Nominal group technique

Revision as of 16:52, 9 May 2023

Abstract

Project management and program management involves a tedious process of coming up with a feasible solution to stakeholders’ needs. Any big project could be broken down in smaller task that would need a solution of their own. While a standard brainstorming technique could be used in such situations, there are certain occasions when it might not be the best solution and detrimental to reaching a working solution. The Nominal Group Technique is designed specifically for groups where opinions and expertise between members might differ and members of the working group have no prior experience in working with each other.

Origin

In 1971, Andre L. Delbecq and Andrew H. Van De Ven first developed and presented the idea of a nominal group in The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences and it targeted two functions: a) identifying strategic problems, b) developing appropriate and innovative programs to solve them.^[1] As suggested by its name, the Nominal group Technique is only ‘nominal’,^[2] since there is no interaction between group members and ranking of the ideas is performed on an individual basis. It has an extensive application in various fields including, education, business, social services and governmental organizations, but more specifically its importance can be observed when utilized in project management, change management, organizational development, performance evaluation and consumer research.

Definition

Nominal group technique (NGT) is a method used for group brainstorming in which each participant has an equal voice. It is especially effective when used within groups of 5-10 people and ensures that every member is engaged and the probability of reaching an agreement is highly increased. A particularity of this NGT is that it is proven effective in groups where tensions are high, groups where people are not used to working together or groups where some members may be seen as more senior and thus inhibit the voices of those with a lower status. Key difference between NGT and regular brainstorming is that it each member is supposed to come up with their solution, it prioritizes ideas and assigns weights to them, making it much easier to select the best ones. This way the members that otherwise might shy away from involvement in the brainstorming, are ensured to participate, rather than just having a few employees dominating the brainstorming session. An empirical study^[2] conducted on the effectiveness of the NGT has shown that the besides the aforementioned benefits, it also yields a larger number of ideas.

Application

Due to the nature of the NGT, it being more time consuming, requiring careful preparation and having strict requirements to its execution, it poses the question as to why would NGT be preferred to any other group brainstorming technique. Nancy R. Tague outlines in he book “The Quality Toolbox” that there are certain situations when the NGT functions better, namely being designed for cases:^[3]

• When some people are more vocal than others
• Some members think better in silence
• When there is concern about some members not participating
• When a group cannot easily generate a sufficient quantity of ideas
• When all or some group members are new to the team
• When the issue is controversial or there is heated conflict

Generally, it is recommended for a project manager to choose the NGT when the team he works with exhibits any of the above characteristics. The project manager should do an appropriate assessment of the issues that are to be addressed and decide whether a traditional brainstorming session could be more appropriate instead. The NGT is more effective and vital on projects of greater size, and longer periods, as the results of it are more likely to set the project on the correct path. The NGT therefore is an appropriate technique to be implemented in Project workshops, Risk assessments, Resource allocation, Analysis of project requirements, and arguably the most important part of any project management professional, in Decision making.

Structure

The nominal group technique is comprised of four stages:^[4]

Four phases of Nominal Group Technique

1. Individual idea generation
2. Round-robin
3. Group discussion
4. Ranking and voting

However, the standard procedure of the NGT follows the below seven steps:

1. Preparation
2. Generation of ideas by members
3. Idea registration
4. Discussion of ideas
5. Prioritization of ideas
6. Selection of the best solutions
7. Discussion of results

Methodology

Preparation

In contrast to the regular brainstorming session which could be done spontaneously, NGT requires a certain amount of time for preparation. It begins with the selection of individuals which will be involved, who are knowledgeable with the issue at hand. A room is prepared with a board, writing materials and a facilitator must be present who has prior experience in conducting or participating in previous nominal groups. The success of the nominal group reaching a decision lies in the ability of the facilitator to conduct such a meeting. It is imperative that the person conducting the NGT session is someone knowledgeable in the topic under examination, and fully comprehends the final outcomes and goal that are to be achieved as a result of the session. The manner and depth of the questions asked will dictate the extent of the discussion. In project management it is usually the Project Manager himself who will act as a facilitator or the Team Leader, who is the second in charge of the project.

Generation of ideas by members

After everything has been arranged and the meeting is in session, the members of the nominal group will be presented with the issue. Following that, members will generate their own ideas in silence on a paper. Any discussion between members is not allowed in order to avoid the possibility of groupthink.

Idea registration

Following the idea generation, the facilitator conducts a round-robin during which each member voices their idea on how to address the problem. Each idea is captured on a chart. It is acceptable for a member to not have a solution to propose, in which case he might choose to pass, however he should not do that for every round, as NGT implies involvement of all group members. This step is key in the nominal group technique and any negative influence upon a member’s solution-forming should not be allowed. For the nominal group session to be a success, a number a number of rules should be followed:

1. Criticism of other members’ ideas is prohibited
2. No evaluation of other people’s ideas - this step is designed specifically for idea generation only, no other actions should be undertaken during this time)
3. Quantity over quality – as the more ideas are suggested, the bigger the pool to later choose from. Feasibility of ideas is assessed at a later stage.

