See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224831644

A comparative analysis of six bionic design methods

Article in International Journal of Design Engineering · January 2011

DOI: 10.1504/IJDE.2011.045131

CITATIONS READS

20 4,568

2 authors:

Denis A. Coelho C.A.M. Versos

Jönköping University 13 PUBLICATIONS 111 CITATIONS
235 PUBLICATIONS 1,035 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dynamic Product Development Methods View project

Cultural and Social Determinants of Innovation, Design and Work View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Denis A. Coelho on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Working paper to appear in Int. J. of Design
Engineering

Title:
A comparative analysis of six bionic design methods

Authors:
Denis A. Coelho*
Carlos A. M. Versos

Institutional Address:
Technological Industrial Design Studies
Dept. of Electromechanical Engineering
Universidade da Beira Interior
6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal
* corresponding author: [email protected]

Denis Alves Coelho

Denis A. Coelho has been responsible for the creation and development in
the University of Beira Interior of an entirely new program of studies in
Industrial Design (undergraduate studies leading to a Bachelor's degree)
and Technological Industrial Design (Masters program). He has also
designed and helped design post-secondary programs of studies including
Multimedia product development, E-commerce web applications and
multimedia web applications. As a Mechanical Engineer with an
Ergonomic Design and Production Management post-graduate education
his research has focused in several areas. He has worked with car seat
comfort (ergonomic design) and has also been interested in Management
Systems in Small and Medium Enterprises, as well as providing a
contribution to the advancement of ergonomic design methods. He has
also participated and coordinated Multimedia design projects, focusing on
the application of ergonomic guidelines at both the conceptual and
application level. International exposure has included research performed
in collaboration with Swedish and US universities, applied to the
automotive and healthcare sectors.

Carlos Alberto Macedo Versos

Carlos A. M. Versos was born in 1987 in Covilhã, Portugal. In the
academic year of 2005/2006, he entered the Industrial Design program at
Beira Interior’s University. After graduation he continued pursuing the
interest in this design field and concluded his master thesis in
Technological Industrial Design at Beira Interior University with the
theme of Bionic Design, with tutoring of Professor Denis Alves Coelho.
His interest in nature, the background theme for his master's thesis led him
to participate in projects to raise awareness and foster action for the
preservation of forests trough education and volunteering programs. In his
free time, Carlos Versos enjoys to draw and practicing sports to relax,
such as cycling, karaté, kickboxing or jiu jitsu. Currently he is developing
his PhD thesis, reflecting on the theme of the bionic design.

Abstract:
Having received growing attention in recent years, despite having been a
source of inspiration for as long as design exists, design inspired by
nature, or bionic design, is getting to the forefront of the search for
environmental sustainability. A number of design methods, intended
especially to guide students and professionals from several design
disciplines, such as industrial design, or engineering design, in carrying
out the development of biologically inspired design, have been proposed.
The paper establishes a comparative analysis between six methods,
retrieved from literature. The methods are presented in similar depth, and
the parameters of analysis are also described. The analysis is based on the
scrutiny of the six selected methods, in relation to the support given
towards the attainment of four goals (form optimization, organisational
effectiveness, multiple requirements satisfaction and paradigm innovation
for improved functional performance), considered of paramount
importance to typical design endeavours aiming at achieving innovative
concepts, optimization of specific features or performance and
environmental sustainability. The comparative analysis is intended to
support designers in the process of selecting a design method that is
adequate to the problem at hand. The analysis also identifies goals where
the methods considered offer no or reduced support for their attainment,
hence identifying the need for novel methodological proposals. As a
conclusion, the requirement to integrate validation activities in the bionic
design processes is emphasized.

Keywords: industrial design, engineering design, design methodology,

design goals, design inspired by nature

1. Introduction

Along an evolutionary process of millions of years, nature has enhanced

its organisms through a complex and constantly adapted process that
ensures the quality and efficiency of its systems. Biomimicry, despite
having been a source of inspiration for design activities for a long time,
has recently, as a consequence of the advances and availability of
knowledge about biological systems, of the increasing technological and
computational capabilities and under pressure from the current
sustainability concerns, gained a role as part of a standard set of
approaches to deal with design problems. Nature provides an important
model to find solutions to the ecological crisis. The aim of this paper is to
establish a comparison among a set of design methods, meant to guide
designers in carrying out activities leading to bionic design. The results of
literature review are presented, with emphasis drawn on existing
documented approaches to design inspired by nature. The parameters for
the comparative analysis are set out, based on four general goals that are
considered applicable to design problems. The presentation and
explanation of the comparisons is followed by a discussion on their
implications for theory and practice. The paper concludes with a summary
of the findings attained and issues for future inquiry.

