Quality & Quantity

, Volume 48, Issue 6, pp 3195–3208 | Cite as

The policy delphi method: contribution to policy and strategy within energy organisations: a 2013 Malaysian case study with global implications

Article
  • 302 Downloads

Abstract

The policy delphi method is a process that seeks to generate the strongest possible opposing views on the potential resolutions of a major policy issue, such as strategy and policy for infrastructure and engineering asset management within asset-intensive organisations. The objectives of the policy delphi method are to: ensure that all possible options have been tabled for consideration, estimate the impact and consequences of any particular option, and to examine and estimate the acceptability of all the individual options. The committee process is commonly used to address a wide range of issues and decisions within organisations at management and operational levels. Committees dominate governance and management within nearly all types of organisations, however, it has been argued that the committee approach no longer functions as effectively in the realm of policy formulation as it once may have due to a lack of adequate structure for discussion. Due to the disadvantages of the Committee process, this research investigated the relevance and effectiveness of the policy delphi method in 2013 within the leading Malaysian energy organisation, with the provision of this practical case study of a policy delphi to elaborate the efficacy of this method for asset intensive organisations to develop strategy and policy.

Keywords

Policy delphi Energy Policy strategy Organisation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper was developed within the CRC for Infrastructure and Engineering Asset Management, established and supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Program.

