The Delphi Method - James Kirwan
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
1 recomendación•12,899 vistas
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/
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a The Delphi Method - James Kirwan
Similar a The Delphi Method - James Kirwan (20)
Más de Countryside and Community Research Institute
Más de Countryside and Community Research Institute (20)
Último
Último (20)
The Delphi Method - James Kirwan
- 1. GLAMoURous Delphi James Kirwan, Damian Maye, Dilshaad Bundhoo and Dan Keech CCRI Seminar Series 13.02.2014
- 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
- 11. 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.
- 12. 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.
- 13. 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.
- 14. 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)
- 15. 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
- 16. 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
- 17. 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
- 18. 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
- 19. 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).
- 20. 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.
- 21. 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,
- 22. 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
- 23. 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.
- 24. 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.
- 25. 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
- 26. Thank you for your attention 26
Notas del editor
- Involves also: Damian, Dilshaad and Dan.
- To date, most FSC performance analysis has been ‘mono’ rather than ‘multi’ dimensional. E.g. huge focus on environmental performance and LCA. The Delphi Survey highlights the need for a more systematic and integrated approach to FSC assessment.Involves 15 partners and 10 European countries – 12 in allUK, Belgium, Denmark, NL, France, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Serbia, Latvia, Senegal and Peru‘General objective of the project is to integrate advancement in scientific knowledge about the impact of food chains with application of knowledge to practice to increase food chains sustainability through public policies and private strategies.’Key objectives: (no need to highlight as WP2 objectives follow on next slide)• To develop and validate a ‘performance criteria matrix’ for assessment and comparison of food chains operating at a range of geographical scales through analysis of how food chain impacts are communicated in different spheres of society.• To assess how performance is perceived by stakeholders in different national contexts through participatory assessment and multicriteria analysis of the different typologies of food chains.• The performance of food chains has multiple dimensions (economic, social, environmental, health, ethical)
- The CCRI’s job is to run WP2.Title:Scoping / framing: Analysing the communication of food chains and their performance.Just worth clarifying a few terms:Dimensions is self-explanatory.Spheres: A sphere is a space of communication characterised by actors, the media and discourses. Two spheres are typically identified in the literature : The market sphere, where individuals make judgements regarding commodities; and the public sphere, where citizens debate about common affairs. In addition with GLAMUR we have added: the scientific sphere and the policy sphere, as important socio-economic contexts where food chain performance is communicated. It is important to avoid conflating spheres with social actors (e.g. only associating producers with the market sphere). Spheres in this study are interpreted as arenas of interaction, where specific discourses are generated through communication between different actors and groups, and where discursive coalitions unfold. Each sphere thus represents an arena of interaction among actors (that could include, for example, producers, scientists, consumer groups). The key thing that differentiates between spheres is the objects around which communication is developed. In the public sphere the common object is ‘the common good’, in the market sphere the object is ‘commodities’, in the policy sphere the object is ‘policies’, and in the scientific sphere the object is ‘legitimate truth claims’. Attributes:The matrix should be populated with food chain performance attributes, not indicators. In this respect, an attribute can be defined as:A quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of something.
- This is stated as being the rationale for WP2, and yet the common understanding will not necessarily have been developed and substantiated by scientific evidence (will it?).
- Clearly this mirrors the WP objectives and rationale.Along with the 12 National Reports,this is the key deliverable from this WP.It has the following elements. Identify the principal discourses and controversies concerning global and local FSC in the 12 countriesDraw out the diversity of meanings and perceptions associated with the performance of both global and local FSC in relation to their socio-economic and socio-institutional settings and also reflecting any significant sectoral differencesIdentify the potential for reaching a common understanding of the relative performance of FSCDevelop a multi-criteria performance matrix that incorporates the performance of both global and local FSC in the public, market and scientific spheres against a range of dimensions (economic, social, environmental, health and ethical).
- 24 attributes.This is a key output from this WP.I’m putting the cart before the horse, but hopefully this will help to orientate you.
- Logically, I should have told you about this earlier, but I wanted to show you how the Delphi survey fits into the approach that we have taken.Task 2.2 leads to 12 National reports, some of which were over 100 pages long10-15 interviews were conducted as part of that process.The Delphi survey feeds into the comparative report.
- In essence, the Delphi survey is a group facilitation technique that is designed to gradually build individualised opinion into group consensus, or at least to begin to align meanings amongst those involved. Part of this involves exploring how underlying assumptions or perspectives might lead to differing judgements as to the performance of particular food supply chains.A Delphi survey involves anonymous forecasts and issues being made by those involved, across three rounds of interaction. Panel members will receive feedback between rounds. This will allow for learning within the panel and the development of understanding. The first round is relatively unstructured, allowing all involved relatively free scope to elaborate the issues they see as being important. As such, many of the questions are open ended. Following analysis by ourselves, the second round will be more quantitative in nature, asking you to rank the importance of particular aspects of food chain performance that became apparent within round one. A third round will then be conducted, which is again quantitative in nature, intended to further refine the findings of round two.
