Conference PaperPDF Available

Role of biologists in Biomimetic Design Processes: Preliminary Results


Abstract and Figures

Although biomimetic design practice becomes more and more common, some methodological aspects are still under development. More especially, this article aims at dealing with biologist’s role and integration during the design process and its construction. After an introduction of the context and the protocol of our experiment on a case study about the insulation of containers housing, our preliminary results will be presented. Through the use of the biomimetic tool AskNature, we will wonder about the differences between the approach of biomimetic processes by students in biology or engineering.
Content may be subject to copyright.
E. Graeff, N. Maranzana and A. Aoussat
Although biomimetic design practice becomes more and more common, some methodological aspects
are still under development. More especially, this article aims at dealing with biologist’s role and
integration during the design process and its construction. After an introduction of the context and the
protocol of our experiment on a case study about the insulation of containers housing, our preliminary
results will be presented. Through the use of the biomimetic tool AskNature, we will wonder about the
differences between the approach of biomimetic processes by students in biology or engineering.
Keywords: biologically inspired design, biomimicry (biomimetics), design methods,
interdisciplinarity, AskNature
1. Introduction
Biomimetic is defined as “the interdisciplinary cooperation of biology and technology or other fields of
innovation with the goal of solving practical problems through the function analysis of biological systems,
their abstraction into models and the transfer into and application of these models to the solution”
(ISO/TC266, 2015). Over the past decades, biomimetic has established itself as one of the most promising
strategies to create a boost toward innovative and environment-friendly products (Bar-Cohen, 2006;
Vincent et al., 2006; Hwang et al., 2015). Many studies have evaluated such processes and shown that they
allowed a greater novelty of solutions and so a greater amount of innovative products (Ahmed-Kristensen
et al., 2014; Keshwani et al., 2017). However, biomimetic design process keeps facing a fundamental
impediment: biologists. They potentially constitute both the greatest asset of biomimetic design and its
greatest challenge. It has always been seen in interdisciplinary fields that the wealth of diversity comes
with strong barriers in terms of communication and understanding between actors (Schöfer, 2015). In the
case of biomimetic design, a quick review of the existing tools and processes raises the following question:
where are biologists? Most of the tools are designed to be used by engineers, all processes are meant to
be followed by engineers and the resulting feeling is that engineers are trying to extract biological
knowledge while shortcutting biologists. This statement, even if openly provocative, is not unfounded. On
account of the biomimetic intrinsic need for biological knowledge, the current strategy is to make tools,
like database of biological strategies (Vincent et al., 2006; Nagel et al., 2010; Deldin and Schuknecht,
2014). So far, this process works thanks to the relative novelty of the approach and the relative low number
of practitioners. The biggest database of biological strategies is AskNature which has been created in 2008
and gathers 1,671 biological strategies and 201 inspired ideas (Biomimicry Institute, 2002) and even if the
database is enlarged little by little, there is a real need to hasten this process in order to represent a viable
solution in the long run (Vandevenne et al., 2015). Biomimetic design teams that directly include the
source of biological knowledge (i.e. biologists) are the only coherent way to consider biomimetic as a
long-term design strategy (Lenau, 2009; Snell-Rood, 2016; Schöfer et al., 2018). One way of dealing with
this methodological issue would be to call for biologists during the elaboration of the biomimetic process,
leading to an interdisciplinary engineering design. This article firstly gives an overview of the global
context, before it focuses on some points of reflection about engineering design of biomimetic processes.
After the presentation of the problematic and the hypothesis, this article will deal with the protocol of a
case study carried out on the insulation of containers homes in Ivory Coast, thanks to the above-presented
biomimetic tool, AskNature. The preliminary analysis of the use of these biomimetic tools by students,
with a background in engineering or in biology will be detailed to underline the differences in the approach
of biomimetic processes along with the usefulness and effectiveness of databases in general. With the aim
of bringing out the fundamental question of the biologist's role in the biomimetic process, this article
underlines the need for an interdisciplinary approach in both biomimetic and engineering design.
2. Context
Through an overview of some common points between current design challenges and life’s innovation
mechanisms, this part addresses the question of the origin of biomimetic process and underlines its
crucial need for a methodological frame.
2.1. Modern design challenges
Many consider the gathering of product design and sustainable development as one of the greatest
modern challenges (Bourgeois, 2007; Sachs, 2015). Indeed, whereas innovation remains one of the main
levers for competitiveness, decades of scientific strong warnings made politics and companies
progressively realize that climate change and its impact on our society will dictate the centuries to come
(IPCC, 2014). In a world where the use of energy and raw materials will have to be minimized and
where waste stream will necessarily be drastically reduced, our ability to design entirely new strategies
of innovation will be one of the keys to success. These expectations for the future of the modern industry
create a whole new set of constraints to be solved.
Engineers often refer to design theories to solve design problems. Among these theories, which draw the
current frame of design practice, a significant number is composed of problem-solving strategies that
include abstraction processes (Lee et al., 2011). This part of the process aims at allowing engineers to take
a step back and consider the situation with a different perspective through its formalization into models :
Universal Design Theory (Grabowski et al., 1999), Synectics (Gordon, 1961), TRIZ (Altshuller, 1984), etc.
Once modelized, the given set of constraints and objectives are compared with those of solved cases from
the same or other scopes of practice. This analogical thinking can be extremely powerful to find inspiration
but demands an important source of resolved dilemmas to reach its full efficiency. The context above-
mentioned, leads us to look for a prism through which design teams will be able to generate breakthrough
innovations combining strong technical advantages and sustainable development. Since the survival of
living beings depends on innovation guided by Nature’s rules, the biomimetic approach, as the extraction
of biologic strategies to create analogic innovation, can offer such a prism (Helfman Cohen and Reich,
2016). Looking at the strategies and adaptations of livings being appears to be a formidable learning tool
for us to consider, as an endless reservoir of solved puzzles (Bila-Deroussy, 2015).
2.2. Life’s innovation mechanisms
During the 3.8 billion years separating us from the apparition of life (Forterre and Gribaldo, 2007),
living beings went through countless crisis, transitions and chaotic events. The ability of life to adapt,
to evolve, to innovate and so to diversify is one of its main tools to build resiliency (Reynolds et al.,
2012). For living entities, the main mechanisms for innovation are genetic modifications at each
generation: genetic mixing through sexual reproduction, exchanges of plasmids, recombination by
crossing-over, random genetic mutations and potentially epigenetic regulatory mechanisms (Griffiths et
al., 2000; Richards, 2006). Those mechanisms are the source of an enormous genetic variability, and so,
of a great number of possibilities, among which solutions hide. It has to be said that such mechanisms
take some time since those mutations have an impact at a phenotypic scale only if they are carried by
all the cells of the considered organism. This observation means that innovations are here strictly related
with the generation time of the different species. Bacteria which are composed of one cell and have
rather short generation times (ex: 5h in vivo for E. coli) will be the source of much more innovations
than pluricellular organisms with longer generation times (ex: 25 years for Loxodonta Africana, the
African elephant). This phenomenon explains, for example, the technical challenges faced by the
pharmaceutical industry on anti-biotics. Bacteria are much more creative and faster at doing so than
researchers who are struggling to find adequate response to antibiotics resistances.
On one hand nature’s innovative ability is based on creativity, thank to those genetic modifications, and
on the other hand on a strong sorting, known as Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection
(Darwin, 1872; Kutschera, 2009). This two steps strategy is somewhat reminiscent of the double
diamond process and of how engineers conceived the main steps of design.
