AC 2009-107: WHAT HAS FINS LIKE A WHALE, SKIN LIKE A LIZARD, ANDEYES LIKE A MOTH? THE FUTURE OF ENGINEERING

Marjan Eggermont, University of Calgary

Carla Gould, Ontario College of Art and Design

Casey Wong, Ontario College of Art and Design

Michael Helms, Georgia Institute of Technology

Jeannette Yen, Georgia Institute of Technology

Djordje Zegarac, University of Calgary

Sean Gibbons, University of Montana

Carl Hastrich, Ontario College of Art and Design

Bruce Hinds, Ontario College of Art and Design

Denise DeLuca, Biomimicry Institute

jessica ching, Ontario College of Art and Design

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2009

Page 14.1365.1

“What has fins like a whale, skin like a lizard, and eyes like a

moth? The future of engineering”1

Abstract

Four Universities collaborated on a biomimicry (a relatively new science that studies nature, its

models, systems, processes and elements and then imitates or takes creative inspiration from

them to solve human problems sustainably2) design project. The universities provided students

from freshman to PhD level with backgrounds in engineering, biology, industrial design and art.

The students ran the project with support from professors, a non-for-profit institute, and a

business client.

This paper will describe biomimicry as it is being taught in a first year engineering design

and communication course, how four of the participating universities experienced this project

and approach biomimicry, how the universities communicated and integrated their design ideas

and process, and how the project ultimately resulted in a design prototype for the participating

company.

Introduction

“Machines are an effect of art, which is

nature’s ape, and they reproduce not its forms

but the operation itself”3

In our first year design course technical

drawing components are developed as

supporting elements to the evolution of ideas,

rather than as an end in themselves.

Biomimicry has become a permanent feature in

our course. We explore its history and current

research areas. Biomimicry allows students a

lot of freedom in their design, but also links

engineering concepts to tangible examples. To

date, over 2500 biomimicry drawing projects

have been created.

One of the key features of a design course is

that students study subjects in breadth rather

than depth. In studying a wide variety of

subjects, design courses employ a wider variety

of specialists and this facilitates a cross-linking

of cultures and perspectives. The conjoining of

previously unrelated ideas, thoughts and

concepts is well recognized as a feature of

creative thinking. Introducing a full range of

Figure 1: The Biomimicry Design Spiral

Page 14.1365.2

subjects allows students to practice and develop their integrative skills4. Biomimicry is

integrative by nature.

In January of 2008 a biomimicry project of a more international flavor was presented via e-mail.

The e-mail asked for students and supportive instructors and professors who were interested in a

collaborative, real-world biomimicry design project. One of our first year design students needed

a flexible, but comparable first year design project and so, a collaboration begun.

This paper is also collaborative in nature. Participants have each given their summery of the

experience and, as the variety in design approaches, so the variety in approaches and experiences

will follow below. This paper will conclude with a summery of the methods of communication

the logistics, and the outcome of this North American collaborative design project.

What is Biomimicry?

Janine Benyus coined the term “biomimicry” in 1997 when she published her book Biomimicry:

Innovation Inspired by Nature. She created this term by combining bios, which refers to life or

living things, and mimicry, which means to copy or emulate. So in it’s most simple terms

biomimicry means copying life.

Benyus, an ever-curious biologist and captivating storyteller, defines biomimicry as “the

conscience emulation of nature’s genius.” She uses the word ‘conscience’ to imply intent.

When you use biomimicry as a design tool, you begin your design process with intent of

Figure 3: Student project based on frog’s feet

Page 14.1365.3

emulating nature. She uses the word ‘emulation’ to suggest that biomimicry isn’t about just

mimicking nature; it is about extracting the best ideas and the strategies from nature and using

them as the basis for our designs. She uses the phrase ‘nature’s genius’ because the forms,

processes, and systems found in nature are fabulously ingenious compared to our own

technologies. As Thomas Edison once said, “Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can

laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge.”

A less eloquent but perhaps more pragmatic definition is that biomimicry is a sustainable design

tool based on emulating strategies used by living things to perform functions that we want our

technologies to perform – everything from creating color to generating energy. The goal of

biomimicry is to design products and processes, companies and policies -- new ways of living --

that are well adapted to life on earth over the long haul.

The Project and the Client

One of the goals of The Biomimicry Institute (TBI) is to facilitate the integration of biomimicry

into educational systems. At the university level, we are working with several universities in

different settings to develop tools and systems to bring biology to the design table. One lesson

we have learned in this effort is that biomimicry is best learned in an interactive and

interdisciplinary setting. This means creating conditions for students to practice biomimicry

with students from different disciplines, including engineering, design, biology, and business.

For this project, TBI collaborated with a company called Pacific Outdoor Equipment (POE)

(http://www.pacoutdoor.com/2008/index.cfm) to come up with the idea of creating an

experimental on-line student-run biomimicry design project. POE, whose motto is “Good gear =

less waste”, was willing to forego all IP issues in order to support its position of being leaders in

sustainability with a focus on high quality innovative design. Discussions between TBI staff and

POE designers led to the decision to have the students design a specialized tarp that could be

used, nominally, as a bottomless ultra-light backpacking tent. But like all biomimicry design

project, that was only the starting point of what a simple tarp could be. The following design

brief requirements were added: Design elements:

• Aerodynamics

• Tautness

• Ground connections

• Exterior water shedding ability

• Interior ventilation (or condensation drainage) [could utilize peak vents]

• High strength edge and interior tie outs

• Fabric - Polyurethane coated vs. Silicon coated 40D ripstop

Opportunities:

1) We have the capability to both weld seams and stitch and seam tape to create

waterproof products

2) Source color-morphing fabrics

3) 3D shaping to maximize ventilation and aerodynamics

Constraints:

1) No PVC materials or coated materials (PVC is present in current seam tapeable

silicon materials)

2) Current Polyurethane coated 40 denier rip-stop nylon stretches and shrinks in

Page 14.1365.4

response to moisture and temperature. Relevant to use of tie-outs to secure

shelters.

With these new designs we are looking to do two things:

1) For the smaller single and two person shelters we are targeting customers

looking for a durable, lightweight, aerodynamic shelter designed to act as part of

an overall sleep system consisting of ground tarp, sleeping pad, sleeping bag

and shelter.

2) On the larger four person tarp and pyramid we are looking more at customers

who need to cover a larger area as might be found on river trips, car camping,

backcountry skiing etc.

Timeline:

Finished designs or components are needed by March 31, 2008 to provide time for POE

factory prototyping, product photography to be completed by April 30, 2009 and final

catalog proofing, printing and delivery by June 1, 2009.

The Approach and the Institution

a. The Ontario College of Art and Design

For the OCAD team, this project was a great opportunity to learn and experiment with the tools

of Biomimicry in an interdisciplinary team, allowing us to better understand the role of the

designer within this environment. This was a new experience for us, and we were excited and

curious to work with scientists, engineers and manufacturers simultaneously. Interdisciplinary

learning and studio models had been discussed many times within our educational environment,

but we had not yet had the opportunity to work with professions outside the field of design. As

students defining our identity as designers and our roles within creative teams of the future, we

felt this would be further defined and shaped by these experiences. By working co-operatively

within the alternative framework of Biomimicry, this project has begun to challenge our notion

of where we as designers fit into creative teams for our future careers, as well as how we can best

contribute to future Biomimetic projects. While the answer has yet to be concluded, the

conversation has certainly been sparked within our team.

These discussions have in a large part been possible due to the open approach to this project

from other members, and the tools of communication available to us. We were impressed by the

flexible, friendly and playful nature of the group environment, and found the ability to share

thoughts vocally over Skype and visually through Basecamp indispensible.

Identify

The Biomimicry Design Spiral is parallel to our traditional Design Process, beginning with an

“Identify” stage in which the problem is defined. After receiving an initial design brief (to design

an innovative, tarp/shelter system for over-night hiking and camping), the problem definition

involves exhaustive research on the subject at hand, including the experience of the user and

other analogous products on the market. This first step is vital for understanding the

opportunities for design in areas of form, function, or system. Identifying these opportunities

then allow us to discover and apply relevant biological models.

In this project, we had the luxury of speaking with our client, POE, on several occasions to

clarify our understanding of the design brief. We supplemented this information with camping

and hiking research, market research of these systems, and user experience research. As a result

of online and in-store observations and interactions, we noticed patterns emerging. Our findings

indicated hikers and campers had common issues like tent stability, aerodynamics, and

inconvenient external parts to the tent/shelter system.

Page 14.1365.5

Based on the feedback through this process, we revisited the brief with a greater sense of

understanding to the problems POE had identified. It was clear there were opportunities to

extend the tent and shelter systems beyond the current offerings on the market. We felt the

biggest potential direction was to steer away from the utilitarian shapes and aim for a more fluid,

innovative, user friendly, and stable tent system.

Translate

The “Translate” stage in the design spiral is all about making the connection between the design

problem and the natural world. A design problem is very specific and the world of nature is very

broad, in effect we needed a tool to funnel every organism we know of into the most appropriate

ones for our goal. We did this through asking ourselves questions outlining broad principles such

as; “How does nature manage drag?” These questions were intended to draw us towards

organisms with applicable natural strategies; and this stage was a big challenge for us, as

designers.

The problem lay mainly in the wording of these questions, which had a large impact on the

direction in which we would search for suitable organisms and strategies. For instance, when

exploring the issue of reducing drag, we started by asking the question, “How does nature use

wind?” The example that resurfaced several times was the shape and function of wings. But

when we delved further into the strategies of wings, such as the layering structure of feathers or

the hollow bones of birds, we found the principles difficult to apply and unhelpful in trying to

reduce drag in tents. We then started over with a different question, “How does nature manage

drag?” This led us to completely different organisms such as the boxfish, whose body shape

allows it to withstand turbulent tidal currents. Then were we able to arrive at the concept of

maintaining stability in a tent through an aerodynamic form. In Figure 4 the orange text is a list

of the issues from the Identify stage; the blue branches are the organisms, systems and natural

principles, which we associated (‘translated’) with each issue.

Page 14.1365.6

In hindsight, one of our main weaknesses as designers in Biomimicry is our lack of knowledge in

biology or natural systems; therefore we should have extended the questions, which we were

brainstorming, to our colleagues. This would have garnered a much larger pool of great

organisms and strategies to work with, as well as more meaningful group interaction and effort.

Figure 4: An example of 'translation' brainstorms.

Page 14.1365.7

Apply

One of the key contributions we felt that we could offer as designers was our ability to draw and

communicate concepts, strategies and natural principles visually. In our studio, this is as

important as speaking or writing. In the “Apply” phase of the Design Spiral our explorations

were of a graphical/representational nature. We did this in a variety of ways from quick studies

of forms or ideas, to more detailed diagrams of factual or theoretical understanding.

Sketching provided us a means to be creative,

curious and playful with testing new ideas. It

allowed us to imagine how the strategies of an

organism could be applied, what the physical

object could be like, or how the object might

behave. For this project, our explorations

were mostly quite broad and investigated

many things at a surface level but were not

able to reach a more detailed solution due to

lack of time.

Diagramming was also a central tool for us.

By drawing on paper what we understood the

relations or functions of an organism or idea

to be, we could better communicate our

intentions and understanding to the scientists

and engineers on the team. Any

misunderstandings could be also clarified or debated, to the benefit of the group.

Although other disciplines like science or engineering also use graphics heavily, they are often to

illustrate hierarchies, taxonomies and systems. Our diagrams differ in their use to study the

relations between materials, environment and performance. Diagrams also made information

quickly accessible for reference.

Figure 3: Sketching during 'Apply' phase.

Page 14.1365.8

Evaluate

The concepts that we developed never reached the “Evaluate” phase of the design spiral;

therefore we are unable to assess the validity of our ideas against life’s principles, we simply ran

out of time.

Conclusion

In retrospect, the Biomimicry process is not removed from our experiences of a regular design

process, which also uses a process of inquest, exploration and experimentation. However, using a

focused and educated lens of Biomimicry in the design process/spiral opened us up to research

and inspiration that may not have been explored otherwise. Additionally, the overarching criteria

of Life’s Principles add a layer of meaning, function and success in each Biomimicry project. In

order to accelerate and deepen the research better tools and processes need to be practiced to

collaborate with the different disciplines.

The collaborative Biomimicry process adds a great deal of breadth and depth of knowledge,

perspective and feedback. Although we feel that in this project, we did not use the group

resources in terms of knowledge and advice to the fullest extent, we recognize that having

different disciplines present at the table is immensely valuable to any Biomimicry design project.

Better dialogue and questions from our team could have given us the opportunity to find more

inspirational models than those we had found and could have pushed the thinking further. In

future studio work we are beginning to see how we could evolve our practices to make this

possible.

Figure 5: Strain on grommets in relation to leaf vein structure.

Page 14.1365.9

b. The University of Montana

Our design team combined engineers, designers and biologists from across the U.S. and Canada,

using an innovative web-based community design platform and SKYPE (software that allows

users to make telephone calls over the Internet. Calls to other users of the service and to free-of-

charge numbers are free, while calls to other landlines and mobile phones can be made for a fee.

Additional features include instant messaging, file transfer and video conferencing) to

collaborate.

It was enlightening for me, as a biologist, to see how engineers and designers were trained to

deconstruct a problem into functions, processes, constraints and solutions and then organize that

decomposition into a visual framework. I feel like we were successful in merging engineering

principals with the

Biomimicry Design

Spiral, which helped

translate biological

functions and

adaptations into human

designs. This project

gave me a firmer

footing in the design

process, and I hope

that my biological

expertise helped my

colleagues find

inspiration from

nature.

