exploring creativity in bio-inspired design

Exploring Creativity inBio-inspired Design

Torbjorn aksdal kautsar anggakara hadianto msoc.sc organisational innovation and entrepreneurship

supervisor:

balder onarheimdepartment of marketing

MASTER's THESIS

16 SEPTEMBER 2013COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL 2013

STU: 255,146 (112 PAGES)

how the understanding of creativity can support the application of bio-inspired design

Exploring Creativity in Bio-inspired Design – Master‘s Thesis – Copenhagen Business School 2013 1

Abstract

The growth in the field bio-inspired design has been driven by the acknowledgement that inspiration

from nature can serve as a source of innovation. As an emerging approach, there has been a focus

on building a principled methodology to address the challenges that arise in the application of the

practice. This thesis investigates ways that the understanding of creativity can strategically support

the application of bio-inspired design.

A central assumption in this thesis is that creativity entails the quest of generating novel and

appropriate solutions, which is central to innovation. We use design thinking as a perspective to

explore of the bio-inspired design process, as we argue that design thinking is an applied form of

creativity. We obtained our empirical data from interviews of practitioners who have the experience in

practicing both design thinking and bio-inspired design. Our analysis is based on the inferences from

our empirical data and the literature on organizational creativity, design thinking and bio-inspired

design.

By observing the bio-inspired design approach using a macro-orientational framework of creativity,

we identify the role of creativity in and through bio-inspired design, as well as challenges currently

faced by the approach in coming up with novel and appropriate solutions. We suggest possible ways

to address the aforementioned challenges by applying elements of the process and mindset of

design thinking to the bio-inspired approach. The synthesis of our analysis has produced a strategic

framework that can support the exploration of the bio-inspired design space. The framework, the

bio-inspired design antenna, is aimed at building an understanding of the interplay between various

elements that has to be in place, to create a condition conducive to the application of bio-inspired

design.


Table of Contents ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1 .0 INTRODUCTION & RESEARCH QUESTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1 THESIS MOTIVATION ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7

1.3.1 Clarification of Research ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 1.3.2 Delimitations ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

1.4 CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPT ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 1.4.1 Creativity ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 1.4.2 Bio-Inspired Design ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

1.5 READING GUIDE .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12

2 .0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.1 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14

2.1.1 Modes of Reasoning ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 2.2 RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

2.2.1 Data collection ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 2.2.2 Data analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

2.3 THESIS COLLABORATORS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 21 2.4 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 22

2.3.1 Considerations on Reliability ................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 2.3.2 Considerations on Validity ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 23

3 .0 LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW PART 1: CREATIVITY ............................................................................................................................................................................ 26

3.1.1 Organizational Creativity – Looking at Creativity from a Systems Level .............................................................................. 27 3.1.2 Creative Change Model and the Componential Theory of Creativity ..................................................................................... 27 3.1.3 Design Thinking as a Model of Applied Creativity ................................................................................................................................. 35

3.2 LITERATURE REVIEW PART 2: BIO-INSPIRED DESIGN ................................................................................................................................................... 43 3.2.1 Rising interest in Biological Inspired Design ................................................................................................................................................ 43 3.2.2 Case Examples ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 43 3.2.3 Bio- Inspired Design Methodologies ................................................................................................................................................................ 46 3.2.4 Selected Bio-Inspired Design Methodologies ........................................................................................................................................... 47 3.2.5 A Generic Bio- inspired design methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 49 3.2.6 Multidisciplinarity in the Bio-Inspired Design Approach ................................................................................................................... 51 3.2.7 The Use of Analogies in Bio-inspired Design ............................................................................................................................................ 52 3.2.7 Observed challenges to the Bio-inspired Design process ............................................................................................................... 53

4 .0 ANALYSIS PART 1 : IDENTIFYING CHALLENGES IN BIO-INSPIRED DESIGN THROUGH THE UNDERSTANDING OF CREATIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.1 BIO-INSPIRED DESIGN FROM THE CONTEXT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CREATIVITY ........................................................................................... 59 4.1.2 The Creative Performance ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 59 4.1.3 The Creative Process .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63

