GLAMoURous Delphi

James Kirwan, Damian Maye, Dilshaad Bundhoo and Dan Keech

CCRI Seminar Series13.02.2014

GLAMUR

• 7th Framework project

• Full title: "Global and Local food chain Assessment: a Multidimensional performance-based approach“.

• A comparative analysis of global versus local food supply systems

• To develop and validate a ‘multi-criteria performance matrix’

• Involves 15 partners and 12 countries

WP2 Objectives• Conduct a systematic analysis of how both ‘local and global

food’ and the ‘performance of food chains’ are perceived, defined and communicated in the public, scientific, market and policy spheres across a range of dimensions (economic, social, environmental, health and ethical).

• Assess how each of these dimensions is framed in different contexts, and to identify the dilemmas and contradictions within each, as well as the interaction between them, that potentially affects attitudes and behaviour in relation to food chain performance.

• Develop a matrix that catalogues ‘local and global food’ performance across a range of criteria including real costs and benefits, as well as resilience and security. (with the matrix being composed of ‘attributes’. 3

WP2 rationale

• To align the multiple meanings that are attributed to food chains, having regard for the contexts involved, and to create a common understanding of food chain performance that has been developed and substantiated by scientific evidence.

4

Comparative Report

• Identify the principal discourses and controversies concerning G&L FSC in the 12 countries

• Draw out the diversity of meanings and perceptions associated with the performance of both G&L FSC

• Identify the potential for reaching a common understanding of the relative performance of FSC

• Develop a MCPM that incorporates the performance of both G&L FSC in the public, market, policy and scientific spheres against a range of dimensions (economic, social, environmental, health and ethical).

Draft Composite Matrix

Dimension / Sphere Economic Social Environmental Health Ethical

Public

•Affordability•Creation & distribution of

added value•Contribution to economic

development

•Information & communication•Food security

•Resource Use•Pollution

•Nutrition•Food safety•Traceability

•Animal Welfare•Responsibility•Labour relations•Fair Trade

Scientific•Contribution to economic

development•Technological innovation•Governance

•Consumer behaviour•Territoriality

•Resource Use •Biodiversity•Efficiency•Technological

innovation•Food waste

•Nutrition•Food safety

•Fair Trade•Animal welfare

Market

•Efficiency•Profitability /

competitiveness•Connection•Technological innovation•Resilience

•Information & communication•Territoriality•Connection

•Efficiency •Traceability•Food safety

•Fair Trade•Territoriality

Policy

•Creation & distribution of added value

•Contribution to economic development

•Efficiency•Resilience•Food waste

•Consumer behaviour•Labour relations

•Food Waste•Pollution

•Traceability•Nutrition•Food Safety

•Food Security•Governance

WP2 Methodology

• Task 2.2: Desk-based analysis of how food chain performance is currently assessed (in the 12 countries)

• Task 2.3: Interviews• Task 2.4: Delphi Method• Task 2.5: National-level Reports (based on tasks 2.2 &

2.3)• Task 2.6: Comparative Report (based on tasks 2.4 &

2.5)

7

What is a Delphi survey?

• A group facilitation technique that is designed to gradually build individualised opinion into group consensus

• Anonymous forecasts and issues being made by those involved, across 2 or 3 rounds of interaction

• "A method of structuring a group communication process, so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem". Linstone & Turoff (1975: 3)

What is a Delphi survey?

• Anonymity. Those taking part are not then subject to pressure from others. It means that the process in non-adversarial.

• Iteration. This involves panel members reviewing and changing their forecasts over a number of rounds until consensus or stability is reached. It may be that this never happens.

• Controlled feedback. The experts are consulted more than once. The panellists receive a copy of the synthesised responses between each round.

• Statistical aggregation. The spread of forecasts can be used as a measure of the consensus reached.

Key advantages of Delphi

• Its validity as a forecasting tool has been proved• Less effort required than for other qualitative methods

such as attending meetings• More people can participate in a Delphi than could

practically be included in meaningful face-to-face discussions

• Allows contributions from experts who are geographically dispersed and cannot be brought together

• Removes the 'bandwagon effect of majority opinion' often found in group interactions.

• Facilitate an exchange of information between international food chain experts.

• Explore how underlying assumptions or perspectives might lead to differing judgements as to the performance of particular food supply chains.