2. Bionic Design

Bio-inspiration has been around ever since mankind started turning to

Nature to look for clues and hints on how to deal with problems faced in
its day-to-day struggle for survival. The term bionic method, or bio-
inspired methods, generally has two usual interpretations, concerning
different application domains. The popular interpretation, based frequently
on science fiction, is associated with more or less fantastic super-powers,
with cybernetics and robotic creations or artificial additions to organisms.
In this line of thought, bionics is presented as a science uniting biology
and mechanics, producing devices that endow human beings with
enhanced powers, whether to compensate for innate or acquired physical
limitations, or for the sake of mere enhancement. Besides this
interpretation, the term bionics is also associated with the original
meaning of biomimicry (bios – life, mimesis – imitation). According to
Benyus (1997), biomimicry is a way to see and value nature, representing
a novel mindset based not on what can be extracted from the natural
world, but on what can be learnt from it. This interpretation is the one of
concern in this contribution. In this view, which is considered in this
paper, the main purpose of bionics is to carry out a benchmark of nature,
of what it created, tested and has evolved over millions of years, in order
to improve what man creates artificially. The systematic study of natural
processes and systems, and their analysis, provides a referential
benchmark origin, which is then transferred to new designs. There are
multiple perspectives and understandings concerning the use of
terminology in the field of bionic design. According to Vincent et al.
(2006), not only are the terms bionics, biomimetics, biomimicry and
biologically inspired design meant to be synonymous, but this also extends
to the words biomimesis and biognosis. However, different authors adopt
different names for what are essentially methods that are aimed at the
same, or very similar, goals. The differences in the methods go beyond
nomenclature and are evident in the scope of analysis encompassed in this
study. Given the panorama in this young field, in this paper, the alternative
designations of what are basically variations adopted by different authors
in the implementation of a design approach, are designated both by a
capital letter of the alphabet randomly assigned from A to F and the name
given to the methods by their authors, creators or proponents.
In the following sub-sections, the origins and evolution of bionics are
summarily reviewed, while recalling a few well known examples of bionic
design solutions. Arguing for the growing importance of design inspired
by nature, the section concludes with the presentation of six selected
bionic design methods that will undergo scrutiny in the remaining sections
of the paper.

2.1. Origins and evolution of the practice of bionics

Although the terminology employed in the bionic approach to design is
relatively recent – appearing for the first time in the U.S.A. in 1958, in the
writings of Jack E. Steele (Lloyd, 2008) – the acts of imitation, creation
and inspiration brought about from learning about Nature originate in the
most remote and pre-historic times. Primitive human beings used bone
harpoons that were serrated in their edges to improve their piercing ability.
This feature was likely inspired by animal teeth; this was not a result of a
bionic design method, but was simply a likely consequence of bio-
inspiration. One of the most disseminated examples of modern bio-
inspiration is Velcro, which was invented in 1941 by Swiss engineer
George de Mestral (US Patent by George de Mestral, 1955). His
inspiration came from observing thistles and, in particular, the way they
got caught in his dog’s tail and how they adhered to clothes. In current
times, designers like Luigi Colani and Ross Lovegrove have been
instrumental in portraying inspiration from Nature and the mimesis of its
optimized shapes in their creations. Colani became notorious due to his
use of biodynamic forms in products such as automobiles and airplanes,
during the second half of the XXth century (Pernodet and Mehly, 2000).
Lovegrove’s designs typically demonstrate a link between organic shapes
and material science (Lovegrove, 2004).
Leonardo da Vinci was probably the first systematic student of the
possibilities of bionics (Lage and Dias, 2003). The drawings of Leonardo
da Vinci, which were developed following up on man’s perennial dream to
fly, originated in the observation of bird and insect flight. Leonardo da
Vinci realized that human arms were too weak to flap wings for a long
time, and hence developed several sketches of machines for assisted flying
that he called ornitopters (Kindersley, 1995). Human flight would only be
possible in the XXth century, with the aid of the internal combustion
engine and the propeller, but the inspiration from nature is anyway present
at its onset, and particularly in the shape of wings. Recently, some
products designed using bionic design processes have harnessed the
benefits and potential of this young creative field. Examples of some of
these products include a climbing axe modelled on the appearance and
efficiency of a woodpecker, designed by Franco Lodato (Colombo, 2006),
a chemical paint that creates self-cleaning surfaces, that is based on the
natural principle inherent to the lotus self-cleaning effect, or a bionic car,
developed by a major auto-maker, which is shaped to carry stark
resemblances with the physiognomy of a boxfish. Research wise,
following the seminal work and projects by D’Arcy Thompson (1945) and
Raoul Heinrich Francé (1920), several projects and studies have been
more recently carried out by a vast number of researchers. Ingo
Rechenberg (1989) has looked deeply into the strategy of evolution as
Nature’s approach to optimization. George Jeronimidis (1991) made a
very substantial contribution in understanding biological composite
structures and hence in enabling the application of this knowledge to
design. In an effort to disseminate the practice of bionics to engineers and
natural scientists, the fundamentals of bionics, and many examples
thereof, were compiled by Nachtingall (1998). Speck et al. (2004)
developed the notion of plants as concept generators for structures and
mechanisms. Julian Vincent’s (2006) contribution to the field centres on
bionic engineering of materials, while Claus Mattheck (2007) studied tree
structures and animal skeletons and in so doing unveiled his so-called
secret rules of nature that contribute to provide design shortcuts to reach
structural optimization. Gebeshuber and Drack (2008) proposed a
distinction between biomimetics by analogy and biomimetics by
induction, acknowledging that the bionic design process may flow form
the problem to a solution inspired by nature, or vice-versa. Rudolf
Bannasch compiled an overview of bionics intended for technical design
(2009) and Yoseph Bar-Cohen has brought together a handbook on
biomimetics which provides a thorough overview of nature based
innovation (2011). While a bionic approach to design may not represent a
universal tool that is applicable to any problem, it may provide support to
design activities (Colombo, 2007).