4.2 THE ROLE OF CREATIVITY IN BIO-INSPIRED DESIGN .................................................................................................................................................... 70

5 .0 ANALYSIS PART 2 : APPLYING DESIGN THINKING IN BIO-INSPIRED DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 5.1 COMPARING DESIGN THINKING AND BIO-INSPIRED DESIGN PROCESS ............................................................................................................... 76

Observation 1: The inspiration space and its relation to a better understanding of ill-defined problems ............... 77 Observation 2: The ideation space and its relation to a better understanding of design fixation .................................. 78 Observation 3: The implementation space and the importance of bio-inspired design to be part of a bigger design space .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 80

5.2 APPLYING DESIGN THINKING MINDSET IN BIO-INSPIRED DESIGN .......................................................................................................................... 81 Observation 4: Explaining mental models involved in Design Process through ‘Designerly Ways of Knowing’ . 81 Observation 5: Bringing the spirit of collaboration to life .............................................................................................................................. 82 Observation 6. Experimentation and Empathy as a way to dive into the unknown world .................................................. 84

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS SECTION 2 ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 86

6 .0 CONCLUSION: A STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION OF BIO-INSPIRED DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88


6.1 THE ANTENNA OF BIO-INSPIRED DESIGN ........................................................................................................................................................................... 90 6.1.1 The Bio-inspired Design Continuum ................................................................................................................................................................... 91 6.1.2 The Skill and Aim Alignment .................................................................................................................................................................................. 92 6.1.3 Aim and Process Alignment ................................................................................................................................................................................... 94 6.1.4 Aim, Skills and Environment Alignment ....................................................................................................................................................... 95

6.2 THE BID ANTENNA AS A DYNAMIC FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................................................................................... 96 6.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 97 6.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 97 6.5 VISUALIZATION OF FLOW OF INFERENCE IN THIS THESIS ......................................................................................................................................... 99

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

List of Figures Figure 1: The bipartite research question ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2: Reading Guide .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3: The Qualitative Research Process. From Bryman (2012) ..................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 4: Literature Review Framework ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 5: Creativity: A System Model ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 6: The Design Thinking Mindset ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 7: Summary of The Design Thinking Process ..................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 8: Design Thinking as an Applied Method of Creativity ................................................................................................................................ 42 Figure 9 Biomimicry Core Elements & The Design Lens ............................................................................................................................................. 48 Figure 10: BioMAPS Search Engine .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 49 Figure 11: Summary of The Bio-Inspired Design Process ............................................................................................................................................. 51 Figure 12: Type of similarities between biological phenomena and developed concepts, based on figure in Mak &

Shu (2004) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 Figure 13: Perspectives on Creativity in Bio-inspired Design (BID) ....................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 14: Key Findings of important elements on the relationship between Bio-inspired Design and Organizational

Creativity .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 71 Figure 15: Overview of the challenges faced in the bio-inspired design process ...................................................................................... 73 Figure 16: Comparison of Design Thinking and Bio-inspired Design Process ............................................................................................. 76 Figure 17: How Design Thinking addressed challenges faced by bio-inspired design .......................................................................... 87 Figure 18: The Antenna of Bio-Inspired Design .................................................................................................................................................................. 90 Figure 19: BID Antenna: The predetermined components –aims and skills .................................................................................................. 91 Figure 20: BID Antenna: Skills-Aim alignment .................................................................................................................................................................... 93 Figure 21: BID Antenna: The Process Matrix ......................................................................................................................................................................... 95 Figure 22: BID Antenna: The Environment Matrix ............................................................................................................................................................ 96 Figure 23 Visualization of the flow of inference in this thesis ................................................................................................................................. 99 Copyright © 2013 Kautsar Anggakara Hadianto. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all images and illustrations on this document are copyrighted by Kautsar Anggakara Hadianto. All rights reserved.

section 1

introduction & Research question


As the effects of the manufacturing and IT revolution are starting to diminish, people are beginning

to look to other areas for the technological breakthroughs that can cater to an increasingly complex

world. Parallel to this, there is also a growing awareness of the effects of industrialized production on

the environment, particularly as the developing world is starting to catch up with the developed,

which has lead to a heightened interest in sustainable technology. Biology has been brought forward

as a promising field for new technological innovations. An emerging discipline, Bio- inspired design,

seeks to develop a way to systematically transfer knowledge from the biological domain to the

technological domain. As the argument goes, nature has upwards of 30 million species with 3.8

billion years of experience in adapting to the environment, creating strategies and ‘technology’ for

survival that humankind could and should learn from.