Nonetheless, product design faces one huge constraint that nature does not: it has little time, little to
invest and does not have much room for mistakes. Where Nature’s innovation origin partially comes
from inherent errors of biological mechanisms, engineers’ expectations in design are about immediate
quality. What is currently seeable in nature has already been selected during the past 3.8 billion years to
meet the current environmental constraints and so must be considered as the present success stories of
life innovation process. By looking at the living beings, we can use the results of nature’s innovation
mechanism while skipping the iterative and blind innovative and sorting phase. Living species are
organized at multiple scales, interdependent, and especially adapted for a given environment, which
means they are adapted to a given set of constraints (Nelson et al., 2007). If constraints drive innovation
(Kilian, 2006; Allen, 2012), this diversity of adapted species gives us as many solutions as they are
environmental conditions.
2.3. Bio-inspiration, a wish to learn from Nature
Bio-inspiration is not a new strategy. Nature has soon been an object of comparison and a source of
inspiration during the development of antic societies (Vincent et al., 2006; Lenau, 2009) and has led to
several scientific and design breakthroughs throughout history: Leonardo Da Vinci’s work on flying
machines inspired by birds (Richter et al., 2008), the Eiffel Tower based on bone structure (Eggermont,
2015), spiroid winglets imagined after the wingtips feathers of birds of prey (Guerrero et al., 2012),
antimicrobial Sharklet™ surface mimicking shark's skin (Magyar et al., 2017), etc. From aeronautic
(Bar-Cohen, 2012) to biomedical field (Boeuf, 2007; Zhang, 2012), biomimetic success stories along
with the dissemination work of iconic figures, such as Janine Benyus (2002), gave bio-inspiration an
international recognition. This increasing interest of the global engineering community also uncovered
the lack of tools, processes and methods on bio-inspiration, leading engineers to formalize bio-inspired
design process in order to systemize its use.
2.4. The need for the formalization of biomimetic processes
The inherent difficulty of such interdisciplinary and unframed field is firstly the communication between
the different actors. To prevent any misunderstandings researchers have determined in 2015 a strict
linguistic definition of the most common, and often mixed up, terms referring to the field : bio-
inspiration, bionic, biomimicry and biomimetic (ISO/TC266, 2015). Based on these standards, this
article will focus on biomimetic (ISO/TC266, 2015).
Biomimetic processes are based on two types of approaches (Vattam et al., 2007). Either the design is
conceived after a biological discovery, leading to a new product often with a high added value, based
on the same standard we will call this strategy: the biology push approach (ISO/TC266, 2015). In this
case, the engine of the creation process is not a problem to be solved, but an alternative or a new
technology to be implemented. In the case where biomimetic is used as a problem-solving process, we
will call this strategy the technology pull approach (ISO/TC266, 2015). As the core of engineering
design in industry, the formalization of biomimetic methods and tools has been focusing on this
problem-solving approach. Overall, models that have been created to help implement a technology pull
approach are formed of the same eight main steps : Problem analysis; Abstraction of the technical
problem; Transposition to biology; Identification of biological organism, function or mechanism;
Choice of the organism(s) of interest; Abstraction of the biological solution(s); Transposition to
technical solution(s); Implementation and tests (Fayemi et al., 2014) (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The unified technology pull biomimetic process from Fayemi et al. (2017)
Some of these models come from empirical analysis mixed with existing models – The procedural model
of doing bionics (Lindemann and Gramann, 2004), Biomimetic design methodology (Lenau, 2009),
Problem-driven analogical process (Goel et al., 2014) but soon, the need for a new kind of tools
emerged. Indeed, the lack of biological knowledge led engineers to an obvious limitation of such
processes: find and extract biological strategies, functions, shapes, etc. A great number of tools have
been conceived to deal with this issue, leading to the creation of tool-based methods Idea-Inspire
process (Chakrabarti et al., 2005), Biologically inspired concept generation (Nagel et al., 2010) – or to
the facilitation of existing processes.
Tools used in biomimetic design have mainly three origins (Fayemi, 2016):
engineering, like 5-Whys (Ohno, 1978) or Technical contradictions (Altshuller, 1984),
biology, like 16 Patterns of Nature (Hoagland and Dodson, 1995) or Functional modelization
(Tinsley et al., 2007),
or have been conceived for biomimetic purposes, like SAPPhIRE (Chakrabarti et al., 2005) or
BIOTRIZ (Vincent et al., 2006).
After a classification and analysis of more than 40 tools, Wanieck et al. (2017) categorized them into six
kinds: database, taxonomy, thesaurus, ontology, algorithm and method. This fundamental sorting work
underlined a first barrier in biomimetic development. As often in engineering design, the increasing
number of tools leads the user into an unclear path as it becomes harder and harder to choose which tool
to use, and in which conditions (Lahonde, 2010). To address this issue, Fayemi et al. (2014) managed to
sort the different tools and determine to which steps of the global biomimetic process each of them refers.
Then, Fameyi et al. (2017) analyzed tools through interdisciplinary workshops and suggested the first
unified classification for biomimetic design: the BiomimeTree. More than a strict instruction manual, it
aims at guiding engineers toward the appropriate tools for each step. This formalization of the biomimetic
process progressively underlines a contradiction with both theoretical and practical aspects.
3. The biologist’s role in biomimetic processes
3.1. A paradoxical consensus
According to the BiomimeTree model (Fayemi, 2016), transfer to biology, identification, choice of
the biological organisms and abstraction of the biological strategies are the steps that have to be
managed in collaboration with a biologist. Interestingly, the steps that hold the greatest numbers of
tools are the steps of transfer (33% in total) and the second greatest is the identification of biological
model (26%). Paradoxically, those tools are designed by engineers, using engineering references and
technics and consequently appear to be made for engineers, not for biologists. Thus, it becomes clear
that the global tendency is to delay biologists' intervention or even to replace biologists by tools,
without dealing with their tricky integration into the biomimetic process. On the other hand, each of
the 27 tools composing the BiomimeTree, needs two hours of training in average to be used properly.
Therefore, tools are getting more numerous and complex to compensate for the lack of biological
knowledge, which leads us to the following question: To what extent are biologists required in
biomimetic design processes? And more especially, can biologists be replaced by engineers using
biomimetic tools? To the best of the author’s knowledge, this problematic has never been directly
addressed in a scientific article, as if it was implicit that biologists are indeed necessary in spite of the
inclination above-mentioned. A substantiated answer will help to set the boundaries and frame of
action of both engineers and biologists, and so, the interdisciplinary steps that are required for such
biomimetic processes. In order to discuss on that matter, we focused on one of the most
comprehensive and complete biomimetic database (Deldin and Schuknecht, 2014; Faludi, 2017):
AskNature (Biomimicry Institute, 2002).
3.2. Hypothesis
This article deals with the contribution of biologists in the biomimetic process. More especially, our
hypothesis is that biologists cannot be replaced by engineers because tools like AskNature can be
used for different goals, depending on the user's level of biological knowledge. We make the
assumption that engineers with no biological background can use AskNature in order to reach a first
level of abstraction, to be used as a source of inspiration for creative steps. The second part of this
assumption is that a background in biology allows the user to get to a higher level of understanding,
and so abstraction, of biological strategies. This hypothesis implies that a deep understanding of a
biological mechanisms through these tools is hardly accessible without biological background, and
that we have to consider designing tools specifically addressed to biologists, to properly help them
achieve the above-mentioned steps. In order to test our assumption, we designed a case study on the
insulation of container housing in Ivory Coast. For purposes of accessibility to consequent samples,
our experiment compares the results obtained by students with a background in biology or engineering
instead of professionals.
