Editing Delphi method (section)

===Use in policy-making===
From the 1970s, the use of the Delphi technique in public policy-making introduces a number of methodological innovations. In particular:
* the need to examine several types of items (not only ''forecasting'' items but, typically, ''issue'' items, ''goal'' items, and ''option'' items) leads to introducing different evaluation scales which are not used in the standard Delphi. These often include ''desirability'', ''feasibility'' (technical and political) and ''probability'', which the analysts can use to outline different scenarios: the ''desired'' scenario (from desirability), the ''potential'' scenario (from feasibility) and the ''expected'' scenario (from probability);
* the complexity of issues posed in public policy-making tends to increase weighting of panelists’ arguments, such as soliciting pros and cons for each item along with new items for panel consideration;
* likewise, methods measuring panel evaluations tend to increase sophistication such as multi-dimensional scaling.

Further innovations come from the use of computer-based (and later web-based) Delphi conferences. According to Turoff and Hiltz,<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Turoff M, Hiltz SR | chapter = Computer based Delphi processes. | veditors = Adler M, Ziglio E| title = Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. | date = 1996 | pages = 56–85 }}</ref> in computer-based Delphis: 
* the iteration structure used in the paper Delphis, which is divided into three or more discrete rounds, can be replaced by a process of continuous (roundless) interaction, enabling panelists to change their evaluations at any time;
* the statistical group response can be updated in real-time, and shown whenever a panelist provides a new evaluation.

According to Bolognini,<ref name="Bolognini">{{cite book | vauthors = Bolognini M |title=Democrazia elettronica. Metodo Delphi e politiche pubbliche (Electronic Democracy. Delphi Method and Public Policy-Making) |year=2001 |location=Rome |publisher=Carocci Editore |language=it |isbn=978-88-430-2035-5}}. A summary is also in {{cite book |title=The Millennium Project. Futures Research Methodology |year=2009 | veditors = Glenn JC, Gordon TJ |chapter=23 |location=New York |publisher=Amer Council for the United Nations |isbn=978-0-9818941-1-9 }}</ref> web-based Delphis offer two further possibilities, relevant in the context of interactive policy-making and [[e-democracy]]. These are: [[File:HYPERD.GIF|thumb|right|A web-based communication structure (Hyperdelphi)<ref name="Bolognini"/>]]
* the involvement of a large number of participants,
* the use of two or more panels representing different groups (such as policy-makers, experts, citizens), which the administrator can give tasks reflecting their diverse roles and expertise, and make them to interact within ad hoc communication structures. For example, the  ''policy community'' members (policy-makers and experts) may interact as part of the ''main conference'' panel, while they receive inputs from a ''virtual community'' (citizens, associations etc.) involved in a ''side conference''. These web-based variable communication structures, which he calls ''Hyperdelphi'' (HD), are designed to make Delphi conferences "more fluid and adapted to the hypertextual and interactive nature of digital communication".
One successful example of a (partially) web-based policy Delphi is the five-round Delphi exercise (with 1,454 contributions) for the creation of the [[eLAC Action Plans]] in Latin America. It is believed to be the most extensive online participatory policy-making foresight exercise in the history of intergovernmental processes in the developing world at this time.<ref name="HilbertMilesOthmer2009"/> In addition to the specific policy guidance provided, the authors list the following lessons learned: "(1) the potential of Policy Delphi methods to introduce transparency and accountability into public decision-making, especially in developing countries; (2) the utility of foresight exercises to foster multi-agency networking in the development community; (3) the usefulness of embedding foresight exercises into established mechanisms of representative democracy and international multilateralism, such as the United Nations; (4) the potential of online tools to facilitate participation in resource-scarce developing countries; and (5) the resource-efficiency stemming from the scale of international foresight exercises, and therefore its adequacy for resource-scarce regions."<ref name="HilbertMilesOthmer2009"/>