Delphi  method

3.2.2  Delphi  method  

In  the  second  paper,  the  Delphi  method  was  used  to  collect  data  for  developing   new  nature  tourism  services.  The  focus  was  on  the  idea  generation  and  testing   phases   in   particular.   At   the   beginning   of   the   process,   the   design   choices   were   made   by   following   seven   criteria   (Day   and   Bobeva,   2005).   The   choices   were   made  based  on  the  goals  of  the  study,  in  which  the  aim  was  to  gather  new  ideas   for   NSD   and   test   the   collected   ideas.   The   two   Delphi   rounds   were   built   to   support   this   goal:   the   first   round   was   conducted   to   collect   the   ideas   and   the  

second   round   to   test   and   evaluate   the   ideas.   The   other   choices   made   are   discussed  in  more  detail  below.  

In   this   case   study,   the   panel   of   experts   were   potential   customers   as   the   customers   are   seen   as   being   the   experts   required   for   saying   which   kinds   of   products  and  services  they  are  interested  in.  In  this  study,  the  informants  taking   part  in  the  development  process  were  potential  tourists  to  the  area,  as  they  are   expected  to  have  experience  of  nature-­‐‑based  tourism  or  activities  and/or  the  area   to  be  developed.    

The  Delphi  panellists  were  recruited  by  organising  an  open  call  for  product   developers.  The  call  opened  at  the  beginning  of  May  2013.  In  the  call  no  detailed   criteria   for   participating   were   set,   but   the   respondents   were   supposed   to   be   interested   in   developing   nature   tourism   in   the   area.   The   call   was   launched   by   using   a   variety   of   electronic   channels   that   were   thought   to   be   used   by   tourists   interested   in   nature-­‐‑based   tourism   (Facebook   sites,   national   outdoor   recreation   websites,  Twitter,  mailing  lists,  as  well  as  on  websites  belonging  to  a  variety  of   organisations,   DMOs   and   businesses)   and   by   utilising   a   diverse   range   of   stakeholders   (the   organisation   responsible   for   the   hiking   area,   a   research   institute,   the   regional   destination   marketing   organisation   and   the   business   network   involved   in   the   process).   The   form   used   for   signing   up   included   questions   about   previous   visits   to   Ruunaa,   possible   hobbies   that   are   connected   to   nature   and   also   other   activities   related   to   nature,   the   outdoors   and   tourism.  

Also,  basic  information  as  well  as  contact  information  was  collected.  Altogether   105  people  signed  in  as  product  developers.  Two  of  the  responses  were  missing   contact  information  so  they  were  excluded  from  the  study.    

The  Delphi  study  was  implemented  by  organising  two  Delphi  rounds  using   an  online  eDelphi  tool  (eDelfoi.fi).  The  tool  makes  it  possible  to  manage  a  panel   by   sending   e-­‐‑mails   to   panellists,   using   the   platform   as   a   survey   tool   (several   different  rounds  and  queries  can  be  added),  drawing  summary  reports,  sharing   material   etc.   All   the   panel   participants   remain   anonymous   and   even   the   researcher   cannot   connect   the   responses   to   individual   panellists.   However,   the   researcher   sees   the   list   of   panellists   who   answered   the   questions.   This   kind   of   procedure  guarantees  the  anonymity  of  the  panellists.    

The   objective   of   round   one   was   to   get   new   ideas   for   nature   and   outdoor   tourism  products  for  the  Ruunaa  Hiking  Area.  The  questions  for  the  first  round   were  tested  beforehand  and,  based  on  the  comments  of  the  testers,  the  questions   were   slightly   modified.   The   questions   of   the   first   round   questionnaire   were   open-­‐‑ended  questions:  What  would  your  dream  wellbeing,  nature  and  outdoor   related  holiday  in  Ruunaa  be  like?  What  would  your  dream  adventure  holiday   in   Ruunaa   be   like?   Both   of   the   questions   were   followed   by   more   detailed   guidelines  and  sub-­‐‑questions,  e.g.  about  the  preferred  experiences  and  services,   and  travel  company.  

The   invitation   for   the   Delphi   panel   was   sent   via   the   eDelphi   tool.   The   103   potential  panellists  received  an  invitation  to  sign  into  the  system  and  answer  the  

questions,  and  altogether  60  panellists  answered  the  questions  (the  response  rate   being  57.3%).  The  responses  had  different  forms  as  some  of  them  were  written  in   story  form  and  some  of  them  just  giving  listings  of  services  or  things  that  they   wanted  the  holiday  to  contain.    