References

  1. Adams, D.: Usable knowledge in public policy. Aust. J. Public Adm. 63, 29–42 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali, A.K.: Using the delphi technique to search for empirical measures of local planning agency power. Qual. Rep. 10(4), 718–744 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., Davis, G.: The Australian Policy Handbook. Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest (2007)Google Scholar
  4. Amadi-Echendu, J., Brown, K., Vyas, N., Lee, J., Mathew, J., Willett, R., Yang, B.: What is engineering asset management? In: Amadi-Enchendu, J., Brown, K., Willet, R., Mathew, J. (eds.) Engineering Asset Management Review. Springer, Berlin (2010)Google Scholar
  5. AMQ International: Strategic Asset Management, Issue 177, Oct 16 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. Azavedo, D.: Gut Feel. Strategic Asset Management, pp. 1010–1011 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. Backstrom, L., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., Lan, X.: Group formation in large social networks. Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining-KDD ’06. p. 44 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. Barringer, H.P.: Life cycle cost and good practices. Paper presented at the National petrochemical and refiners association reliability and maintenance conference, San Antonio, TX (1998)Google Scholar
  9. Bridgman, P., Davis, G.: The Australian Policy Handbook. Allen and Unwin, Melbourne (2005)Google Scholar
  10. Brown, K. A., Keast, R., Wiewiora, A., Laue, M., Mahmood, M.N.: ISAM for XPERTS: integrated strategic asset management (advanced copy). Cooperative Research Centre for Infrastructure and Engineering Asset Management (CIEAM) and Australian Asset Management Collaborative Group (AAMCoG), Brisbane, Australia (2012)Google Scholar
  11. Canders, M.: Strategy and performance in the defense industry: an empirical investigation. PhD Thesis, Walden University (1999)Google Scholar
  12. Carson, E.: Factors associated with the development of board subcommittees. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 10(1), 4–18 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Childs, J.: The Military Use of Land: A History of the Defence Estate. Peter Lang Publishing, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  14. CitiPower and Powercor Australia: Powercor Network Statistics. http://www.powercor.com.au/Powercor_Network_Statistics/ (2012). Accessed 29 Dec 2012
  15. Cilliers, F., Greyvenstein, H.: The impact of silo mentality on team identity: an organisational case study. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 38(2), 1–9 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. CIEAM: AAMCoG: Guide to Integrated Strategic Asset Management, Version 2.0. CIEAM, Brisbane (2012)Google Scholar
  17. Crano, W.D.: Milestones in the psychological analysis of social influence. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 4, 61–68 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dempster, M.A.H., Germano, M., Medova, E.A., Villaverde, M.: Global Asset Liability Management. (Presented to the Institute of Actuaries, 25 Nov 2002) (2002)Google Scholar
  19. Department of Environment and Resource Management: Guidelines for Preparing Strategic Asset Management Plans, State of Queensland (2010)Google Scholar
  20. Dunn, W.: Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction, 3rd edn. Pearson, Upper Saddle River (2003)Google Scholar
  21. Gruis, V.H., Nieboer, N.E.T., Thomas, A.: Strategic asset management in the social rented sector: approaches of Dutch and English housing associations. Int. J. Res. Urban Studies 41(7), 1229–1248 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harpur, P.D.: Clothing manufacturing supply chains, contractual layers and hold harmless clauses: how OHS duties can be imposed over retailers. Aust. J. Labour Law 21(3), 316–346 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. Harrison, J.R.: Strategic use of corporate board committees. Calif. Manag. Rev. 30, 109–125 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hsu, C.-C., Sandford, B.A.: The delphi technique: making sense of consensus. J. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 12(10), 1–8 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. Hoon, C.: Committees as strategic practice: the role of strategic conversation in a public administration. Hum. Relat. 60(6), 921–952 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jolicoeur, P.W., Barrett, J.T.: Coming of age: strategic asset management in the municipal sector. J. Facil. Manag. 3, 41–52 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klein, A.: Audit committee, board of director characteristics and earnings management. J. Acc. Econ. 33, 375–400 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kulkarni, U., Freeze, R.: Measuring Knowledge Management Capabilities. Idea Group, Hershey (2006)Google Scholar
  29. Laverty, K.J.: Managerial myopia or systemic short-termism? The importance of managerial systems in valuing the long term. Manag. Decis. 42(7/8), 949–962 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M.: Introduction. In: Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M. (eds.) The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, pp. 3–12. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1975)Google Scholar
  31. Lum, F.: Editorial: why is a terminology important? Opthamology 112(2), 173–174 (2005). doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.11.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mardiasmo, D., Tywoniak, S., Brown, K.A., Burgess, K.: Asset management and governance: an analysis of fleet management process issues in an asset-intensive organization. International Conference on Infrastructure Systems: Building Networks for a Brighter Future, pp. 10–12. Rotterdam, Netherlands (2008)Google Scholar
  33. Martino, J.P.: A review of selected recent advances in technological forecasting. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 70(8), 719–733 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller, L.E.: Determining what could/should be: the delphi technique and its application. Paper presented at the meeting of the 2006 annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association. Columbus, OH (2006)Google Scholar
  35. Office of the Water Supply Regulator: Guidelines for preparing strategic asset management plans. Queensland Government http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/water/regulation/pdf/guidelines/guidelines_03.pdf (2010)
  36. Page, E.C.: How policy is really made. Public management and policy association seminar on “How policy is really made”, 5th July London School of Economics, London (2006)Google Scholar
  37. Prasser, S.: Alligning ’good policy’ with ’good politics’. In: Colebatch, H.K. (ed.) Beyond the Policy Cycle: The Policy Process in Australia. Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest (2006)Google Scholar
  38. Rowe, G., Wright, G.: The delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. Int. J. Forecast. 15(1999), 353–375 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rahim, M.A.: Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 13(3), 206 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rayens, M.K., Hahn, E.J.: Building consensus using the policy delphi method. Policy Politics Nurs. Pract. 1(4), 308–315 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sabatier, P.A.: The need for better theories. In: Sabatier, P.A. (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edn. Westview Press, Davis (2007)Google Scholar
  42. Schuman, C.A., Brent, A.: Asset life cycle management: towards improving physical asset performance in the process industry. Int. J. Operat. Prod. Manag. 25(6), 566–579 (2005). doi: 10.1108/01443570510599728 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stone, D.: Global public policy, transnational policy communities and their networks. Policy Stud. J. 36(1), 19–38 (2008)Google Scholar
  44. Tenaga Nasional Berhad: Corporate overview. http://www.tnb.com.my/ (2013). Accessed 17 Feb 2013
  45. The Asset Management Council Inc.: The Asset J. 1(2) (2007)Google Scholar
  46. The Asset Management Council Inc: The Asset J. 4 (2010)Google Scholar
  47. Turoff, M.: The policy delphi. In: Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M. (eds.) The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2002). http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/index.html
  48. Weijnen, M.P.C., Herder, P.M., Bouwmans, I.: Designing Complex Systems, A Contradiction in Terms. In: Eekhout, M., Visser, R., Tomiyama, T. (eds.) Delft Science in Design. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  49. Woodhouse, J.: Asset Management. Asset Management Processes and Tools. Woodhouse Partnership, West Berkshire (2001)Google Scholar
  50. Woodhouse, J.: Asset management: joining up the jigsaw puzzle-PAS 55 standards for the integrated management of assets. Maint. Eng. (2007)Google Scholar
  51. Woodhouse, J.: Making the most of your assets. Process Eng. 90(1), 8–9 (2009)Google Scholar
  52. Young, S.J., Jamieson, L.M.: Delivery methodology of the delphi: a comparison of two approaches. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 19(1), 42–58 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Southern Cross Business SchoolSouthern Cross DriveBilingaAustralia
  2. 2.School of Tourism and Hospitality ManagementSouthern Cross UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Cooperative Research Centre for Infrastructure and Engineering Asset Management (CIEAM)BrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations