Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfalls🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Decision-making›Delphi Method — iterative expert consensus for criterion importance elicitation
MCDMWeight Subjectivecrisp

Delphi Method — iterative expert consensus for criterion importance elicitation

DELPHI (Delphi Method — iterative expert consensus for criterion importance elicitation) is a weight subjective multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method introduced by Dalkey, N., Helmer, O. in 1963. It turns a decision matrix of alternatives scored on multiple criteria into a structured, reproducible result.

ScholarGate
  1. MCDM
  2. v1
  3. 1 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

DELPHI
AHPSORTAPLOCOARASAROMANARTASICOBRACOCOSOCODASPROMETHEE-II

When to use it

Delphi iterates expert ratings until consensus is reached (CV < threshold, typically 0.20). The final weights are normalised means of expert ratings. Anonymity and controlled feedback prevent dominant-expert bias. Typically 2–4 rounds suffice.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Follows a transparent, reproducible computational procedure that can be audited step by step.
  • Handles multiple criteria of differing scales and units within a single decision matrix.
Limitations
  • Results depend on the chosen normalisation, weights, and parameter settings.

Sources

  1. Dalkey, N., Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458 ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 2). Delphi Method — iterative expert consensus for criterion importance elicitation. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/decision-making/delphi

Related methods

AHPSORTAPLOCOARASAROMANARTASICOBRACOCOSOCODAS

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • AHPSORTDecision-making↔ compare
  • APLOCODecision-making↔ compare
  • ARASDecision-making↔ compare
  • AROMANDecision-making↔ compare
  • ARTASIDecision-making↔ compare
  • COBRADecision-making↔ compare
  • COCOSODecision-making↔ compare
  • CODASDecision-making↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

PROMETHEE-II

Similar methods

FUZZY-DELPHIDelphi MethodDelphi TechniqueAHPDEMATELDelphi Method for Strategy ForesightCRITICCONSENSUS-REACHING

Related reference concepts

Delphi TechniqueDecision MakingDecision Support SystemsParticipative Decision MakingEvaluation CriteriaWeighted Scores

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — DELPHI (Delphi Method — iterative expert consensus for criterion importance elicitation). Retrieved 2026-07-20 from https://scholargate.app/en/decision-making/delphi · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Dalkey, N., Helmer, O.
Subfamily
Weight Subjective
Year
1963
Type
Weight Subjective (expert consensus, iterative Likert/ranking)
Value Space
crisp
Uncertainty
None
Compensation
N/A
Rank Reversal
No
Related methods
AHPSORTAPLOCOARASAROMANARTASICOBRACOCOSOCODAS
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account