Bioinspiration & Biomimetics

TOPICAL REVIEW You may also like

- The state of the art in biomimetics
Biomimetics: process, tools and practice Nathan F Lepora, Paul Verschure and
Tony J Prescott

To cite this article: P E Fayemi et al 2017 Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 011002 - Law Protection for Procurement Officers:
Legal Protection against the Procurement
Instrument of Goods and Services
Alexander Edwardi Juang Prakoso and
Christina Nitha Setyaningati

View the article online for updates and enhancements. - Assessment Processes to Increase the
Burden of Existing Buildings Using BIM
Romuald Szelg

This content was downloaded from IP address 187.123.3.77 on 26/11/2022 at 19:07

 Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 doi:10.1088/1748-3190/12/1/011002

TOPICAL REVIEW

Biomimetics: process, tools and practice

RECEIVED
25 April 2016
REVISED
P E Fayemi1,2, K Wanieck3,4, C Zollfrank3, N Maranzana1 and A Aoussat1
6 October 2016 1
Arts & Métiers ParisTech—Innovation and Product Design Laboratory, 151 Boulevard de l’Hôpital, F-75013 Paris, France
2
ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION Aim-Innovation, 155, rue Anatole France, F-92300 Levallois-Perret, France
3
8 November 2016 Deggendorf Institute of Technology—Technology Campus Freyung Grafenauer Str. 22, D-94078 Freyung, Germany
PUBLISHED
4
Technische Universität München (TUM), Biogenic Polymers, Department of Life Science Engineering, Schulgasse 16, D-94315
23 January 2017 Straubing, Germany
E-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: biomimetics, process, methods, tools, design

Abstract
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.

1. Introduction perspective, of a clear methodology in the field

(Vincent et al 2006). To contribute to the research in
For over 3000 years, people have ‘learned from nature’ the field, we analyzed the process of biomimetics and
in order to inspire human design (Vincent et al 2006). existing tools which facilitate the process, with the aim
Several terms exist to describe the concept of ‘learning of making the existing tools and the information about
from nature’ (see section 2.1) and as a systematic the process more transparent for potential users. First,
approach it is still an emerging field of research, we give an overview of terms and definitions to clarify
especially within engineering design (Von Gleich the terminology. Next, we present a unified problem-
et al 2010). Biomimetics encompasses a broad variety driven process model of biomimetics as a framework
of research topics, it impacts several fields of applica- for the practical implementation of biomimetics.
tion and it is considered to have a significant scientific, Lastly, we assessed tools, which are reported as being
societal and economic impact for the quality of life used within a bioinspired design process, in order to
(Lepora et al 2013). However, research areas are broad validate their facilitation of the process and to gain
and fragmented and most of the significant results knowledge about users’ perception of the tools. The
have remained in their own field. Studies have shown assessment was performed with three small-sized
that biomimetics has been practiced primarily by workshops involving highly specialized professional
individual parties rather than through an institutiona- profiles (i.e. bioinspiration and problem-solving
lized approach (Von Gleich et al 2010), and that the experts) as well as through a broader field survey. This
relatively low number of documented biomimetic analysis resulted in the design of a ‘utility tree’ which
products on the market is due to several reasons (Goel provide a guiding through the process model by using
et al 2013), one of which is the lack, from a general appropriate tools. This presentation is considered to

© 2017 IOP Publishing Ltd

Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

be a first attempt and further studies will serve the transfer and application of knowledge from a specific
purpose of improving this utility tree. We consider biological system (biomimetics).
experts from various disciplines (e.g. biology, engi- According to the definitions, field wise (i.e.
neering, industrial design, architecture and many mechanics, sustainability and other fields), bioinspira-
more) to be the beneficiaries of our work. The target tion can be specific to mechanics (bionics) (ISO/
group is referenced, in this work, as practitioners, i.e. TC266 2015), specific in its striving for sustainable
engineering designers. solutions (biomimicry), or non-specifically labeled,
e.g. related to nanotechnology, materials science,
architecture, aerodynamics or molecular engineering.
2. Definitions The variety of operational definitions of bioin-
spiration demonstrates that the field of biomimetics
Several terms exist to describe the process of ‘learning consists of differing subjects and research priorities.
from nature’, such as bioinspiration, biomimicry, Regarding the above outlined definitions, we further
bionics, or biologically-inspired design (BID). In the refer to the approach of biomimetics.
scientific literature these different terms are presented
as if they were synonyms (e.g. Vincent et al 2006, Shu
et al 2011, Goel et al 2013). We consider this 2.2. The two approaches of biomimetics
appropriate, if one refers to the final outcome of these In general, biomimetics practice can be carried out
approaches, which is an invention that has been made either as solution-based (solution-based Helms
possible with knowledge originating from nature. et al 2008, Badarnah and Kadri 2015, solution-driven
But differences occur by looking at the respective Vattam et al 2007, Helms et al 2009, biology to design
scopes of each word and the development processes Baumeister et al 2013, biology push ISO/TC266 2015,
(see section 3). For a better understanding of these bottom up Speck et al 2008, biomimetics by induction
differences, we provide definitions of important Gebeshuber and Drack 2008) or as problem-driven
terms. (problem-based Badarnah and Kadri 2015, problem-
driven Vattam et al 2007, Helms et al 2008, 2009,
challenge to biology Baumeister et al 2013, technology
2.1. Terminology
pull ISO/TC266 2015, top down Speck et al 2008,
A recent work within the ISO/TC 266 Biomimetics
biomimetics by analogy Gebeshuber and Drack
committee has led to the following definitions (ISO/
2008). Both the solution-based and problem-driven
TC266 2015):
approaches have different starting points and differing
characteristics as design processes (Goel et al 2014).
• Bioinspiration: ‘Creative approach based on the
The solution-based approach describes the biomi-
observation of biological systems’.
metic development process in which the knowledge
• Biomimicry: ‘Philosophy and interdisciplinary about a biological system of interest is the starting
design approaches taking nature as a model to meet point for the technical design. The biological system of
the challenges of sustainable development (social, interest performs a function that shall be emulated in
environmental, and economic)’. technology. This biological system must be under-
stood in depth in order to extract underlying princi-
• Biomimetics: ‘Interdisciplinary cooperation of biol-
ples and to define design problems which could be
ogy and technology or other fields of innovation
addressed using these principles. The knowledge con-
with the goal of solving practical problems through
cerning these principles is primarily gained from fun-
the function analysis of biological systems, their
damental research. After their abstraction the
abstraction into models and the transfer into and
biological principles may be applied in technology.
application of these models to the solution’.
The solution-based approach is therefore closely con-
• Bionics: ‘Technical discipline that seeks to replicate, nected to the steps of the technology knowledge trans-
increase, or replace biological functions by their fer process from scientific to industrial organizations.
electronic and/or mechanical equivalents’. Such process is usually applied by Technology Trans-
fer Office and involves the following steps: Scientific
Terms related to bioinspiration can be dis- Discovery, Invention Disclosure, Evaluation of inven-
tinguished according to a specificity of analogy and an tion for patenting, Patent, Marketing of Technology to
axis of related fields, as presented in figure 1. Bioin- firms, Negotiation of License, License to firms (Siegel
spiration ranges from mere inspiration fostering crea- et al 2004).
tivity in general (related to the divergent phase of On the other hand, the problem-driven approach
creativity), up to novel design solutions (through the is the biomimetic development process that seeks to
implementation of the convergent phase of creativity). solve a practical problem, with an identified problem
This concretization of ideas could either be based on to be the starting point for the process (Goel et al 2014,
an analogy schema by adapting principles extracted ISO/TC266 2015). New or improved functions may
from biology (BID) or through the abstraction, be applied via identifying biological systems, which

2
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

Figure 1. The field of bioinspiration.