This project

assisted all of us to

understand better the

realities of the design

process. We often

found that certain ideas

looked great on paper,

but were not practical

for our limited time

frame and resources. I

enjoyed working with

students from different disciplines and locations, but it occasionally became difficult to

collaborate with my co-designers without seeing them face-to-face. In the end, despite all

difficulties and limitations, I was impressed to find that our group had actually produced

deliverable concepts and ideas that were being incorporated into a real design. I am grateful to

POE and TBI for organizing this pilot project and I hope it inspires future cross-disciplinary

design collaborations.

c. Center for Biologically Inspired Design at Georgia Institute of Technology (CBID)

In the spring of 2007 the Center for Biologically Inspired Design at Georgia Institute of

Technology (CBID) participated in a biologically inspired design exercise with the intent of

Figure 6: 'Basecamp' message page.

Page 14.1365.10

better understanding the cognitive processes involved in biologically inspired design. In our

previously conducted in situ studies 5,6,7

of biologically inspired design in fall 2006 and 2007, we

observed biologically inspired design classes and semester long student projects. This study

differed in four important ways: 1) it included professional, experienced designers and engineers

as well as students, 2) it focused on a specific, real-world design project, 3) it was a collaborative

effort across six different locations, and 4) we provided specific process guidance to gain deeper

insight into some of the observations made in earlier studies. Here we summarize our key

observations from the CBID location.

Study Method

Observations took place in three contexts: 1) local collaborative design of CBID designers, 2)

remote collaborative design calls, and 3) observation of documents distributed through

basecamp, described in the next section. Both Helms and Yen participated in all three contexts

and were present for all of the local design sessions and more than 90% of the remote

collaborative design calls. Yen actively participated as a designer and as the primary biologist.

Helms participated as an observer and to facilitate certain high-level design processes.

Local collaborative design for CBID took place on the Georgia Institute of Technology campus,

in Atlanta, GA. The initial design team of nine members met weekly for 90 minutes for the first

four weeks. During these meetings, the team focused on understanding the process of

biologically inspired design, on understanding the design problem, and on brainstorming useful

potential design solutions. Helms observed and informally documented conversations and

whiteboard drawings. A formal coding scheme was not developed or used for the documentation

in this study, nor were audio or visual recordings used, other than by-hand transcription.

The large CBID design team did not have a single leader, engaged in too much theoretical

discussion, had conflicting opinions about design, and progressed slowly over the first four

weeks. Six weeks into the process, the local CBID team was divided in two separate teams to

pursue independent lines of design. Each group followed a different design trajectory: the first

attempted to generate as many ideas as possible, using the design spiral technique. The second

employed the more standard engineering techniques such as those found in Pahl and Beitz8.

Teams were instructed not to communicate design ideas between teams, until a final design

reconciliation session, the final week of the project.

Key Observations

While there were many interim designs, sketches, and ideas, three observations stand out. First,

that problem understanding among individuals was a fluid, heterogeneous, and often tacit

agglomeration of functional, structural and behavioral requirements and constraints. Second,

following from the first, that individual understanding of the problem varied greatly, requiring a

great deal of rationalization before a common problem description could be agreed upon. Third,

through iterative design, ideas from biology influenced not just the design, but also the

understanding of the problem, which in turn influenced which additional biological influences

(or other solutions) were recalled next. This process we call compound analogical design1.

Problem Understanding

In our earlier work on compound analogical design, we developed a framework explaining the

process of analogical design as a dynamic interaction between problem understanding and

analogical design5. Briefly, we claim that as a problem is explored, the broader understanding

Page 14.1365.11

provides access to new analogues. The understanding gained from new analogues, in turn

informs further understanding of the problem. This process may iterate indefinitely, and is most

certainly interleaved with other design processes, such as design draft, technical analysis, and

testing. We acknowledge that this framework leaves many questions unanswered, many of which

revolve around the elaboration of the problem. How are elaborations represented and organized?

How are they stored, accessed, retrieved? What are the similarities and differences between the

evolving problem understanding and the understanding of known solution? What is the effect of

“distant analogies” such as those from biology on the evolving problem understanding, versus

“close analogies”, such as existing engineering solutions to similar problems1?

Pahl and Bietz use functional decomposition to represent manageable divisions of a design

problem. This process is largely used to affect an engineering “divide and conquer” approach for

creating a manageable design project. Pahl and Bietz use substance flow diagrams to determine

and arrange primary and ancillary functions. Chandrasakaran9 likewise describes the

decomposition task of design as being either functional, or where components match to

functions, as a part sub-part decomposition. In Goel’s Structure-Behavior-Function (SBF)

theories10,11

, functional decomposition is explained through an intervening behavior. In SBF

functions are accomplished by complex behaviors, which can be explained as a series of states

and transitions. Each complex behavior can be further broken down into more detailed

functions. Each SBF model then, is a decomposition of F(BF*), until some primitive level

function is encountered, at which point the decomposition must stop. In the course of observing

biologically inspired design teams at work in past research7, we note that functional

decomposition plays a central role.