4. Materials and methods
4.1. Materials
The case study aims at developing an insulation for former shipping containers so that they can be turned
into comfortable houses in Ivory Coast. Students had access to a short description of the case study and
to a few basic data about Ivory Coast and the context of the project: climatic information (type of
climate, monthly temperatures and precipitations), characteristics of the containers and of the planned
village of containers, expectation of the industrial actor in terms of aesthetic.
The first tool, the Biomimicry Taxonomy, was also distributed to the participants. This open-access tool
was created by the Biomimicry 3.8 Institute to transfer technical problematics from non-biological fields
into requests suitable for AskNature (Baumeister, 2012).
The Biomimicry Taxonomy is constituted of three levels:
Group, which refers to a verb (ex: protect from physical harm),
Sub-Group, which refers to a specificity linked with the verb (ex: protect from living threats),
Function, which refers to a more specific case in the sub-group (ex: protect from Fungi).
This multi-scale taxonomy acts as a skeleton for AskNature and enables the user to formulate requests
using a common linguistic frame, directly connecting technical issues with AskNature data (Figure
Figure 2. The Biomimicry Taxonomy
AskNature is an open-access database created by the Biomimicry 3.8 Institute (Biomimicry Institute,
2002). It lists biological organisms, strategies, functions and more generally characteristics. When the
experiment took place, on November 2017, the database was composed of 1,671 biological strategies
and 201 ideas inspired from biological phenomena. Those data are then made easily available through
an intuitive search engine (Figure 3).
Figure 3. AskNature search engine
So far, the experiment has been conducted with a total sample of twenty students divided as explained
in Table 1. The final targeted sample of this study is forty students, twenty from each background.
Table 1. Sample characteristics and repartition
Background Level of Education Biomimetic knowledge Number of students
Engineering Master degree (M2) None 10
Biology Master degree (M1 & M2) None 10
Each participant had to fill in an answer sheet composed of four parts:
1. User’s profile: name, background, etc. (Figure 4)
2. Results and follow-up of the biomimetic procedure: Function, Technical problems, Requests,
Selected organisms, etc. (Figure 4)
Figure 4. Experiment’s answer sheet
3. Tools' evaluation (Biomimicry Taxonomy and AskNature) on a 5-points Likert scale. For each
tool, five criteria, based on Nielsen’s criteria about usability assessment (Nielsen, 1993), were
evaluated: satisfaction, learnability, error, wealth of information (derived from Nielsen criterion
“Efficiency”) and precision of information (derived from Nielsen criterion “Efficiency”).
4. Feedbacks from the users, one question was added: What were the hardest steps you faced?
4.2. Methods
So far, the experiment has been performed five times: two times with 5 students with a background in
biology and three times with respectively 3, 4 and 3 students with a background in industrial and design
engineering. The protocol is composed of five steps and remains the same for each series.
Presentation by the author of the biomimetic and of the container insulation case (15 min)
Presentation by the author of the protocol, the Biomimicry Taxonomy and AskNature (15 min)
Determination of functional constraints, technical problems and requests (30 min)
Research of biological organisms or strategies on AskNature (30 min)
Extraction of the biological solution into a technical one (20 min)
The authors then analysed users’ answer sheets. Firstly, we focused on the number of determined
functional constraints, requests and organisms. Then, to measure the understanding of biological strategies,
we analyzed the “Strategies” and “Transfer to technical solutions” columns of the response sheets. Because
of the short duration of the experiment, the idea was not to actually find ideas for containers insulation but
rather to collect data in order to evaluate the level of understanding of the users.
To do so, a five-points scale was designed and used by the authors:
1. Not understood: Prohibitive errors in the description, strategy placed in an unsuitable context.
2. Mentioned strategy: the title of the AskNature article is quoted without any further details
3. Medium understanding: Overall understanding of the strategy and extraction of some of the
scientific points explaining the biological ability.
4. Advanced understanding: extraction of most of the main scientific points leading to the strategy.
5. Complete understanding: extraction of all the crucial scientific points, abstraction into concept
and ability to put the strategy back into a relevant context.
The respective repartition will be presented for each population and compared with the Mann Whitney
Wilcoxon (MWW) and Chi2 test. Furthermore, in order to help the reader, the results are always presented
in the text formalized as follows: (biologists results vs engineers results, type of test, p-value:).
This first analysis led us to consider a set of main tendencies that will be detailed in the next part.
5. Results
The results presented in this part are linked to an ongoing experiment, thus, they are to be considered as a first
step of our analysis. To begin with, we will look at the feedbacks given by the users at the scale of the process.
5.1. Feedbacks' analysis
As expected, the feedbacks support the idea that engineers were more prepared for design procedures
(Table 2).
Table 2. Table representing the mentioned steps said to be the hardest
Step Biologists (n=10) Engineers (n=10) p-value
Functions 6 1 (Chi2) 0.06
Technical problems 2 2 (Chi2) 1
Requests 3 3 (Chi2) 1
Organisms 4 3 (Chi2) 1
Biological strategies 0 1 (Chi2) 1
Technical solutions 4 3 (Chi2) 1
Total 19 13 (t-test) 0.05
Indeed, biologists reported a significantly higher total number of difficulties (19 vs 13, t-test, p-value:
0.05) (Table 2). Unsurprisingly, the identification of the different functions was considered by most of
the biologists as one of the hardest step of the whole experiment (60% vs 10%, Chi2, p-value: 0.06). On
the contrary, the functional analysis is a very common procedure for engineers and so represents the
first point of difference between the two populations. We are now getting into detail and study the
number of results for each step of the process.
5.2. Results for each step
The number of identified elements appears to be higher for biologists at each step of the process (Table
3). So far, these results are not significant except for the number of identified biological strategies (8.1
vs 5.3, t-test, p-value: 0.05). A higher number of users should provide a stronger statistical frame to
conclude on the remaining steps.
Table 3. Number of identified elements for each step
Step Biologists (n=10) Engineers (n=10) p-value (t-test) Biomimetic tool
mean (stdev) mean (stdev)
Functions 6.2 (2.4) 5.2 (1.0) 0.25 None
Technical problems 8.0 (3.7) 6.1 (1.7) 0.16 None
Requests 11.2 (6.5) 9.7 (3.8) 0.54 Taxonomy
Organisms 8.1 (3.9) 6 (2.3) 0.19 AskNature
Biological strategies 8.1 (3.6) 5.3 (2.1) 0.05 AskNature
Technical solutions 5.8 (1.0) 4.4 (2.8) 0.17 AskNature
Still, we can already point out some tendencies. Firstly, the evolution of the number of identified
elements follows a classical diamond shape. The number increases from the functional analysis to the
identification of requests. Then, it decreases from the selection of organisms to the design of technical
solutions. Thus, the selection of organisms on AskNature appears to be the first bottleneck for both
population. Secondly, we can see that the only significant difference on the number of elements is also
the step where the number of elements identified by biologists (8.1 elements for both steps) does not
decrease while the number of elements identified by the engineers does (from 6 to 5.3 elements). The
extraction of the biological strategies will then be considered as the second point of difference.
5.3. Understanding of biological phenomena
As our hypothesis deals with the reading level of biological data, we will now focus on the understanding
of biological phenomena, corresponding to the step of interest previously identified (5.2). Among the
selected organisms, the understanding of biological strategies appears to be significantly higher with
biologists (MWW, p-value = 0.0005) explaining the second point of difference above-mentioned (5.2).
Figure 5. Understanding of the selected biological strategies
More specifically, the main difference is noticeable on the scores for the intermediary understanding class
(Chi2 test, p-value = 0.002). A potential explanation is that a background in biology allows the user to
understand the specific vocabulary and concepts (ex: linin, chromophore, etc.) allowing her/him to extract
and reformulate the data, getting from the mentioned strategy to the intermediary understanding class.
This can also be the reason for the number of not understood strategies that is higher for engineers (Chi2
test, p-value: 0.03). Moreover, we can underline the close, but significantly different (Chi2 test, p-value =
0.04), proportions of strategies with an advanced understanding for each population. If the organisms of
this class are similar for each population (results under analysis), it would be logical to conclude that the
background of the user is not a key factor in the understanding of this given organisms. Indeed, we think
that this result mainly comes from a small proportion of easy understandable and very-well described data
that do not require any biological knowledge. These first results seem to confirm our hypothesis on the
two reading levels of databases like AskNature. No organisms have been analysed deeply enough to be
considered as completely understood. We think that this observation is mainly due to the short duration of
the session, but it may also be due to a lack of information. These results on the understanding of the
selected biological strategies lead us to wonder about the reasons for these differences. We thought of three
possibilities, engineers were not able to understand the available information, the available information
were not rich enough to allow the understanding of biological strategies by engineers, or their goal was not
about a deep understanding of biological phenomena. We then studied the users' evaluation of the tools, in
order to address the above-mentioned question through the feedbacks on the quality of the data.
5.4. Tools' evaluation
The tools' evaluation was performed by the users with a 5-points Likert scale on satisfaction,
learnability, error, wealth of information and precision of information (4.2). So far, the results on the
Biomimicry Taxonomy are not significantly different, as a result, we will here focus on the evaluation
of AskNature. Even if the selection of the organisms is the main bottleneck of the whole process,
AskNature's easy access has been underlined by the users. Interestingly, engineers gave higher scores
than biologists during AskNature’s evaluation, especially on its precision and wealth of information
(MWW, p-value: 0.002 and 0.01 respectively) (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Evaluation of AskNature's precision (A) and wealth of information (B)
As engineers consider AskNature to be rich and precise and do not report particular difficulties for this
step (Table 2), the quality of the information and their ability to understand it are not the only reasons
for the low level of detail given in their results (5.3). Thus, these results support the idea that engineers
and biologists do not have the same way of using the data. Hence, engineers might consider biological
phenomena as a source of inspiration to be used during creativity steps rather than a source from which
they can directly extract technical innovations. On the contrary, students in biology gave lower score
during AskNature's evaluation but were better at analysing the biological phenomena. This pattern of
results makes us think that once the functional analysis done, they focused on understanding the data in
order to get to the bottom of the biological strategies. As the database does not list all known organisms
and does not provide enough information to understand all the phenomena, biologists felt frustrated “the
search engine restrains imagination”, “the website limits, frames and offers very little ideas” and gave
low score during its evaluation. Those two approaches of the biomimetic design process underline the
third and maybe strongest distinction between biologists and engineers: their intrinsically specific way
of reasoning, habits and insights when facing data from nature.
6. Conclusion
This article aims at laying the first stone of our study on the biologist's role during biomimetic design
processes. Our hypothesis was about the existence of different levels of use of biomimetic tools, such as
AskNature, depending on the background of the user. We supervised biomimetic designing sessions with
students having a background in either biology or engineering. The first steps of our analysis have been
presented in this article and several main tendencies underlined. Firstly, the feedbacks on the global
perception of the process show that biologists reported expected difficulties, especially during the
functional analysis step. This first distinction is methodological, for most of the student in biology, this
type of procedure was a novelty and so perceived as a difficulty. Surprisingly, in spite of their reported
difficulties, biologists are the ones giving the highest number of elements at each step of the process. These
results are not significant so far, but the inclinations make us wonder about the mechanism under these
differences, are they due to an initial higher number of functions that is carried over to the following steps?
Or do they appear at each step? The only step showing a significant difference is the identification of
biological strategies, which leads us to our last point. Biologists are used to explain biological phenomena
where engineers are used to solve problem through innovation. It appears reasonable to assume that the
same types of behaviours will be instinctively applied in this context too. Biologists show a better
understanding of biological phenomena and the results also suggest their desire to get to the bottom of the
biological strategies, where engineers appear to be content with a rather low level of understanding as they
gave high scores to the tool and do not report difficulties for this step. Each population deals with the
biomimetic process with a different perspective, the tools' evaluation phase does not appear to be absolute
but inherently linked to the expectations and the goals of the populations. Our initial assumption talks
about different reading levels of the tools and these levels are not only linked with the user's abilities, they
are fundamentally associated with the user's goals and way of reasoning. For the same reasons, it has to be
mentioned that because of their background, biologists were already aware of the diversity of the strategies
elaborated by living beings, leading to a lower wahoo effect that can partially explain the lower scores they
gave during the tool's evaluation since their expectation were potentially higher on the quality of the
information. So far, these results support our hypothesis on the diversity of uses and possibilities offered by
these biomimetic tools, depending on the background of the user. As a consequence, they also support the
idea that databases are not able to replace biologists since engineers and biologists obtain different results
when using it. As obvious as it may sound, this statement aims at pushing engineering designers to consider
biologists in the methodological equation of biomimetic processes. Following these preliminary results, we
will pursue our work in order to offer a deeper analysis, a stronger statistical frame and try to answer the
questions raised by this article. We will also detail the results obtained by the different populations to point
out the specificities of each profile. By doing so, we want to justify and extrapolate the role of biologists in
the biomimetic process from an engineering design point of view and with an interdisciplinary objective.
The final purpose of this work will be to offer lines of reflection to stimulate the integration of biologists
into biomimetic design teams through engineering design, and to optimize its role(s).
Ahmed-Kristensen, S., Christensen, B.T. and Lenau, T.A. (2014), “Naturally original: Stimulating creative design
through biological analogies and Random images”, Proceedings of the DESIGN 2014 / 13th International
Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 427–436.
Allen, T.L. (2012), “Necessity is the mother of innovation : constraints and community engagement”, DS 73:
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC2012), Glasgow, UK, September
18-20, 2012.
Altshuller, G. (1984), Creativity as an exact science: The theory of the solution of inventive problems, 1st ed.,
Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York.
Bar-Cohen, Y. (2006), “Biomimetics - Using nature to inspire human innovation”, Bioinspiration and
Biomimetics, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. P1–P12.
Bar-Cohen, Y. (2012), “Biologically inspired technologies for aeronautics”, In: Young, T. and Hirst, M. (Eds.),
Innovation in Aeronautics, Woodhead Publishing, pp. 15–36.
Baumeister, D. (2012), Biomimicry Resource Handbook: A seed bank of knowledge and best practices, 2014 ed.,
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Missoula.
Benyus, J. (2002), Biomimicry: innovation inspired by Nature, Harper Perennial.
Bila-Deroussy, P. (2015), Systemic approach of creativity: Tools and methods to address complexity in design,
PhD thesis, Ecole nationale supérieure d’arts et métiers - ENSAM.
Biomimicry Institute (2002), AskNature - Innovation Inspired by Nature. [online] AskNature. Available at: (accessed: 10.11.2017).
Boeuf, G. (2007), “Océan et recherche biomédicale”, Journal de la Société de Biologie, Vol. 201 No. 1, pp. 5–12.
Bourgeois, P. (2007), Les grands défis technologiques et scientifiques au XXIe siècle, Ellipses Marketing, Paris.
Chakrabarti, A., Sarkar, P., Leelavathamma, B. and Nataraju, B.S. (2005), “A functional representation for aiding
biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas”, AI EDAM, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 113–132.
Darwin, C. (1872), The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in
the struggle for life, John Murray, London.
Deldin, J. and Schuknecht, M. (2014), “The AskNature Database: Enabling Solutions in Biomimetic Design”, In:
Goel, A.K., McAdams, D.A. and Stone, R.B. (Eds.), Biologically Inspired Design, Springer, London, pp. 17–
Eggermont, H. (2015), “Nature-based solutions: New influence for environmental management and research in
Europe”, Gaia, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 243–248.
Faludi, J. (2017), Golden Tools in Green Design, PhD thesis, UC Berkeley.
Fayemi, P.-E., Maranzana, N., Aoussat, A. and Bersano, G. (2014), “Bio-inspired design characterisation and its
links with problem solving tools”, Proceedings of the DESIGN 2014 / 13th International Design Conference,
Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 173–182.
Fayemi, P.-E., Wanieck, K., Zollfrank, C., Maranzana, N. and Aoussat, A. (2017), “Biomimetics: Process, tools
and practice”, Bioinspiration and Biomimetics, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 11002.
Fayemi, P.-E. (2016), Innovation par la conception bio-inspirée: proposition d'un modèle structurant les méthodes
biomimétiques et formalisation d'un outil de transfert de connaissances, PhD thesis, Ecole nationale supérieure
d’arts et métiers - ENSAM, Paris.
Forterre, P. and Gribaldo, S. (2007), “The origin of modern terrestrial life”, HFSP Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 156–
Goel, A.K., Vattam, S., Wiltgen, B. and Helms, M. (2014), “Information-Processing Theories of Biologically
Inspired Design”, In: Goel, A.K., McAdams, D.A. and Stone, R.B. (Eds.), Biologically Inspired Design,
Springer, London, pp. 127–152.
Gordon, W.J.J. (1961), Synectics - The developmnent of creative capacity, Harper & Row, Evanston, New York.
Grabowski, H., Lossack, R.-S., El-Mejbri, E.-F. (1999), “Towards a Universal Design Theory”, Proceedings of
the 1999 CIRP International Design Seminar, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, March 24 –
26, 1999, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 49–56.
Griffiths, A.J., Miller, J.H., Suzuki, D.T., Lewontin, R.C. and Gelbart, W.M. (2000), An Introduction to Genetic
Analysis, 7th ed., W. H. Freeman and Company. Available at:
Guerrero, J.E., Maestro, D. and Bottaro, A. (2012), “Biomimetic spiroid winglets for lift and drag control”,
Comptes Rendus - Mecanique, Vol. 340 No. 1–2, pp. 67–80.
Helfman Cohen, Y. and Reich, Y. (2016), Biomimetic Design Method for Innovation and Sustainability.
Hoagland, M. and Dodson, D. (1995), The Way Life Works, 1st ed., Crown, New York.
Hwang, J., Jeong, Y., Park, J.M., Lee, K.H., Hong, J.W. and Choi, J. (2015), “Biomimetics: Forecasting the future
of science, engineering, and medicine”, International Journal of Nanomedicine, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 5701–5713.
IPCC (2014), Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Climate Change, IPCC, Geneva,
ISO/TC266 (2015), Biomimétique -Terminologie, concepts et méthodologie, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at:
Keshwani, S., Lenau, T.A., Ahmed-Kristensen, S. and Chakrabarti, A. (2017), “Comparing novelty of designs
from biological-inspiration with those from brainstorming”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 28 No. 10–
12, pp. 654–680.
Kilian, A. (2006), “Design innovation through constraint modeling”, International Journal of Architectural
Computing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 87–105.
Kutschera, U. (2009), “Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, directional selection, and the evolutionary sciences
today”, Naturwissenschaften, Vol. 96 No. 11, pp. 1247–1263.
Lahonde, N. (2010), Optimisation du processus de conception: Proposition d'un modèle de sélection des méthodes
pour l'aide à la décision, PhD thesis, Ecole nationale supérieure d’arts et métiers - ENSAM, Paris.
Lee, J.S., Pries-Heje, J. and Baskerville, R. (2011), “Theorizing in Design Science Research”, Proceedings of the
6th International Conference on Service-oriented Perspectives in Design Science Research, Springer-Verlag,
pp. 1–16.
Lenau, T. (2009), “Biomimetics as a design methodology - Possibilities and challenges”, International conference
on engineering design, pp. 121–132.
Lindemann, U. and Gramann, J. (2004), “Engineering design using biological principles”, International Design
Conference, pp. 355–360.
Magyar, A., Arthanareeswaran, V.K.A., Soós, L., Nagy, K., Dobák, A. et al. (2017), “Does micropattern (sharklet)
on urinary catheter surface reduce urinary tract infections? Results from phase I randomized open label
interventional trial”, European Urology Supplements, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. e146–e148.
Nagel, J.K.S., Nagel, R.L., Stone, R.B. and McAdams, D.A. (2010), “Function-based, biologically inspired
concept generation”, AI EDAM, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 521–535.
Nelson, D.R., Adger, W.N. and Brown, K. (2007), “Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a
Resilience Framework”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 395–419.
Nielsen, J. (1993), Usability Engineering, 1st ed., Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam.
Ohno, T. (1978), Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production, 1st ed., Productivity Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Reynolds, L.K., McGlathery, K.J. and Waycott, M. (2012), “Genetic diversity enhances restoration success by
augmenting ecosystem services”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 7 No. 6, p. e38397.
Richards, E.J. (2006), “Inherited epigenetic variation - Revisiting soft inheritance”, Nature Reviews Genetics, Vol.
7 No. 5, pp. 395–401.
Richter, I.A. et al. (2008), Notebooks, new ed., Oxford World’s Classics, Oxford University Press, New York.
Sachs, J.D. (2015), The Age of Sustainable Development, Columbia University Press.
Schöfer, M. (2015), Processes and Methods for Interdisciplinary Problem Solving and Technology Integration in
Knowledge-intensive Domains, PhD thesis, ENSAM, Paris.
Schöfer, M., Maranzana, M., Aoussat, A., Bersano, G. and Buisine, S. (2018), “Distinct and combined effects of
disciplinary composition and methodological support on problem solving in groups”, Creativity and Innovation
Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 102–115.
Snell-Rood, E. (2016), “Interdisciplinarity: Bring biologists into biomimetics”, Nature, Vol. 529 No. 7586, pp.
Tinsley, A., Midha, P.A., Nagel, R.L., McAdams, D.A., Stone, R.B. and Shu, L.H. (2007), “Exploring the Use of
Functional Models As a Foundation for Biomimetic Conceptual Design”, ASME 2007 International Design
Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, pp. 1–15.
Vandevenne, D., Verhaegen, P.-A, Dewulf, S. and Duflou, J.R. (2015), “A scalable approach for ideation in
biologically inspired design”, AI EDAM, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 19–31.
Vattam, S., Helms, M.E. and Goel, A.K. (2007), Biologically-Inspired Innovation in Engineering Design: A
Cognitive Study. [online] Graphics, Visualization and Usability Center, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Available at: (accessed: 22.02.2018).
Vincent, J.F.V., Bogatyreva, O.A., Bogatyrev, N.R., Bowyer, A. and Pahl, A.-K. (2006), “Biomimetics: its practice
and theory”, Journal of The Royal Society Interface, Vol. 3 No. 9, pp. 471–482.
Wanieck, K., Fayemi, P.-E., Maranzana, N., Zollfrank, C. and Jacobs, S. (2017), “Biomimetics and its tools”,
Bioinspired, Biomimetic and Nanobiomaterials, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 53–66.
Zhang, G. (2012), “Biomimicry in biomedical research”, Organogenesis, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 101–102.