perform a certain function or mechanism, and by solution. The progression of the steps is connected to
abstracting and transferring these principles to tech- iterative loops and internal check lists.
nology. The problem-driven approach is closely con- Bogatyrev and Vincent (2008) describe a process
nected to the problem-solving process. Models of this which focuses on extracting essential features from
process have already been described within literature biological models and transferring these features to
(e.g. Bransford and Stein 1984, Isaksen and Treffin- technology by performing a six steps process.
ger 1985, Adams et al 2003, Bardach 2011). The pro- Lenau (2009) presents biomimetics as a process
blem-solving process has been summarized by Massey using natural language analysis, which includes sub-
and Wallace’s (Massey and Wallace 1996) consisting of activities and often requires refinement.
5 stages: identification, definition, alternative genera- Helms et al (2009) outline a problem-driven biolo-
tion, choice of solution and implementation and gically-inspired design process model as a non-linear
testing. and dynamic progression of six steps, including itera-
Both approaches show intrinsic differences and a tive steps as well as feedback and refinement loops.
deeper understanding of each of the processes requires Nagel et al (2010a) implement a concept genera-
tion approach for biologically-inspired solutions
a detailed analysis. The aim of this paper is to foster the
which uses six steps. These steps start with the func-
usage of biomimetics in the industrial sector. There-
tional model of a desired engineering system to
fore, the following presented work will focus on the
explore biological solutions for inspiration and ends
problem-driven approach of biomimetics, as this
with a conceptual or detailed design. This description
approach seems more appropriate to be initiated by
is intertwined with the development of a specific tool,
industrial companies (i.e. the process starts within the
developed or utilized by its authors. The same holds
technical field)—even though this approach is less
true for the presentation of the problem-driven pro-
represented among commercially available biomi- cess from Chakrabarti et al (2005) and Shu et al (2010).
metic products (Jacobs et al 2014). Cheong et al (2011) outline a process model based
on natural language processing. The model starts with
the definition of an original functional keyword to
3. Biomimetic process model describe a problem and ends with the identification of
biologically meaningful keywords.
Within the last decade the problem-driven approach Baumeister et al (2013) use their Design Spiral
of biomimetics has often been described in literature Methodology to address a practical challenge to biol-
(e.g. Vattam et al 2007, Helms et al 2009, Goel ogy. In a circular eight-step process this Biomimicry
et al 2013). A representative set of different presenta- Thinking approach is used for the emulation of biolo-
tions of the process is shown in figure 2. Twelve gically-inspired design principles.
presentations were aligned with the problem-solving Goel et al (2014) have set up a generic task model
process (Massey and Wallace 1996) to illustrate a of analogical design and have matched it with the solu-
holistic perspective on the state of the process models. tion-based and problem-driven approaches of
Lindemann and Gramann (2004) describe a model biomimetics.
consisting of four steps strating from the formulation ISO/TC 266 (2015) Biomimetics shows an overall
of the intention up until the realization of the technical simplified flow chart of a biomimetic process. The

3
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

Figure 2. Problem-driven biomimetic process models correlated with the general problem-solving process.

standard points out that the particular sequence of Therefore, we consider it to be beneficial to unify the
steps during a development process in biomimetics above mentioned descriptions. The purpose is to give
differs within scientific disciplines. practitioners a better understanding of the field by
There have already been attempts in analyzing dif- combining the existing process models.
ferent descriptions of the process of biomimetics and Figure 3 shows the unified problem-driven pro-
establishing a general methodology for the generation cess model consisting of eight steps. The outline of the
of design concepts (Sartori et al 2010, Nagel et al 2014, process model is divided in two phases designed as a
Badarnah and Kadri 2015). Sartori et al (2010) offer a double symmetrical abstraction-specification cycle.
model based on Function-Behavior-Structure (FBS) The first phase (step 1–4), focuses on a technology to
modeling dividing functions and structures in the biology transition while the second phase (step 5–8)
search for biological analogies. Nagel et al (2014) out- tackles its way back from biology to technology. The
line a systematic biologically-inspired design metho- required contribution of either biologists or technolo-
dology which closely follows five steps of the problem- gists are indicated with the light (biology) and dark
solving model (Massey and Wallace 1996), presenting (technology) arrows.
flowcharts of the problem-driven approach, with cues The initial entry point of the unified biomimetic
for iteration. Badarnah and Kadri (2015) present their process model, is the problem analysis (step 1). This
BioGen methodology that enables designers, espe- can either encompass the assessment of the situation
cially architects, to face the challenges of the process of and/or the problem description. In the first case, a
biomimetics by following several phases. Further- specific problem to address has not yet been identified.
more, they present tools that facilitate the imple- Step 1 then aims to identify a development axis of
mentation of different phases. improvement for the technical system of interest and
focuses on system optimization. In the latter case, a
concrete problem has already been identified and the
4. The unified problem-driven process of problem description provides a proper problem for-
biomimetics malization. The abstraction of the technical problem
(step 2) leads to a functional model which encom-
Biomimetics demands from potential users a deeper passes the context as well as constraints of the pro-
insight into existing process descriptions and the blem. After this, it is clear which function should be
knowledge about existing tools (ISO/TC266 2015). achieved. With this abstraction and the envisaged

4
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

Figure 3. The unified problem-driven process of biomimetics.

function, the problem and its environment can be implementation and testing in the initial context (step
transposed to biology (step 3). Usually, a question 8). At this point the cycle can be finished successfully
towards nature is formulated in order to explore how with a biomimetic design as output. If the results are
nature has achieved a certain function. This is an not adequate the cycle can either be started all over
important step, as the results may highly differ again or there may be an iteration within phase two,
depending on how the question was formulated. With selecting a new model of interest.
the transposed question, biological models can be The unified biomimetic process model does not
identified by searching through literature, using web pursue the objective of being a new process model per-
engines and databases, or by gathering existing knowl- se but can be rather be seen as an instrument to make
edge. After step 4, there is a first iteration loop. existing biomimetic process models converge. With
The identification of biological models can lead to a an explicit link to the outlined problem-solving pro-
deeper understanding of the initial problem, which cess, practitioners may implement the bio-inspired
might require a new circle of step 1–3. This interaction process more easily, as it is connected to their prior
is due to the fact that a comparison of biology and
knowledge of such design processes. The unified pro-
technology may lead to a gain of knowledge in both
cess is descriptive and leaves space for feedback loops
fields.
and iterations.
The process is continued by selecting a biological
model of interest (step 5). The strategy of the biological
model needs to be understood in detail and then
abstracted (step 6). Step 5 and 6 allow the combination
5. Biomimetic tools
of several biological models and thus biological princi-
Along with the growing interest for bioinspiration
ples in order to solve the initial problem (which has
been labeled as compound analogy Vattam et al 2008, (Goel et al 2013), tools were designed to fit its
Goel et al 2014). The abstraction of the biological strat- specificities (e.g. interaction between technologists
egy is crucial as an exact biology-technology match is and biologists Nagel et al 2011, use of biology as a
usually not feasible. In general, the abstraction leads to specific source of knowledge Baumeister et al 2013).
a functional model of the biological system (e.g. Helms Other tools originating from the design field have also
et al 2009), extracting principles independent of the been used for biomimetics (e.g. TRIZ Vincent and
living system (e.g. Baumeister et al 2013) which may be Mann 2002, FBS Chakrabarti et al 2005, Vattam
emulated in technology. A transposition of the biolo- et al 2011a). A combination of tools from these two
gical strategy to technology is the next step (step 7), originating sources defines the biomimetic toolset
which enables designers to embody the outlined biolo- considered in this work.
gical principles according to technical functionalities. Within this work, a set of tools was chosen for ana-
Such transposition usually requires the available tech- lysis, according to the following parameters:
nological knowledge to act as a grid for interpreting
the biological solution(s) and enabling its imple- – Biomimetic implementation: has the tool/method
mentation into the technical world. The biological to been documented as being used in a biomimetic
technology conversion then leads to the final case study?