2.2 Sustainability of solutions resulting from the use of bionic methods

Sustainability is embedded in the basic principles of bionic design. The
existing processes and principles of design for sustainability have risen as
a reaction to the effects of environmental, economic and social crises in an
effort to find organized, clean, rational and innovative solutions. This
process involves a set of strategies of innovation, production and
evaluation of new products and services (Crul and Diehl, 2006). Nature, as
a mega-system in constant evolution and adaptation, could serve as a
source of examples and inspiration for the development of sustainable
solutions. It is thus up to the bionic design process to assimilate, organize
and provide a set of considerations for the design of sustainable solutions
and products, based on analogies and teachings drawn from biological
solutions. As an example, the use of materials with low environmental
impact and which are based on renewable resources, contribute to design
sustainable products. Bionic design emerges as a creative process of
environmentally responsible product design. A set of six bionic
approaches to design, documented in literature, is presented in the
following subsection.

2.3 Bionic design methods

The goal of bionic design methods is to offer designers an organized
process in order to attain a model that may be applied in design, inspired
mostly by the relations between form and function in nature (Colombo,
2007). Despite the success attained in several cases from the use of this
approach in design, the bionic design approach may still have room for
improvement, in order to become more systematic.
The application of bionic principles in a design project can be
accomplished by means of processes which may be oriented according to
two opposing directions: finding a solution to a problem in nature, or
looking for a problem to which a solution was found in nature. The former
approach starts with the identification of a problem (e.g. human
applications, such as developing or improving products or services) or the
consideration of a project need, and is followed by looking either for
inspiration from nature or for an analogy to foster a solution to the
problem (a bionic solution proposal). This approach is well suited to
designers seeking inspiration for the development of a particular product.
The other approach is based on the observation of nature and its system
structures in order to collect useful information (solution based on
inspiration) for human applications (design problems to be sought). While
the number of research studies that embed a bionic approach to problem
solving is growing everyday (and a snapshot of some of the researchers
with some of the most significant contributions was provided in the form
of a necessarily non-encompassing literature review in section 2.1 –
origins and evolution of the practice of bionics), a limited, yet feasible,
number of publications within the theme was selected for the purpose of
supporting a comparative analysis in order to assess the level of support
that designers can reap from the bionic approach.
Six existing methods have been selected from literature and are presented
in Tables 1 to 6. Two of these methods (method A – Aalborg, Colombo,
2007; method E – Bio-solution seeks problem, Helms et al., 2009) are
solution based, following a bottom up direction from a solution towards
problems. The remaining four methods are problem based, following a top
down direction from a problem towards solutions. This duality of analysis
direction was considered preliminarily by Gebeshuber and Drack (2008)
in the form of the distinction between bionics by analogy and bionics
induction. The former may be considered as following a problem to
solution approach (top-down, problem based) while the latter follows a
bottom-up direction of analysis, which is solution based, proceeding from
a solution towards an application problem. The selected methods share a
common feature which was deemed essential to enable the comparative
analysis intended; these methods have been presented by their authors in a
step wise, process oriented, form. This was deemed to support
repeatability and deployment of the methods by other designers and
researchers, and constituted the basis of the selection criteria in gathering
the six methods analysed in this study.

Table 1. Method A - Aalborg bionic design method (Colombo, 2007).

Phase Description
1. Analysis Choice and analysis of a natural system.
The purpose of this phase is to understand the form,
structure and functional principles of the natural
 system.
2. Extrapolation of mathematical, geometrical and
Transformation
statistical principles through a process of abstraction
and simplification.
Transformation, by the analysis of the analogy, of the
characteristics of the biological system into technical
and mechanical terms.
3. Implement the principles of the relationship between
Implementation
form and structure found in the natural system analysis,
for the development of new products.
4. Product Development and evaluation of a new product taking
development
the environmental and economic factors for all life
stages of the product into account.

The design method presented in Table 1 emphasizes the importance of

environmental and economical sustainability factors in the development
and evaluation of the project by the designer. The method presented in
Table 2 provides a detailed description of the procedures involved in
natural sample collection and analysis. It also prescribes completely listing
the working principles of the natural system.

Table 2. Method B - Biomimicry design method (Junior et al., 2002).

Phase Description
1. Identification Identification of an unmet need in a satisfactory manner
of need and that allows the satisfaction of a particular problem
and accurately, for subsequent analysis of the
environment in search of potential solutions.
2. Selection and Practical process step involving the selection of samples
sampling in nature that fit the problem and the need at hand.
Involves the search for samples in nature and some
knowledge about the habitat of the samples to be
collected and of the equipment to be used for the
collection.
3. Observation Observation and analysis of the components of the
of the sample morphological structure, functions and processes, of the
distributions in time and space and of the relationship
with the environment. Classification of the sample.
4. Analogy of Through the information of functional analysis,
the natural morphology and structure, the designer has the capacity
system with the to start considering the possibility and feasibility of
product application of an analogy between the sample studied
and the product to design.
5. Design Considering the feasibility of application of the sample
implementation characteristics to the design and from the functional,
formal and structural analysis, as well as the needs and
requirements of the proposed product, an analysis of the
system is held at this stage.

Table 3. Method C - Spiral design method (Biomimicry Institute, 2007).

Phase Description
1. Identify Development of the Design Brief for a human need with
the details and specifications of the problem to be solved.
2. Interpret Biological view of the problem. Questioning the Design
Brief from the perspective of nature. Translation of the
 functions of the project into tasks performed in nature.
3. Discover Find the best natural models to answer / address the
challenges posed.
4. Abstract Select the "champions" with the strategies most relevant
to a particular challenge of the project.
5. Emulate Developing ideas and solutions based on natural models
to mimic aspects of form, function and of the ecosystem
as much as possible.
6. Evaluate Evaluate the design solution considering the principles of
life. Identify ways to improve the design and bring
forward questions to explore issues such as those related
to packaging, marketing, transportation, new products,
additions and refinements.
7. Identify Develop and refine design briefs based on lessons
learned from evaluation of life's principles.

The design method presented in Table 3 gives emphasis to the product life
cycle, by giving consideration to issues such as manufacturing processes,
packaging and recycling of the product under development.

Table 4. Method D – Bio-inspired design method (Helms et al., 2009).

Phase Description
1. Problem Selection of a problem to solve and performing further
definition definition of it through functional decomposition and
optimization.
2. Reframe the Redefining the problem using broadly applicable
problem biological terms. Asking the question: "How do
 biological solutions perform this function?"
3.Biological Find solutions that are relevant to the biological problem
solution search with techniques such as changing constraints, analysis of
natural champions of adaptation, variation within a
family of solutions and multi-functionality.
4. Define the Identify the structures and surface mechanisms of the
biological biological system related to the recast function.
solution
5. Principle Extraction of the important principles of the solution in
extraction the form of a neutral solution, requiring a description
that removes, as much as possible, the various structural
and environmental constraints.
6. Principle Translation of the bionic solution principle extracted
application into a new area, involving an interpretation of a domain
space (e.g., biology) to another (e.g., mechanics) by
introducing new constraints.

Table 4 presents Method D –Bio-inspired design method (Helms et al.,

2009) and Table 5 presents Method E – Bio-solution in search of a
problem method (adapted from Helms et al. 2009)

Table 5. Method E – Bio-solution in search of a problem method (adapted

from Helms et al., 2009).
Phase Description
1. Biological From the observation of natural phenomena on a macro
identification scale and / or a micro level, a potential solution to apply
solution is sought to transfer to a human problem.
2. Define the The components or systems involved in the
biological phenomenon in question are identified in order to
solution outline the biological solution in functional notation.
3. Principle From the analysis of the biological solution in schematic
extraction notation, the fundamental principle of the solution is
extracted.
4. Reframe the In this case, reframing forces designers to think in terms
solution of how humans might view the usefulness of the
biological function being achieved.
5. Problem Whereas search in the biological domain includes search
search through some finite space of documented biological
solutions, the search problem may include defining
entirely new problems (this is much different than the
solution search step in the problem-driven processes).
6. Problem By analogy with the definition of the solution in
definition schematic / functional notation, the problem is outlined
similarly. The aim is thus to establish a clear parallel
between the systems and components of the biological
solution and the problem where a solution inspired by
nature is to be applied.
7. Principle Once the solution principle is established, it is
application transformed into a working principle of the
technological concept that is needed. This activity will
culminate in the embodiment of a bio-inspired solution
of a technological product or system.

The BioTRIZ method (Method F), developed by Vincent et al. (2006),

proposes an adaptation of TRIZ, the Russian system of problem solving,
demonstrating its compatibility with natural solutions for various
problems, observed from biology (Table 6).

Table 6. Method F – BioTRIZ method (Vincent et al., 2006).

Phase Description
1. Define the Define the problem in the most general, yet precise way.
problem It is essential to avoid specific directions of thought or
premature solution of the problem. One should also
avoid special terminology, because it inevitably confines
the thinking space to the existing sphere. Then list the
desirable and undesirable properties.
2. Analyse and Analyse and understand the problem and in doing so
understand the uncover the main conflicts or contradictions. The
problem technical conflicts are then identified in a TRIZ matrix
and listed. Find the functional analogy in biology or go
to the biological conflict matrix.
3. Compare Compare the solutions recommended by biology and
and find TRIZ. Find the common solutions for biological and
solutions engineering fields. List the technical and biological
principles thus recommended.
4. Connecting Based on these common solutions, build a bridge from
the natural natural to technical design. To make the technical and
and technical biological systems compatible, make a list of their
design general recommended compositions.
5. Create a To create a completely new technical system or product,
new technical add to the basic TRIZ principles some pure technical or
system or pure biological ones.
product

3. General goals considered for bionic design

Four general goals are proposed that may encompass many of the
requirements pertaining to design projects for which inspiration in nature
is sought. Form optimization, organisational effectiveness, multiple
requirements satisfaction and paradigm innovation for improved
functional performance are the goals in question, which are used as a basis
for the comparative analysis presented in the following section. The
analysis is based on the scrutiny of the six methods presented in the
previous section, in relation to the support given towards the achievement
of these four goals. These goals, or high level aims, are considered of
paramount importance, because they are typically present in design
endeavours, albeit translated into a number of requirements, specific to the
problem at hand.

3.1. Form optimization

Optimizing the shape of an object or structure can result directly from the
balanced satisfaction (with concessions on both sides, or trade-offs) of
several key requirements, such as the reduction of material and, or, weight
or size or the attainment of greater stability or resistance, or even the
achievement of reduced drag, depending on the targeted objectives. It is
not always possible to achieve an optimal configuration, with
maximization of all property value, due to inherent conflicts that they
sometimes impart (e.g. contradiction between low weight and high
strength or high volume or stability). Thus, achieving optimization
requires that the configuration reached is the one that best addresses the
contradictions and conflicts between the desired properties.

3.2. Organisational effectiveness

Organisational effectiveness depends on the coordination of multiple
structures (which also includes communication) for the performance of
activities with the need of differentiation. The coordination of multiple
entities in joint activity may lead to more effective results than the
performance of the activity separately by each entity would afford, such as
that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. An example of
excellent coordination and effectiveness of the resulting organisation can
be inferred from observation of the natural system comprised of a pack of
wolves. The group can hunt animals larger than the wolf, while a lone
wolf may only hunt smaller animals or of a scale similar to his. The
organisation of the roles of each element within the pack is a pre-condition
for achieving this result. Whenever a system, natural or artificial, displays
features that are arranged in a way that is conducive to an improved
performance or the increase of a property value, organization of entities, in
terms of their hierarchical dependence may be at the heart of the
improvement, especially if other alternative dependency structures yield
lower results.

3.3. Multiple requirements satisfaction

Nature is rife with effective solutions in order to enable, in a limited space,
a system to perform various tasks or fulfil several functions. Compliance
with multiple requirements reflects the achievement of several key points
that are inherent to the problem at hand, aiming for viability and
profitability of a small number of structures and elements that are to be
used in performing more than one function. This simultaneous satisfaction
opens the way for consideration of new objectives to add value and
profitability to the designed product or system. Compliance with various
targets, carried out by a limited set of features, structures or entities
implies streamlining for functional efficiency, which will result in
resource savings.

3.4. Paradigm innovation for improved functional performance

Another goal is to achieve change in the conventional paradigm used to
implement a feature, replacing it with an innovative paradigm, which is
proposed based on the observation of structures, behaviours and, or,
processes of nature that enable improved performance of the functionality
at hand. The features can be characterized by transformation of physical
state, state association or state hierarchy, to name a few. Because a
paradigm may be considered an archetype, an innovation in a paradigm,
underlying the delivery of a specific function (which can be judged
performance-wise), involves a radical change in the archetype of the
system components involved in materializing the function. In general, an
innovation in the function delivery paradigm would be of interest
especially if it supports improved performance, or efficiency, in the means
by which such function becomes implemented.

4. Results

Considering the four goals presented in the previous section, the six
methods presented in the second section of this paper were subjectively
analysed in terms of the envisaged support offered to designers making
use of them towards the attainment of each goal. Method F (Vincent et al.,
2006), although fundamentally different from the other five, as it is an
elaboration derived from Altshuller’s TRIZ method (Altshuller, 1994),
was included in the analysis, side by side with the other non-TRIZ based
methods. For this analysis, three levels of evaluation were established:
"not applicable" for the methods that did not support the achievement of
the goal in question and, as such, do not present techniques to assist
designers in aiming at the target in question; "applicable with
shortcomings" for cases for which the goal is incompletely supported by
the procedures at hand; “applicable” for the method and goal pairings that
were deemed to result in adequate support for goal achievement in design
endeavours following the method at hand.
None of the problem-oriented methods analyzed is considered fully
adequate to achieve the goal of organisational effectiveness.
With regard to satisfying multiple requirements, methods oriented from
the solution to the problem show, from the analysis, gaps in support to
achieve this goal. The methods providing guidance in implementing bionic
projects in the contrary direction of analysis are on the contrary very
heterogeneous.
When considering the goal of form optimization, one is faced with a
relatively homogeneous landscape, with most methods offering only
partial support to attain this goal. In what concerns the innovation of
paradigm for improved functional performance, all analyzed methods
provide satisfactory guidelines which can support the achievement of this
purpose. This demonstrates that the primary approach that has been
recommended for bionic design centres on functionality. Moreover, except
for individual cases, the remaining goals have been given a minor
importance. Although Method A (Aalborg method - Colombo, 2007) and
Method E (Bio-solution seeks problem method – adapted from Helms et
al., 2009), both oriented in a bottom-up direction, had similar ratings
(except for organisational effectiveness), the steps of the latter are more
detailed than the ones of the former, and there is a descriptive
complementarily between both. The four methods which are top-down
oriented were deemed fairly diverse in their support for achieving form
optimization, multiple requirements satisfaction and organizational
effectiveness. The results of the overall analysis are presented in Table 7.
The parameters of evaluation underlying the analysis presented are
presented in the following list (in relation to each specific goal).
- Form optimization: 1. iterations are a salient feature of the method; 2. the
method involves procedures for shape analysis.
- Multiple requirements satisfaction: 1. there is a plurality of factors that
are considered important for analogous analysis; 2. conflicts solution
techniques are embedded in the method or it recommends seeking
examples of multiple function satisfaction in nature.
- Organisational effectiveness: 1. consideration of the relationship between
structural or functional organization and performance; 2. specific
procedures are included to take hierarchical dependencies into account.
- Paradigm innovation for improved functional performance: 1. existence
of procedures for seeking analogies between natural and technical
systems; 2. inclusion of procedures to adapt the natural solution to the
constraints of the technical problem.

