 466–91. doi:10.1177/002188637100700404. S2CID   146263524.
  2. ↑ Dunnette, M D.; Campbell, J. D; Jaastad, K. (1963). "The Effect of Group Participation on Brainstorming Effectiveness for Two Industrial Samples". Journal of Applied Psychology. 47: 30–37. doi:10.1037/h0049218.
  3. 1 2 Delbecq A. L., VandeVen A. H., and Gustafson D. H., (1975). "Group techniques for program planning : a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes", Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman and Company.
  4. 1 2 Vedros K. R., (1979). "The Nominal Group Technique is a Participatory, Planning Method In Adult Education", Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
  5. ↑ O'Neil, M. J.; Jackson, L. (1983). "Nominal Group Technique: A process for initiating curriculum development in higher education". Studies in Higher Education. 8 (2): 129–138. doi:10.1080/03075078312331378994.
  6. ↑ Chapple, M.; Murphy, R. (1996). "The Nominal Group Technique: extending the evaluation of students" teaching and learning experiences". Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 21 (2): 147–160. doi:10.1080/0260293960210204.
  7. ↑ Lomax, P.; McLeman, P. (1984). "The uses and abuses of nominal group technique in polytechnic course evaluation". Studies in Higher Education. 9 (2): 183–190. doi:10.1080/03075078412331378834.
  8. ↑ Lloyd-Jones, Fowell; Bligh (1999). "The use shweta e as an evaluative tool in medical undergraduate education". Medical Education. 33 (1): 8–13. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00288.x. PMID   10211270. S2CID   22722423.
  9. ↑ Varga-Atkins, T.; McIsaac, J.; Willis, I. (2017). "Focus Group meets Nominal Group Technique: an effective combination for student evaluation?". Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 54 (4): 289–300. doi:10.1080/14703297.2015.1058721. S2CID   142680233.
  10. ↑ Gustafson, D.H.; Shukla, R.K.; Delbecq, A. L.; Walster, G.W. (1973). "A comparative study of differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and nominal groups". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 9 (2): 280–291. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(73)90052-4.
  11. ↑ VandeVen, A. H; Delbecq, A. L. (1974). "The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes". The Academy of Management Journal. 17 (4): 605–621. doi:10.5465/255641.
  12. ↑ Taylor, D.W.; Berry, P.C.; Block, C.H. (1958). "Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking?". Administrative Science Quarterly. 3 (1): 23–47. doi:10.2307/2390603. hdl: 2027/umn.31951002126441i . JSTOR   2390603.
  13. ↑ Chapple, M.; Murphy, R. (1996). "The Nominal Group Technique: extending the evaluation of students' teaching and learning experiences". Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 21 (2): 147–160. doi:10.1080/0260293960210204.
  14. ↑ Bartunek, J.M.; Murnighan, J.K. (1984). "The nominal group technique: Expanding the basic procedure and underlying assumptions". Group and Organization Studies. 9 (3): 417–432. doi:10.1177/105960118400900307. S2CID   143789542.

Further reading

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consensus decision-making</span> Group decision-making aiming for universal agreement

Consensus decision-making or consensus process is a group decision-making process in which participants develop and decide on proposals with the goal of achieving broad acceptance, defined by its terms as form of consensus. The focus on establishing agreement of at least the majority or the supermajority and avoiding unproductive opinion differentiates consensus from unanimity, which requires all participants to support a decision. Consensus decision-making in a democracy is consensus democracy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Decision-making</span> Cognitive process to choose a course of action or belief

In psychology, decision-making is regarded as the cognitive process resulting in the selection of a belief or a course of action among several possible alternative options. It could be either rational or irrational. The decision-making process is a reasoning process based on assumptions of values, preferences and beliefs of the decision-maker. Every decision-making process produces a final choice, which may or may not prompt action.

The Delphi method or Delphi technique is a structured communication technique or method, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method that relies on a panel of experts. The technique can also be adapted for use in face-to-face meetings, and is then called mini-Delphi. Delphi has been widely used for business forecasting and has certain advantages over another structured forecasting approach, prediction markets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Problem-based learning</span> Learner centric pedagogy

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered pedagogy in which students learn about a subject through the experience of solving an open-ended problem found in trigger material. The PBL process does not focus on problem solving with a defined solution, but it allows for the development of other desirable skills and attributes. This includes knowledge acquisition, enhanced group collaboration and communication.

Creative problem-solving (CPS) is the mental process of searching for an original and previously unknown solution to a problem. To qualify, the solution must be novel and reached independently. The creative problem-solving process was originally developed by Alex Osborn and Sid Parnes. Creative problem solving (CPS) is a way of using creativity to develop new ideas and solutions to problems. The process is based on separating divergent and convergent thinking styles, so that one can focus their mind on creating at the first stage, and then evaluating at the second stage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brainstorming</span> Group creativity technique

Brainstorming is a creativity technique in which a group of people interact to suggest ideas spontaneously in response to a prompt. Stress is typically placed on the volume and variety of ideas, including ideas that may seem outlandish or "off-the-wall". Ideas are noted down during the activity, but not assessed or critiqued until later. The absence of criticism and assessment is intended to avoid inhibiting participants in their idea production. The term was popularized by advertising executive Alex Faickney Osborn in the classic work Applied Imagination (1953).

