Purpose
The dual purpose of this paper is to analyse the implications on research rigour of using two panels in a Delphi study, and to take a first step towards investigating how researchers in logistics and SCM establish rigour in Delphi studies.
Design/methodology/approach
Based on a literature review on research rigour in Delphi studies, this paper analyses how a modified design, with two panels, effected research rigour in a Delphi study that produced unexpected results. The paper also conducts a pilot literature review on Delphi-studies in logistics and SCM research, and investigates how these authors establish research rigour.
Findings
This paper finds that with two panels, researchers may enhance rigour in a Delphi study, but also that such a design may lead to results that would be less likely with a conventional design, especially if combined with concluding workshops. The pilot literature review indicates that Delphi-studies in logistics and SCM research establish rigour through the provision of an audit trail, rather than by explicitly discussing the quality criteria of correspondence and/or trustworthiness.
Research limitations/implications (if applicable)
The research indicates limitations with a conventional Delphi design, with one expert panel, and opportunities with a modified design, with two panels. Further research is required to explore these indicative findings.
Original/value
The paper demonstrates how a modified design of the Delphi technique, in combination with concluding workshops, can produce results and insights that would be more difficult to achieve with only one expert panel.
2020.