5
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

Table 1. The biomimetic toolset and its match with the steps of the allowing designers to identify new ways to improve the
unified problem-driven process of biomimetics.
sustainability of their object of study.
Considered tools KARIM’s version of LP (KLP). The European pro-
ject ‘Knowledge Acceleration and Responsible Inno-
Step 1 S-Curve, Domino, LP, KLP
Step 2 MSD, Uno-BID, TC, IFR, CW, DANE, SAPPhIRE, 4-Box,
vation Meta network’ (KARIM) has developed a
5-Whys complement to the KARIM Responsible Innovation
Step 3 IP, Resources, Taxonomy, BIOPS manual, based on the LP.This version presents the
Step 4 BIOPS, Bioniquity, AskNature, Brainstorming same principles than the LP (Baumeister et al 2013)
Step 5 T-chart with sample questions, advantages, and biological and
Step 6 Uno-BID, DANE, SAPPhIRE, BioM, 4-Box technical examples (Michka Mélo et al 2015).
Step 7 IP, Resources
S-Curve. One of the axioms upon which TRIZ has
Step 8 —
been built is the development of technological systems
according to Evolution Laws (Cavallucci and
– Theoretical description: has the tool/method and Weill 2001). These laws state that the development of
its development been described and discussed in technical products follow certain patterns (Alt-
literature? shuller 1988). From this statement, the S-Curve analy-
sis has been developed to identify product life cycle
– Illustrative case study: has the tool/method been stages and to offer guidelines to move from one stage
disclosed in a practical environment? to another (Terninko et al 1998).
– Usage guidelines: do the authors provide any Domino. The Domino or Task Analysis, a part of
document to help the proper use of the tool/ the Synectics which was developed by Nolan (1989), is
method? a four steps questionnaire. The method focuses on
reframing a given problem by identifying ownership,
These parameters were thought to identify tools foreseeable problems and the problem’s root cause
which more likely provide a required maturity for an (Nolan 1989).
industrial implementation. 22 tools were selected and T-Chart. The T-Chart (Helms and Goel 2014)
are shown in table 1. allows the comparison of two 4-Box representations
TRIZ tools were distributed based on Schöfer’s (one for the problem description, one for the identi-
work (Schöfer et al 2013) which emphasizes Savrans- fied biological analogues), providing an evaluation of
ky’s (2000) and Nakagawa’s (Nakagawa et al 2003). the analogy.
Other tools were assigned according to a theoretical
literature analysis ran by the first author and reviewed 5.2. Abstraction tools
by the second. Furthermore, the biomimetic tools Tools among this category are:
were divided into four categories, as shown in table 2, Brainstorming. Brainstorming (Osborn 1953) is a
in accordance with creative activities during problem- well-known group activity that provides a democratic
solving (Wallas 1926, Amabile 1983, Nelson 2003). way to quickly generate many ideas , requires few mat-
For consistency, the chosen categories were aligned erial resources, and helps foster social interactions.
with the definition of biomimetics (ISO/TC266 2015), SAPPhIRE representation. The State change,
which states that the initial problem is solved through Action, Part, Phenomenon, Input, oRgan and Effect
the analysis, the abstraction, the transfer and the appli- model (SAPPhIRE) is a causal language developed to
cation of knowledge from biological models to the describe structural and functional information of both
technical field. Therefore, the four considered cate- natural and technical systems (Chakrabarti et al 2005).
gories of tools are: abstraction (preparation Wal- Originating from the Function, Behavior, Stucture
las 1926; problem or task identification Amabile (FBS) model proposed by Gero (Gero 1990), the
1983; naming Nelson 2003), transfer (incubation model has been made to emphasize the physical phe-
Wallas 1926; preparation Amabile 1983; framing nomena on which the described function relies.
Nelson 2003), application (illumination Wallas 1926; Design analogy to nature engine (DANE). DANE is
response generation Amabile 1983; taking action an interactive tool for supporting BID (Vattam
Nelson 2003) and analysis (verification Wallas 1926; et al 2011a). It is based on Structure-Behavior-Func-
response validation Amabile 1983; reflecting tion (SBF) model (Goel et al 2009) which refers to the
Nelson 2003). Functional Representation (Vattam et al 2011b).
Functions are modeled through a progression of
5.1. Analysis tools states, linked together by behavioral causal explana-
The tools identified to facilitate the Analysis step are: tions, along with structure box diagrams.
Life’s Principles (LP). The collection of design pat- Uno-BID. Uno-BID seeks to combine existing
terns from currently living species constitutes the LP functional-causal models into a single ontology (Rosa
(Baumeister et al 2013). LP could therefore be used as a et al 2014). It thus hybridizes both the detailed descrip-
measurement instrument and/or as design principles, tion of system internal structure of SAPPhIRE

6
 Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002
7

Table 2. Types of biomimetic tools and their match with the unified problem-driven process of biomimetics.

Step 1: Problem Step 2: Abstract technical Step 3: Transpose to Step 4: Identify potential Step 5: Select biological Step 6: Abstract biological Step 7: Transpose to Step 8: Implement and test in
analysis problem biology biological models model(s) of interest strategies technology the initial context

Analysis tools Abstraction tools Transfer tools Application tools Analysis tools Abstraction tools Transfer tools Application tools

P E Fayemi et al
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

representation (Chakrabarti et al 2005) and the model- the use of a functional ontology which seeks to orga-
ing approach provided by DANE (Vattam et al 2011a). nize biology by challenge (Baumeister et al 2013).
Multi-screen diagram (MSD). The MSD (also Inventive principles (IP). Altshuller’s work has
called System-Thinking Operator, or 9-Windows) is a shown that 40 principles are used by patent authors to
mental exercise segmenting a technical system into solve a problem (Altshuller 1997). Inventive Principles
boxes, starting from the central box which refers to the have been outlined to overcome design trade-off.
current system, and varying according to two axes, Awareness of these heuristics is important, but know-
time and systemic levels (Altshuller 1988). By creating ing which principle(s) to use in order to solve a given
a dynamic picture, the multi-screen serves as a remin- problem is equally essential. For this purpose, Alt-
der to perform a gradual transition between different shuller (1997) synthetized the typical design para-
subsystems and states of technology as any division of meters of a system into a matrix of 39 generic
a technique into subsystems is arbitrary by nature parameters. This matrix, known as the Contradiction
(Savransky 2000). Matrix, allows designers to link formalized problems
Ideal final result (IFR). IFR, is about picturing the
through technical contradictions to the inventive
ideal representation of a system by overcoming cur-
principle(s) of interest in order to solve the initial con-
rent technological limitations. Ideality is reached
tradiction and thus the problem.
when an action is fulfilled without the need of the sys-
Resources analysis. The problem solving tool
tem (Altshuller 1996). The identification of the IFR
Resources Analysis focuses on resources that exist
can be facilitated by methods such as the Innovation
within the analyzed system or its environment. The
Situation Questionnaire, which is a structured think-
initial purpose is that providing a database of resources
ing questionnaire (Terninko et al 1998).
Technical contradictions. Technical contradictions would allow designers to recognize things that they
occur when a system improves a technical character- usually might not consider as resources. Once the
istic or parameter which at the same time deteriorates resources have been identified, the tool uses heuristics
another one. Not overcoming technical contradictions that help designers navigate among them (Sav-
leads therefore to trade-off solutions. Technical ransky 2000) with the goal of turning unexpected and
contradictions are often hidden or vaguely formulated harmful things into useful resources.
only (Altshuller 1988). As a tool, Technical Contra- Biology inspired problem solving (BIOPS). BIOPS is
dictions, aim to identify and to define such conflicts. developed by Fraunhofer IAO, Germany, and is acces-
5-Whys. 5-Whys is an iterative process tool focus- sible online as demo version (Fraunhofer). It is a the-
ing on identifying the root cause of a problem. The saurus for mapping technological functional search
technique explores the chain between cause and effect terms with biological models. The starting point is a
by repeatedly interrogating users on the problem cause technical problem (e.g. water harvesting) which will
(Ōno 1988). then be linked to biological creatures.
Closed world approach (CW). The CW originates
from the Unified Structured Inventive Thinking
(Sickafus 1997), a derivative of TRIZ (Alt-
5.4. Application tools
shuller 1988, 1996). It provides an analysis of a pro-
Tools among this category are:
blem by describing the functional interactions AskNature. AskNature, known for being the lar-
between objects of a given system according to their
gest database related to bio-inspiration, is built around
effect (i.e. useful or harmful) and their attributes
the same ontology as Taxonomy. The database seeks to
(Sickafus 1997).
provide knowledge about a biological phenomenon,
Four-box method (4-Box). The four box method
links to experts and potential design ideas/application
(Helms and Goel 2014) consists of a 2×2 matrix,
(Baumeister et al 2013).
facilitating the problem description according to its
BionIQuity. BionIQuity® is a set of creativity tech-
Operational Environment, Function, Specifications
and Performance Criteria. niques which can be used in new product develop-
Biological modeling (BioM). BioM is a set of guide- ment and for problem-solving activities (Dell 2006). It
lines proposed by Nagel et al (2011), leading to the provides 42 abstracted principles of biological models,
functional representation of a given biological system. which are referenced in this work as Bioniquity. These
Generated models may tackle different levels of granu- principles can be used for idea generation on a meta-
larity and the modeling process is facilitated by an level (Dell 2006).
engineering-to-biology thesaurus (Nagel et al 2010b). BIOPS. BIOPS has also been considered as an
application tool as the tool will, once the transfer step
5.3. Transfer tools has been completed, further guide the user to the web-
The identified transfer tools are: sites asknature.org to find more information, to a
Taxonomy. Taxonomy allows designers to trans- patent database (freepatentsonline.com) and to scien-
late a technical problem into a biological one thanks to tific literature (sciencedaily.com).