- The main features of the Delphi method are (these are usefully set out in Ilbery et al. 2004):Statistical aggregation – the result is typically given as a group median. The spread of forecasts can be used as a measure of the consensus reached.
- This figuresummarises the main steps for the GLAMUR Delphi. The main steps are:Identifying, contacting and recruiting participants;Designing and circulating the first-round questionnaire;Producing feedback from the first round;Designing and circulating the second-round questionnaireAnalysing the results of the second round (we will have three rounds, so 3-5 is repeated);Preparing a final presentation/set of forecasts.Round 1 usually contains a number of open-ended questionsRound 2 and subsequent rounds involve more closed questions.
- The key advantages of Delphi are (taken from the guidelines for recruitment used in 'suppliers':Its validity as a forecasting tool has been proved and it has been used successfully by other researchers to forecast changes in the food industry (e.g. Rodriguez-Diaz, 2000).Less effort required from meetings than is required from other qualitative methods such as attending meetings or the nominal group technique.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.The systematic procedures, properly conducted, should result in objective findings.
- The Delphi exercise forms Task 2.4 of WP2. It aims to facilitate an exchange of information between international food chain experts aboutglobal and local food chains.It is a group facilitation technique that is designed to gradually build individualised opinion into group consensus, or at least to begin to align meanings amongst those involved. Part of this involves exploring how underlying assumptions or perspectives might lead to differing judgements as to the performance of particular food supply chains.More specifically,the aim is to forecast what will need to be assessed in the future when judging the performance of both local and global food supply chains in different national food systems, in order to help ensure their resilience and security.Crucially,the Delphi exercise will enable us to capture expert perceptions of food chain performance, in relation to global and local foods.
- Aim to recruit 50-80 experts from across EuropeAt the last meetingwe agreed we needed more than this – useful to have some names in reserve if those initially contacted declined the invitation (Agreed5-10 from 12 countries).Keen to obtain members from a variety of backgrounds and positionsIf possible, experts distributed across the four spheres.Global and local FSC expertise – capture both. Recruitment Criteria:Obtain members from a variety of backgrounds and positions. We want a good distribution of experts across the four spheres (public, market, scientific and policy).We want experts who have an interest in global and/or local food chains.We want experts whose knowledge/experience will be useful to the study.We want experts who have a strategic view of food chain performance.
- This table provides a detailed breakdown of Delphi experts recruited (last updated 6th Sept 2013)We have recruited 68 Delphi experts, which is excellentExperts are well distributed across the spheres. The breakdown is as follows (although not always easy to decipher exactly which sphere expert belongs – ask teams to check / confirm):Policy: 12Market: 24Scientific: 15Public: 17Some countries are better represented than others (Spain, The Netherlands and Belgium vs. Peru, Senegal, for e.g.); only Denmark to recruitOverall, a very good range of experts. Reiterate thanks to partners for their efforts recruiting.
- Round 1 usually contains a number of open-ended questions. Maintained this. Tried to keep as simple as possible – focus on experts national food system and distinctions between global and local within; multi-dimensionality of performance definition. Piloted with 2 UK experts.Five sections to the questionnaire: The first section asks for your name and country. The second section is concerned with identifying how expertsdistinguish between global and local food chains in theircountry; also asked torate - on a 7-point scale - the relative importance of different actors within theirnational food system, both currently and in five years time.The third section asks expertsto list the five key factors that theybelieve are the most important to the performance of their national food system currently, and to then list up to five key drivers that may affect the performance of theirnational food system over the next 5-10 years. The fourth section is concerned with identifying methods that are currently used to assess performance of theirnational food system, and to consider whether there is a need for other methods to be considered. Fifth section. Due to the multi-national nature of thesurvey, we endeavoured to keep it relatively uncomplicated. This has involved restricting our area of questioning. Experts can use this section to raise any other issues theyfeel are important in this context, including drawing our attention to any areas that may need to be considered in subsequent rounds of the Delphi.
- I will then go on to provide some examples.