Other problem decompositions are likewise possible, such as structural, system and assembly

decompositions. The motion of a complex machine is often explained by the motion of the

subcomponents of the system, which in turn is decomposed into ever smaller subcomponents,

until some level of description is achieved beyond which further decomposition yields no further

explanatory power. Furthermore, problem decompositions need not be composed of

homogenous units. In practice, we see problem decompositions unfold as a complex interplay

among, inter alia, structures, functions, past solutions and constraints. We leave the complex

topic of problem decomposition to further studies.

For purposes of our study, we documented problem decompositions at three points in the

process. The first problem decomposition occurs with the initial design specification. Figure 7

graphically depicts the decomposition of the tent problem as a set of nine (9) performance

characteristics. This “flat” description prepared by a senior engineer specializing in tent design

describes characteristics of the desired tent, while leaving the implications and connections

among characteristics unspecified.

Page 14.1365.12

Subsequent to the delivery of the design specification, within ten days, designers from three

separate locations, remote to the authors, provided input to the design problem in the form of

brainstorming documents. These brainstorming documents further elaborate on the desired

characteristics of the tent, offer solutions tied to specific characteristics, and elaborate on some of

the constraints associated with current solutions used to solve the design problem. Figure 8

shows graphically the accumulation of design characteristics, solutions and constraints compiled

Figure 7: Initial Design Specification

Figure 8: A graphical representation of the combined results from individual brainstorming documents.

Page 14.1365.13

from the initial design specification and the brainstorming documents. It is clear that some

biological analogues have entered the design process. The solutions to the problem of wind/cold

were all biologically inspired.

Finally, we show a purely functional decomposition of the problem. During the second week of

design, the authors Helms and Yen imposed a process of graphical functional decomposition on

the local (CBID) design team. During a ninety minute design the CBID design team was

instructed to work together to develop a functional decomposition of the design problem. Four

unrelated examples of functional decomposition were provided for the team several days prior

for review. Additionally, five of the team members were exposed to this process of functional

decomposition during the biologically inspired design class held in the previous semester.

Figure 10 graphically represents the results of that ninety-minute design session.

Figure 9: A graphical representation of the functional decomposition exercise from the .... design team.

Shared Understanding

The process of functional decomposition seeks to make explicit the sub-function relationships

among functions. Starting from a known function, such as a function provided for in the

requirements document, the design team asks: “What functions explain how this function is

accomplished?” If an answer is available, the function is listed as a sub-function of the first. For

instance, for “transport equipment”, the “reduce weight” and “reduce volume” functions both

enable the transportation of the equipment; the “how” sub-functions provide levels of additional

detail. Also note that some sub-functions are related to more than one super-function, as in the

case of “keep wind out”. Thus, when asking the question “how”, one should look at the

functions already available in addition to new ones.

If an impasse is reached, that is, no sub-function can be identified, the team may ask the question

“What function explains why this function is necessary?” In this case, the team is looking for a

higher level, more abstract super-function. Moving in this direction may expose new avenues to

the designers in their decomposition. For instance, when the team realizes that reducing weight

and reducing volume has a common super-function “transport tent” some radical adaptation for

Page 14.1365.14

transporting the tent may arise, such as creating a modular design that folds into walking sticks

for easy transportation. In fact, this is what happened in our tent design.

All additional known functions of the design problem are addressed in this same way. Often

requirements are presented in terms of known solutions, for example tautness and interior

ventilation. These are in fact solutions to implicit functions, for example maintaining stability

and preventing condensation respectively. The team, in this case, needed to use their knowledge

of tents and the solutions described to ferret out the function, which they needed to attain.

The process of functionally decomposing the problem was very challenging for the participants

as a group. One engineer, who said after the exercise “that was a wholly unnatural act”, as they

sought to integrate a comprehensive functional decomposition, expressed the frustration in the

group best. Whereas such group exercises are challenging, individual functional decompositions

progress much more quickly. This provides an interesting juxtaposition with creativity exercises

such as brainstorming, where groups seem to enhance the exercise. To explain the difficulties

groups have vs. individuals, we put forth two possible hypotheses. The first, we will call the

representation effect, the second we will call the rationalization effect.

In the representation effect, we speculate that the simplicity of our representation model --

functional boxes, connected by lines that represent only sub-function relationships -- is an open-

ended and yet simplistic model that attempts to represent only the functional relationships of a

design problem. It appears, however, when reasoning about the problem, that many more

considerations are at play. Designers draw on their own experience, observed behaviors of

systems, knowledge of materials, the environment, and their own goals and motivations to

describe a problem, all of which seem to be connected to the functions being considered. For

instance, the tent design problem called for a tent that operated in two separate modes: being

transported and being used as shelter. While these different modes require different

functionality, they are linked structurally, and impose competing constraints. Provided with such

a sparse representation framework, it may be that group members had difficulty communicating

their own, complex understanding of the problem to each other. Because the problem of group

communication is eliminated when acting alone, the problem decomposition progresses more

smoothly. A more robust external representation system may alleviate this problem, at least in

part.