Eliot Graeff, PhD student
Arts et Métiers ParisTech, Industrial Engineering
151 Boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France
... First, prior experience tends to bias us toward biological models with which we are more familiar [29,30], as we often have the knowledge of these organisms to make the analogy bridge between biology and the focal problem. Databases such as AskNature can help those new to biology discover different organisms [31,32], but studies have shown that this is still a narrower range than that generated by biologists with more familiarity with biodiversity [11,33]. Tendencies toward familiar organisms further restrict our idea generation, similar to other cognitive biases (e.g., confirmation bias [34,35]). ...
... There was a small but significant relationship between an individual's self-ranked familiarity with a range of animal groups and the taxonomic diversity of models brainstormed in their first assignment (in terms of the number of taxonomic classes of animals). This finding parallels findings that when engineers collaborate with biologists with broad expertise on biodiversity, their lists of biological analogies are more diverse [11,33]. However, in our results, the correlation coefficient between expertise and the diversity of ideas was modest (~0.1), suggesting many other factors are at play. ...
Full-text available
(1) Generating a range of biological analogies is a key part of the bio-inspired design process. In this research, we drew on the creativity literature to test methods for increasing the diversity of these ideas. We considered the role of the problem type, the role of individual expertise (versus learning from others), and the effect of two interventions designed to increase creativity—going outside and exploring different evolutionary and ecological “idea spaces” using online tools. (2) We tested these ideas with problem-based brainstorming assignments from a 180-person online course in animal behavior. (3) Student brainstorming was generally drawn to mammals, and the breadth of ideas was affected more by the assigned problem than by practice over time. Individual biological expertise had a small but significant effect on the taxonomic breadth of ideas, but interactions with team members did not. When students were directed to consider other ecosystems and branches of the tree of life, they increased the taxonomic diversity of biological models. In contrast, going outside resulted in a significant decrease in the diversity of ideas. (4) We offer a range of recommendations to increase the breadth of biological models generated in the bio-inspired design process.
... Bioinspired approaches are increasingly common in engineering, chemistry, and architecture and are potentially applicable to any field or problem (Snell-Rood, 2016;Wanieck et al., 2017). Biomimetic approaches greatly expand the space of potential solutions explored when problem-solving (Graeff et al., 2018(Graeff et al., , 2019Vincent et al., 2006), and design solutions are often improved by taking inspiration from biological traits (Jacobs et al., 2014;Kennedy & Marting, 2016). ...
... We needed input from biologists that were intimately familiar with the systems we were discussing, and designers, engineers, and doctors that could guide the next steps of moving an idea to an application. Future iterations of such a course would be improved by building teams of biologists and engineers (Graeff et al., 2018(Graeff et al., , 2019Vincent et al., 2006), although guest appearances and email consultation by relevant experts sufficed for our 8-week course. ...
Full-text available
Bioinspiration is a promising lens for biology instruction as it allows the instructor to focus on current issues, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. From social distancing to oxygen stress, organisms have been tackling pandemic-related problems for millions of years. What can we learn from such diverse adaptations in our own applications? This review uses a seminar course on the COVID-19 crisis to illustrate bioinspiration as an approach to teaching biology content. At the start of the class, students mind-mapped the entire problem; this range of subproblems was used to structure the biology content throughout the entire class. Students came to individual classes with a brainstormed list of biological systems that could serve as inspiration for a particular problem (e.g., absorptive leaves in response to the problem of toilet paper shortages). After exploration of relevant biology content, discussion returned to the focal problem. Students dug deeper into the literature in a group project on mask design and biological systems relevant to filtration and transparency. This class structure was an engaging way for students to learn principles from ecology, evolution, behavior, and physiology. Challenges with this course design revolved around the interdisciplinary and creative nature of the structure; for instance, the knowledge of the participants was often stretched by engineering details. While the present class was focused on the COVID-19 crisis, a course structured through a bioinspired approach can be applied to other focal problems, or subject areas, giving instructors a powerful method to deliver interdisciplinary content in an integrated and inquiry-driven way.
This book includes both theoretical conceptualization and practical applications in the fields of product design, architecture, engineering, and materials. The book aimed to inspire scholars and professionals to look at nature as a source of inspiration for developing new project solutions. Moreover, being one of the literature’s first direct associations of bionics with sustainability, the book can be used as a reference for those who seek to know more about the theory of bioinspired applications, as well as new technologies, methods, materials, and processes.
Eggs are nature's successful evolutionary design tricks, well designed to deliver multi-task biofunctional strategies for life's challenges. They appear in the vital scenario in the form of original and surprising bio-tech design solutions affected by the genetic and environmental constraints they are called to interact with. For these basic survival needs, the eggs must work very well: capturing the sperm of the male for a correct optimization of the fertilization processes, protection from physical and mechanical trauma, climatic mediation, and fine aeration of the internal larvae. These surprising embryo packagings are a sort of lifeboat laid down and often left alone by females in front of the intricate, complex, and highly wild food interweaving the planet's ecosystems. We found eggs in the reproductive cycles of many living species: fish, cephalopods, birds, and above all, individual insects. Butterfly eggs constitute a class of exciting and still little studied solutions, considered for possible bionic and biomimetic inspirations. Many Lepidoptera eggs generally have an external textured shell, the chorion, made up of waxed surface keratin, which maintains the correct humidity of the egg throughout the growth cycle. Keratin is a fibrous protein rich in sulfur amino acids, cysteine, and self-assemble into fiber bundles. It has the characteristic of a very tenacious mineralized fabric and is remarkably impermeable to water and atmospheric gases. Each egg is glued by the mother's butterfly to the support of branches or leaves of the nourishing plants by a gluey substance of chemical still largely unknown constitution, so adhesive that it is impossible to detach the eggs if not breaking them. In some butterfly species, like the Maniola and Lycaenidae family, the shell's structure has a spatial organization in the form of complex geodesic ribbed micro domes that resemble Buckminster Fuller's geodesic structures. Another exciting aspect of butterfly's eggs design concerns the micropyle and aeropyles layers system, which ensure the proper introduction of the male sperm, air, and oxygen needed to larva's growth. This study, conducted by the BionikonLab&FABNAT14 laboratory of Iglesias-SU Italy, considers the structural, morphological, and geometric aspects of some types of butterfly eggs that await internal ventilation. The purpose is to define a list of essential design problem-solving concepts that apply to creating food packaging, considering the crucial aspects of preserving freshness and commercial and nutritional qualities, reducing food waste, and the additional use of chemicals, antioxidants, and plastics packs.
An adaptive shading device is designed using biomimetics as a tool to optimize thermal comfort and help reduce energy consumption. Inspired by nyctinastic movements, ArtBuild’s Lab (AB Lab)—a transdisciplinary research laboratory created within ArtBuild’s architectural studio—began developing autonomous biomimetic façades in 2015 with the aim of reducing energy consumption in buildings and in particular, mass timber buildings, whose thermal inertia is low. The research project initially mimicked the mechanics and behaviour of stomata cells found abundantly in the plant species, drawing inspiration from the asymmetrical cell wall thickness to activate movement, and then moved on to developing prototypes for solar protection devices whose thermal actuation, shape memory, and geometry combine to enable them to echo the nastic movements described by Darwin. AB Lab’s team employs thermobimetals (TBMs)—composite metal alloys that react to temperature variations—to induce nastic movements in their shading devices. By exploiting the differential expansion coefficients of these alloys, the architects were able to shape the solar protection devices to cast measured shadows. Dubbed Pho’liage, the devices react to heat emanating from the sun. When outside temperatures exceed 25 °C, the TBM blades mimic the petals of a plant, opening as “flowers” to form a vast curtain protecting the building from thermal overload. When the temperature drops, the petals deform once again and the flowers close, allowing light to enter the building. Early versions of the Pho'liage prototypes revealed several challenges: the temperature-driven deformation of the bimetal, far from being uniform, often took place too abruptly given the dual conflicting expansion forces of the bimetal alloy surfaces. The very nature of the curvature dynamics was repeatedly reviewed. Lifecycle analysis of protective coatings showed the difficulties in sourcing ecological solutions for the alloys' external longevity. Apart from the basic geometry of the flowers, several designs were explored which integrate curve-line folding and adaptable honeycomb support structures, to enhance the efficiency of the open/close shading ratio. Finally, alternatives were suggested that look at reducing the quantity of TBMs, with the alloys acting as actuators whilst other materials such as specific biopolymers provide the shading function.
