Group Decision-Making Methods for Innovation

Innovation almost never happens on its own; even if a single individual comes up with the first idea, it is usually group decisions that decide whether or not that idea is improved upon, approved of, and finally put into action. The Delphi technique and the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) are useful since both provide a method for gathering expert input while at the same time avoiding some of the problems that may arise in normal group discussions.

Delphi Technique

The Delphi method uses several rounds of questionnaires. Participants respond individually, receive a summary of the group’s feedback, and then have an opportunity to reconsider their views in later rounds. In the CII-CARE study, three rounds of the Delphi method came after a meeting of an NGT group in order to validate a competency framework, the anonymous nature of the feedback enabling the experts to adjust their opinions without facing direct pressure from their peers (Nachtergaele et al., 2026). A similar three-round approach was used to develop expert rules for a digital twin model of acute stroke care. Statements that did not reach consensus were revised and returned to the panel for further consideration (Dang et al., 2023).

Nominal Group Technique

NGT results in greater interaction, although this takes place in a structured order. The procedure involves a phase of silent idea generation, followed by round-robin sharing, clarification, and then individual ranking or scoring (Riley-Bennett et al., 2024). When adapted for a virtual environment, NGT was facilitated using videoconferencing, shared documents, and online scoring, and the participants generally said that they were at ease in contributing and felt their opinions were being heard. The method can also be completed in a shorter period of time and places greater emphasis on idea generation than Delphi (Riley-Bennett et al., 2024).

Comparing the Methods

Both methods organize participation and decrease the chances of a single person taking control of the decision-making process, although they do so in different ways (Nachtergaele et al., 2026). In the Delphi method, participants respond independently and anonymously, whereas in NGT they are allowed to hear and build upon each other’s ideas with the facilitator managing the order of discussion (Nachtergaele et al., 2026). The CII-CARE study combined both approaches by having structured discussions during the NGT phase and then carrying out anonymous Delphi rounds for subsequent evaluation and refinement (Nachtergaele et al., 2026).

Personality and Tools

A person who likes to spend time thinking on their own, or who is less at ease in challenging others in real time, might find it more effective to take part in a Delphi process. On the other hand, a participant who develops ideas through discussion may get more out of NGT. Yet NGT is not just a method for those who are very social since the phases of silent idea generation and round-robin sharing provide quieter group members with structured opportunities to think and to contribute (Riley-Bennett et al., 2024).

Conclusion

One method is not automatically superior; Delphi is more appropriate when less direct contact is advantageous, whereas NGT is better suited when it is necessary for a group to develop and discuss ideas in a shorter period of time. My choice between the two would depend on the people taking part, the complexity of the decision, the time at hand, and whether or not direct discussion is more likely to improve the ideas or cause the outcome to be distorted.

References

Dang, J., Lal, A., Montgomery, A., Flurin, L., Litell, J., Gajic, O., & Rabinstein, A. (2023). Developing DELPHI expert consensus rules for a digital twin model of acute stroke care in the neuro critical care unit. BMC Neurology, 23, Article 161. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-023-03192-9

Nachtergaele, S., De Roo, N., Stevens, T., & Embo, M. (2026). The CII-care framework: A contextual adaptation and validation of EntreComp for intrapreneurial and innovative competencies in healthcare- a mixed-methods study in Flanders. BMC Medical Education, 26, Article 812. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-09025-w

Riley-Bennett, F., Russell, L., & Fisher, R. (2024). An example of the adaptation of the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) to a virtual format (vNGT) within healthcare research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 24, Article 240. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02362-8