8
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

Table 3. Summary of the assessment criteria.

Analysis tools Abstraction tools Transfer tools Application tools

Theoretical Analysis complete- Modeling capacity (Mc) Transposition preci- Uniqueness of solu-
criteria ness (Ac) sion (Tp) tion (Uos)
Analysis accuracy (Aa) Systemic levels integra- Direction (Di) Knowledge enlarge-
tion (Sli) ment (Ke)
Identification of ide- Information filtering (If) Query Versatility (Qv) Modularization (M)
ality (Id)
Prioritization (Pri) Generalization capa- Consistency (Co) Inventiveness (Inv)
city (Gc)
Constraints preserva-
tion (Cp)

Practical criteria Swiftness (1)

Simplicity (2)
Stand-alone capacity (3)
Field adaptability (4)
Group adaptability (5)
Precedence (6)

6. Experimental method and results 6.1.1. Analysis tools

Analysis tools should define the problem space (New-
We considered a study on how these tools were ell and Simon 1972) by evaluating a situation exhaus-
perceived by their users as a beneficial step. This study tively and precisely. They could also define the
should provide insight into practical context specifi- solution space (Newell and Simon 1972) by describing
cities of the tools, while validating the distribution an ideal situation where the problem does not exist
made according to the problem-driven biomimetic anymore. It is possible that they offer a way to
process model. prioritize underlying problems needed to be solved in
order to reach the solution space (Jonassen 1997).
Assessment criteria, defined in this work, are therefore
6.1. Assessing the biomimetic toolset the completeness (Ac) and the accuracy (Aa) of an
Comparison of creative or problem-solving methods analysis, identification of ideality (Id), and Prioritiza-
and tools have been attempted several times (Alford tion (Pr).
et al 1998, Cavallucci and Lutz 2000, Shah et al 2000,
Chakrabarti 2003, Thiebaud 2003, Shneiderman and 6.1.2. Abstraction tools
Plaisant 2006, Glier et al 2011, Sarkar and Chakra- Abstraction tools focus on generating models on
barti 2011, Reich et al 2012). According to these different systemic levels. The purpose of these models
references several assessment criteria have been out- is to ease the comparison of analogy between technol-
lined. These criteria are swiftness (1) (Glier et al 2011), ogy and biology, in our context, by increasing the level
simplicity (2) (Thiebaud 2003, Shneiderman and of abstractness (Chi et al 1981, Nagel et al 2010a) and
Plaisant 2006, Glier et al 2011), the capacity to be used reducing the amount of information taken into
stand-alone (3) (Thiebaud 2003), field adaptability (4) account (Chi et al 1981) while maintaining the
(Thiebaud 2003, Shneiderman and Plaisant 2006), contextual constraints as much as possible. Consid-
group adaptability (5) (Thiebaud 2003, Shneiderman ered assessment criteria are modeling capacity (Mc),
and Plaisant 2006) and the capacity to ease the systemic levels integration (Sli), generalization capa-
following design stage (6) (Glier et al 2011). These city (Gc), information filtering (If), and constraints
criteria assess the required operating conditions for a preservation (Cp).
given tool to deliver what it has been designed for,
defining the practical criteria subset which will be used 6.1.3. Transfer tools
for all presented tools. One of the challenges of biomimetics is the difficulties
For each category, specific criteria were defined in communication between technologists and biolo-
(see table 3 for a summary). These criteria aim to assess gists (Helms et al 2009, Nagel et al 2010a). Their
how one tool delivers what it has been designed for. different backgrounds lead to divergent disciplinary or
These criteria define the theoretical criteria subset. In functional understanding of a concept (Dough-
contrast to the practical criteria, the theoretical criteria erty 1992), whether due to perception (Dearborn and
are specific to the four respective categories of tools. Simon 1958), languages (Tushman 1978), or ‘thought
The combination of the practical criteria with the spe- styles’ (Fleck 2012). Transfer tools are thus meant to
cific theoretical ones was used for the assessment of the precisely transpose concepts from biology to technol-
considered biomimetic toolset. ogy and vice versa.

9
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

They may handle different types of queries and The second workshop took place with a 3D-print-
provide outputs with different level of abstraction ing company. The selected topic was ‘How to reduce
Considered assessment criteria are transposition pre- the amount of input material without reducing struc-
cision (Tp) and direction (Di), query versatility (Qv), tural strength?’
and consistency (Co). The last workshop, extrapolated from Azad et al’s
(2015) and Malik et al’s (2014) work, focused on
6.1.4. Application tools ‘Designing a water bottle which harvests clean and
Application tools seek the concretization. They are the non-salty water from the atmosphere for individual
ones contextualizing back transposed models to pro- daily usage’. For the third workshop, no industrial
duce embodiments. They are expected to lead to the representative was involved and has consequently
identification of a small number of high inventiveness been replaced by one of the authors to even the num-
solutions (Savransky 2000) that solve the initial ber of participants.
problem either by themselves or combined (Hender- Facilitation was made by the two first authors of
son and Clark 1990). Assessment criteria are therefore this work who are familiar with creative workshops in
the knowledge enlargement (Ke), the uniqueness of industrial environments. The participants received a
solution (Uos), the inventiveness (Inv), and the methodological training depending on the tools’
modularization (M). complexity and the overall existing knowledge of par-
ticipants. The average training duration was approxi-
mately one to two hours per tool, conforming to the
6.2. First study: workshops guidelines generated by their developers. Trainings
The assessment of the biomimetic toolset has been
were implemented according to the following
performed with conditions as close as possible to an
procedure:
actual industrial implementation, involving experts in
their working environment. – General introduction on the theoretical back-
ground of the tool.
6.2.1. Context and protocol
– Introduction to the means and purposes of the tool.
Workshops were set to involve small groups of
participants (i.e. five) and to last from one to two entire – Explanatory case study, performed by the
workdays. The first type of participants were the facilitator.
industrial representatives, acting as problem owners
– Pedagogical case study, performed by participants.
and setting up the industrial context for a given
workshop. Workshops involved one industrial repre-
The achievement of the pedagogical case study
sentative per workshop. The other two types of
allowed to ensure the proficiency of participants to a
participants, were engineers and biologists. The engi-
given tool. At the end of the training, tools were put to
neers involved were researchers in design methodolo-
the test on the actual workshop case study. Instruc-
gies and innovation consultants, experts in problem-
tions, such as templates and/or guidelines, were given
solving and design processes. Involved biologists were
to the participants.
both renowned biomimetics/biomimicry lecturers
Each tool was introduced individually through
and leading figures of their national bioinspiration
their specific training and afterwards they were used
related organization. Workshops involved two engi-
for the case study. Tools were sequentially imple-
neers and two biologists per workshops.
mented according to the unified process presented in
Due to the rarity of the population that was tar-
figure 3. Introduction, training and application took
geted, combined with the length of the workshops,
place during the individual workshops.
only three workshops were implemented: two of them
Ultimately assessment sheets, illustrated in
included an industrial partner and the third was car-
figure 4, combining theoretical and practical criteria
ried out as a theoretical case study. Workshop partici-
listed in section 6.1, were distributed among partici-
pation redundancy reduced the total number of
pants in order to assess the tools.
participants to 8.
The first workshop was held in collaboration with
a French small-sized company working in the field of 6.2.2. Results
temporary accommodation for eco-tourism or one- Though the workshops tackled different topics, the
time events. Studied products were spherical struc- experimental conditions remained close. Results of
tures made out of a plastic film supported by an air workshops have thus been combined. The analysis of
flow generated through a compressor. The purpose of the results was performed by using the Wilcoxon
the workshop was to provide a way to integrate the Signed-Ranks Test.
temporary accommodation solution with less envir- Measurements showed a high degree of reliability
onmental impact. This led to the initial question: (Cronbach’s alpha range: 0.703–0.970), except for
‘How can fluxes of energy be managed dynamically?’ DANE and Domino which obtained questionable