Although the concept was first coined several decades ago, only recently has the field gained much

momentum, with both academic and business interest on the rise. Papers published on the topic is

doubling every 2-3 years, compared to the 13 year doubling rate of other sciences (Lepora, 2013),

and the value of bio-inspired design is forecasted to reach USD 1 trillion by 2025 (Fermanian

Business & Economic Institute, 2010).

One of the biggest challenges in the application of bio-inspired design is the transfer of biological

knowledge to the technology domain. Some perceive this step to involve long-term exploration and

rigorous scientific experiments. There is also a perception that the “transfer” requires extensive

biological knowledge. To address this challenge, much research and development within the

discipline has been focusing on building information databases to make biological knowledge more

accessible to practitioners. While making information more accessible is an important factor in

facilitating the bio-inspired design process, we believe that there is currently a lack of focus on how

to work with this biological information to produce novel and useful solutions. That is, the creative

process in bio- inspired design is often black-boxed.

Creativity has been suggested as an important element in generating innovations (see Sawyer, 2012;

Amabile, 1996; Brown, 2009; Bharadwaj and Menon, 2000). Explaining creativity, according to

Sawyer (2012), can help us to respond better to the challenges facing modern society.

Understanding the role of creativity in a bio-inspired design is thus of particular importance as the

process involves new ways of solving problems. The framework of design thinking has been

proposed as a way to systematically deliver creative outcomes in a process. In seeing design thinking

as an applied form of creativity, we thus seek to explore how the methods and mindset of the

design-thinking framework may inform the creative process of bio-inspired design.


1.1 Thesis Motivation

First , The growing practice of looking to nature to solve human problems was what first motivated

us to write this thesis. As innovation is a major part of our master studies, we found it interesting to

explore the field of bio-inspired design, which has been suggested as a consistent way of producing

innovations. As a growing field, bio-inspired design embeds various challenges and opportunities.

Hence, we are interested in observing and offering suggestions on the deployment of the principles

of bio-inspired design.

Second, we are interested in exploring the role of creativity in the bio-inspired design process. The

reason why we choose creativity as the thesis’ point of departure is two-fold: On its most basic level

of definition creativity entails novelty and usefulness (Sawyer, 2012)1; and through such definition,

creativity thus becomes a greater competitive factor in innovation (ibid.).

Third , we would like to utilize our learning that we have obtained through our minor in Design

Strategy by using design thinking as an applied form of creativity. We argue in the relevancy of

interlinking design thinking and bio-inspired design, as the core objective of both is essentially the

same: “to solve problems and create world changing innovation.”2 To do this, we need to go beneath

the surface of what design thinking is, through the investigation of principles and mindset of the

discipline.

1.2 Problem Statement

The field of bio-inspired design put its core tenet on the emulation of nature’s principles and

mechanisms. While there exist vast opportunities to look for solutions from nature, its complexity

and diversity poses a challenge in emulating its principles, which involves the search for relevant

solutions to human problems. The searching and emulating phase is often referred to as the transfer process, which involves transfer from one or more biological examples to a technical or human

domain.

Attempts have been made to minimize the complexity of the transfer process, mainly by structuring

the natural examples in databases. However, we argue that a technical structuring may not be

enough to ensure a successful implementation, without the understanding of the mindset involved in

applying the process. A principal argument in this thesis is that creativity is essential to innovation. A

creative solution cannot only be novel/original, but it also has to be relevant to its intended user. A

creative mindset can better facilitate the identification of challenges that may arise in the process of 1 See literature review on creativity 2 Tim McGee, eco-interface.com


developing novel and useful outcomes. In addition, in the context of bio-inspired design, the

extraction of nature’s principles into a human and technology context often requires a series of

cognitive processes that are closely related to creativity. Thus, as an initial departure for our thesis,

we argue that the understanding of creativity is essential to construct the practitioner’s mindset in

applying bio-inspired design.

Creativity is, however, a holistic term and what constitutes as “creative” may vary depending on the

individual social and cultural context. Thus, to ensure thoroughness in the analysis, we use an

applied, practical approach to creativity. As mentioned in our motivation, we will use design thinking

as an applied method of creativity. Design thinking proponents have long champion creativity as an

essential part of the design thinker’s capability (Brown, 2009; Lockwood, 2010; Cross, 2007). In

addition, the widespread use and practice of design thinking has made it possible to establish a

series of commonly accepted mindsets and principles, that can be used as an angle to analyze bio-

inspired process.

1.3 Research Question

The following research question guides our thesis:

RQ: How can the understanding of creat iv i ty support the appl icat ion of the b io-inspired design process?

This perspective gives rise to a two-fold sub-question to be explored:

SQ.1 How does the understanding of organizational creativity aid the identification of the

challenges currently faced by bio-inspired design?

SQ. 2 In what ways can design thinking, as an applied method of creativity, influence the quest for

novel and appropriate solutions in bio-inspired design?

F igure 1 : The bipart i te research quest ion

creativitybio-inspired

desi!n desi!n

thinkin!desi!n

thinkin!

SQ1

SQ2


1 .3.1 Clar if icat ion of Research Sub-Quest ion 1 : We examine the process of bio-inspired design using the framework of

organizational creativity. Specifically, we are looking at how the understanding of organizational

creativity can identify some of the challenges faced in bio-inspired design. Our initial point of

departure in the analysis is the belief that the bio-inspired approach intersects with creativity. Thus,

by looking at the bio-inspired approach through the lens of organizational creativity, we aim to

identify the gap in the current practice of the approach that might limit its ability to produce novel

and useful solutions. In the process of identifying the challenges, we also aim at elaborating on how

creativity plays a role in bio-inspired design process, as well as how bio-inspired approach can be an

avenue through which creativity emerge. The notion of “understanding of organizational creativity”

involves the observation of creativity using a macro-orientational framework that gives rise to a

holistic understanding of creativity, encompassing not only creative processes, but also the

understanding of the individuals and the environment supporting the process.

Sub-Quest ion 2 : we explore the practical application of creativity in the bio-inspired design

process. We do this by exploring the interlink of bio-inspired design and design thinking. In

developing an understanding of this aspect, we can identify design thinking ways of working that

may help address some of the challenges faced by bio-inspired design. Specifically, we are a looking

at the elements of design thinking that can be used as a model of shared understanding, to give

ways for novel and useful solutions to better emerge in a bio-inspired design process.

1 .3 .2 Del imitat ions This thesis explores the relationship between three discourses: bio-inspired design, creativity and

design thinking. As our observation subject is mainly context-dependent, any practical use of the

recommendations provided has to be adjusted to the local context. In addition, we understand that

we cannot cover every aspect of the discourse due to the generalized nature of the analysis, as well

as the limited timeframe allowed for the project. As we are focusing on the organizational aspect of

creativity and design thinking, we do not consider the implications relating to externalization. Thus,

our analysis does not assess the quality of the outcome, although we do provide analysis on the

organizational factor that has to be in place to support the outcome.

The field of bio-inspired design, as a focus of our study, is a growing field with a great diversity of

practice and methodology. The field is still yet to establish a common practice between the various

approaches; hence we are aware that a generalized recommendation is unlikely to be universally

accepted among all practitioners of bio-inspired design. However, by using organizational creativity

as a lens through which bio-inspired approach is observed, we elaborate on the common ground

between the various bio-inspired approaches. Nevertheless, we are aware that our recommendation


may not be sufficient to be applied in a very specialized setting of bio-inspired design with higher

degree of practical complexity.

The bio-inspired design practitioners using design-thinking elements in their approach (e.g.

