Identification Of Factors Supporting Co-Creative Consensus Building And Proposals For The Communication Environment

1. ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 2366–2374
1877-0509 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the KES International.
10.1016/j.procs.2020.09.300
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the KES International.
Keywords: Co-Creative Consensus Building, Communication Environment, Workshop, Convergent Thinking, Performance
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 81-90-1411-7430; fax: +81-3-5452-5425.
E-mail address: skondo@cd.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
24th International Conference on Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information & Engineering
Systems
Identification of Factors Supporting Co-Creative Consensus Building
and Proposals for the Communication Environment
Sae KONDOa
*, Taichi MIYAMAEb
, Masaaki KUZUYAc
, Karen SASAGAWAc
Hiroyuki SEKIKAWAc
, Takashi NUMATAd
, Kotaro ONISHIe
, Hiroko OHNOe
Masako MAEDAa , Takuo INOUEf, Chikako GOTOa, and Hideki KOIZUMIf
a
RCAST, The University of Tokyo 4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 153-8904, Japan
b
Itoki Corporation 4-16-13 Tsukishima, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0052, Japan
c
Itoki Corporation 2-5-1 Nihonbashi, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 103-6113, Japan
d
Research & Development Group, Hitachi, Ltd. 2520 Akanuma, Hatoyama, Saitama, 350-0395 Japan
e
House Foods Group Inc. 1-4 Takanodai, Yotsukaido-shi, Chiba, 284-0033, Japan
f
Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8656, Japan
Abstract
In the last few years, new services and systems have begun to emerge every day as a result of the remarkable
technological development that enabled the utilization of enormous amounts of data. There are high hopes for human
co-creative consensus building abilities that will enables us not merely to make proper use of them, but also to address
as-yet-unseen social issues. This study clarifies the factors involved in consensus building that enhance the participant’
s performance in workshop-type dialogue.

2. Sae Kondo et al. / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 2366–2374 2367
1. Introduction
1.1. Research background and objectives
In the last few years, new services and systems have begun to emerge every day as a result of remarkable
technological development that enabled the utilization of enormous amounts of data. Some of these have transformed
our way of life and are having an impact on social systems. Such so-called “innovation” is of great interest as a driving
force for industrial and economic revitalization in Japan, which is facing significant social structural changes such as
population decline. However, if we interpret what Schumpeter calls “innovation” [1] as a new linkage of values, it not
only efficiently derive new combinations from big data, but also needs co-creative communication that promotes
bonding of values beyond existing frameworks. The Comprehensive Innovation Strategy devised by the Cabinet Office
points out that among the challenges faced by Japan are data linkage between fields and also the relative length of time
required for R&D from basic research to social implementation [2]. Efforts to achieve improvements in these areas
are required, as they are the most critical issues.
There are already many studies on communication that enhance creativity, focusing mainly on its processes and
methodologies, such as design thinking. Therefore, this research focuses on the consensus building phase of value-
creating communication. In particular, we make a research question about what kind of environment that enables us
to support co-creative consensus-building, and we discuss its factors at the end of this paper. Note that this paper is an
extended version of Kondo (2020) [3], published in Japanese.
1.2. Types of Communication
This study focuses on workshop-type dialogue as a form of multi-person communication. Workshops have become
widely used everywhere from educational environments to corporate planning meetings and front-line town planning
(machizukuri) [4] [5]. Workshop originally meant a studio. It does not emphasize formal resolutions and decision-
making on issues, and is not based on coherent rules. The emphasis is on the task of devising ideas on the spot [6].
However, given their heavy use in situations such as corporate meetings and town planning, which involve some
decision-making, there is no doubt that a smooth transition to the phase of achieving convergence in opinions is
expected. Multi-user dialogue has been evaluated by various studies for a range of purposes using an array of methods,
and the status of the dialogue has been evaluated by measuring and analyzing language, voice, gestures, and line of
sight during the dialogue [7] [8] [9]. Based on the evaluation results, attempts are being made to develop systems that
support dialogue and also robots and agents that engage in dialogue [10] [11] [12]. However, creative dialogues such
as workshops, in which a large number of people tackle a problem without a correct answer, have not been subjected
to in-depth evaluation. The focus of this study was therefore chosen as it was considered useful to clarify the
characteristics of multi-person dialogue during creative problem-solving, to facilitate the development of a workshop-
type dialogue environment and dialogue support system, for example.
Creative problem-solving consists of a divergent thinking phase and a convergent thinking phase. A divergent
thinking phase creates a variety of ideas, and a convergent thinking phase combines ideas and devises an optimal
solution [13] [14]. Numata (2019) [15] previously published an article on the evaluation of the characteristics of multi-
user dialogue in the divergent thinking phase, in which divergent creative problem-solving tasks were imposed. In
this study, we therefore focus on the convergent thinking phase and evaluate the correlation between problem-solving
performance by multi-person dialogue, subjective evaluation, and communication environment, and then consider the
factors that support co-creative consensus building.
2. The workshop-based multi-person dialogue environment
Regarding efforts to improve the environment for workshop-type multi-person dialogue, we quote from Numata
(2019) with some additions.
In creative problem-solving through multi-user dialogue, it is desirable to secure a writing space for sharing ideas
and approaches, creating new ideas, and organizing ideas. It is also necessary to stably measure utterances in various

