Nominal group technique

Nominal group technique (NGT) is a structured group decision-making method that combines individual idea generation with collective discussion and systematic voting to prioritize options while ensuring equal participation from all group members (Delbecq A.L., Van de Ven A.H. 1971, p.466)^[1]. Six people sit around a table. Instead of free-form brainstorming where dominant voices drown out quieter colleagues, each person writes ideas silently. Then they share in round-robin fashion—one idea per turn, no discussion. Only after all ideas are posted does discussion begin. Finally, private voting determines priorities. The quiet analyst's idea receives as much consideration as the verbose sales director's.

Andre Delbecq and Andrew Van de Ven developed NGT in 1968, frustrated by the inefficiencies and biases of traditional group meetings. Research showed that individuals working alone generate more ideas than groups brainstorming together—a phenomenon called production blocking. NGT captures individual creativity while adding the benefits of group refinement and prioritization.

Process

NGT follows a structured sequence:

Silent generation

Individual ideation. Participants receive a clearly stated question or problem. Working silently and independently, each person writes down their ideas—typically 5-10 minutes^[2].

No interaction. During this phase, there is no talking, no sharing, no influence from others.

Round-robin recording

One idea at a time. Going around the group, each person states one idea. The facilitator records it on a flip chart or board visible to all.

No evaluation. Ideas are simply recorded without discussion, criticism, or elaboration. Participants may pass if all their ideas have been stated^[3].

Complete coverage. The round-robin continues until all ideas are captured.

Discussion

Clarification. Each idea is discussed in turn. The purpose is understanding, not evaluation—what does this mean? Who suggested it? What's the reasoning?

Brief and focused. Discussion should clarify, not debate. Advocacy and criticism are minimized to prevent premature convergence.

Voting and ranking

Individual priorities. Each participant privately ranks their top choices (typically 5 items) or allocates points across options^[4].

Aggregation. Votes are collected and tallied. Results reveal group priorities.

Optional iterations. Groups may discuss the voting results and conduct additional rounds to refine priorities.

Advantages

NGT addresses common meeting dysfunctions:

Equal participation. Everyone generates ideas and everyone votes. Dominant personalities cannot monopolize.

Reduced conformity. Silent generation prevents anchoring on early suggestions and reduces pressure to conform^[5].

More ideas. Research consistently shows NGT produces more unique ideas than traditional brainstorming.

Time efficiency. Structured process prevents tangents and keeps meetings focused.

Clear outcomes. Voting produces explicit priorities rather than vague consensus.

Limitations

NGT has constraints:

Structured formality. The rigid process may feel artificial. Some participants find it uncomfortable.

Limited discussion. Brief clarification discussion may not adequately explore complex issues^[6].

Facilitation dependency. Effective NGT requires skilled facilitation to maintain structure.

Not suited for all problems. Technical problems requiring deep expertise may not benefit from broad participation.

Applications

NGT serves various purposes:

Strategic planning. Identifying priorities, threats, opportunities, or goals.

Problem identification. Generating comprehensive lists of issues to address^[7].

Quality improvement. Identifying root causes or potential solutions.

Research. Gathering expert opinions in focus groups and Delphi-style studies.

Curriculum development. Identifying learning objectives and content priorities.

Variations

The basic process can be adapted:

Multi-voting. Participants receive multiple votes (often using sticky dots) to allocate across options.

Weighted ranking. Instead of equal votes, participants allocate 100 points across their preferred options.

Electronic NGT. Software enables remote participation while maintaining anonymity and structure^[8].

Comparison with brainstorming

NGT differs from traditional brainstorming:

Brainstorming. Free-flowing idea generation with building on others' contributions. Works well with confident, verbal groups.

NGT. Structured process with silent generation. Better for mixed groups, sensitive topics, or when dominant voices are problematic.

Nominal group technique — recommended articles

Brainstorming — Decision making — Group dynamics — Facilitation

References

• Delbecq A.L., Van de Ven A.H. (1971), A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7(4), pp.466-492.
• Delbecq A.L., Van de Ven A.H., Gustafson D.H. (1975), Group Techniques for Program Planning, Scott Foresman.
• ASQ (2023), Nominal Group Technique.
• Boddy C. (2012), The Nominal Group Technique, Qualitative Market Research, 15(1), pp.72-80.

Footnotes

1. ↑ Delbecq A.L., Van de Ven A.H. (1971), Group Process Model, p.466
2. ↑ Delbecq A.L. et al. (1975), Group Techniques, pp.45-58
3. ↑ ASQ (2023), Nominal Group Technique
4. ↑ Boddy C. (2012), Nominal Group Technique, pp.75-78
5. ↑ Delbecq A.L., Van de Ven A.H. (1971), Group Process Model, pp.472-478
6. ↑ Delbecq A.L. et al. (1975), Group Techniques, pp.89-102
7. ↑ ASQ (2023), Applications
8. ↑ Boddy C. (2012), Nominal Group Technique, pp.78-80

Author: Sławomir Wawak