Table 7. Subjective analysis (informed by a set of evaluation criteria) of

the support provided by six selected bionic design methods in attaining
four fundamental design goals.
 Goal sought
Bionic Multiple Paradigm
Direction innovation for Organisational
design Form
of analysis requirements improved
method optimization effectiveness
satisfaction functional
performance
(A) Aalborg Applicable Applicable
(Colombo, with with Applicable Applicable
2007) shortcomings shortcomings
(E) Bio-
From
solution
solution to
seeks Applicable Applicable
problem
problem with with Applicable Not applicable
(adapted shortcomings shortcomings
from Helms
et al., 2009)
(C) Spiral
design Applicable Applicable
(Biomimicry Applicable with Applicable with
Institute, shortcomings shortcomings
2007)
(D) Bio-
inspired Applicable
design with Applicable Applicable Not applicable
From (Helms et al., shortcomings
problem 2009)
to solution (B)
Applicable Applicable
Biomimicry
with Not applicable Applicable with
(Junior et al., shortcomings shortcomings
2002)

(F) BioTRIZ Applicable Applicable

(Vincent et with Applicable Applicable with
al., 2006) shortcomings shortcomings

4.1. Results for the Aalborg bionic design method (A) (Colombo, 2007)
The degree of applicability of the Aalborg method (Method A - Colombo,
2007), which provides guidance in the direction from the solution to the
problem, to the goals of form optimization and satisfaction of multiple
requirements was rated as "Applicable with shortcomings". For the first
goal, despite the focus on form, there is no effort to optimize. Secondly,
because shape, structure and functional principles are considered in this
method, the implementation of multiple principles of form and structure
may result from the analysis but is not explicitly considered. This method
is deemed applicable to support the pursuit of paradigm innovation for
improved performance of functions. In what concerns organisational
effectiveness, the method, which is oriented from the solution to the
problem, is also considered applicable to support attainment of this stated
goal. This rating is based on the fact that there are only a few gaps
remaining in order to lead to the full satisfaction of this goal, as
hierarchical dependencies and coordination are not specifically considered
in the procedures.

4.2. Results for the bio-solution in search of a problem design method (E)
(adapted from Helms et al., 2009)
Since the bio-solution in search of a problem method (adapted from Helms
et al., 2009), which is directed from the solution to the problem, focuses on
extracting and implementing the solution principle from nature, both the
aspects of optimizing shape and satisfying multiple requirements are
bound to be sidelined at the expense of the functional principle focus. The
evaluation result of this method only differs significantly from the
previous one in terms of applicability to provide support for pursuing the
goal of organisational effectiveness. Method E (bio-solution in search of a
problem, adapted from Helms et al., 2009) prescribes no focus on the
organisational structure of the biological system that is focused upon. The
method is deemed applicable to support attaining the goal of paradigm
innovation for increased functional performance. This method does not
support an iterative formulation of the bionic design principle.

4.3. Results for the spiral design method (C) (Biomimicry Institute, 2007)
Following a direction of analysis starting from a given problem to its
solution discovery, the spiral design method (C - Biomimicry Institute,
2007), was granted the degree of "Applicable with shortcomings” with
respect to the goal of satisfying multiple requirements. In this method, the
design process is initiated starting from a human need, and as such,
satisfaction of multiple requirements may take place according to their
explanation in the initial specification, if natural models demonstrating the
reunion of the functions and, or, qualities aimed are sought and can be
found. However, the method does not explicitly consider a way to guide
the quest to satisfy multiple requirements. The goal of organisational
effectiveness receives the same evaluation, as the aspect of organisation is
not considered directly in this method, but it is only implicit in the
consideration of the analysis of ecosystems and natural social conditions.
For the other goals at hand, this method is deemed applicable in
supporting their attainment if the target is either form optimization
(especially given the nature of this iterative method with evaluation
procedures present at every step, which favours systematic optimization
and provides guidance in following the direction from problem to
solution) or innovation in paradigm with respect to performance features.

4.4. Results for the bio-inspired design method (D) (Helms et al., 2009)
The bio-inspired design method (Helms et al., 2009) follows the same line
of analysis as the method previously analysed (from the problem to the
solution), showing gaps in support to designers if the goal is to achieve
optimal form, since this method the focus is on function. The process of
problem definition and searching for biological solutions is supported by
elucidative techniques, by suggestions and the provision of practical
examples. In some design processes supported by the procedures inherent
to this method, the search for a biologically inspired solution to perform a
function could lead to considerations of form. However, the method does
not provide procedures for optimization and does not explicitly consider
form, although shape analysis may occur as a consequence of the focus on
function. The method is deemed applicable in a satisfactory manner to
problems where the targeted goal is either paradigm innovation for
improved functional performance or the satisfaction of multiple
requirements, or both. The method is deemed applicable to support the
satisfaction of multiple requirements because it embeds the
recommendation of looking for examples in nature where one structure or
component performs more than one function. However, it is not
considered applicable to support the pursuance of the goal of
organisational effectiveness, as no specific procedures are included which
could support this particular quest.