The round-robin is complete once each member has presented their solutions.

Discussion of ideas

Each idea is taken separately and given a larger attention to detail to ensure a better understanding of it by other members. If any of the ideas are similar, they may be combined together into a single one. Any wording of an idea can only be changed is its originator agrees. Ideas can be removed from the list, but only when agreed upon by unanimous decision. The facilitator should pay close attention to ensure that discussion does not turn in an argument, since the objective is clarification and understanding rather then settling conflicting viewpoints. It is not critical for participants to agree on all ideas and any remaining concerns and personal preferences will be recorded for future considerations.

Prioritization of ideas

The members vote on all solution to show which ones they consider more feasible. This can be done in many ways, but the most common one is assigning weights on a certain scale. The scale should not be to broad, rather a 3 or 5 point scale. The smallest number is allocated to the least feasible solution, while the greatest number is given to the most feasible one. The ranking of each member is registered on the chart for a better visualization of results. Selection of the best solution The weights are then summed up and the items with the highest total scores are considered to be the top choices. Discussion of results The final step is addressing the validity of the choices. Members of the NG are asked once again if they consider the chosen solutions to be the most feasible ones. They can also be asked if they would like to change any of the given rankings. Following the final adjustments, the facilitator announces the decision of the best solution based on the results reached by the nominal group.

Benefits

Ensures balanced and equal participation of all group members

Interactive groups can inhibit the performance and participation of some group members, as the usual "brainstorming" allows people to speak freely and impulsively, in which case generally only the more well-developed ideas get voiced. The NGT excludes such behavior by making it mandatory for all members to get involved in the process. The round-robin specifically ensures that well spoken (verbally active) members of the group do not monopolize the conversation. It is important to note that consensus does not equal the "correct" answer, ^[4] however as any brainstorming session, the outcome is the result that is perceived by everyone as being the best. The perfect answer can never be reached, but due to the NGT giving equal voice to all participants, the resulting outcome is more likely to take multiple aspect in consideration that otherwise would be ignored.

Generated ideas might have more creativity compared to those generated in interactive groups

According to researches "creativity can often be facilitated by following specific group processes" (Delbecq 1971), and a distinct feature of the nominal group technique is that it provides structure to the group meeting.

The number of ideas is increased compared to traditional interactive groups

Previous performed comparisons showed that nominal groups are able to come up with a larger number of solutions and a higher quality ones too, operating under fixed time periods. It has been speculated that if the main criteria for idea generation was the number of ideas or number of good ideas, the interaction between group members can become dysfunctional.

Prioritization and raking ensure that only the best ideas will be selected

The outcome of the NGT is quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative in a sense of voted-upon list of solutions. Qualitative because it involves an in-depth discussion during which critical information can surface.

Reduces the possibility of conflict, arguments, heated disagreements that are usually common in in-person meetings

All participants will feel a certain degree of accomplishment as each of them had something to contribute with and voice their views

Limitations

Suitability to problem

The NGT idea generation is done in written form. That makes it unsuitable for some problems that might require a longer and more elaborate solution involving graphics or other additional inputs.

Resource and time demanding

Similar to the above, writing answers down is also time consuming. The voting and ranking also requires additional time and thus it is not the best technique to use when a consensus has to be reached in a very limited amount of time.

Facilitator skills

It is mandatory for the facilitator of the nominal group to be someone knowledgeable in the subject at hand, and trained to conduct such a session. Therefore, the nominal group technique cannot be outsourced to be conducted by a third-party. The outcome of the NGT fully relies an the skills of the facilitator maintaining a grip on the session and stirring it in the right direction.

References:

1. Delbecq, Andre & Ven, Andrew. (1971). A Group Process Model For Problem Identification and Program Planning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 7. 466-492. 10.1177/002188637100700404.
2. Fox, W.M. (1989), "The Improved Nominal Group Technique (INGT)", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 20-27.
3. Islam, R. (2010). ‘Group decision making through nominal group technique: an empirical study’, J. International Business and Entrepreneurship Development, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.134–153.
4. Manera, Karine; Hanson, Camilla S.; Gutman, Talia; Tong, Allison. (2019) “Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences”, Sydney School of Public Health, pp. 737-750.
5. Tague, Nancy R. (2009). “The quality toolbox. Second Edition.”. ASQ Quality Press.

Notes

1. ↑ [1],Delbecq, Andre & Ven, Andrew. (1971). A Group Process Model For Problem Identification and Program Planning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 7. 466-492. 10.1177/002188637100700404.
2. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1} [2],Islam, R. (2010). ‘Group decision making through nominal group technique: an empirical study’, J. International Business and Entrepreneurship Development, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.137.
3. ↑ Tague, Nancy R. (2009). “The quality toolbox. Second Edition.”. ASQ Quality Press.
4. ↑ ^{4.0 4.1} [3],Manera, Karine; Hanson, Camilla S.; Gutman, Talia; Tong, Allison. (2019) “Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences”, Sydney School of Public Health, pp. 742.