A   narrative   analysis   was   used   to   draw   different   kinds   of   product   descriptions.   In   a   narrative   analysis,   a   researcher   interprets   and   organises   the   empirical   data   in   such   a   way   that   the   results   construct   one   or   more   narratives,   which   are   then   discussed   and   interpreted   (Eriksson   and   Kovalainen,   2008).   In   this  study,  as  the  aim  was  to  form  different  product  theme  narratives  based  on   the  responses,  the  responses  were  analysed  by  focusing  on  the  meaning,  which   means   that   the   analysis   focuses   on   the   content   of   the   narrative,   namely   on   issues,  themes  and  patterns  (Eriksson  and  Kovalainen,  2008).  The  empirical  data   were   organised   using   thematic   analysis   in   which   different   themes   of   the   responses  from  the  first  Delphi  round  were  examined  and,  based  on  the  themes,   storylines   were   developed.   Thus,   the   narratives   developed   are   constructed   by   the  researcher  and  the  construction  of  the  narratives  formed  a  central  part  of  the   analysis   (see   e.g.   Eriksson   and   Kovalainen,   2008).   As   a   result,   nine   thematic   tourism  products  were  formed  based  on  the  analysis.  

In   addition   to   the   narrative   analysis,   a   thematic   analysis   was   carried   out   to   collect   comments   and   suggestions   related   to   services   and   activities.   These   comments   and   suggestions   were   categorised   into   six   themes,   namely   accommodation,  activities,  services,  relaxation  and  pampering,  food,  and  service   environment.   The   summary   report   for   Round   1   included   the   narrative   stories   (thematic  product  descriptions)  and  results  from  the  thematic  analysis.  

The   aim   of   the   second   round   was   to   evaluate   the   appeal   and   interest,   and   also  gain  possible  critical  opinions  regarding  the  thematic  products  (narratives).  

The  second  round  aimed  to  obtain  concrete  and  detailed  information  about  how   interesting  the  developed  service  (theme)  products  are  to  the  respondents,  what   kinds  of  feelings  they  invoke,  what  kinds  of  improvements  are  required  and  for   whom   the   panel   see   the   products   and   service   modules   being   suitable   for.   The   panellists   were   asked   to   choose   four   thematic   products   they   were   most   interested   in   and   describe:   What   kinds   of   feelings   they   get   from   the   product?  

What  is  good?  What  is  bad  or  what  would  they  improve?  Would  they  take  part   in  this  kind  of  trip?  Who  is  the  product  suitable  for?  If  the  respondents  wished   they  could  evaluate  more  than  just  four  products.  The  invitation  for  the  second   round   was   sent   to   the   panellists   via   the   eDelphi   tool.   Altogether   37   panellists   answered  the  questions,  which  made  the  response  rate  61.7%.  

Based  on  the  responses,  the  appeal  and  content  of  the  products  and  product   themes   were   evaluated   by   analysing   the   data   product   by   product   by   using   thematic   analysis   (positive   and   critical   comments   e.g.   related   to   the   content   of   the  thematic  product,  service  components  of  the  product  and  price).  The  appeal   was   also   measured   by   calculating   the   number   of   comments   related   to   each   product,  and  the  products  were  ranked  based  on  the  number  of  the  comments.  

The  summary  report  was  made  based  on  the  evaluations  of  individual  products   and  an  evaluation  of  the  appeal  of  the  products  partly  based  on  the  number  of   comments.  

As  the  goal  of  this  paper  was  not  to  report  the  results  and  the  content  of  the   collected  data  as  such,  but  examine  the  suitability  of  the  Delphi  method  in  new   service  development,  the  method  was  evaluated  using  selected  criteria  adapted   from   Alam   (2002),   Edvardsson   et   al.   (2012)   and   Komppula   and   Lassila   (2014)   and   by   considering   the   critical   aspects   of   the   Delphi   technique   identified   by   Donohoe   and   Needham   (2009),   Hsu   and   Sandford   (2007)   and   Keeney,   Hasson   and  McKenna  (2011).  In  addition,  emphasis  is  placed  on  evaluating  what  kind  of   information  is  gained  through  the  process.