3. 2368 Sae Kondo et al. / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 2366–2374
postures and directions faced when speaking, in order to speak to multiple other persons positioned at different angles.
Therefore, in this research, we constructed an environment in which movements and voices can be measured under
the two conditions of not obstructing the writing space and the subject not wearing a microphone. Specifically, as
shown in Fig. 1, a writing space was secured by providing a whiteboard (INNOVA SAVE BOARD top plate and table
frame, made by ITOKI) with a horizontal surface and a vertical surface. At the center of the upper part of the horizontal
whiteboard, we suspended a multi-point microphone (TAMAGO-03, System in Frontier), and a 360° camera (SP360
Kodak PIXPRO) from the ceiling. In order to prevent the conversation from interfering with other groups, a sound-
absorbing curtain surrounding the table was provided. The recording on the whiteboard and the utterance evaluation
by the multi-point microphone were performed by means of utterance analysis at the time of problem-solving based
on the previous study [15] [16] by Numata et al.
This study, which focuses on co-creative consensus building, examines the convergent thinking phase and analyzes
the relationship between task performance, subjects’ subjective evaluation, the communication environment, and
subject attributes.
3. Experimental method
3.1. Experimental protocol
As a convergent problem-solving task, we used the "NASA game," which the social psychologist Jay Hall devised,
based on the NASA Apollo program in the 1970s, under the cooperation and supervision of NASA. It is a survival
task based on the premise "if you landed on the moon." The solution has low obviousness and is highly novel to the
subject, so it is said that each subject's field of specialism is less likely to affect it, and it has already been adopted in
previous studies [17] [18]. The convergence thinking phase, which is the subject of this study, was set to the solution
of this task within 65 minutes.
In this experiment, three test subjects were seated around a table with the whiteboard tabletop shown in Fig. 1. In
the first five minutes, we explained the task shown in Fig. 2. Next, three subjects carried out 15 minutes of individual
work, during which they ranked 15 items in order of importance for survival on the moon as their personal answers.
In the 35 minutes of group work that followed, they decided on the importance of the ranking as a group. At the
beginning of the group work, we instructed groups whether to use the vertical surface of the whiteboard or the
horizontal surface. In the last 10 minutes, they graded personal answers and group answers. After the end of the phase,
we conducted a questionnaire-based survey among subjects as a subjective evaluation of their group work.
Fig. 1. Experimental environment for workshop-
type multi-person dialogue in this study

