Pronoia shows paths into the future
“I took my name from a goddess whose temple travellers passed on their way to the oracle. I am not the oracle. I am the road a question travels, and the room where it is talked over.”
Got an invitation link?
You need no account and no password. Open the personal link that arrived in your email — that is enough, and the same link brings you back to the panel round after round. Your answers appear to others under a pseudonym, taking part is voluntary, and you can answer at your own pace.
Pronoia is a versatile platform for the Delphi method. It defines Delphi as a facilitated method in which a group of experts with many perspectives (in Delphi, the group is called a panel) interact in a way that helps them share and understand how a complex phenomenon may develop. The definition is closely related to Linstone and Turoff's (1975) description: “A method for structuring a group communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem.”
A question sets it in motion
A Delphi process starts with an open question on which the expert panelists take a reasoned position. They can also comment on each other's views and change their original position. A Delphi process may have one round or several; with several, the discussion in one round prepares the themes of the next.
The process produces perspectives, hypotheses and claims that are put to open expert testing and argument. A many-voiced panel naturally disagrees about how likely and how desirable the alternatives for the phenomenon are. The Delphi rounds aim to sift and discuss the initially differing views into shared or divided collective views.
Consensus or dissensus
Both outcomes are valuable. A panel that seeks consensus looks for common ground in choices and reasoning by putting pressure especially on views at the margins. In the opposite Delphi variation, the aim is to produce the strongest possible reasoning for many alternatives. That setting yields the raw material for scenarios of several futures.
Four variations
Argument Delphi
Argument Delphi maps the differences between views and the arguments behind them. This variation “reads” the future as a plural map of possibilities. A diversity of views is allowed, and tensions are the “raw material” of scenarios. Argument Delphi is Pronoia's default variation.
Classic Delphi
Classic Delphi has the same processes and stages as the argumentative variation: first the question is answered, then the panel discusses and revises its answers until the round is closed and the next one is prepared. The difference lies in the aim and the indicators: Classic Delphi aims at a reasoned consensus and measures it with consensus indicators.
Real-Time Delphi
What sets this variation apart is that there is only one round, and all of its response elements are open from the start. Panelists see the state of the group and the reasoning of others, and can answer, change their answer and comment on comments at any time. The facilitator can add questions during the process if the material gives reason to. Real-Time Delphi can aim at either consensus or dissensus.
Barometer Delphi
In the fourth variation, the same theses are assessed again over time. The measurement waves differ only in their timing: the questionnaire stays the same so that change over time can be read as a finding. Between waves a thesis can be “retired” if it has lost its bearing on the future, and a new one can take its place.
Five orientations
The orientation states the perspective from which the future is studied. It shapes how the theses are worded, how the panel is composed and how the work proceeds between rounds.
Normative
A normative study answers the question “What kind of future is good?” The aim is to find a shared view (consensus) on the goal. It is often chosen when the subject is visions, strategic policies and goals.
Strategic
A strategic study answers the question “How do we reach the goal, and who does what?” The emphasis is on means, mechanisms and alternative paths. It is chosen when looking for the best implementation, policy instruments and resources.
Radical
The radical questions are: “What could change fundamentally? Which assumptions will break?” Choose this orientation when you want to challenge what is taken for granted and prepare for disruptions, surprises and wild cards.
Emergent (abductive)
The emergent orientation turns to new phenomena that are only just taking shape. It emphasises observation: what is emerging without anyone's ready-made plan? Choose it when the most important thing is to notice change pushing up from below. The panel is then made up of observers rather than experts.
Intentional combination (N+S+R)
The fifth orientation is a mixed form in which different questions can follow different logics. It is the default orientation for multifaceted studies and a good choice when a topic raises value, means and rupture questions at the same time. It is often run with a single panel in which the orientations are separated at thesis level. There is also D+ (four-path), in which the combination (D) and the emergent orientation (E) run in parallel with two separate panels.
Three stages
Work in Pronoia falls into three main stages. In design, the phenomenon to be studied or developed is framed, the panel is assembled and the opening theses are written. In data collection, the panelists' invitations, dialogues and rounds are facilitated. In analysis, the material is opened up as distributions, argument classifications, tensions and scenarios.
The stages follow each other logically, but the facilitator can look at results and communicate with panelists during the rounds as well. The facilitator's “cockpit” (dashboard) has the tools to define what panelists see of the panel at each stage of the process. Separate tools for designing and analysing a Delphi panel are integrated into Pronoia and available to its users as an option.
Two helpers, and one rule
Kastalia meets the panelist at the threshold and helps them put a thought into words before the first round. Kassotis works only in the analysis, opening the panel's talk layer by layer. Neither ranks views or says what to answer, and both are bound by the same rule: the machine carries the material, the human does the seeing.
AI takes part — or it doesn't
A panel may include AI panelists that take part in answering, arguing and dialogue. Using AI panelists is optional, and if they are included, this is always disclosed before you answer. The Delphi researcher can also use AI in design and analysis. AI-generated content is marked with 🤖 in every case. The material is never used to train AI models.
Services and materials
More will gather here over time: ecosystem plugins, articles and training.