10
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

Figure 4. Example of an assessment sheet (abstraction tool) used during the workshops.

correlations (Cronbach’s αDANE= 0.540 and Cron- topics (Field adaptability’s scores) and obtained Swift-
bach’s αDOMINO= 0.491). ness (1) scores, higher than LP ones.
Analysis tools. LP were assessed through the first The S-Curve analysis has shown strong capabilities
workshop, the KARIM’s version of LP (KLP), S-Curve in providing a complete analysis (Ac) of a given situa-
and the Domino were assessed through the second tion coupled with an idealized vision (Id). The fulfill-
workshop and the T-Chart through the third one. The ment of these two criteria seems to allow designers to
grouped histogram in figure 5 introduces the result take the next step of the biomimetic process in a
obtained across the assessed tools for each of the con- proper manner (Precedence’s score (6)).
sidered criteria, setting the means as the x-axis. Said Unlike the LP or the S-Curve targeting to outline
results are compared, per criterion, to this overall one or several strategic axes for an innovative process,
mean in order to highlight their differences. the Domino focuses on the problem description.
LP and KLP show low theoretical results with only Through its results the domino differs from the prior
Ideality (Id) scoring over 1. Results indicated that LP analyzed analysis tools. Its theoretical impact has been
group adaptability (5) scores, Mdn=2 were higher recorded high on both the accuracy measurement (Aa)
than KLP’s. KLP appears to be relevant for many and the ability to prioritize (Pr). In view of its

11
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

Figure 5. Workshops’ analysis tools assessment results. With theoretical criteria Ac: analysis completeness; Aa: analysis accuracy; Id:
identification of ideality; Pri: prioritization; and practical criteria 1: swiftness; 2: simplicity; 3: stand-alone capacity; 4: field
adaptability; 5: group adaptability; 6: precedence.

Figure 6. Workshops’ abstraction tools assessment results. With theoretical criteria Mc: Modelling capacity; Sli: systemic levels
integration; If: information filtering; Gc: generalization capacity; Cp: constraints preservation; and practical criteria 1: swiftness; 2:
Simplicity; 3: stand-alone capacity; 4: field adaptability; 5: group adaptability; 6: precedence.

Simplicity (2), Swiftness (1) and Stand-alone capacity high score for Simplicity (2) and Swiftness (1) can
(3), the Domino seems to be a tool that one should hardly, in the context of the workshop, counter-
consider while attempting to state appropriately a balance its lack of theoretical efficiency.
problem. The MSD showed a high capacity to deal with sub/
T-Chart, as an analysis tool, shows medium to low super systemic levels (Sli). Its lower score (i.e. Infor-
theoretical criteria scores. However, the tool scored mation Filtering (IF)) still belongs to the top of
high on its practical criteria. The Stand-alone capacity abstraction tools. The tool scored a perfect Field
(3) is the only practical criteria to score low. Designers Adaptability (4) and Precedence (6). On the other
are thus suggested to pick the T-Chart’s previous and/ hand, MSD does not seem to be a stand-alone tool and
or subsequent tool in accordance with its use. therefore needs to be coupled with specific other tools
Abstraction tools. The 5-Whys and the MSD were to reach its full potential, making it relatively complex
assessed through the first workshop, the CW through to use and difficult to implement.
the second one and DANE, SAPPhIRE representation, The CW shows overall good theoretic abilities for
UnoBID, BioM and the 4-Box through the third one. modeling, except for its capacity to filter information.
The results are shown in figure 6. CW’s highs are its capacity to maintain constraints
5-Whys show low results on the theoretical criteria (Cp) and its Generalization capacity (Ge). However, its
(M5-Whys range: 0–0.6), with only a better result on the use seems to require specific group typology (5) in
sub/super system integration criterion (Sli). The tool’s order to be effective.

12
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

Figure 7. Workshops’ transfer tools assessment results. With theoretical criteria Tp: transposition precision; Di: direction; Qv: query
versatility; Co: consistency; and practical criteria 1: swiftness; 2: simplicity; 3: stand-alone capacity; 4: field adaptability; 5: group
adaptability; 6: precedence.

The function-based modeling tools all scored high not differ statistically, except for the Generalization
on theoretical criteria. Participants voiced their strug- capacity (Gc), which appeared to be lower than Uno-
gle at modeling a system involving several sub- steps BID’s (Mdn=3), SAPPhIRE representation’s
with the SAPPhIRE representation, while DANE (Mdn=2) and DANE’s (Mdn=2). Thus, BioM
allowed them to do so without difficulty with its should be preferred under specific requirements (e.g.
sequential state changes. Nevertheless, participants avoiding the relatively longer learning of functional
voiced the capacity of SAPPhIRE representation to modeling).
highlight causal relations of the systems, leading to Transfer tools. The Taxonomy was assessed
possible higher abstraction level modeling. Looking at through both the first and the second workshop.
the result, Uno-BID seems to achieve advantages of BIOPS was assessed through the third workshop. The
both SAPPhIRE representation and DANE with the results are shown in figure 7.
downside of being difficult to handle and requiring BIOPS scores very low on every theoretical score
time in order to be implemented. and its practical scores are average to good. This seems
The 4-Box showed medium to low theoretical to indicate that its use as a transfer tool in an industrial
scores, suggesting that other abstraction tools should environment might be difficult. Its use could be con-
be preferred to generate models. Results indicated that tained to very specific operating conditions or needs
4-Box ease of use (2) scores (Mdn=3) were related to one of its feature (e.g. Participants voiced its
higher than MSD (Mdn=2), CW (Mdn=1) DANE ability to perform queries into patent database).
(Mdn=1) SAPPhire representation (Mdn=1), BIOPS obtained better Stand-alone capacity (3) results
UnoBID (Mdn=0) and BioM; the same results indi- (Mdn=1.5), than Taxonomy’s (Mdn=0).
cated that 4-Box swiftness (1) scores (Mdn = 3) were The Taxonomy scored average to low on theor-
significantly higher than MSD (Mdn=2), CW etical criteria. Its capacity to handle different types of
(Mdn=1) DANE (Mdn=1) SAPPhire representa- queries input is especially low, meaning the input has
tion (Mdn=1), UnoBID (Mdn=1) and BioM to be formulated specifically before being transposed
(Mdn=1). This makes, from our workshops results, to the biological world. This underlying specificity is
the 4-Box the quickest and easiest tool, aside from the correlated by its low stand-alone score, leading to the
5-Whys, to perform an abstraction. However due to use of a specific tool in order to perform adequately.
the high interdependency of 4-Box and T-Chart Taxonomy obtained better Precedence (6) results
(Stand-alone capacity score), the prior use of (Mdn=3), than BIOPS’s (Mdn=1).
the 4-Box is recommended whenever T-Chart is Application tools. AskNature has been assessed
implemented. through the first and the second workshop. Brain-
BioM results showed higher Modeling capacity storming has been assessed through the first work-
(Mc), Mdn=2, and higher Generalization capacity shop, and BIOPS and Bioniquity have been assessed
(Gc), Mdn=1, than the 5-Whys (Mdn=0 for Mc through the third workshop. The results are shown in
and Mdn=0 for Gc). Therefore, BioM seems to out- figure 8.
class the 5-Whys when it comes to theoretical criteria. Due to its fundamentals, Brainstorming can
Compared with the results of function-based model- hardly score high in the theoretical part. It has been
ing tools BioM’s theoretical and practical criteria do designed to provide the largest quantity of concepts

13
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

Figure 8. Workshops’ application tools assessment results. With Uos: uniqueness of solution; Ke: knowledge enlargement; M:
modularization; Inv: inventiveness; 1: swiftness; 2: simplicity; 3: stand-alone capacity; 4: field adaptability; 5: group adaptability; 6:
precedence.

