Nominal Groups

(Adapted from CLARK & STEIN 2004; RECREATION AND TOURISM RESEARCH INSTITUTE 2007; WBI EVALUATION GROUP 2007)

In 1968, the nominal group technique was developed as a ‘participation technique for social planning’ by Andre Delbecq and Andrew Van de Ven. Nowadays, it is used for primary data collection, program planning, evaluation, and exploratory research.

Similar to focus groups, this method is used for a meeting with a small group of participants (usually 9 to 12) with the aim of generating and prioritising ideas about a particular topic. However, the discussion in a nominal group is more structured than within focus groups, with the final outcome of a meeting producing a list of participants’ preferred alternatives to the issue presented. The tool is useful for idea generation and is often applied during exploratory stages of research. The technique supports planners and managers engage selected stakeholders in productive dialogue and generate ideas before decisions are made or programmes are developed.

This dynamic group decision‐making process is flexible enough that you may apply it multiple times at different steps within your needs assessment (see also participatory decision making). Furthermore, you can use this tool whenever a group of participants with multiple perspectives has to make a difficult decision.                                              

(Adapted from CLARK & STEIN 2004)

The facilitator first describes how the meeting should be conducted and what is expected of the participants. Then, the topic of the discussion is presented. It is advisable to provide participants beforehand with detailed information on the meeting, so that they are well prepared. The facilitator has to make sure that the participants do clearly understand the issue and its question before moving on to the second step.

Participants are given five minutes to individually and silently write down all of their ideas for the question on the notepaper which is provided. Participants are encouraged to be creative with their answers and not be restricted by budgetary constraints or current regulations of the site. The facilitator should remind the participants that this is a time for individual brainstorming and the participants have to be instructed that everyone should remain quiet the entire time.

After the brainstorming session, each participant is asked to explain one of the opportunities on his or her list. As the participant read his or her opportunity, the note-taker writes down the opportunity exactly as stated. Statements are recorded and assigned an individual number by the note-taker on flipchart paper in front of the room. During this step, extensive discussion of an idea is discouraged unless further clarification is necessary. Participants are encouraged to build upon each other’s ideas and write down any new ideas as the meeting progressed. The facilitator goes around the room in a round-robin style until all participants’ lists are exhausted.

To help clarify and reduce any duplication of ideas, participants are asked to look over all the statements listed on the flip chart paper posted around the room. In a serialised fashion, each idea is discussed. If all participants agree to combine or delete any opportunities, the note-taker combines or crosses out those items.

Participants are directed to look at the flipchart papers posted around the room and asked to select and score their most preferred opportunities (e.g. with coloured stickers, or marks). After individually listing and ranking their top opportunities, each participant then marks his or her scores next to the numbered opportunity on the flipchart. Instead of marking scores directly onto the flipchart, a number of different methods may be used, including filling out worksheets or coloured cards with the statement and importance score identified. Similarly, the exact number of preferred ideas participants select is flexible and depends upon several factors, including the amount of ideas generated and the level of consensus needed. For example, if participants only generate 15 ideas, then the top five is probably sufficient. (For more information on ranking techniques see also preference ranking).

To identify each group’s most preferred opportunities for each meeting, the individual scores participants assigned to each statement are summed up, and then statements are sorted from highest to lowest. In other words, the group’s most preferred recreation opportunity receives the highest score, and their least preferred opportunity receives the lowest score.