In the rationalization effect, we speculate that each person in the group builds models of problem

understanding piecemeal, on the fly, informed by their unique, individual experience. We have

common world experiences that usually enable us to relate these models to each other, at least

well enough to achieve some common goal (common ground). However, what we sought was

an explicit externalization of internal mental models. We further speculate that our large,

complex internal mental models do not exist as explicit representations in long term memory, but

are rather “compiled at run time” depending on context and goals. We often hear personal

narratives such as “when I was camping I tripped on the guidelines all of the time,” suggesting

that internal models are being created on the fly from personal experiences. Making our own

internal models explicit is an ongoing internal process of rationalizing our experience,

knowledge, goals and “small bits of ossified models” with the current context in which the model

is being built. This rationalization, when it occurs with just one individual, can usually be

integrated with a minimum of internal conflict. However, in the context of group activity,

where experience, knowledge and goals vary are varied, our models of problem understand are

constantly forced to adapt to new input while they are being formed. That is, while we are busy

rationalizing some bit of the model in our head, someone else is communicating bits of their

Page 14.1365.15

partially formed model to us. These partially formed new models cause us to reformulate models

mid-process. This seems to be particularly problematic when our experiences are drastically

different (biologists and engineers) or our internal models in a particular design space are rather

sparse.

Of Whales, Bees, and Tents

As described in our compound analogical design framework the process of design by analogy is

iterative5. Solutions offered by one analogy offer new insights into problems, which in turn yield

new analogies. In this study, we documented one specific instance of analogical reasoning.

In this instance, a designer identified a new way of combining the functions for tautness and for

the small volume needed for transportability. He conceived of a pneumatic system with variable

and controllable rigidity properties. It could be inflated to increase rigidity, then deflated and

rolled up for transportation. The new function “vary rigidity” (fig. 10 step 1), lead to an analogy

to sperm whale spermaceti (fig. 10 step 2), a substance that varies from an oil-like liquid

consistency to a butter-like solid when it is cooled. It was speculated that the sperm whale uses

this difference in density to control buoyancy. Note that while the sperm whale uses the liquid-

to-solid phase change to control buoyancy, the designer is thinking about the same phase change

to control rigidity (fig. 10 step 3). This leap uses the related properties of density and rigidity of

liquids and solids to make the connection between whale spermaceti and the tent design. Once

the leap to “phase change” was made and incorporated into the problem understanding, this

enabled a further analogy based on phase change to be made (fig 10 step 4). The wax in bees’

nests uses phase change to control temperature. The function of temperature control is not

related to rigidity control in the problem understanding, but the mechanism, phase change, is the

same. Thus one might use something like bees wax for rigidity, volume, and temperature

control. This demonstrates problem understanding evolving as a direct result of the analogues

examined, and how the evolving problem understanding likewise influences the analogues

examined.

Page 14.1365.16

Figure 10: Compound analogical design framework

Note the mechanism of phase change has at least three associated functions: control buoyancy,

control temperature, control rigidity (fig. 10 step5). These functions are related by common

properties and relationships between liquid and solid states of a given substance. This example

provides a case where individuals search and recall analogies using a complex interaction

between knowledge of the physical world, behaviors and functions. Functional analogy alone is

not capable of duplicating such an example.

d. The University of Calgary

The engineering instructors of our design course developed an action based approached to design

that is intended to better reflect the actions taken by successful design engineers. This action-

based approach is based on the activities of design: familiarization, functionality and testing or

Fft. Familiarization requires the students to seek many different points of view about the design

problems from the people impacted by the design. They are urged to get out of the classroom and

go talk to a wide variety of people who have interest in and knowledge about the design problem.

Functionality refers to the determination of what the design has to do rather than what the design

will look like. Testing, the third component requires that students develop tests at every stage of

their design evolution. The act of familiarization, or learning how others think about the

Page 14.1365.17

problem, ultimately leads to a clear problem statement. Designers are in agreement that

developing a clear understanding of the problem is central to good design practice12

.

The goal of participating in this project was to give one of our design students exposure to a real

world design problem using Fft in combination with the biomimicry design spiral. Figure 11

shows some of our initial thoughts during the familiarization stage. The familiarization stage

during this project was seen as an umbrella stage that included three biomimicry spiral phases:

“Identify: Develop a Design Brief of the human need:

• Develop a Design Brief with specifics about the problem to be resolved

• Break down the Design Brief to identify the core of the problems and the design specifications

• Identify the function you want your design to accomplish: What do you want your design to do?

(not “what do you want to design?”). Continue to ask why until you get to the bottom of the

problem.