(low score at pointing at unique solutions) while prof- 6.2.3. Conclusion of the workshops
iting from the embedded knowledge (i.e. few to no The small amount both of workshops and participants
knowledge enlargement) of the gathered participants are of relevant limitations and the lack of statistical
(groups are mandatory, i.e. low group adaptability). As data does not allow to draw any firm conclusions.
expected, brainstorming scored poorly in these cri- However, certain tendencies have been outlined.
teria, along with the two other theoretical ones. Unlike Abstraction tools tended to score high on the
theoretical, brainstorming shows high scores in ‘Swift- theoretical criteria, higher than the other categories of
ness (1)’ and ‘Simplicity (2)’. Brainstorming group tools assessed. This tendency to provide well what
adaptability (2) scores (Mdn=0) were lower than all these tools have been designed for, seems to come with
the other assessed application tools, i.e. BIOPS a more limited user-friendly ability (i.e. simplicity and
(Mdn=3), Bioniquity (Mdn=2) and AskNature swiftness). However, these two trends do not seem to
(Mdn=2). Brainstorming Inventiveness (Inv) scores stand true for the 5-Whys and the 4-box. These tools
(Mdn=1) were also reported lower than Bioniquity’s presented good simplicity and swiftness scores com-
(Mdn=2) and AskNature’s (Mdn=2). bined with low theoretical criteria scores (combining
AskNature showed a high enlargement capacity of theoretical scores leads to M5-whys=0.52, SD5-
whys=0.8 and M4-Box=0.76, SD4-Box=0.5).
the designers’ knowledge while still being a quick and
The main trends among transfer tools identified
easy tool. Nonetheless AskNature was voiced as
from the workshops is their low capacity to transpose
requiring the use of Taxonomy to reach its potential,
both from technology to biology and from biology to
and its Precedence (6) indicated that further work
technology (direction MTaxo,BIOPS<1). The funda-
would be necessary to fulfill the step it has been
mental principles of these tools show that they have
designed for (i.e. identification of potential biological
mainly been thought to transpose from technology to
systems). biology. This observation constitutes a threat, as it
BIOPS, obtained in the overall limited scores with could lead to a potential bottleneck when considering
Inventiveness (Inv) scores, (Mdn=0) even lower the whole process.
than Brainstorming’s, (Mdn=1); and Field adapt- Results also showed that Transfer tools share low
ability (4) scores, (Mdn=1), lower than Brainstorm- to medium Stand-alone capacity (Sla) (MTaxo,BIOPS
ing’s, (Mdn=3), and Bioniquity, (Mdn=3). range: 0.4–1.5). Taxonomy, which has been developed
Bioniquity’s Inventiveness (3) results (Mdn=3), jointly with AskNature, and BIOPS, which is both a
were higher than Brainstorming’s (Mdn=2) or transfer and an application tool divided in two parts,
BIOPS (Mdn=0). Other significant differences were leading to the consideration that these two tools might
Precedence (6), Mdn=2, and Stand-alone capacity not be considered without their application counter-
(3), Mdn=3, scoring respectively higher than Brain- part. It is thus a combined Transfer-Application set of
storming on Precedence (6), Mdn=1, and BIOPS on tools that should be selected to ‘Transpose to biology’
Precedence (6), Mdn=0, and Stand-alone capacity, and ‘Identify potential biological models’, rather than
Mdn=0. Bioniquity could, from the workshops two subsequent tools.
results, be considered as a tool to generate potential To strengthen the results of the workshops, the
disruptive inventions quickly and easily. assessment would benefit from being put to trial with a

14
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

Table 4. Participants’ subjective expertize on the assessed tools. 6.3.2. Results

Standard The Shapiro-Wilk W test has been used to evaluate
Tools Mean deviation Skewness Kurtosis each variable for normality. The majority of the
observed distributions were identified as non-normal.
TC 3.44 1.14 −0.327 −0.718 The Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test was thus used as a
IFR 3.88 1.27 −0.797 −0.560
non-parametric test for ordinal data. Cronbach’s
MSD 3.69 1.44 −0.733 −0.864
IP 3.46 1.12 −0.323 −0.788
alphas (range: 0.815–0.971) showed a good to excellent
Resources 3.47 1.35 −0.528 −0.967 internal consistency of the measurements.
Brainstorming 3.58 0.98 −0.452 0.143 Abstraction tools. The results of the abstraction
tools’ assessment are shown in figure 9.
Regarding the tested tools, MSD seems to be the
larger audience, which was performed in a second best tool to model systems (Mc) (MdnMSD=3,
study. MdnTC=2 and MdnIFR=2), combined with a bet-
ter integration of super/sub-system levels (Sli)
(MdnMSD=3, MdnTC=2 and MdnIFR=2). MSD
6.3. Second study: field survey
however provides a lower level of abstraction (Gc)
To assess the considered biomimetic toolset with a
when compared to the other tools assessed
larger audience implies different conditions of assess- (MdnMSD=2, MdnTC=3 and MdnIFR=3).
ment. The results of this second study should therefore TC was assessed as offering a higher stand-alone
show, to some extent, if the tendencies identified capacity (3) compared with MSD and IFR
during the workshops are supported or undermined (MdnTc=3, MdnMSD=2 and MdnIFR=2).
with a larger sample size. IFR, compared to TC and MSD, seems to better
preserve constraints (Cp) (MdnIFR=2, MdnTC=2
6.3.1. Context and protocol and MdnMSD=2), combined with a better adapt-
This second study makes it also possible to tackle the ability regarding group composition (4) (MdnIFR=3,
TRIZ theory which was yet to be investigated. The use MdnTC=2 and MdnMSD=2). As a counterpart IFR
of tools originating from TRIZ within biomimetic seems to require more time than the two other tools to
approaches has been promoted by a research group be implemented (1) (MdnIFR=1, MdnTC=2 and
from the University of Bath (from which the consult- MdnMSD=2).
ing firm BioTRIZ derived), leading to the adaptation Transfer tools. The results of the transfer tools’
of some tools to the specificities of the biomimetic assessment are shown in figure 10.
process (e.g. Bogatyreva et al 2003, Vincent et al 2005). IP results showed higher transposition capacity
(Tp) (MdnIP=2) than Resources (MdnRes=1) but
Several tools from TRIZ have been presented as being
lower stand-alone capacity (Sla) (MdnIP=1 and
of interest for biomimetics (Vincent and Mann 2002).
MdnRes=2 with Z=6.846, p=.000). As IP are
The assessment of these five different tools (i.e.
usually paired with Technical Contradiction, the
Technical Contradictions, IFR, MSD, Inventive Prin-
stand-alone capacity results seem to confirm the
ciples, Resources analysis) seized upon the 13th
necessity to combine them.
International Conference of the European TRIZ
While offering less transposition capacity, Resour-
Association (TRIZ Future Conference 2013), which
ces scored higher than TC on direction (Di)
annually gathers TRIZ experts from across Europe.
(MdnRes=3 and MdnIp=1), consistency (Co)
Due to the context, training and implementation
(MdnRes=3 and MdnIP=1) and group adaptability
of actual case studies were unmanageable. Participants (5) (MdnRes=3 and MdnIp=2 with Z=5,006
evaluated tools with questionnaires including the p= 0.000).
same list of criteria as during the workshops. As the Application tools. The results of the brainstorm-
precedence criteria (6) requires the following type of ing’s assessment are shown in figure 11.
tools to be represented, brainstorming was added to Being the sole tool assessed in this category no
the study. 86 participants, 51 industrial practitioners direct comparison was possible. Brainstorming scored
and 35 scientific researchers, answered the ques- low on the theoretical criteria, while presenting inter-
tionnaire. The average number of years of TRIZ mediate to high scores on the practical criteria, except
experience over the participants was 7.05 (range: 1–16, for group adaptability (5).
SD=4.52). The experience was non-normally dis-
tributed, with skewness of 0.41 (SE=0.26) and kur- 6.3.3. Conclusions of the field survey
tosis of −0.76 (SE=0.51). The mean of participant’s The experiment has been run with a very specific target
subjective expertize on TRIZ was 2.97 (SD=1.26) group; the International TRIZ Future Conference
out of 5 with skewness of −0.11 (SE=0.26) and kur- audience consisted of individuals who are at least
tosis of −0.46 (SE=0.51). The subjective expertize of initiated to TRIZ use, if not properly trained to it. For
participants regarding the individual tools is presented this reason, some of the practical criteria must be
in table 4. considered with caution, especially the ease of use.

15
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

Figure 9. Field survey’s abstraction tools assessment results. With Mc: modelling capacity; Sli: systemic levels integration; If:
information filtering; Gc: generalization capacity; Cp: constraints preservation; 1: swiftness; 2: simplicity; 3: stand-alone capacity; 4:
field adaptability; 5: group adaptability; 6: precedence.