Bionics is fundamentally based on the development of projects for engineering, design, architecture, and others, which are inspired by the characteristics of a biological model organism. Essentially, bionics is based on a transdisciplinary approach, where teams are composed of researchers trained in a variety of disciplines, aiming to find and adapt characteristics from nature into innovative solutions. One of the key steps in a bioinspired project is the comprehensive study and analysis of biological samples, aiming at the correct understanding of the desired features prior to their application. Among the most sought natural elements for a project to be based on, plants represent a large source of inspiration for bionic designs of structures and products due to their natural efficiency and high mechanical performance at the microscopical level, which reflects into their functional morphology. Therefore, examining their microstructure is crucial to adapt them into bioinspired solutions. In recent years, several new technologies for materials characterization have been developed, such as X-ray Microtomography (µCT) and Finite Element Analysis (FEA), allowing newer possibilities to visualize the fine structure of plants. Combining these technologies also allows that the plant material could be virtually investigated, simulating environmental conditions of interest, and revealing intrinsic properties of their internal organization. Conversely to the expected flow of a conventional methodology in bionics—from nature-to-project —besides contributing to the development of innovative designs, these technologies also play an important role in investigations in the plant sciences field. This chapter addresses how investigations in plant samples using those technologies for bionic purposes are reflecting on new pieces of knowledge regarding the biological material itself. An overview of the use of µCT and FEA in recent bionic research is presented, as well as how they are impacting new discoveries for plant anatomy and morphology. The techniques are described, highlighting their potential for biology and bionic studies, and literature case studies are shown. Finally, we present future directions that the potential new technologies have on connecting the gap between project sciences and biodiversity in a way both fields can benefit from them.
Full-text available
Living envelopes, such as biological skins and structures built by animals, are functional and sustainable designs resulting from years of evolution, conditioned by biological and physical pressures from the environment. When building a home, animals demonstrate inspiring strategies to protect themselves from predator threats and external climatic conditions. As for human buildings, temperature, humidity, air quality, light, are some of the various factors they have to manage for optimal conditions. Facing the climate emergency, growing efforts to build durable designs have led designers to search for more efficient or alternative solutions by observing Nature. The emerging field of bioinspiration including animal architecture has already brought few but rare exemplary innovations that were integrated into building designs. Data on animal architecture are scattered among various biological domains, from observation of species habitats by zoologists such as entomologists or ornithologists, to bioindicator studies by climatologists. Data collected by scientists is available in eclectic idioms, a challenge to be fully comprehended by building designers. This chapter presents a characterization of living envelopes aiming at facilitating the transposition of some relevant biological features into innovative and sustainable architectural designs. The approach is architecture and engineer oriented, assessing biological functions and strategies, using criteria that are meaningful to building designers: functional and temporal analyses of spaces and materials, physical factors regulated through envelopes, behaviors, and interactions of species. Applied to a sample of species and animal-built structures, the characterized biological role models put forwards multi-functionality and efficiency through relevant construction techniques, the use of local resources, as well as behavioral adaptation. Examples of applications inspired from the characterized species are described, from theoretical proposals to a very practical application of an adaptive envelope skin inspired by the Morpho butterfly.
The remarkable growth of urban areas is a scenario faced by many cities due to the high rate of population that migrates to these zones, increasing the heat stored in the built environment creating insurmountable microclimatic conditions within the metropolitan area for pedestrians. Such microclimatic conditions might cause the unfeasibility of using natural ventilation for indoor passive cooling, increasing the air conditioners usage, and by overlapping to the previous heat stored the risk of overheating rises. Tropical regions have presented increased floods, extreme winds, earthquakes, and tropical-heat waves. To address such climate related challenges, a review on bio-inspired designs strategies at city scale, although not widely implemented in situ, is presented. On the other hand, developing countries in tropical regions recently started to develop energy regulations for the built environment, making it difficult to visualize a short-term implementation of any bio-inspired design at the city scale. As a result, most studies remain in a preliminary research project status. The evaluation and comparison of the sustainability of various tropical region cities through the Green City Index is presented. This evaluation led to assess in detail a Case study in Panama City considering the three critical aspects in the built environment: the conditioning of indoor spaces for cooling, transport, and lighting. Based on ecosystem services, a set of indicators are proposed and evaluated to measure regeneration at the city scale. Finally, to evaluate the proposed solutions, a SWOT analysis is presented. The use of a regenerative methodology in cities would mean a greater consideration of nature in planning goals and an improvement in urban ecosystem relations.
Biomimetics is the interdisciplinary co-operation of various scientific disciplines and fields of innovation, and it aims to solve practical problems using biological models. Biomimetic research and its fields of application are manifold, and the community is made up of a wide range of disciplines, from biologists and engineers to designers. Guidelines and standards can build a common ground for understanding of the field, communication across disciplines, present and future projects and implementation of biomimetic knowledge. Since 2015, three international standards have been published and defined terms and definitions, as well as specific applications. The scientific literature and patents in several databases were searched for citations of the published standards. Standards or technical guidelines on biomimetics are represented both in the scientific literature and in patents. However, taking into account the increasing number of publications in biomimetics, the number of publications (52) citing the international standards is low. This shows that the perception of technical rules is still underrepresented in the academic field. Greater awareness and acceptance of the importance of standards for quality assurance even in the academic environment is discussed, and active participation in the corresponding International Organization for Standardization committee on biomimetics is asked for.
Regenerative development calls for built environment design, construction and operation approaches that do not degrade social and ecological systems but actively regenerate them, with net positive performance outcomes. Within infrastructure, existing industry approaches focus on improving sustainability and resilience through progressive reductions in negative impact. To shift beyond damage reduction towards regenerative performance, it will be necessary to harness new and innovative technologies, design and engineering approaches as they emerge. The field of biomimicry looks to biology and ecology to identify natural models that can inspire design and engineering solutions. Despite increasing biomimicry research, enquiry into infrastructure opportunities for biomimicry has been limited, and the potential for biomimicry to support regenerative performance in infrastructure has not been explored. This paper uses a systematic literature review to identify applications of biomimicry in built environment, with a focus on the potential for infrastructure applications. The paper identifies a need for further investigation into ‘system-level’ biomimicry opportunities; for clearer articulation of sustainability and resilience benefits; and for greater alignment with broader industry and global trends. The paper is relevant for practitioners, academics and government agencies looking to leverage emerging technologies and innovation to achieve project and organisational sustainability, resilience and regenerative performance objectives.
Full-text available
Several reasons for the use of multidisciplinary teams composed of individuals with natural science and engineering background in problem‐solving processes exist. The most important are the integration of science‐based technologies into products and processes, and benefits for the problem‐solving process thanks to new knowledge and new perspectives on problems. In this study we analyse the implications of interdisciplinary (science – engineering) group problem solving from a managerial as well as from a cognitive perspective. We then report on an experiment investigating the impact of problem‐relevant disciplinary group composition and methodological support on the problem‐solving process and its outcome. The findings of the experiment have managerial, theoretical, and pedagogical implications related to early phases of New Product/Process Design processes in high‐technology and scientific knowledge‐related domains.
