I think everyone should read Tom's _link_s on the Delphi Technique.

Thanks Tom. You are always the wealth of knowlege.

Treeman,

Best wishes on the writing effort. I've always thought that was a missing segment in your business and RTC. Dick Flowers made a good contribution with his book by filling a void. However the topic is more expansive.

I would like to think that someone is documenting the history of RTC. There's the technique and gear evolution. There's the personal adventures. There's the people that made significant contributions.

Regards,
JimK

Keep FIT - Fun in Trees

I wholeheartedly disagree with and believe that we should not utilize the Delphi technique for the formation of our standards for the following reasons, as stated in the _link_ed articles:
1) It is used to achieve or force a predetermined result.
2) It is used to keep the inputters on the defensive.
3) It is good only for political or subjective(not _object_ive) input or reasoning and is not _base_d on _object_ive data or ideas.
3) It assumes the parties in discussion are at odds.
4) It forces an aggressive clash between the parties to force an outcome.

I believe that for all of the above listed reasons and others from the articles, that none of this would be beneficial for developing our standards since all of our input is _base_d on _object_ive ideas and experience and that we do not need to be pitted one against the other. Rather, on the contrary, we should work together and provide factual data and/or research and/or experience and/or proof of what is already acceptable in our culture, so as to discuss and debate what will be our standards.
_object_ivity, openness and cooperation I believe would go much further in the successful development and writing of commonly accepted standards.
No one should be forcing their agenda on another for political or subjective reasons in our culture, I believe, because this would only lead to disheartening many of those who would like to truly contribute to our standards for good and _object_ive reasons, such as safety or concern for the common good.

Charlie,

Nice catch on the negative dynamic where a group is brought together and then hijacked by a hidden agenda. We all need to be mindful of this at play in our lives - especially in the political arena where policy makers change our lives.

I've been thinking about group-think of recent. For myself, I've been asking how to be part of a specialized society yet remain an individual thinker. I'm in the question phase; I don't have an answer.

At the end of the day, trees are free to climb. There are simple techniques, that establish a reliable margin of safety. My personal goal is to become a better climber and open the door to RTC for others. It seems to be theraputic in my life; it may work for others as well. Probably being a supportive participant will be my only role.

Regards,
JimK

Keep FIT -Fun in Trees

I knew I should have provided a few _link_s about the Delphi technique when I posted. I was fully aware of that negative one Tom referenced and naively thought no one would notice it.

The Delphi technique has a long history of success (actually first used formally in WWII by the allies to great advantage).

I don't know what axe to grind the writer of the negative review had, but he certainly is a most suspicious and non-trusting person!

I don't deny that some of the things he says can happen--indeed, some trust in the moderator is required.

I can tell you with certainty that the technique is very powerful and effective and can be used to create a result significantly better than what can be produced by people face to face. The main reason for that, by the way, is precisely that the source of ideas is unknown to the participants: That way, there is no, "That must be a good/crappy idea because it came from Clyde." (I hope none of you is named "Clyde"--I don’t mean you.)

Use it or not--not my call. I can only say from experience that it is an excellent technique and ideally suited for what is going on here.

Finally, please don't assume that I meant that it would be used to produce the final document. Delphi could be used to efficiently and effectively create a draft by those deemed to be trustworthy (who does that--do we vote--maybe have a Delphi for that? [I'm joking, folks]), after which we could go through the interminable process of attaining consensus.

Jim W,

Perhaps I missed it, but your _link_s to the positive side of the Delphi process would be appreciated.

Tangents on postings can be interesting.

Regards,
JimK

Keep FIT - Fun in Trees