4. Sae Kondo et al. / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 2366–2374 2369
3.2. Subjects and items measured
We conducted the experiment on February 20, 2018, at the Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology,
The University of Tokyo. The subjects were nine students aged between 19 and 53 years old and 12 working adults
(13 male, eight female). We divided them into seven groups.
The closer a ranking was to the correct answer (ranking) given by NASA, the higher the level of success. Therefore,
the sum of differences (absolute values) from the correct answers (rankings) for the 15 items was calculated to award
points for each of the personal answers and the group answers. The lower the score, the better the result.
We measured the writing area and proportion of the whiteboard used by each group after each task to examine
whiteboard use.
The subjective evaluation of the group work was conducted on the basis of the 15 questions in Table 1, featuring
seven items to be evaluated on a 10-point Likert scale (from “do not think at all” to “think so very much”) and also
free text answers.
3.3. Analysis method
We conducted multiple regression analysis to examine a model explaining the improvement in individual
performance using the gap between the personal score and the group score (hereinafter the “individual score
fluctuation amount”) as the objective variable. If the amount of change in the individual score fluctuation amount was
positive, we interpreted that to mean that the group performance improved personal performance.
Next, using the group total for its members' individual score fluctuation amounts as a target variable, we conducted
multiple regression analysis to examine a model explaining this value. Here too, if the objective variable had a positive
value, it meant that the performance improved for the group as a whole. In addition, our interpretation was that the
more significant the total amount of changes in the individual score fluctuation amount, the better the group
performance.
The spacecraft you are on has landed on the moon. You plan to rendezvous with the mothership
on the lighted surface of the moon 200 miles (320 km) away. However, a rough landing
damaged your ship and destroyed almost all the equipment on board. Only the following 15
items are left.
The survival of the crew depends on whether you can reach the mother ship. Therefore, you
have to choose the essential items for a 200-mile (320 km) journey across the lighted surface of
the moon. Your task is to rank the 15 items in order of importance to survival.
Quote from NASA：https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/nasa-exercise
Fig. 2. Task in the convergent thinking phase

5. 2370 Sae Kondo et al. / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 2366–2374
Table 1. Subjective evaluation items for group work in the questionnaire
Subjective evaluation items Question (No. shows the order in the questionnaire)
Fun 1) The group work was fun.
Recognition
2) The group work was successful.
4) These group members are trustworthy.
5) I often sympathized with the other members.
Opinion
6) I often got annoyed because I did not agree with the other members.
7) I felt that my opinion was respected.
9) Many of the members' comments were convincing.
Time
8) I had plenty of time and opportunity to convey my opinion.
10) There was enough time and opportunity to hear the opinions of the members.
Role
11) The members were able to divide up their roles appropriately.
12) What role did you play in the group? (free text answer)
Environment
3) It was easy to talk during the group work.
13) The environment for the group work was well prepared.
14) Please tell us what you liked and did not like about the work environment. (free
text answer)
Other 15) Other things that you noticed or sensed. (free text answer)
4. Results
Table 2 shows the personal score of each member, the group score, and the group total of the individual score
fluctuation amount for each group.
First, we conducted a regression analysis of the amount of change in the individual score fluctuation amount and
extracted elements with significant coefficients. We then confirmed that they were not subject to multicollinearity,
and finally, we decided on the five subjective evaluation questions in Table 3 and chose the following five elements
as explanatory variables: the proportion of the whiteboard on which the group had written, the roles played by the
participants, the placement of the whiteboard (horizontal or vertical), gender, and age.
Table 4 shows the results of the multiple regression analysis conducted to consider a model that contributes to the
improvement of personal performance. As the correction factor R2 was 0.91, we determined that it was an accurate
model. It should be noted that “type” is an item that categorizes the group type based on diagnosis of each individual’s
personality (neurosis, extroversion, openness, harmony, and integrity). However, in this study, since the N number is
quite small, with just 7 groups, the influence of type on performance is not considered.
From this, the following six points became clear.
1. Writing area on the whiteboard: The individual score fluctuation amount decreases by 0.326 points for every
1% (of the board area) increase.
2. Facilitation: The amount of change in personal scores decreases by 0.519 points when this role is taken.
3. Whiteboard: The amount of change in personal score is 0.429 points lower when it is upright than when it is
horizontal.
4. Gender: The change in personal score for males is 11.4 points lower.
5. Age: The change in personal score increases by 0.681 points as the age increases by one year.
6. Subjective evaluation: The coefficient is negative, while the absolute value is larger in the order Question 6),
Question 4), and Question 9), contributing to performance improvement. On the other hand, in questions 5)
and 2), the coefficient is positive, which negatively affects performance.