• Forecast what will need to be assessed in the future when judging the performance of both local and global FSCs in different national food systems, in order to help ensure their resilience and security.

Task 2.4: Delphi Survey

Delphi expert panel

• Aim to recruit 50-80 experts

• 12 countries x 5-10 people

• Obtain members from a variety of backgrounds and positions; if possible, experts distributed across the four spheres

• Global and/or local FSC expertise

• Have a strategic view of food chain performance.

Delphi panel:68 experts recruited

(12 Policy, 15 Scientific, 24 Market, 17 Public)

Belgium• 8 recruited • (2 Policy, 3 Market, 1

Scientific, 2 Public)

Latvia• 5 recruited• (1 Policy, 2 Market, 1

Scientific, 1 Public)

Serbia• 6 recruited• (1 Policy, 3 Market, 2

Scientific)

Denmark• 15 invited• None recruited yet.

Netherlands• 10 recruited• (1 Policy, 3 Market, 2

Scientific, 4 Public)

Spain• 10 recruited• (3 Policy, 2 Market, 2

Scientific, 3 Public)France• 8 recruited• (1 Policy, 2 Market, 2

Scientific, 3 Public)

Peru• 2 recruited• (1 Public, 1 Market)

Switzerland• 4 recruited• (1 Policy, 2 Market, 1

Scientific)Italy• 7 recruited• (2 Policy, 3 Market, 2

Public)

Senegal• 1 recruited• (Scientific)

UK• 7 recruited• (3 Market, 3 Scientific, 1

Public)

Round 1 Questionnaire

• Structure of the questionnaire. Five sections:

– Section 1: basic expert details

– Section 2: global/local distinctions; relative importance of different FSC actors

– Section 3: 5 key factors most important to national food system now and in future

– Section 4: methods used to assess performance

– Section 5: opportunity for experts to comment

• Vital to pilot the questionnaire15

Round 1 Report

• 46 responses (38 responses for round 2)

• Criteria used to distinguish global and local FSC

• Key actors in the FSC

• Key factors currently affecting FSC performance

• Key factors affecting FSC performance over the next 5-10 years

Distinctive characteristics identifiedSphere

Total SCI POL PUB MAR

Geographical distance (Origin) 17 5 4 5 3Number of links in the chain 14 2 5 7 0

Power Relations 9 1 3 3 2

Quality of supply 4 1 1 1 1

Labelling 3 1 2

Price 3 1 2

Trends and food habits of consumers 3 2 1

Packaging 2 0 1 0 1

Traceability 1 1

Seasonality 1 1

Consumers targeted 1 1

Criteria used to distinguish between global and local FSCs

SCI: Scientific, POL: Policy; PUB: Public; MAR: Market

2013 2018

Actors MEAN MODE IQR MEAN MODE IQR

Consumers 4.72 3 3.25 5.34 5 2

Retailers 5.7 6 2 5.52 6 2

Food processors 4.73 5 2 4.7 5 2

Primary producers 3.93 4 3 4.25 4 3

World-level policy (e.g. WTO) 3.61 4 3 3.86 2 3.25

EU-level policy 4.5 5 3 4.77 5 2.25

National-level policy 4.34 4 2.25 4.16 2 3.25

Key actors in the FSC

Key factors affecting FSC performance

• Five main elements:• 1) economic (price, costs of production, policy (national,

wage and employment), and infrastructure); • 2) social (consumer awareness, food safety and health,

culture and food habits, skills and knowledge of producers); • 3) acknowledgement of the asymmetry that exists in the FSC

worldwide (“oligopoly of large retailer”); • 4) environmental concerns (input availability and the need for

innovation); and• 5) ethical questions (transparency).

Round 1 results to examine within round 2

• Consumer engagement• Transparency• Affordability and accessibility• Trade relationships• Nutritional quality• Equity (in terms of fairness)• Asymmetric power relations in FSCs• The need for more integrated evaluation

methodologies.

Table 1: Food chain performance statements

Likelihood Importance

Theme Statements Mean Mode IQR Mean Mode IQR

Consumers 1. Consumers will become more influential in the food supply chain in the future.

