مقایسهٔ روش‌ها

	Multi-Criteria Policy Analysis	Policy Delphi
حوزه	Public Policy	Public Policy
خانواده	MCDM	Process / pipeline
سال پیدایش	2002	1970
پدیدآور	Valerie Belton & Theodor Stewart (synthesis); MCDA tradition	Murray Turoff
نوع	Multi-criteria decision analysis applied to policy appraisal	Structured, iterative expert-deliberation technique for policy
منبع بنیادین	Belton, V., & Stewart, T. J. (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN: 9780792375050	Turoff, M. (1970). The design of a policy Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2(2), 149–171.
نام‌های دیگر	Multi-Criteria Analysis for Policy, MCDA Policy Appraisal, MCA in Policy, Multi-Criteria Policy Appraisal	Policy Delphi Technique, Turoff Policy Delphi, Decision Delphi
مرتبط	3	3
خلاصه	Multi-criteria policy analysis applies multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to appraise and rank policy options against several, often conflicting, objectives that cannot be reduced to a single money metric. Each option is scored on a set of explicit criteria — economic, social, environmental, distributional — the criteria are weighted to reflect their relative importance, and the scores are aggregated into an overall value that ranks the options. Set out comprehensively in Belton and Stewart's 2002 textbook and operationalised for government in the UK's widely used Multi-Criteria Analysis Manual, the approach makes the trade-offs in a policy decision transparent and structured rather than implicit.	The policy Delphi is a structured, iterative technique for eliciting and organising informed opinion on contested policy issues. Unlike the classical Delphi, which seeks consensus on a forecast, the policy Delphi is explicitly designed to generate the strongest possible opposing positions on a policy question and to expose the full range of options, supporting arguments and disagreements among a panel of knowledgeable stakeholders. Introduced by Murray Turoff in 1970, it conducts several anonymous rounds in which participants rate policy statements on dimensions such as desirability and feasibility, see aggregated feedback and the reasoning behind divergent views, and revise their positions — surfacing structured intelligence for decision-makers rather than a forced agreement.