Biomimicry 3.8, Biomimicry for Creative Innovation) are mostly found in North America. Therefore,

all of our respondents are based in North America, although some has experience working with bio-

inspired approach in other parts of the world. As we are looking at bio-inspired design through a

macro-orientational framework that encompasses individuals, process and environment, we believe

that cultural differences may play a factor in the creation of solutions within the approach of bio-

inspired design. As part of our thesis delimitation, we are not elaborating cultural aspects of creativity

and bio-inspired design. As a consequence, in conditions where culture is a strong contributing factor,

we understand that our recommendation may not be sufficient in supporting such practice of bio-

inspired design.

1.4 Clarification of Concept

“Creativity” as a term and a concept has historically been malleable in terms of meanings and

definitions. The perception as to what creativity entails have always been influenced by its societal

and historical context (Sawyer, 2012). In addition, as a growing discipline, bio-inspired design

constitutes various terms e.g. biomimicry, biomimetics, bionics, all of which are often used

interchangeably. Thus, the below section is aimed at explaining and clarifying the key concepts used

in the thesis.

1 .4 .1 Creativ ity Creativity is often seen as a mysterious (and sometimes mystified) aspect of human behavior. It is

commonly perceived to be a result of serendipity, and a skill reserved only for the few lucky ones.

There are many attempts on decoding what creativity is and what it entails, and the research on

creativity has produced many, and often contradictory views of creativity (Welsh, 1973 in Lauer,

1994). Mac Crimmon and Wagner (1994) did a review of practice and research on creativity, and

reveals five key dimensions of creative output: novelty, non-obviousness, workability, relevance, and

thoroughness. Amabile (2012, p.1), one of the prominent creativity researchers, describe creativity as

“the production of a novel and appropriate response, product, or solution to an open-ended task.” Sawyer (2012, p.7) describes creativity as “a new mental combination that is expressed in the world” and also “generation of a product that is judged to be novel and also to be appropriate, useful, or valuable by a suitably knowledgeable social group.” Thus, we can argue that creativity is a product of

two things: novelty and usefulness. Novelty refers to the “newness” (Amabile, 2012) and the


originality of an idea (Mac Crimmon and Wagner, 1984). Usefulness refers to the fit to a

predetermined goal and a readily implemented idea (ibid.).

It is outside this thesis’ limitation to evaluate the appropriateness or the usefulness of a creative

concept, if the indicator provided is the commercial success of the product or services. However, it is

possible to evaluate creativity as a system consisting of person, environment and process. When

looking at creativity from a systems level, the purpose is thus to observe the creation of a valuable,

useful new product, service, idea, procedure, or process (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Thus,

the way creativity is used and understood in this thesis is ‘how the system influences the possibility

of creating a creative outcome’, rather than evaluating the outcome itself.

1 .4 .2 Bio-Inspired Design As there is yet to be formulated a high level theory of what bio-inspired design is (Vincent et al,

2006), to the practitioners and researchers bio-inspired design tend to be defined as ‘bio-inspired

design is what bio-inspired designers do’. Authors operate with different operations of what bio-

inspired is and should be, but as we also shall see, the base level assumptions tend to be the same.

B iomimetics was first coined by Otto H. Schmitt (Schmitt, 1969 in Bar-Cohen, 2005), and is a

combination of the words biology and mimesis (imitation) (Speck & Speck, 2008). It has come to be

defined as the process of studying and imitating nature’s methods, mechanisms and processes (Bar-

Cohen, 2005; Sartori et. al, 2009), as well as the externalization of technical applications based on

insights resulting from fundamental biological research (Speck & Speck, 2008). Similarly, b ionics

(bionik in German and Danish) first used by Jack E. Steele, has been defined as ‘application of

biological function and mechanics to machine design’ (Shu et al, 2011), or more generally as systems

that copy some function or characteristics from natural systems (Vincent, 2006). The terms bionics

and biomimetics are used interchangeably in the literature, with German authors and practitioners

generally referring to it as bionics, while the rest of the world uses the terms biomimetics. This study

uses the term biomimetics.