4.5. Results for the biomimicry design method (B) (Junior et al., 2002)
The biomimicry design method (B - Junior et al., 2002) follows a direction
of analysis oriented from the problem to the solution. After examining the
applicability of the method in providing support to the achievement of the
goals at hand, it is only deemed "applicable with shortcomings" with
respect to the goals of optimizing form and improving effectiveness of
organisation. For the first goal, this assessment is due to the absence of
iteration in order to pursue optimization (morphology is what is suggested
in the method that may provide limited support for the pursuance of this
goal). For the second goal, the assessment takes into account that the
method supports no direct account of organisational aspects, but it only
does that indirectly through structural analysis. Thus, this objective may
only be satisfied in some cases of the use of the method, by means of
which structural analysis can be the basis to establish organisational
analogies. The evaluation also results in suggesting the applicability of the
method to support the goal of paradigm innovation for increased
functional performance, and on the other hand, enables suggesting its non-
applicability if the goal is to achieve satisfaction of multiple requirements.
This method also does not include any procedures concerning the transfer
of the features found in natural samples to design problems.

4.6. Results for the BioTRIZ method (F) (Vincent et al., 2006)
With this method, the pursuit of form optimization could be difficult, as
the TRIZ conflicts (contradictions) matrix only provides a set of limited
inventive principles, which are then to be applied by the designer to the
problem at hand. The method is, however, considered applicable to
support multiple requirements satisfaction, as this is inherent to the nature
of the contradictions matrix, which is central to TRIZ. In terms of
paradigm innovation for improved functional performance, the
establishment of connections and matches between biological examples
and the envisaged technical system affords the pursuit of this goal, without
reservations. Regarding the goal of achieving or improving organisational
effectiveness, BioTRIZ is deemed to provide incomplete support towards
achieving this goal, as hierarchical dependence and relative importance
between components are not features of the TRIZ contradiction matrix.
Thus, organisational effectiveness may be improved, but only indirectly as
a result of the usage of the BioTRIZ design method, since its array of
inventive principles may in some cases support the achievement of this
goal, but not as a straightforward result.

5. Discussion

The comparative analysis presented in the previous section is intended to

support designers in the process of selecting a bionic design method that is
adequate to the problem at hand. The analysis identifies goals where the
methods considered offer no support, or only reduced support, for their
pursuit and achievement, hence, leading to identify the need for novel
methodological proposals or the enhancement of the existing ones. The
need to integrate validation activities in bionic design processes is
emphasized, as only a few of the methods analysed (C - spiral design,
Biomimicry Institute, 2007 and A - Aalborg, Colombo, 2007 methods) entail
some evaluation procedures and iteration. The development and testing of
improved methods, providing broad support to pursue a large scope of
design goals, considering both directions of analysis (possibly with the
possibility of interchanging between them within the method) and with
support for validation of the quality of results attained, is hence a
challenge for future conceptual and practical research in the field.

6. Conclusions

Since the aim set for this study was to support designers in the process of
selecting a bionic design method, a selection Table is presented that is
intended to support this selection process, and also plays the role of
summarizing the results of this study (Table 8). Taking a design
perspective, the comparative analysis presented suggests that the methods
that were analysed, selected from existing proposals to support bionic
design, despite supporting specific goal attainment, are not equally
effective across the whole spectrum of typical design goals considered. All
the methods surveyed are deemed to provide adequate support to the
search for paradigm innovation, but form optimization, organisational
effectiveness and multiple requirement satisfaction are only adequately
supported by some of the methods. No single method was found to
provide adequate support to all four goals considered. Moreover, little
support is given in the methods scrutinized to validation activities,
concerning the attainment of the goals set for the design at hand. Further
developments in the methods analyzed are hence needed in order to more
fully support bionic design endeavours which stand in line with systematic
approaches to design. The development and testing of more fully
supportive methodologies, which encompass validating actions, is hence
sought in future research.
Denis A. Coelho and Carlos A. M. Versos 29

Table 8. Selection Table intended to support designers in the process of selecting a bionic design method (from the set
of six methods surveyed in this study).

Bionic design methods Method C Method D Method E (Bio-

Method A Method B
considered (Spiral design (Bio-inspired solution seeks Method F
(Aalborg - (Biomimicry -
Selection criteria - Biomimicry design problem - (BioTRIZ –
Colombo, Junior et al.,
and respective Institute, - Helms et al., adapted from Vincent et
2007) 2002)
evaluation parameters 2007) 2009) Helms et al., al., 2006)
2009)
1. Form optimization
(e.g.: reduction of material size or weight, or attainment of greater stability):