Full-text available
Biomimetics, as the transfer of strategies from biology to technology, is an emerging research area and has led to significant concepts over the past decades. The development of such concepts is described by the process of biomimetics, encompassing several steps. In Practice, beneficiaries of the process face challenges. Therefore, to overcome challenges and to facilitate the steps, tools have been developed in various areas, such as engineering, computing and design. However, these tools are not widely used yet. This paper presents an overview and a classification study of more than 40 tools with qualitative criteria. The criteria included, for example, the year of development, the accessibility of tools, the facilitated steps of the process or their contribution to sustainability. The classification shows that certain steps of the process and their challenges are well addressed by the tools, while other steps are not. The presented results contribute to the proposal of an improvement of the state of the art, and they build the foundation for future theoretical and practical analyses. These findings could contribute to increasing the implementation of biomimetics in various disciplines in the long term.
This research aims to understand the significance of biological-analogies in fostering novelty by comparing biological-analogies with other design methods for idea generation. Among other design methods, brainstorming was chosen here as benchmark. Four studies were conducted to compare: (i) the levels of abstraction at which concepts were ideated using biological inspiration (represented using biocards) with that using traditional brainstorming; and (ii) the novelty of concepts produced by using these two design methods. Concepts produced in these studies were evaluated for levels of abstraction at which they were ideated, average novelty, and proportion of high-novelty concepts. Results suggest that concepts generated using biocards were ideated at higher abstraction levels than those using brainstorming, but neither were at the highest abstraction levels. The average novelty of concepts produced using biocards was found to be greater than that using brainstorming; however, no statistically significant difference was found in the proportion of high-novelty concepts. We suspect the lack of biological knowledge and cultural difference among the subjects involved in our studies as the two reasons behind the results. The results demonstrate that the design methods substantially influence the novelty of concepts generated, while indicating the need for better training in effective use of biological-analogies.
La bio-inspiration applique des principes et des stratégies issus de systèmes biologiques afin de faciliter la conception technologique. Doté d’un fort potentiel pour l’Innovation, la biomimétique, son pendant méthodologique, est en passe d’évoluer vers un processus clé pour les entreprises. Un certain nombre de freins demeurent cependant à lever afin que la conception bio-inspirée s’apparente à une démarche robuste et répétable. Les travaux réalisés abordent cette diffusion de la conception bio-inspirée selon deux axes distincts. Ils s’efforcent tout d’abord d’harmoniser champs conceptuels relatifs à la bio-inspiration et modèles de processus biomimétiques, en vue de rendre possible l’évaluation des outils supportant cette démarche de conception. Cette évaluation méthodologique, couverte selon l’angle objectif et subjectif, aboutit à la formalisation d’un modèle structurant, un arbre de classification, à même de guider les concepteurs biomimétiques à travers le processus biomimétique. En parallèle de l’établissement de ce cadre de référence méthodologique, les travaux s’évertuent à explorer un autre verrou inhérent à la démarche : l’interaction entre biologie et ingénierie. Les travaux tendent ainsi, par le développement d’un outil, à réduire l’une des barrières d’entrée de ce type d’approche, en proposant un modèle décrivant fonctionnellement les systèmes biologiques sans prérequis d’expertise biologique. La concaténation de ces réalisations aborde directement l’enjeu principal de ce champs disciplinaire : son essor par la dissémination de son application à l’innovation industrielle, en vue de favoriser l’émergence de « produits biomimétiques » au détriment des « accidents bio-inspirées ».
Biomimetics applies principles and strategies abstracted from biological systems to engineering and technological design. With a huge potential for innovation, biomimetics could evolve into a key process in businesses. Yet challenges remain within the process of biomimetics, especially from the perspective of potential users. We work to clarify the understanding of the process of biomimetics. Therefore, we briefly summarize the terminology of biomimetics and bioinspiration. The implementation of biomimetics requires a stated process. Therefore, we present a model of the problem-driven process of biomimetics that can be used for problem-solving activity. The process of biomimetics can be facilitated by existing tools and creative methods. We mapped a set of tools to the biomimetic process model and set up assessment sheets to evaluate the theoretical and practical value of these tools. We analyzed the tools in interdisciplinary research workshops and present the characteristics of the tools. We also present the attempt of a utility tree which, once finalized, could be used to guide users through the process by choosing appropriate tools respective to their own expertize. The aim of this paper is to foster the dialogue and facilitate a closer collaboration within the field of biomimetics.
Conference Paper
Engineering design is frequently described as an ill-defined problem: usually many possible solutions exist and there are no clearly defined rules to obtain these solutions. The process of generating design solutions is both a divergent and convergent process with a variety of solutions being created and few being selected for further development. A number of methods exist to support the divergent process (e.g. brainstorming methods. 6-3-5 method) and other to support the convergent process. Bioinspired design is one such method that has been proposed to support creativity, where distant analogies are used to support the creative process. This paper focuses upon understanding the effects of using stimuli from biology as compared to other creative methods.
Presenting a novel biomimetic design method for transferring design solutions from nature to technology, this book focuses on structure-function patterns in nature and advanced modeling tools derived from TRIZ, the theory of inventive problem-solving. The book includes an extensive literature review on biomimicry as an engine of both innovation and sustainability, and discusses in detail the biomimetic design process, current biomimetic design methods and tools. The structural biomimetic design method for innovation and sustainability put forward in this text encompasses (1) the research method and rationale used to develop and validate this new design method; (2) the suggested design algorithm and tools including the Findstructure database, structure-function patterns and ideality patterns; and (3) analyses of four case studies describing how to use the proposed method. This book offers an essential resource for designers who wish to use nature as a source of inspiration and knowledge, innovators and sustainability experts, and scientists and researchers, amongst others.
Stimuler la créativité demeure un enjeu majeur pour soutenir l’innovation. Depuis les travaux théoriques fondateurs des années 1950-1960, il existe aujourd’hui un grand nombre d’outils, de méthodes, et de guides d’aide au choix diffusés parmi les praticiens. Cependant, les entreprises font aujourd’hui face à une telle complexité, à la fois technique et organisationnelle, que les outils et méthodes traditionnellement utilisés arrivent à leurs limites et manquent d’efficacité. Non seulement nous manquons encore d’une théorie fondamentale de la créativité qui fasse consensus, mais la recherche dans ce domaine manque souvent de pertinence en termes de transfert dans la pratique et d’adéquation avec les besoins pragmatiques industriels. Cette thèse explore comment l'approche systémique permet d’étudier la créativité afin de mettre en évidence de nouveaux moyens de la stimuler dans des contextes industriels complexes. Cette approche nous a permis de synthétiser les mécanismes de la créativité dans un modèle systémique, et de faire émerger trois interactions fondamentales : sensori-motrice, cognitive, et sociale. Pour stimuler simultanément ces interactions, trois axes méthodologiques ont été proposés puis testés au sein d’un contexte industriel automobile, dans le cadre de projets d’innovation réels. Les résultats de nos expérimentations montrent que l'utilisation conjointe, d’une part d’outils de stimulation analogique, d’autre part d'un langage de formes visuelles, et enfin d'un processus cyclique alternant imagination, conception, et création, permet d’améliorer notablement la performance créative. Notre modèle de la créativité, désormais entendu comme le « système complexe de la création », nous permet d’enrichir conjointement le champ scientifique théorique et les pratiques méthodologiques. Il ouvre également des perspectives de développement en sciences de gestion et en management de l’innovation.