6. Sae Kondo et al. / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 2366–2374 2371
Table 2. Personal score, group score and total of the individual score fluctuation amount for the group
Table 3. Subjective evaluation items extracted as explanatory variables
Subjective evaluation items Question (No. shows the order in the questionnaire)
Recognition
2) The group work was successful.
4) These group members are trustworthy.
5) I often sympathized with the other members.
Opinion
6) I often got annoyed because I did not agree with the other members.
9) Many of the members' comments were convincing.
Next, Table 5 shows the results of multiple regression analysis performed as a model study that contributes to the
improvement in the group total of the individual score fluctuation amount, which is the group performance. The five
explanatory factors were the whiteboard writing area proportion, the role played by the participants, the placement of
the whiteboard, gender, and age, which confirmed that multicollinearity did not occur.
The correction factor R2 was 0.855, so we determined it to be an accurate model. Regarding gender, the dummy
variable was 1 when all members were the same gender, and 0 when mixed.
As a result, the following five points became clear.
7. Gender: If all are of the same gender, the group total of the individual score fluctuation amount decreases by
80.2 points.
8. Whiteboard: When it is upright, the group total of the individual score fluctuation amount decreases by 65.1
points.
9. Age: As standard deviation increases by 1, the group total of the individual score fluctuation amount decreases
by 2.69 points.
10. Facilitation: The group total of the individual score fluctuation amount decreases by 43.5 points as the number
of facilitators increases by 1.
11. Whiteboard writing area proportion: For each 1% increase, the group total of the individual score fluctuation
amount increases by 1.89 points.
5. Consideration of factors that support co-creative consensus and of the communication environment
Based on the results of Chapter 4, we discuss factors that support co-creative consensus building and the
communication environment.
First, based on results 1-6 in Chapter 4, the following trends can be considered that taking the facilitator's role or
using a lager the writing area on the upright whiteboard will increase risks to reduce personal performance. However,
its impact is relatively small. But men are more likely to fail to build a co-creative consensus within the group and
reduce personal performance.
In addition, personal performance improves by feeling empathy and successful. Nevertheless, it can be said that
engaging in dialogue with a trusted person and sharing points of consensus do not lead to performance improvement.
32 52 42 80 48 40 36 52 38 70 52 58 34 36 44 56 58 56 52 58 42
Total of the individual
score fluctuation
amount
-30 42 12 48 12 14 -10
2-3 2-4
Personal score
Group score 52 42 38 44 34 52 54
1-1 1-2 1-3 2-1 2-2
Group No.

7. 2372 Sae Kondo et al. / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 2366–2374
Table 4. Results of multiple regression analysis of personal performance
Table 5. Results of multiple regression analysis on group performance