- No suggestions were given in the schedule – the experts came up with these themselves.In summary, the distinction between global and local food supply chains were characterized mainly by:1) the geographical distance and origin of the food constituents (ingredients); 2) the number of intermediaries in the food supply chain (FSC), in terms of proximity between producers and consumers; and 3) power relations, and who the most influential actors are in the FSC. However, as one participant commented, global and local FSCs should not be seen as in opposition, but rather as complementary forces in the context of globalized ecological and socio-economic crises.A number of panelists commented that the geographical distance covered by a chain is not the same as the number of links or intermediaries. It was also noted that the notion of geographical distance encompassed both physical proximity (>7 mentions), and origin (>8 mentions). Underpinning comments about the importance of geographical distance is a social dimension, wherein “localness” is said to “promote social relationships” thereby enhancing consumer awareness of where the product is from and concomitantly producer awareness of consumer expectations.Particularly within the policy and public spheres there is marked reference to asymmetrical power relations in FSCs, which is seen to adversely affect the performance of local chains: “The local food supply chain has suffered from the growth of the global food supply chain. The local infrastructure necessary for local food chains has been decimated” (UK03PUB).
- Key points to note from Table 2:Consumers: there is a broad consensus amongst experts that consumers will become more important over time.Retailers are considered as influential actors throughout.Food processors and primary producers have almost the same importance overall, although in the case of primary producers there is more disagreement amongst respondents, as shown by the relatively high IQR.Policy-wise: there is less consensus among panel members about influence. Countries differ considerably in terms of their geographical, social and economic contexts, which may help explain this. For instance, the relatively more economically developed countries have different policy requirements to developing countries. While the latter focus more on the need for tailored national policies (Peru, Senegal), the former are mostly concerned with EU-level policies, since they influence their local economies directly. There is however consensus that EU-level policy will significantly influence the performance of FSCs.
- Experts identified a range of factors that affect FSC performance. The key factors can be categorised into four main perspectives, which are repeated across the 12 countries and 4 spheres: 1) economic (price (10), 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) the acknowledgement of the asymmetry that exists in the FSC worldwide (“oligopoly of large retailer”); 4) environmental concerns (input availability and the need for innovation); and5) ethical questions (transparency). The analysis also shows that across the countries the main perspective from which performance is judged is the economic dimension, with the social dimension second, health and environmental issues third in the list of priorities, with ethical issues only rarely considered.
- Coming from our analysis above, we have identified a number of key attributes and issues that we will explore further in the round 2 survey. These include: consumer engagement; transparency; affordability and accessibility; trade relationships; nutritional quality; equity (in terms of fairness); asymmetric power relations in FSCs; and the need for more integrated evaluation methodologies. This report will thus help to inform the content and the responses experts are asked to provide in round 2.We did this through developing a range of food chain performance statements.
- Experts were asked to rate (a) the likelihood of occurrence and (b) the importance of 14 statements (on two 7-point scales, where 1 = the least important / likely and 7 = the most important / likely) as potentially significant components that need to be considered in order to improve food chain performance in the future. The statements addressed four key themes (consumers, policy, food chain assessment and power), each of which was identified as a key food chain performance area by the panel in the first round of the Delphi survey. As a general comment, a fair degree of consensus is evident, as indicated by the generally low IQRs. In terms of importance (see Table 1), statement 9, about resource use, has the highest mean (6.37). Most panellists viewed this as being the highest food chain performance priority. Statement 1, about the influence of consumers, is also thought to be very important in the future, as is statement 8 and the need for more integrated and systemic evaluations that go beyond the economic. In relation to the likelihood statements, statements 10 and 5, about food waste and EU and global policies respectively, stand out: there was general agreement that food waste will likely become a future key priority; there was also general acceptance that EU and global policies are likely to dominate national food chain discussions. Due to relatively low IQR, decided that sufficient consensus and no need for a round 3.
- It is evident from table 2 that the attributes in most cases are ranked quite similarly between the local and global levels. The two attributes where scoring differs are in relation to trade relationships (lower priority for local and higher for global) and consumer engagement (higher priority for local and lower for global). At the global level, affordability and accessibility are ranked 1 and 2. For local food chains consumer engagement is ranked 1, with affordability ranked 2 and accessibility ranked 3. Both types of chain therefore place considerable importance on affordability and accessibility.
- Advantages:Less effort required than for other qualitative methods such as attending meetings (not in our experience!)More people can participate in a Delphi than could practically be included in meaningful face-to-face discussionsAllows contributions from experts who are geographically dispersed and cannot be brought togetherRemoves the 'bandwagon effect of majority opinion' often found in group interactions.
- BUT:Linguistic and cultural difficulties and the use of terminologiesThe need for translation in some cases (also some can read in English, but not write very well)Needs to be kept relatively straightforward. In some ways needs to be based on the lowest common denominator.Crucial that it is piloted.Difficult to get continued engagement and yet vital.Running the survey via Google Docs. Less passive than email, but problem extracting data and providing access.