Editing Delphi method (section)

==Key characteristics==
[[File:DELPHIST.png|thumb|right|The Delphi method communication structure]] 
The following key characteristics of the Delphi method help the participants to focus on the issues at hand and separate Delphi from other methodologies: in this technique a panel of experts is drawn from both inside and outside the organisation. The panel consists of experts having knowledge of the area requiring decision making.  Each expert is asked to make anonymous predictions.

===Anonymity of the participants===
Usually all participants remain anonymous. Their identity is not revealed, even after the completion of the final report. This prevents the authority, personality, or reputation of some participants from dominating others in the process. Arguably, it also frees participants (to some extent) from their personal biases, minimizes the "[[bandwagon effect]]" or "[[halo effect]]", allows free expression of opinions, encourages open critique, and facilitates admission of errors when revising earlier judgments.

=== Structuring of information flow ===
The initial contributions from the experts are collected in the form of answers to questionnaires and their comments to these answers. The panel director controls the interactions among the participants by processing the information and filtering out irrelevant content. This avoids the negative effects of face-to-face panel discussions and solves the usual problems of [[group dynamics]].

===Regular feedback===
The Delphi method allows participants to comment on the responses of others, the progress of the panel as a whole, and to revise their own forecasts and opinions in real time.

===Role of the facilitator===
The person coordinating the Delphi method is usually known as a ''facilitator'' or Leader, and facilitates the responses of their ''panel of experts'', who are selected for a reason, usually that they hold knowledge on an opinion or view. The facilitator sends out questionnaires, surveys etc. and if the panel of experts accept, they follow instructions and present their views. Responses are collected and analyzed, then common and conflicting viewpoints are identified. If consensus is not reached, the process continues through thesis and antithesis, to gradually work towards synthesis, and building consensus. 

During the past decades, facilitators have used many different measures and thresholds to measure the degree of consensus or dissent. A comprehensive literature review and summary is compiled in an article by von der Gracht.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = von der Gracht H | year = 2012 | title = Consensus Measurement in Delphi Studies - Review and Implications for Future Quality Assurance | journal = Technological Forecasting and Social Change | volume = 79 | issue = 8| pages = 1525–1536 | doi = 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013}}</ref>