8. Sae Kondo et al. / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 2366–2374 2373
Based on results 7-11, the following three factors tend to contribute to a co-creative consensus building: mixed-
gender participants, a fixed moderator, and using a more of the width of the horizontal whiteboard.
Low variation in the age range increases the likelihood of successful co-creative consensus building, but its impact
is relatively small.
From the above, we conclude that in order to promote co-creative consensus building in multi-person dialogue,
participants should be composed of members, the same age group with different genders but easy to s feel empathy.
Furthermore, the discussion should be led by a fixed moderator. We also consider an environment where everyone
can write out ideas on the horizontal plane and share and discuss them to be preferable because this makes it easy to
create a situation in which even a large number of people can talk on an equal footing.
However, the analytical results that led to these conclusions show a correlation rather than a causal relationship.
6. Limitations and future studies
The analysis was limited, as the study had 21 subjects and as few as seven groups, and the analytical results that
led to these conclusions show a correlation rather than a causal relationship. However, since then, we have continued
similar experiments and will undertake more in-depth consideration using higher N numbers in the future. Adding
that, we should improve the well-designed comparative experiments and careful discussion to test these conclusions
in the future.
References
[1] Schumpeter, Joseph A., “Theories der Wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung,” 2. Aufl., 1926
[2] Comprehensive Innovation Strategy 2019, Cabinet Office, https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/tougosenryaku/tougo_gaiyo.pdf
[3] S. Kondo, T. Miyamae, M. Kuzuya, K. Sasagawa, H. Sekikawa, S. Onodera, T. Numata, K. Onishi, H. Ohno, M. Maeda, T. Inoue, C. Goto, H.
Koizumi, “Elucidation of Factors Supporting Co-Creative Consensus Building and Proposal of the Communication Environment”, IEICE
Technical Report, THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRONICS INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION ENGINEER, vol. 119, no. 413, pp.1-
6, 2020
[4] Nishida, Ito, Fukushima, Sengoku and Ito, “ Verification of a method that combines face-to-face and non-face-to-face workshops-A case
study of community-based social experiments-“, Bulletin of Japanese Society for the Science of Design, Vol.64 No.4, pp.39-48, 2018
[5] Bruce Tonn, John Scheb, Michael Fitzgerald, Dorian Stiefel, “Future of governance workshop summary,” Futures 44, pp.773–777, 2012
[6] Y. Washida, “Characteristic analysis of non-verbal communication in workshop type conference”, soshikikagaku (Organizational Science),
Vol.49 No.4, pp.16-28, 2016
[7] Y. Hayashi, F. Nihei, Y. I.Nakano, Hung-Hsuan Huang and S. Okada, “Development of Group Discussion Interaction Corpus and Analysis of
the Relationship with Personality Traits”, Journal of the Information Processing Society of Japan, vol.56, no.4, pp.1217-1227 Apr.2015.
[8] M. Takahashi, K. Nemoto, N. Hayashi, and R. Horita, “The measurement of dialogue: From a case study of the workshop using world café as
a collective dialogue method,” Journal of Information Processing Society of Japan, vol.22, no.1, pp.88-95, Jan.2014.
[9] Y. Matsuzawa, J. Oshima, R. Oshima, Y. Niihara, and S. Sakai, “KBDeX: A platform for exploring discourse in collaborative learning,”
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol.26, no.1, pp.198-207, Dec.2011.
[10] A. Inaba, R. Ohkubo, M. Ikeda and R. Mizoguchi,”An Interaction Analysis Support System for CSCL”, Journal of Information Processing
Society of Japan, vol.44, no.11, pp.2617-2626, Nov.2003.
[11] Y. Matsuyama, I. Akiba, S. Fujie, and T. Kobayashi, “Four-participant group conversation: A facilitation robot controlling engagement density
as the fourth participant,” Computer Speech and Language, vol.33, no.1, pp.1-24, Jan.2015.
[12] T.Sugiyama, K. Funakoshi, M. Nakano and K.Komatani, “Estimating Response Obligation by Focusing on User States in Multi-Party Human-
Robot Dialogues”, Journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, vol.31, no.3, p.C-FB2_1-9, May.2016.
[13] L.S. Colzato, A. Szapora, D. Lippelt, and B. Hommel, “Prior meditation practice modulates performance and strategy use in convergent- and
divergent-thinking problems,” Mindfulness, vol.8, no.1, pp.10-16, Feb.2017.
[14] G. Goldschmidt, “Linkographic evidence for concurrent divergent and convergent thinking in creative design,” Creativity Research Journal,
vol.28, no.2, pp.115-122, May.2016.
[15] T. Numata, S. Kondo, T. Miyamae, H. Sekikawa, K. Sasagawa, S. Onodera, M. Kuzuya, K. Onishi, H. Ohno, M. Maeda, C. Goto, H.
Koizumi, “ Relationship of speech activity to subjective ratings and task performance during a divergent creative problem solving task with
communication in three persons”, IEICE Technical Report, THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRONICS INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATION ENGINEER, vol. 119, No. 179, pp.43-48, 2019

9. 2374 Sae Kondo et al. / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 2366–2374
[16] T. Numata, S. Kondo, T. Miyamae, H. Sekikawa, K. Sasagawa, S. Onodera, M. Kuzuya, K. Onishi, H. Ohno, M. Maeda, C. Goto, H. Koizumi,
“Relationship of speech activity to subjective ratings and performance during a convergent creative problem solving task involving
communication among three people” 7th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, M6, pp.256-258, 2019
[17] Doyle, M & Straus, D., “ How To Make Meetings Work!,”, 1976
[18] S. Ito, “Availability of consensus games in school education activities”, Bulletin of Hokkaido Science education center, vol. 26, pp.38-45,
2014