Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 403

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Delphi technique: a method for testing complex and multifaceted topics

Grisham, Thomas·2009·International Journal of Managing Projects in Business

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide project management (PM) students with an example of the Delphi research approach that was applied to a recent doctoral research thesis. The objective is to provide both a description of the approach and an explanation of how it was successfully applied so that researchers in PM may become more aware and expand their perceptions of methodological options available to them. Design/methodology/approach: The paper sets out a literature review of the Delphi approach and explains this research method as it was experienced as a research tool. The paper also provides reflection on the experience of being a researcher undertaking a doctoral study. Findings: The Delphi approach is one of many that may be selected for researching PM issues and problems. It is appropriate for researching complex issues where larger scale quantitative “hard data” fails to unearth richness in tacit knowledge to help the research understand subtle expert opinion. It does not offer the rigor of clinical testing or quantitative analysis, but it provides a scientific methodology that is well suited to issues that require the insights of subject matter experts. The use of Delphi in this context was successful in that the thesis was passed and so its use in this context may be now considered as proved through rigorous examination. Originality/value: The paper provides a solid literature review that may be used or referred to by researchers wishing to adopt this research approach. It also describes the protocols and processes adopted in the doctoral study. Thus, this paper provides the opportunity for PM researchers to expand their repertoire of research tools. Practitioners may also benefit from this paper as it provides a useful approach to assess and validate expert knowledge that could be contestable in a range of practice situations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/17538370910930545

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 43 references

Cited by

See all 403

Metadata

Authors
Grisham, T.
Venue
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2009-01-23
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
112-130
ISSN
1753-8378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2089293862
Cited by
403
References
43
FWCI
31.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Delphi technique: a method for testing complex and multifaceted topics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/17538370910930545
The paper
Grisham, T. (2009). The Delphi technique: a method for testing complex and multifaceted topics. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538370910930545

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.