1.1 iterations are a salient feature of the method - - Yes - - -

1.2 the method involves procedures for shape

Yes Yes Yes Yes * Yes * Yes*
analysis

2. Multiple requirements satisfaction

(e.g.: compliance with various targets, or achievement of several key objectives inherent to the problem at hand):
2.1 there is a plurality of factors which are
Yes - Yes * Yes Yes * -
considered important for analogous analysis
2.2 conflicts solution techniques are embedded
- - - - - Yes
in the method
 3. Organisational effectiveness
(e.g.: need for coordinated actions of multiple structures or entities, or need for hierarchical dependence between system entities):
3.1 consideration of the relationship between
structural or functional organisation and Yes Yes * Yes * - - Yes *
performance
3.2 specific procedures to take hierarchical
- - - - - -
dependencies into account

4. Paradigm innovation for improved functional performance

(e.g.: achieving change in aspects that are used to implement a feature with gains or radical change in the archetype of the system
components involved in materializing the function):

4.1 existence of procedures for seeking analogies

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
between natural and technical systems
4.2 inclusion of procedures to adapt the natural
solution to the constraints of the technical - Yes - Yes - -
problem
* - The method only partially fulfils the satisfaction of this evaluation parameter, as this may result from use of the method only indirectly, and
as such is not guaranteed.
References
Bannasch, R. (2009). ‘Bionics’, In Technology Guide, Springer. Verlag pp. 178-183.
Bar-Cohen, Y. (2011) ‘Biomimetics: Nature Based Innovation’. Boca Raton, Florida:
CRC press.
Benyus, J. (1997) ‘Biomimicry - Inovation Inspired by Nature’, New York: Harper
Perennial.
Biomimicry Institute (2007) ‘Biomimicry: A Tool for Innovation’. URL:
http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org/about-us/biomimicry-a-tool-for-innovation.html
(accessed December 29th, 2009).
Colombo, B. (2007). ‘Biomimetic design for new technological developments’ in
Salmi, E., Stebbing, P., Burden G., Anusionwu, L. (Eds.) Cumulus Working Papers,
Helsinki, Finland: University of Art and Design Helsinki, pp. 29-36.
Crul, M.R.M., Diehl J.C. (2006) ‘Design for Sustainability a practical approach for
Developing Economies’, (editor Garrette Clark) United Nations Environment
Programme Division of Technology, Industry and Economics and Delft University of
Technology, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Design for Sustainability
Programme.
Francé, R. H. (1920) ‘Die Pflanzen als Erfinder’, Stuttgart: Kosmos-Franck.
Gebeshuber, I. C., Drack, M. (2008) ‘An attempt to reveal synergies between biology
and mechanical engineering’, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part C. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, Volume 222, Number
7, pp. 1281-1287.
Helms, M., Vattam, S.S., Goel, A. (2009) ‘Biologically inspired design: process and
products’, Design Studies, Vol. 30, No. -, pp. 606-622.
Jeronimidis, G. (1991) ‘Learning from nature: Biological Composites’. Proceedings of
Inaugural European Seminar, Arche de la Defense, Paris, France.
Junior, W., Guanabara, A., Silva, E., Platcheck, E. (2002) ‘Proposta de uma
Metodologia para o Desenvolvimento de Produtos Baseados no Estudo da Biónica’,
Brasília: P&D - Pesquisa e Design.
Kindersley, D. (1995) ‘Máquinas Voadoras’, Lisboa: Editorial Verbo.
Lage, A., Dias, S. (2003) ‘Desígnio - Teoria do design’, parte 2, Porto: Porto Editora.
 Lloyd, E. (2008) ‘The History of Bionics’. URL:
http://www.brighthub.com/science/medical/articles/9070.aspx (accessed January
10th, 2010).
Lovegrove, R. (2004) Supernatural : the work of Ross Lovegrove, New York, NY :
Phaidon.
Mattheck, C. (2007) ‘Secret Design Rules of Nature’, Verlag Forschungszentrum
Karlsruhe.
Mestral, George de, (1955) Velvet type fabric and method of producing same, United
States Patent 2717437, Velcro, Soulie SA., (URL:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/2717437.html accessed October 5, 2010).
Nachtingall, W. (1998) ‘Bionik. Grundlagen und Beispiele für Ingenieure und
Naturwissenschaftler’ 1998. Springer – Verlag, 350 pp.
Pernodet, P., Mehly, B. (2000) ‘Luigi Colani – Biography’, Paris: Dis Voir.
Rechenberg, I. (1989) ‘Evolution strategy: Nature’s way of optimization’. In H.W.
Bergmann, Editor, Optimization: Methods and Applications, Possibilities and
Limitations, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 106-126..
Speck, T., Masselter, T., Pruem, B., Speck, O., Luchsinger, R., Fink, S. (2004). ‘Plants
as concept generators for biomimetic light-weight structures with variable stiffness
and self-repair mechanisms’. Journal of Bionics Engineering. Vol. 1, no. 4,
December 2004, pp. 199-205.
Thompson, D’A. (1945) ‘On Growth and Form’. New York: Mac Millan (published
originally by Cambridge University Press, 1917).
Vincent, J. F. V. (2006) ‘The Materials Revolution’. Journal of Bionic Engineering.
Vol. 3, Issue 4, December 2006, pp. 217-234.
Vincent J. F.V., Bogatyreva O.A., Bogatyrev N.R., Bowyer A., Pahl A.-K. (2006)
‘Biomimetics – its practice and theory.’, Journal of Royal Society “Interface”, Vol. 3,
N. 9, pp. 471-482.

View publication stats