Biomimetics has its roots from the engineering field -Schmitt being a biomedical engineer and

Steele a trained engineer – and it continues to be dominated by engineers and technologists (Wahl

2006). The process is technically oriented and rigorous, focusing on the technical realization and

application of construction processes and developmental principles observed in the biological

systems (ibid). The technology of nature is uncovered through a long and often meticulous research

process, often by universities and research labs, and then applied to human technology by engineers

(Schild et al, 2004, Speck & Speck, 2008). The time, cost and deep specialization needed has been

seen as a barrier to more widespread adoption of biomimetics in business (Schild et al, 2004), and


has led to attempts of making biological knowledge more readily accessible for application in

product development by building searchable databases of biological solution principles (i.e. Vincent

et al, 2006; Chiu and Shu, 2007; Chakrabarti et al, 2005; Vattam et. al, 2011; Sartori et. al 2009)

The biomimetic approach has faced criticism for not being concerned with sustainability, Wahl

(2006) noting that a bionics conference in Germany in 2004 was so focused on technological

innovation that it “almost actively tried to discourage ecological concern and the issue of sustainability” (Wahl, 2006, p. 293). While the biomimetic approach was gaining foothold in Europe,

American Jack Todd and Nancy Jack-Todd (Jack-Todd, 2005) formulated the principles of

ecological informed design in the 1970s. The ecological informed design approach sought to explore

how ecology, biology and a bio-cybernetic systems approach could inform more sustainable

solutions (Wahl, 2006). Inspired by the movement, Janine Benyus adopted and popularized the term

biomimicry in her book Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature (1997). Benyus’ described

biomimicry as seeking to adapt solutions from nature, much in the same way as in biomimetics, but

with the added requirement that the solutions should be sustainable (Biomimicry 3.8; Shu et al,

2011). More detailed, Benyus (1997) set three major aspects for biomimicry: considering nature as

model, nature as a measure and nature as a mentor (Benyus, 1997; Badarnah Kadri, 2012). Aside

from the sustainability requirement, biomimicry is usually grouped together with biomimetics and

bionics, and the terms are often used interchangeably (Shu et al, 2011). Some authors use the term

bio-inspired design (or biologically inspired design) as a generic umbrella term for all the

approaches, defined as using analogies to biological systems to develop solutions for problems

(Benyus, 1997; Vattam et al, 2010; Vincent & Mann, 2002). This paper will use the latter term when

referring to the process of mimicking natural models, systems, and processes to create solutions for

human problems.


1.5 Reading Guide

This thesis is composed of six chapters. The first chapter is an introductory chapter where we

elaborate our motivation and the research question. The second chapter covers our research design,

thesis collaborators and other important considerations in regards to the quality of our research. The

third chapter explains the theoretical foundation of this thesis. The fourth and fifth chapter comprise

of the analysis, each addressing the research sub-questions. The sixth chapter synthesizes our

findings, by offering a strategic framework supporting the application of bio-inspired design.

F igure 2 : Reading Guide

11Introduction

2Literature Review

3Methodolo!y

4Analysis 1

5Analysis 2

6Conclusion

ResearchQuestion

ResearchDesi!n

Or!anizationalCreativity

Desi!nThinkin!

Bio-InspiredDesi!n

Strate!icFramework

SQ1. How does the understandin! of or!anizational creativity aid the identification of the challen!es faced by bio-inspired desi!n?SQ2. In what ways does desi!n thinkin! influencethe quest for novel and useful solutions in bio-inspireddesi!n?

RQ. How can the understandin! of creativity support theapplication of bio-inspired desi!n?

section 2

research methodology


This chapter outlines the methods that have been used in this study to elaborate and answer the

research questions. In addition, this section also account for the mode of reasoning we use in

analyzing and synthesizing theories and our findings. Besides presenting the data collection methods,

this section also outlines the collaborators of our thesis. The section ends with a discussion of the

reliability and validity of the research for purposes of evaluating the research quality.