Figure 10. Field survey’s transfer tools assessment results. With theoretical criteria Tp: yransposition precision; Di: direction; Qv:
query Versatility; Co: consistency; and practical criteria 1: swiftness; 2: simplicity; 3: stand-alone capacity; 4: field adaptability; 5: group
adaptability; 6: precedence.

Figure 11. Field survey’s application tools assessment results. With Uos: Uniqueness of solution; Ke: Knowledge enlargement; M:
Modularization; Inv: Inventiveness; 1: Swiftness; 2: Simplicity; 3: Stand-alone capacity; 4: Field adaptability; 5: Group adaptability;
6: Precedence.

Results from the workshop and the field survey, scores in theoretical criteria with lower stand-alone
cannot be compared directly, yet, some of the tools capacity) and the same observation holds true for the
were assessed in both studies, i.e. MSD and Brain- brainstorming (fast and easy tool to implement with
storming. MSD shares the same overall profile (high low theoretical criteria scores). As the main

16
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

Figure 12. Problem-driven process of biomimetics utility tree.

conclusions drawn from the workshops remain iden- tree presented in figure 12 combines both the unified
tifiable through the field survey, it is possible to problem-driven process model of biomimetics
assume that the results from the workshop studies (figure 3) and the assessed tools mapped to it (table 1).
provide some form of representational view. Each junction point of the tree is either defined by
assessment criteria used during the case studies, char-
acteristics of the project or experience and preferences
7. Building a problem-driven biomimetic of the solvers. Tools are distinguished according to
utility tree their experimental results (i.e. for the considered cri-
teria, or voiced during the case study).
To ease the holistic understanding of the conclusions The purpose of such a utility tree is to guide practi-
and tendencies drawn from the assessments, a visua- tioners through the biomimetic process model and its
lized presentation of the results is proposed. The utility tools. Practitioners are asked to answer questions at

17
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

the junction points in order to select a tool. This way data gained from studies with a broader range of users
they can build their own biomimetic process based on (with less expertized profiles). This new set of assess-
the current experimental results. It is necessary to ment workshops constitutes an ongoing study lead by
mention that none of the listed steps or tools are man- the authors. Furthermore, comparative case studies,
datory; users can enter and/or exit at any junction the addition of more tools and the identification of
point. challenges during the use of the utility tree will
The use of the tree can therefore be adapted to sup- improve the utility tree towards a robust version.
port their way through the biomimetic process. Fol-
lowing the entire biomimetic utility tree should result References
in a bioinspired design, a biomimetic product fulfilling
the criteria of ISO TC 266 (2015) Biomimetics. Adams R S, Turns J and Atman C J 2003 Educating effective
engineering designers: the role of reflective practice Des. Stud.
As mentioned before, the unified problem-driven 24 275–94
process model of biomimetics requires knowledge Alford M et al 1998 The design-methods comparison project IEEE
both from biology and technology. The same holds Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. C 28 80–103
true for the utility tree as biologists are needed at sev- Altshuller G 1996 And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared: TRIZ, the
Theory of Inventive Problem Solving 2nd Edn (Worcester, MA:
eral steps, especially if the offered tools do not provide Technical Innovation Center, Inc.)
a deep understanding of biology. As the utility tree is Altshuller G 1997 40 Principles: TRIZ Keys to Innovation vol 1
more a framework than a mandatory route to follow, (Technical Innovation Center, Inc.)
users should decide individually when to look for Altshuller G S 1988 Creativity as an Exact Science (London: Gordon
and Breach)
external expertize. The role of biologists indicated in Amabile T M 1983 The social psychology of creativity: a
the utility tree is highlighted when it is considered to componential conceptualization J. Personality Soc. Psychol.
be mandatory in most cases. Even at earlier steps their 45 357
Azad M, Ellerbrok D, Barthlott W and Koch K 2015 Fog collecting
contribution may be needed and is emphasized (Snell-
biomimetic surfaces: influence of microstructure and
Rood 2016). wettability Bioinsp. Biomim. 10 016004
The utility tree may be adapted to individual needs Badarnah L and Kadri U 2015 A methodology for the generation of
as each problem or design task has its specificities. biomimetic design concepts Archit. Sci. Rev. 58 120–33
Bardach E 2011 Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path
After choosing a way through the utility tree, practi-
to More Effective Problem Solving 4th Edn (London: Sage)
tioners need to be familiar with the set of tools refer- Baumeister D, Tocke R, Dwyer J and Ritter S 2013 Biomimicry
ring to the chosen way through the utility tree. resource handbook: a seed bank of best practices
At present, the utility tree consists of a subset of Biomimicry 3
Bogatyrev N R and Vincent J F 2008 Microfluidic actuation in living
existing tools and shall therefore not be considered to
organisms: a biomimetic catalogue Proc. 1st European Conf.
be finalized. It is rather a first version of a guideline on Microfluidics (Bologna) p 175
through the process which needs to be used for data Bogatyreva O, Pahl A-K, Bowyer A and Vincent J 2003 Data
collection from various cases. We consider it to be a gathering for putting biology in TRIZ TRIZCON 2003 (USA:
Altshuller Institute)
starting point for a broad discussion and it is highly Bransford J D and Stein B S 1984 The Ideal Problem Solver: A Guide
appreciated if the utility tree is used for case studies for Improving Thinking, Learning, and Creativity (A Series of
from different fields. This expected future data, which Books in Psychology) vol 1 (New York: Freeman)
could be gathered collaboratively, could provide an Cavallucci D and Lutz P 2000 Intuitive design method (IDM), a new
approach on design methods integration Proc. ICAD2000: 1st
initial more robust version. Int. Conf. on Axiomatic Design (Cambridge, MA, June)
pp 21–3
Cavallucci D and Weill R D 2001 Integrating Altshuller’s
8. Conclusion development laws for technical systems into the design
process CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol. 50 115–20
The evolution of biomimetics in the near future still Chakrabarti A 2003 Towards a measure for assessing creative
influences of a creativity technique DS 31: Proc. ICED 03, The
requires a lot of research. The work presented in this 14th Int. Conf. on Engineering Design (Stockholm)
paper can be a starting point for a systematic advance- Chakrabarti A, Sarkar P, Leelavathamma B and Nataraju B 2005 A
ment of the process of biomimetics, especially for functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial
practitioners from the industrial sector. inspiration of new ideas AIE EDAM 19 113–32
Cheong H, Chiu I, Shu L, Stone R and McAdams D 2011
The assessment of the biomimetic tools led to the Biologically meaningful keywords for functional terms of the
premise of a utility tree which, once finalized, could functional basis J. Mech. Des. 133 021007
enable practitioners to implement the process of bio- Chi M T, Glaser R and Rees E 1981 Expertise in problem solving
DTIC Document
mimetics in their own context. It is a first attempt to
Dearborn D C and Simon H A 1958 Selective perception: a note on
set up a methodological process that has been lacking the departmental identifications of executives Sociometry
for a long time. It focuses on the application of biomi- 140–4
metics as a process and provides potential users with Dell M 2006 Bioniquity®—How to benefit from Nature’s IQ for new
product development 17th ISPIM Conf. (Athens, Greece)
the ‘how to do biomimetics’ practically.
Dougherty D 1992 Interpretive barriers to successful product
The establishment of this first iteration of the uti- innovation in large firms Organ. Sci. 3 179–202
lity tree offers a basic architecture which can be Fleck L 2012 Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago,
strengthened through the addition of experimental IL: University of Chicago Press)

