Open Access

Delphi is a frequently used research method in the information systems (IS) field. The last fifteen years have seen many variants of the Delphi Method proposed and used in IS research. However, these variants do not seem to be properly derived; while all variants share certain characteristics, their reasoning for differentiation inconsistently varies. It seems that researchers tend to create “new” Delphi Method variants, although the underlying modification of the Delphi Method is, in fact, minor. This leads to a heterogeneity of Delphi Method variants and undermines scientific rigor when using Delphi. The study addresses this deficit and (1) identifies different variants of Delphi and determines their characteristics, (2) critically reflects to what extent a clear distinction between these variants exists, (3) shows the clearly distinguishable Delphi Method variants and their characteristics, (4) develops a proposed taxonomy of Delphi Method variants, and (5) evaluates and applies this taxonomy. The proposed taxonomy helps clearly differentiate Delphi Method variants and enhances methodological rigor when using the Delphi Method.

In this paper, we consider the route coordination problem in emergency evacuation of large smart buildings. The building evacuation time is crucial in saving lives in emergency situations caused by imminent natural or man-made threats and disasters. Conventional approaches to evacuation route coordination are static and predefined. They rely on evacuation plans present only at a limited number of building locations and possibly a trained evacuation personnel to resolve unexpected contingencies. Smart buildings today are equipped with sensory infrastructure that can be used for an autonomous situation-aware evacuation guidance optimized in real time. A system providing such a guidance can help in avoiding additional evacuation casualties due to the flaws of the conventional evacuation approaches. Such a system should be robust and scalable to dynamically adapt to the number of evacuees and the size and safety conditions of a building. In this respect, we propose a distributed route recommender architecture for situation-aware evacuation guidance in smart buildings and describe its key modules in detail. We give an example of its functioning dynamics on a use case.

Preisdifferenzierung ist ein altbekanntes Thema und spielt eine wichtige Rolle bei der Preissetzung im Online-Handel. Das Ziel dieses Beitrages ist eine kurze Darstellung der relevanten Literatur zum Thema „Preisdifferenzierung im stationären und Online-Lebensmitteleinzelhandel".

In diesem Artikel wird die strategische Vorausschau als eine Methode der Zukunftsforschung vorgestellt. Die entwickelten Szenarien können Entscheidern helfen, besser auf zukünftige Entwicklungen vorbereitet zu sein. Die GIL könnte eine Plattform sein, um Trends in der Landwirtschaft und Agrarinformatik zu identifizieren.

Objective The study’s objective was to assess factors contributing to the use of smart devices by general practitioners (GPs) and patients in the health domain, while specifically addressing the situation in Germany, and to determine whether, and if so, how both groups differ in their perceptions of these technologies. Methods GPs and patients of resident practices in the Hannover region, Germany, were surveyed between April and June 2014. A total of 412 GPs in this region were invited by email to participate via an electronic survey, with 50 GPs actually doing so (response rate 12.1%). For surveying the patients, eight regional resident practices were visited by study personnel (once each). Every second patient arriving there (inclusion criteria: of age, fluent in German) was asked to take part (paper-based questionnaire). One hundred and seventy patients participated; 15 patients who did not give consent were excluded. Results The majority of the participating patients (68.2%, 116/170) and GPs (76%, 38/50) owned mobile devices. Of the patients, 49.9% (57/116) already made health-related use of mobile devices; 95% (36/38) of the participating GPs used them in a professional context. For patients, age (P < 0.001) and education (P < 0.001) were significant factors, but not gender (P > 0.99). For doctors, neither age (P = 0.73), professional experience (P > 0.99) nor gender (P = 0.19) influenced usage rates. For patients, the primary use case was obtaining health (service)-related information. For GPs, interprofessional communication and retrieving information were in the foreground. There was little app-related interaction between both groups. Conclusions GPs and patients use smart mobile devices to serve their specific interests. However, the full potentials of mobile technologies for health purposes are not yet being taken advantage of. Doctors as well as other care providers and the patients should work together on exploring and realising the potential benefits of the technology.