NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE
Jon Gresham

NGT as I use it had six steps:

l.    Presentation of the task to be accomplished by the group facilitator.

2.  Silent generation of ideas for ten minutes.
Each participant is charged to silently write down the short phrases or statements which answer the question. The intent is to get as many answers as possible from all group members.

3.  Round-robín recording of ideas.
The participants are asked to read or share their ideas, one idea per person at a time. Each will be recorded, and numbered, on the master list. No  discussion takes place. One-by-one, each participant either gives an idea or passes until all of the ideas generated by the group have been recorded. No editing of material and no evaluative comments are desired at this time. All participants are encouraged to "hitch-hike" on the ideas of others and add new ideas to the list. The point is to allow all members equal opportunity to contribute to the group.

4. Ideas clarified and discussed.
This step is designed to promote a clear understanding of each idea. Over-lapping or similar ideas may be merged.

5. Valuation of relative importance of ideas.
Each participant ranks the top five items out of all of those recorded. Five points are given to the relatively most important idea; four points given to the second most important idea; three points go to the third most important; two points go to the fourth most important; one point is given to the fifth most important.
The votes, on note cards, are counted and tallied for each item.

6. The process yields a list of answers, in order of ranking.
This final vote summarizes the NGT process: it provides one measure of the relative group consensus as to the value of the many ideas generated, it provides a sense of closure and accomplishment, and it documents the group judgement.

This can also be done in two waves, with the first round being to produce a list of ten or fifteen ideas, from which five are chosen in the second round.  This has the benefit of expanding the discussion and clarification of ideas so that more buy-in can be achieved by more participants.

====================================
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of my own research at several large conferences,  the following conclusions were drawn, applicable to the groups researched in my studies. The presentation here focuses on the differences found among respondents at the  conferences.

1. There was no significant (p<.05) difference between those who had previously participated in an NGT and those who had not, as regards their expressed satisfaction with an NGT.

2. Those who understood the purpose of the NGT expressed significantly greater satisfaction with the NGT than those who
indicated that they did not understand the purpose of the NGT. Participants with strong opinions and/or a task & thing orientation in their work did not express much satisfsaction with having to work in a consensus-based group.

3. Participants homogeneous in education, experience, and professional ethos did not reveal differences in satisfaction with the NGT process based on their actual work role. Participants diverse in nationality, culture, education, experience, and profession did express differences in satisfaction with the NGT based on their work roles.


Secondary Conclusions
A consistent thread of dissatisfaction with the use of the NGT existed among some participants caused me to draw secondary conclusions for people using the NGT.
    One of these secondary conclusions is that caution should be used in forcing a consensus-generating technique upon participants who may not place a high value on group unanimity.

Participants with the least satisfaction had work that was "thing" oriented; participants with "people" orientation in their work expressed high satisfaction with the nominal groups.  Together, this appears to be related to the degree of satisfaction with a consensus-generating approach to problem-solving, which technically-oriented people may not find as satisfying.  That is, people focused on things and facts were not as pleased with consensus-building techniques of problem-solving as were people with an occupation focused on human behavior and relationships.

OBSERVATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
I present here observations and recommendations relating to the actual use of the nominal group technique.

These recommendations come, in part, from the experiences of the researcher and from comments received from participants in the nominal group activities at four conferences during the two years of this study.
    This researcher recommends that change agents consider nominal groups as a technique to enhance group problem-solving and decision-making activities and to obtain greater commitment to follow-through based on the decision of the group.
    Nominal group leaders must be trained to lead and control adequately the nominal group activities. The group moderator should maintain control of the group and keep it on track toward the desired final product.
    Recording of ideas must be done swiftly, legibly, and in view of all participants. This can be difficult in larger groups, or where many ideas are presented. Large blackboards or sheets of paper taped across meeting-room walls can be useful, but a skillful, swift recorder is necessary in any case.  This process requires a LOT of wall space, so trying to use an overhead projector may lead to frustration.
    Choosing a recorder for a group and giving instructions as to how to record the ideas generated should be done well before the activities begin.
    To benefit most from the group setting, interpersonal relationships must be established before the formal NGT session. When a group is quickly thrown together, feelings of insecurity and mistrust are likely to keep individuals from building an atmosphere of mutual trust and acceptance, an atmosphere useful for consensus-generation as well as the resulting commitment to implement the decision reached.
    The process can be initiated by email, fax, or phone calls, or even in personal conversations before the meeting to quickly gather the initial list of suggestions, but will lack from the excitement and interaction of a group focused together on a task. 
    If a large number of participants need to be involved, some success has been achieved by doing small group work first to generate the first five recommendations from each group, which are then combined into one large list for the whole conference together to prioritize at the final step of the process, but it may work better to work towards a priority of twenty-five items as a large group, then ten, and then the final five.  Jumping immediately to five items will leave some participants or small groups feeling like they did not have adequate input or that their voice was not heard. 
And, being heard is what this process is about, not getting only five answers. 
Because buy-in and participation can be the result of being heard. 


Observations
The NGT was used to facilitate arriving at a group decision.  As consensus was reached through a preference ranking of alternatives, following are details which should be considered before employing this nominal group decision-making technique.

    The composition of the group may affect whether the individuals are willing and able to support the group over and against their personal inclinations.

    Some individuals may be too retiring to express themselves under normal one-on-one or free-wheeling group settings, yet, if properly conducted, a nominal group may elicit quite a strong participation from these shy individuals, while minimizing the force of opinion from the more domineering individuals in the group. 

    The situation calling for a group decision may be too urgent to allow sufficient time to gather together an effective group and to conduct the meeting and the correlated activities, especially if the group is just to advise a strong leader who may be known to not accept advice that does not fit his own opinions.

    During the idea clarification/discussion/deliberation phase, group members may exhibit different  abilities to communicate effectively the purpose and intent of their suggestions, and consequently may not give adequate explanation for other members to understand fully the value of the idea.  That is, each participant must be heard and understood for this to be effective.

    Groups may benefit from a short recess during the session, especially between the initial idea clarification stage and the first voting round. This would allow emotions to cool, participants to relax, and for ideas to settle before individuals come together for further discussion and then the voting round.

    If individuals wish to preserve the anonymity of their ideas during the idea generation and voting phases, notecards or slips of paper could be collected instead of the normal, verbal interchange.  This written communication actually helps the process in many ways, especially by the force by which more vocal or charismatic individuals may attempt to coerce the group to see things their way.
 

safe mode