Scenario planning, scenario thinking, scenario analysis, scenario prediction and the scenario method all describe a strategic planning method that some organizations use to make flexible long-term plans. It is in large part an adaptation and generalization of classic methods used by military intelligence.

Ideation is the creative process of generating, developing, and communicating new ideas, where an idea is understood as a basic element of thought that can be either visual, concrete, or abstract. Ideation comprises all stages of a thought cycle, from innovation, to development, to actualization. Ideation can be conducted by individuals, organizations, or crowds. As such, it is an essential part of the design process, both in education and practice.

Creativity techniques are methods that encourage creative actions, whether in the arts or sciences. They focus on a variety of aspects of creativity, including techniques for idea generation and divergent thinking, methods of re-framing problems, changes in the affective environment and so on. They can be used as part of problem solving, artistic expression, or therapy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Multiple-criteria decision analysis</span> Operations research that evaluates multiple conflicting criteria in decision making

Multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) or multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a sub-discipline of operations research that explicitly evaluates multiple conflicting criteria in decision making. It is also known as multiple attribute utility theory, multiple attribute value theory, multiple attribute preference theory, and multi-objective decision analysis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Problem solving</span> Approaches to problem solving

Problem solving is the process of achieving a goal by overcoming obstacles, a frequent part of most activities. Problems in need of solutions range from simple personal tasks to complex issues in business and technical fields. The former is an example of simple problem solving (SPS) addressing one issue, whereas the latter is complex problem solving (CPS) with multiple interrelated obstacles. Another classification of problem-solving tasks is into well-defined problems with specific obstacles and goals, and ill-defined problems in which the current situation is troublesome but it is not clear what kind of resolution to aim for. Similarly, one may distinguish formal or fact-based problems requiring psychometric intelligence, versus socio-emotional problems which depend on the changeable emotions of individuals or groups, such as tactful behavior, fashion, or gift choices.

Cooperative learning is an educational approach which aims to organize classroom activities into academic and social learning experiences. There is much more to cooperative learning than merely arranging students into groups, and it has been described as "structuring positive interdependence." Students must work in groups to complete tasks collectively toward academic goals. Unlike individual learning, which can be competitive in nature, students learning cooperatively can capitalize on one another's resources and skills. Furthermore, the teacher's role changes from giving information to facilitating students' learning. Everyone succeeds when the group succeeds. Ross and Smyth (1995) describe successful cooperative learning tasks as intellectually demanding, creative, open-ended, and involve higher-order thinking tasks. Cooperative learning has also been linked to increased levels of student satisfaction.

Futures techniques used in the multi-disciplinary field of futurology by futurists in Americas and Australasia, and futurology by futurologists in EU, include a diverse range of forecasting methods, including anticipatory thinking, backcasting, simulation, and visioning. Some of the anticipatory methods include, the delphi method, causal layered analysis, environmental scanning, morphological analysis, and scenario planning.

Participatory GIS (PGIS) or public participation geographic information system (PPGIS) is a participatory approach to spatial planning and spatial information and communications management.

Group decision-making is a situation faced when individuals collectively make a choice from the alternatives before them. The decision is then no longer attributable to any single individual who is a member of the group. This is because all the individuals and social group processes such as social influence contribute to the outcome. The decisions made by groups are often different from those made by individuals. In workplace settings, collaborative decision-making is one of the most successful models to generate buy-in from other stakeholders, build consensus, and encourage creativity. According to the idea of synergy, decisions made collectively also tend to be more effective than decisions made by a single individual. In this vein, certain collaborative arrangements have the potential to generate better net performance outcomes than individuals acting on their own. Under normal everyday conditions, collaborative or group decision-making would often be preferred and would generate more benefits than individual decision-making when there is the time for proper deliberation, discussion, and dialogue. This can be achieved through the use of committee, teams, groups, partnerships, or other collaborative social processes.

6-3-5 Brainwriting is a group-structured brainstorming technique aimed at aiding innovation processes by stimulating creativity developed by Bernd Rohrbach who originally published it in a German sales magazine, the Absatzwirtschaft, in 1968.

Participative decision-making (PDM) is the extent to which employers allow or encourage employees to share or participate in organizational decision-making. According to Cotton et al., the format of PDM could be formal or informal. In addition, the degree of participation could range from zero to 100% in different participative management (PM) stages.

Real-time Delphi (RTD) is an advanced form of the Delphi method. The advanced method "is a consultative process that uses computer technology" to increase efficiency of the Delphi process.

In computer supported brainstorming, team members contribute their ideas through electronic means either synchronously or asynchronously. The brainstorming software selected by the team mediates the individual interactions and helps to organize and shape the products of the brainstorming session. Computer supported brainstorming can be implemented using a wide variety of electronic technologies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Problem structuring methods</span>

Problem structuring methods (PSMs) are a group of techniques used to model or to map the nature or structure of a situation or state of affairs that some people want to change. PSMs are usually used by a group of people in collaboration to create a consensus about, or at least to facilitate negotiations about, what needs to change. Some widely adopted PSMs include

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.