18
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

Fraunhofer BIOPS. Available: http://nature4innovation.com/ Design Engineering Technical Conf. and Computers and
Gebeshuber I C and Drack M 2008 An attempt to reveal synergies Information in Engineering Conf. pp 117–28
between biology and mechanical engineering Proc. Inst. Nagel J K, Stone R B and McAdams D A 2014 Function-based
Mech. Eng. C 222 1281–7 biologically inspired design Biologically Inspired Design
Gero J S 1990 Design prototypes: a knowledge representation (Berlin: Springer) pp 95–125
schema for design AI Mag. 11 26 Nakagawa T, Kosha H and Mihara Y 2003 Usage of USIT solution
Glier M W, McAdams D A and Linsey J S 2011 Concepts in generation methods: a simple and unified system of TRIZ
biomimetic design: methods and tools to incorporate into a TRIZCON2003 (Philadelphia, USA, March) pp 16–8
biomimetic design course ASME 2011 Int. Design Engineering Nelson W A 2003 Problem solving through design New Dir. Teach.
Technical Conf. and Computers and Information in Learn. 2003 39–44
Engineering Conf. pp 655–60 Newell A and Simon H A , 1972 Human Problem Solving vol 104
Goel A K, McAdams D A and Stone R B 2013 Biologically (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall)
Inspired Design: Computational Methods and Tools (Berlin: Nolan V 1989 The Innovator’s Handbook: The Skills of Innovative
Springer) Management: Problem Solving, Communication, and
Goel A K, Rugaber S and Vattam S 2009 Structure, behavior, and Teamwork (USA: Penguin Group)
function of complex systems: the structure, behavior, and Ōno T 1988 Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale
function modeling language Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Production (USA: Productivity Press)
Manuf. 23 23–35 Osborn A F 1953 Applied Imagination (New York: Charles
Goel A K, Vattam S, Wiltgen B and Helms M 2014 Information- Scribener’s Sons)
processing theories of biologically inspired design Biologically Reich Y, Hatchuel A, Shai O and Subrahmanian E 2012 A theoretical
Inspired Design (Berlin: Springer) pp 127–52 analysis of creativity methods in engineering design: casting
Helms M and Goel A K 2014 The four-box method: problem and improving ASIT within C–K theory J. Eng. Des. 23
formulation and analogy evaluation in biologically inspired 137–58
design J. Mech. Des. 136 111106 Rosa F, Cascini G and Baldussu A 2015 UNO-BID: unified ontology
Helms M, Vattam S S and Goel A K 2009 Biologically inspired for causal-function modeling in biologically inspired design
design: process and products Des. Stud. 30 606–22 Int. J. Des. Creat. Innov. 3 1–34
Helms M E, Vattam S S, Goel A K, Yen J and Weissburg M 2008 Sarkar P and Chakrabarti A 2011 Assessing design creativity Des.
Problem-driven and solution-based design: twin processes Stud. 32 348–83
ofbiologically inspired design Silicon + Skin: Biological Sartori J, Pal U and Chakrabarti A 2010 A methodology for
Processes and Computation: Proc. 28th Annual Conf. Assoc. supporting ‘transfer’ in biomimetic design Artif. Intell. Eng.
Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA) Des. Anal. Manuf. 24 483–506
(Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota, 2008, Savransky S D 2000 Engineering of Creativity: Introduction to TRIZ
2008) 94–101 Methodology of Inventive Problem Solving (Boca Raton, FL:
Henderson R M and Clark K B 1990 Architectural innovation: the CRC Press)
reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the Schöfer M, Maranzana N, Aoussat A and Bersano G 2013 Testing
failure of established firms Adm. Sci. Q. 35 9–30 the value of TRIZ and its derivatives for knowledge transfer
Isaksen S G and Treffinger D J 1985 Creative problem solving The in problem solving attempts by multidisciplinary teams
Basic Course (New York: Bearly Limited) DS 75-3: Proc. 19th Int. Conf. on Engineering Design (ICED13)
ISO/TC266 2015 Biomimetics—Terminology, Concepts and Vol 3: Design For Harmonies (Seoul, Korea, 19–22
Methodology (Berlin: Beuth) ISO 18458:2015 August 2013)
Jacobs S R, Nichol E C and Helms M E 2014 Where are we now and Shah J J, Kulkarni S V and Vargas-Hernandez N 2000 Evaluation of
where are we going?’ The BioM innovation database J. Mech. idea generation methods for conceptual design: effectiveness
Des. 136 111101 metrics and design of experiments J. Mech. Des. 122 377–84
Jonassen D H 1997 Instructional design models for well-structured Shneiderman B and Plaisant C 2006 Strategies for evaluating
and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes Educ. information visualization tools: multi-dimensional in-depth
Technol. Res. Dev. 45 65–94 long-term case studies Proc. 2006 AVI Workshop on Beyond
Lenau T A 2009 Biomimetics as a design methodology-possibilities Time and Errors: Novel Evaluation Methods for Information
and challenges DS 58-5: Proc. ICED 09, The 17th Int. Conf. on Visualization pp 1–7
Engineering Vol 5: Design Design Methods and Tools (pt. 1) Shu L 2010 A natural-language approach to biomimetic design Artif.
(Palo Alto, CA, USA, 24–27 August 2009) Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 24 507–19
Lepora N F, Verschure P and Prescott T J 2013 The state of the art in Shu L, Ueda K, Chiu I and Cheong H 2011 Biologically inspired
biomimetics Bioinsp. Biomim. 8 013001 design CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol. 60 673–93
Lindemann U and Gramann J 2004 Engineering design using Sickafus E 1997 Unified Structured Inventive Thinking: How to Invent
biological principles DS 32: Proc. DESIGN 2004, The 8th Int. (Ntelleck)
Design Conf. (Dubrovnik, Croatia) Siegel D S, Waldman D A, Atwater L E and Link A N 2004 Toward a
Malik F, Clement R, Gethin D, Krawszik W and Parker A 2014 model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from
Nature’s moisture harvesters: a comparative review Bioinsp. academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the
Biomim. 9 031002 commercialization of university technologies J. Eng. Technol.
Massey A P and Wallace W A 1996 Understanding and facilitating Manage. 21 115–42
group problem structuring and formulation: mental Snell-Rood E 2016 Interdisciplinarity: bring biologists into
representations, interaction, and representation aids Decis. biomimetics Nature 529 277–8
Support Syst. 17 253–74 Speck T, Speck O, Beheshti N and McIntosh A 2008 Process
Michka Mélo K R, Michel D, Sebastiaan D N and Tarik C 2015 sequences in biomimetic research Des. Nat 4 3–11
Introduction to Nature Inspired Solutions (Paris Region Terninko J, Zusman A and Zlotin B 1998 Systematic Innovation: an
Enterprises) http://karimnetwork.com/wp-content/ Introduction to TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving)
uploads/2015/02/Guide_Biomimicry_online.pdf (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press)
Nagel J K, Nagel R L and Stone R B 2011 Abstracting biology for Thiebaud F 2003 Formalisation et développement de la phase de
engineering design Int. J. Des. Eng. 4 23–40 résolution de problème en conception industrielle Thèse de
Nagel J K, Nagel R L, Stone R B and McAdams D A 2010a Function- Doctorat en Génie Industriel Université Louis Pasteur
based, biologically inspired concept generation Artif. Intell. Strasbourg
Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 24 521–35 Tushman M L 1978 Technical communication in R & D
Nagel J K, Stone R B and McAdams D A 2010b An engineering-to- laboratories: The impact of project work characteristics Acad.
biology thesaurus for engineering design ASME 2010 Int. Manage. J. 21 624–45

19
Bioinspir. Biomim. 12 (2017) 011002 P E Fayemi et al

Vattam S, Helms M E and Goel A K 2007 ‘Biologically-inspired Vincent J F, Bogatyreva O A, Bogatyrev N R, Bowyer A and Pahl A-K
innovation in engineering design: a cognitive study,’ 2006 Biomimetics: its practice and theory J. R. Soc. Interface 3
Vattam S, Wiltgen B, Helms M, Goel A K and Yen J 2011a DANE: 471–82
fostering creativity in and through biologically inspired Vincent J F, Bogatyreva O, Pahl A K, Bogatyrev N and Bowyer A
design Design Creativity 2010 (Berlin: Springer) pp 115–22 2005 Putting biology into TRIZ: a database of biological
Vattam S S et al 2011b Understanding complex natural systems by effects Creat. Innov. Manage. 14 66–72
articulating structure-behavior-function models J. Educ. Vincent J F and Mann D L 2002 Systematic technology transfer
Technol. Soc. 14 66–81 from biology to engineering Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 360
Vattam S S, Helms M E and Goel A K 2008 Compound analogical 159–73
design: interaction between problem decomposition and Von Gleich A, Pade C, Petschow U and Pissarskoi E 2010 Potentials
analogical transfer in biologically inspired design Design and Trends in Biomimetics (Berlin: Springer)
Computing and Cognition’08 (Berlin: Springer) pp 377–96 Wallas G 1926 The Art of Thought (Tunbridge Wells: Solis)

20