• Define the specifics of the problem:

• Target Market: who is involved with the problem and who will be involved with the solution?

• Location: where is the problem, where will the solution be applied?

Translate: Biologize the question; ask the Design Brief from Nature's perspective:

• Translate the design function into functions carried out in nature. Ask, “How does Nature do this

function?” “How does Nature NOT do this function?”

• Reframe questions with additional key words.

• Define the Habitat/Location

• Climate conditions

• Nutrient conditions

• Social conditions

• Temporal conditions

Observe: Look for the champions in nature who answer/resolve your challenges

• Find the best Natural Models to answer your questions.

• Consider Literal and Metaphorical

• Find champion adapters by asking, “whose survival depends on this?”

• Find organisms that are most challenged by the problem you are trying to solve, but are unfazed

by it.

• Look to the extremes of the habitat

• Turn the problem inside out and on its head

• Open discussions with Biologists and specialists in the field”13

Page 14.1365.18

Figure 11: Familiarization stage comparable with the Biomimicry Spiral 'Distill’, ‘Translate', and ‘Observe’ phases

We also explored existing designs and found an example that served both our collective

inexperience with camping as Europeans (the kind that do not camp due to lack of natural areas)

and a common problem with biomimetic design: abstraction. Figure 12 shows some interesting

design ideas on the left and a motorized La-Z-Boy on the right.

Figure 12: Familiarization - existing ideas from the interesting to the absurd

In past assignments most students had trouble understanding functional abstraction. They seemed

to be unable to get away from the visual: bunny slippers and cheetah-patterned La-Z-Boys are

therefore not uncommon in novice design courses.

The next two phases in the biomimicry spiral address some of the abstraction difficulties and

were very useful for our students, who during the ‘functionality’ phase of our design process do

not always address these issues (and often would not know what questions to ask in the first

place). The phases comparable to the functionality stage of design are as follows:

“Abstract: Find the repeating patterns and processes within nature that achieve success

• Create taxonomy of life’s strategies

Page 14.1365.19

• Select the champions with the most relevant strategies to your particular design challenge.

• Abstract from this list the repeating successes and principles that achieve this success.

Apply: Develop ideas and solutions based on the natural models

• Develop concepts and ideas that apply the lessons from your Natural teachers.

• Look into applying these lessons as deep as possible in your designs:

• Mimicking Form:

• Find out details of the morphology

• Understand scale effects

• Consider influencing factors on the effectiveness of the form for the organism

• Consider ways in which you might deepen the conversation to also mimic process and/or

ecosystem

• Mimicking Function:

• Find out details of the biological process

• Understand scale effects

• Consider influencing factors on the effectiveness of the process for the organism

• Consider ways in which you might deepen the conversation to also mimic the ecosystem

• Mimicking Ecosystem:

• Find out details of the biological process

• Understand scale effects

• Consider influencing factors on the effectiveness of the process for the organism”14

In our final design phase, we ask students to test against their familiarization and functionality.

Fft is an iterative design process so students are never really done. The process is constantly

asking questions and reevaluating the design itself. This testing phase is very similar to the

‘Evaluate’ phase in biomimicry:

“Evaluate: How do your ideas compare to Life’s Principles, the successful principles of nature?

• Evaluate your design solution against Life’s Principles

• Develop appropriate questions from Life’s Principles and continue to question your solution

• Identify further ways to improve your design and develop new questions to explore. Questions

may now be about the refinement of the concept:

• Packaging, Manufacture, Marketing, Transport

• New Products - additions, refinement, etc.”15

Page 14.1365.20

Ultimately our first year student summarized his experience as follows: “From the initial day and

with just an idea of a tent-like structure inspired by nature, our project has gone through different

stages. The design development can be followed from the design spirals and mind maps posted

by all groups of the team. After a series of great ideas and creative thoughts, lot of reading and

research we came up with something concrete. We now have a potential material used for this

purpose, and alongside the color and texture of it.

Being involved in this project I have developed a new way of thinking and a new interest for this

field of engineering that I knew very little about.

“Basecamp” as a means of communication and working platform was very user friendly and an

excellent idea to enable communication and elaboration between the groups.

It was a pleasure working with the whole team and a great experience.

Biomimicry is a term maybe not so recognizable in our society but it is definitely the future of

engineering.”

Methods of Communication

a. Basecamp

Messages, files, ideas, images and articles were shared during the project via Basecamp, an

online collaboration tool. We were all able to see how each institution was progressing

throughout the design process. Students and instructors would offer suggestions, books to read,

movies to watch, and sources for further inquiry. The variety in educational level, discipline and

time availability became quite clear using this communication hub, but as a first time effort to

undertake such a multi-discipline, multi-institute project it was very successful.

