  In solving today's social issues, it is necessary to determine solutions that
are acceptable to all stakeholders and collaborate to apply them. The
conventional technology of "permissive meeting analysis" derives a
consensusable choice that falls within everyone's permissible range through
mathematical analyses; however, it tends to be biased toward the majority in a
group, making it difficult to reach a consensus when a conflict arises. To
support consensus building (defined here as an acceptable compromise that not
everyone rejects), we developed a composite consensus-building process. The
developed process addresses this issue by combining permissible meeting
analysis with a new "compromise choice-exploration" technology, which presents
a consensusable choice that emphasizes fairness and equality among everyone
when permissible meeting analysis fails to do so. When both permissible meeting
analysis and compromise choice exploration do not arrive at a consensus, a
facility is provided to create a sublated choice among those provided by them.
The trial experimental results confirmed that permissive meeting analysis and
compromise choice exploration are sufficiently useful for deriving
consensusable choices. Furthermore, we found that compromise choice exploration
is characterized by its ability to derive choices that control the balance
between compromise and fairness. Our proposed composite consensus-building
approach could be applied in a wide range of situations, from local issues in
municipalities and communities to international issues such as environmental
protection and human rights issues. It could also aid in developing digital
democracy and platform cooperativism.
