# Revisiting Problem-Solution Co-Evolution in the Context of Team Conceptual Design Activity
## 1 Introduction
It instead correlates analysis (no matter if performed in the problem or solution space) with problem space exploration, meaning that analysis-intensive activity is also likely to be more intensive in terms of exploring the problem space (to the degree it can be observed in the design team's dialogue). On the other hand, synthesis has been primarily related to performing solution space exploration [39; 44], although it has been demonstrated to play an important role in the evolution of both design problems and solutions [45]. One can, therefore, assume an interplay between performing synthesis and exploring solution space, such as that synthesising intensity correlates with the intensity of exploring the solution space. Similarly, the term evaluation has almost exclusively been used to describe performing of the assessment of solution entities rather than problem entities (see, e.g., [41; 46; 47]), thus triggering additional efforts of solution refinement. Hence, there is an assumption of correlation between performing evaluation and exploring the solution. The following three hypotheses were formulated in order to investigate the first set of literature-based assumptions:  
**Hypothesis 1a (H1a). **_Performing analysis during team conceptual design activity is positively correlated with performing problem space exploration._  
**Hypothesis 1b (H1b). **_Performing synthesis during team conceptual design activity is positively correlated with performing solution space exploration._  
**Hypothesis 1c (H1c). **_Performing evaluation during team conceptual design activity is positively correlated with performing solution space exploration._  
The second hypothesis set concerns the dominant sequences of ASE performed in order to explore the design space during team design activity. As mentioned previously, the early systematic approaches tended to prescribe the analysis-synthesis-evaluation (A-S-E) sequence [2; 3; 4], implying that problem analysis must be followed by synthesis and evaluation of solutions. Different portrayals of the A-S-E sequence can still be found across design textbooks (e.g., [14; 28; 38; 48]) but also within the scientific literature [37; 39; 49; 50], where this specific sequence has occasionally been considered as an underlying conceptual design process [51]. [PERSON] et al. [39] addressed the A-S-E sequence in their study of individual electronic designers. They found out that, indeed, the analysis was most probable to be followed by synthesis, and synthesis was most probable to be followed by evaluation. Interestingly, they found out that evaluation will most probably lead back to synthesis, rather than analysis. Nevertheless, it is worth revisiting the overall ASE sequence in the context of team designing, particularly considering the descriptive design models that tend to favour contrasting sequences of ASE [51], particularly when describing observations of a moment to moment creative design thinking [52]. Examples include the often-cited thinking processes in design teams by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [41] and [PERSON]'s FBS framework [53], which both utilise the synthesis-analysis-evaluation (S-A-E) sequence as a vital part of solution-related design cognition. Nevertheless, given that cognition cannot be directly observed, the study will revisit assumptions related to the well-established A-S-E sequence, and test the following set of hypotheses in the context of team design activity:  
**Hypothesis 2a (H2a). **_Analysis is most probable to be followed by synthesis during team conceptual design activity._  
**Hypothesis 2b (H2b). **_Synthesis is most probable to be followed by evaluation during team conceptual design activity._  
**Hypothesis 2c (H2c).