PRESENTATION ON

PRESENTED BY
SIDDHARTH MISHRA

ROL.NO.:10DM010

PROGRAM:PGDM-A
CONTENTS
 INTRODUCTION
 GROUP DECISION-ADVT./DISADVT.
 VARIOUS GROUP DECISION TECH.
 NOMINAL GROUP DECISION TECH.
 ADVANTAGE & DISADVANTAGE
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCE
INTRODUCTION
 This technique was originally
developed by Delbecq,Van de Ven
and Gustafson in 1971, and has
been applied to adult education
program planning by Vedros .
 A nominal group technique is a
structured process originally
developed as an organizational
planning technique
 Group decisions:
advantages and disadvantages
+ Pooling of resources
 more information and
knowledge
 generates more alternatives
+ Several stakeholders involved
 increases acceptance
 increases legitimacy

- Time consuming
- Ambiguous responsibility
- Problems with group work
 Minority domination
 Unequal participation
DIFFERENT GROUP DECISION MAKING

Common Diversity-based
Information Bias Infighting

Groupthink Risky Shift

Group
Decision
Brainstorming Devil’s
Making Advocacy

Nominal Group Dialectical

Technique Inquiry
Delphi
Technique

Adapted from Exhibit 10-3: Group Decision-Making Phenomena—Pitfalls and Techniques

Nominal group technique (1/4)
 Organised group meetings for problem
identification, problem solving, program planning
 Used to eliminate the problems encountered in
small group meetings
 Balances interests
 Increases participation
 2-3 hours sessions
 6-12 members
 Larger groups divided in subgroups
Nominal group technique (2/4)
Step 1: Silent generation of ideas
 The leader presents questions to the group
 Individual responses in written format (5 min)
 Group work not allowed

Step 2: Recorded round-robin listing of ideas

 Each member presents an idea in turn
 All ideas are listed on a flip chart

Step 3: Brief discussion of ideas on the chart

 Clarifies the ideas  common understanding of the
problem
 Max 40 min
 Nominal group technique (3/4)
Step 4: Preliminary vote on priorities
 Each member ranks 5 to 7 most important ideas from the flip chart
and records them on separate cards
 The leader counts the votes on the cards and writes them on the chart

Step 5: Break
Step 6: Discussion of the vote
 Examination of inconsistent voting patterns

Step 7: Final vote

 More sophisticated voting procedures may be used here

Step 8: Listing and agreement on the prioritised items

ADVANTAGE-DISADVANTAGE
 Best for small group meetings:
 Fact finding
 Idea generation
 Search of problem or solution
 Not suitable for :
 Routine business
 Bargaining
 Problems with predetermined outcomes
 Settings where consensus is required
CONCLUSION
 Modification of NGT, undertaken by Bartunek
and Murnighan , 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
REFERENCE
 Helsinki University of Technology
Systems Analysis Laboratory (
http://www.eLearning.sal.hut.fi)
 http://www.wikipedia.com