5.16 6 1.75 6.13 6 1

2. Consumer choice will need to be constrained in future in order to help ensure food supply chain sustainability

3.66 5 3 4.5 5 3

3. Price will no longer be the over-riding concern of consumers 2.92 2 2 5.05 6 2

4. Ethics will increasingly inform consumer decisions. 4.11 4 2 5.47 6 2

Policy 5. EU and global food supply chain policies will continue to dominate national-level policies.

5.36 6 1 5.08 6 2

6. Global and local food supply chains will not be seen in opposition, but rather as complementary forces for achieving resilience and sustainability.

4.16 4 2 5.62 7 2

7. National policies will remain largely agriculturally-oriented, constraining sustainable models of food supply.

4.46 4 1 4.61 6 3

Food chain assessment

8. Current evaluations of the food supply chain give precedence to economic factors, in future they will need to be more integrated and systemic.

4.46 5 1 5.87 6 2

9. It will be necessary to account for all the resources used throughout the food supply chain (e.g. water and energy), when assessing its sustainability.

5.13 5 2 6.37 7 1

10. In future, the reduction of food waste will become an increasing priority within the food supply chain.

5.45 5 1 5.73 7 2

11. The quality of food will increasingly be assessed in relation to its nutritional content and health benefits.

4.82 5 2 5.6 7 2

Power 12. Information and communications technology (ICT) will be a key asset in balancing power relations between international retailers and consumers.

5.03 6 2 5.08 6 2

13. Sustainable intensification will heighten power asymmetries within the food supply chain.

3.92 4 2 4.3 4 1

14. The third sector (for example, NGOs) will increasingly inform debates about the supply and consumption of food

5 5 1.75 5.42 5 1.75

Ranking of food chain performance attributes at global and local levels

Level Attributes Overall mode

Global

Affordability 1Accessibility 2

Trade Relationships 3Nutritional Quality 4

Transparency 4Consumer Engagement 6

Asymmetrical Power Relations 7

Equity/Fairness 8

Local

Consumer Engagement 1Affordability 2

Accessibility 3Nutritional Quality 4

Transparency 5

Equity/Fairness 6

Asymmetrical Power Relations 7

Trade Relationships 8

Conclusions on the use of Delphi

Advantages:• Less effort required than for other qualitative methods

such as attending meetings (?!)• More people than could practically be included in

meaningful face-to-face discussions• Allows contributions from experts who are

geographically dispersed• Removes the 'bandwagon effect of majority opinion'

often found in group interactions.

Conclusions on the use of Delphi

BUT:• Linguistic and cultural difficulties and the use of

terminologies• The need for translation in some cases• Needs to be kept relatively straightforward• Crucial that it is piloted• Difficult to get continued engagement, and yet vital• Running the survey via Google Docs.

ReferencesIlbery, B., Maye, D., Kneafsey, M., Jenkins, T. and Walkley, C. (2004). "Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK". Journal of Rural Studies 20 (3), pp. 331-344.

Okoli, C. and Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). "The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications". Information & Management 42 (1), pp. 15-29.

Hasson, F., Keeney, S. and McKenna, H. (2000). "Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique". Journal of Advanced Nursing 32 (4), pp. 1008-1015.

Frewer, L. J., Fischer, A. R. H., Wentholt, M. T. A., Marvin, H. J. P., Ooms, B. W., Coles, D. and Rowe, G. (2011). "The use of Delphi methodology in agrifood policy development: Some lessons learned". Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78 (9), pp. 1514-1525.

Chamorro, A., Miranda, F. J., Rubio, S. and Valero, V. (2012). "Innovations and trends in meat consumption: An application of the Delphi method in Spain". Meat Science 92 pp. 816–822.

Korten, F., De Caluwé, L. and Geurts, J. (2010). "The Future of Organization Development: A Delphi Study Among Dutch Experts". Journal of Change Management 10 (4), pp. 393–405.

Gnatzy, T., Warth, J., von der Gracht, H. and Darkow, I.-L. (2011). "Validating an innovative real-time Delphi approach - A methodological comparison between real-time and conventional Delphi studies". Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78 (9), pp. 1681-1694.

Rowe, G. and Wright, G. (2011). "The Delphi technique: Past, present, and future prospects — Introduction to the special issue". Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78 (9), pp. 1487-1490.

Bigliardi, B. and Bottani, E. (2010) Performance measurement in the food supply chain: a balanced scorecard approach. Facilities, 28 (5/6), pp. 249-260

26

Thank you for your attention