Figure 13: Life's Principles as discussed in biomimicry15

.

Page 14.1365.21

b. Skype

Weekly communication happened via Skype (conference phone calls via the internet).

Conversations between 5 to 10 people each week made sure we added a very necessary human

touch and gave everyone the opportunity to explain ideas posted on Basecamp or to ask

questions of people from either a different discipline or with a different level of knowledge.

Outcome

a. Client experience

Our client was involved in the weekly Skype conversations and kept us on the right track on

Basecamp. Universities are a great place for coming up with wild ideas and our client made sure

once in a while we would step back into reality. The client summarized the experience:

“On behalf of the team here at POE, I just want to say a big thank you to everyone who has donated their

time, energy, and brainpower to this project. When Denise and I first kicked around the idea 6 months ago

here in Montana, we weren’t quite sure what to expect but we’ve been thrilled with the results so far.

Going forward, we’d like to tell this story on our website and in our 2009 catalog and also use the feedback

to tweak the format going forward.

If you have a few moments would you please answer the following questions:

1. What surprised you about this project?

2. What could have gone better?

3. What did you learn (biomimicry/outdoor industry/design)”

Ultimately the client was able to extract various ideas from wide ranging research and turn them

into practical applications with available technology. These ideas mainly centered on the surface

of the fabric (keeping moisture away) and the pattern of the fabric (keeping bugs away via an

interesting camouflage pattern).

b. How did synthesis happen/Did synthesis happen?

Synthesis happened in as far as narrowing the field of ideas. Institutions tended to work largely

on their own with their own students. This was only natural in hindsight because of the wide

range of educational levels. A mentoring system between students, a clearer expectation from

institutions and ‘time’ could have made this project stronger. Considering this was in addition to

everyone’s coursework, and in addition to everyone’s work commitments we could not have

expected a better outcome. The client walked away with tangible ideas inspired by nature for a

more sustainable product.

Conclusion

Biomimicry is the field that studies nature, its models, systems, processes and elements and then

imitates or takes creative inspiration from them to solve human problems sustainably. It is a

multi-disciplinary subject involving a wide diversity of domains like electronics, informatics,

medicine, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, design, engineering and many others.

Collaborative projects are a necessity in this field and a necessity for sustainable solutions to

design problems. Where an idea in biology ends might be where an idea in engineering begins.

This project brought together many disciplines; many ideas and the sum of these ideas became

greater than the individual parts.

Page 14.1365.22

Bibliography

1. Natinal Geographic, <http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/04/biomimetics/tom-mueller-text>, (current

September 19, 1:45 p.m., 2008).

2. Biomimicry, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomimicry>, (current February 2, 2009)

3. Eco, U., The Name of the Rose, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: New York, p. 1–7, 1983.

4. Morris, R., Childs, P., and Hamilton, T., Sustainability by design: a reflection on the suitability of pedagogic

practice in design and engineering courses in the teaching of sustainable design. European Journal of Engineering

Education, 32:2, 135–142, 2007.

5. Helms, M., Vattam, S., & Goel, A. (2008) Compound Analogical Design, or How to Make a Surfboard

Disappear. In B.C. Love, K. McRae, & V.M. Sloutsky (Eds.) Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the

Cognitive Science Society (pp. 781 – 786), Washington D.C.:Cognitive Science Society

6. Vattam, S., Helms, M., Goel, A., Yen, J., & Weissburg, M. (2008) Learning About and Through Biologically

Inspired Design. To appear in Proceeding from the 2nd Design Creativity Workshop Atlanta, GA.

7. Vattam, S., Helms, M., & Goel, A. (2007) Biologically Inspired Innovation in Engineering Design: A Cognitive

Study. Technical Report GIT-GVU-07-07, Graphics, Visualization and Usability Center, Georgia Institute of

Technology.

8. Pahl, G., & W. Beitz. (1996). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach (2 ed.). London:Springer-Verlag.

9. B. Chandrasekaran (1990) Design Problem Solving: A Task Analysis. AI Magazine 11(4):59 – 71.

10. Goel, A. K.: 1997, Design, Analogy, and Creativity. IEEE Expert, 12(3): 62-70.

11. Goel, A., Vattam, S. & Rugaber, S. (2008) Structure, Behavior & Function of Complex Systems: The SBF

Modeling Language. To appear in International Journal of AI in Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing,

Special Issue on Developing and Using Engineering Ontologies.

12. Caswell, D., Douglas, D., Eggermont, M. Including Inclusivity: The Inclusive Design Toolkit and 700

Engineers. Proceedings of the Include07 Conference, London, UK, April 5 – 8.

13. Biomimicry Institute, <http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org/about-us/biomimicry-a-tool-for-

innovation.html>, (current Jan. 30, 2009).

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

Page 14.1365.23