# Revisiting Problem-Solution Co-Evolution in the Context of Team Conceptual Design Activity
## 3 Results
The resulting protocol fragments vary in length from 73 to 114 segments, thus providing a sufficient number of state-transition instances for calculating the previously introduced process measures (proportions and probabilities of state transitions and their sequences). Splitting of protocols into fragments also allows the triangular visualisation of the teams' processes in terms of ASE transitions and problem/solution-focus, as shown in Figure 4. The proportions of ASE for each activity fragment were transformed into the position within the triangle, whereas the proportions of problem-related verbalisations were depicted using the markers' colour. The colours correspond to a gradient from full red (0% of problem-related verbalisation) over yellow (about 30% of problem-related verbalisation) to full green (60% of problem-related verbalisation). Note that for the convenience of visualisation, the scale was limited to 0-60%; however, in general, it can be expanded to any range between 0% and 100%. The resolution of these depictions can be increased if the session protocols are split into more fragments. Nevertheless, this would result in smaller protocol fragments that cannot be analysed using the measures that rely on proportions. Hence, the three-fragment protocols were assessed as the most appropriate for the following analyses. Figure 4 (based on data from Table 1 in Appendix A) reveals that the ideation processes of all teams slightly gravitated towards the synthesis when compared to the concept review process, which gravitated towards analysis and evaluation. Additionally, ideation steps were more problem focused when compared to the concept review steps. Nonetheless, the proportions of ASE and problem/solution focus alternated in no small degree during the activities, which is best depicted in the change of the marker position and colour. The teams took different approaches during the two activities. Team 1 exhibited a clear distinction between ideation and concept review. During ideation, they progressively moved towards the synthesis corner, with an intensive exploration of the problem space throughout the session. During concept review, the team exhibited less alternation in terms of ASE and focused primarily on solution space exploration. Team 2 focused on problem space exploration at the beginning of ideation and then gradually moved towards the solution space as the session progressed. In terms of ASE, they altered more during concept review, which was primarily solution focused with a slight increase in problem-related verbalisation early and late in the session. The processes of team 3 were less distinguishable in terms of ASE when compared to teams 1 and 2. Nevertheless, one can again notice a small shift towards synthesis during ideation and analysis during the concept review. The somewhat higher relative proportions of problem-related discussion can be seen in the middle of the ideation, and the beginning of concept review activity. Finally, in terms of ASE, team 4 exhibited more uniform behaviour during both ideation and concept review. Ideation was more synthesis and problem focused, particularly at the beginning of the session, whereas concept review was focused mostly on analysis and evaluation within the solution space. The following subsections utilise the described data points in order to investigate further the assumed relationships between ASE and design space exploration, the analysis-synthesis-evaluation state-transition sequence, as well as the state transitions in between the problem and the solution space.