2.1 Research Philosophy

Leedy (1989) defines research as a procedure by which we attempt to find systematically, and with

the support of demonstrable facts, the answer to a question or the resolution of a problem. In social

sciences there is an epistemological debate regarding the status of knowledge and the search

thereof. The positivist position (objectivism) approaches social sciences research in the same way

one approaches natural science research, i.e. one assumes theory and the researcher to be objective

in their observation of social phenomena, and that law-like causes and effects can be established

and tested (Walliman, 2006). The positivist position is challenged by the interpretivist position

(subjectivism), which views reality as being socially constructed (ibid). This position argue that

subjective meanings play a crucial role in social actions – that reality is a social construct and not a

independent entity to be observed – thus knowledge is only available through social actors

(Walliman, 2006, Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008).

Positivism and intepretivism are two polarized positions, and in practice the researcher often uses a

realist viewpoint of the role of knowledge and how knowledge is created (ibid). The (social/critical)

realist position argue that structures underpin and influence social action, but that scientific methods

are not sufficient to uncover casual effects in social systems, as people interpret reality differently in

different times and context (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). Thus, the position holds that reality is not

solely a social construct, but that it cannot be observed without taking into consideration the thick

context of social interaction and the individual’s interpretation of their own reality. The realist

approach then, accepting both the positivist notion that there is an observable world independent of

human consciousness and that the knowledge about the world is socially constructed, has a

pragmatic approach to research, arguing that one is free to use any methods deemed appropriate for

their circumstance. Realists accept that social reality is complex, and to understand it one should use

both positivist and interpretivist methods.

Both ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation processes’ are concepts that change rapidly in both meaning and

form, and thus constructing general law-like explanations of them as social phenomena is hard and

arguably not very appropriate. Furthermore, the field of bio-inspired design is emerging with a range

of different approaches; definitions, and meanings. The interpretivist position accepts that change in


social phenomena is continuous (Fulgsang et al, 2004), and thus one must consult the social actors

themselves in exploring the current status. While this study is a qualitative, i.e. it does not seek to

answer questions such as ‘how many’ or ‘how strong’ (Rosaline, 2008) through the use of

statistical/numerical data, some of the secondary literature used in the study is of a quantitative

nature (e.g. Wilson et al, 2010; Chakrabarti; 2005) – a preferred method for the positivist position.

We acknowledge the fact that social action must be interpreted in its context, but also acknowledge

that there are some general rules governing their behavior. The quantitative studies performed on

creativity – the fluency in ideas, number of ideas dependent on a dependent variable, and so forth –

belongs to a positivist. Thus in accepting some secondary literature based on a positivist position,

while also using interpretivist elements in our analysis, we situate our own study as belonging to the

realism position. There are some functional drivers of creativity, but these drivers must be studied

and interpreted in their context for the meaning to be uncovered.

2 .1 .1 Modes of Reasoning ‘Modes of reasoning’ refers to the ways one deploys the theory and empirical information in order to

generate knowledge or reach a conclusion (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008). There are three forms

of inquiry described in the methodology literature: deduction, induction and abduction (Eriksson &

Kovalainen, 2008). Deduction is a mode of reasoning where the researchers use theory as a starting

point, formulating hypotheses based on the theory to be tested empirically. The result is a verification

or rejection of the hypothesis, leading to a strengthening or weakening of the theory (ibid). Deduction

in its most strict form is most often associated with quantitative research and rarely used in

qualitative research. Deduction is contrasted by the inductive mode of reasoning: an inquiry that

starts with empirical data, and through the analysis of the data formulates theory (ibid). Pure

induction is rare, and most research using an inductive mode of reasoning are guided by some levels

of pre-existing theory. The inquiry in a work of research can have elements of both deductive and

inductive thinking – used interchangeably, or used to answer problems in different parts of the work

(Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008).

This study makes use of both modes of reasoning in its inquiry. The study is an exploration of the

role of creativity in the bio- inspired design process, guided by the use of a theoretical framework

from the creativity and design thinking literature. While the categories and hypotheses formulated

are predominantly sourced from secondary literature, and the primary data collected for the study is

used to support arguments developed by the authors, there are also instances of the primary data

being the source of categories and hypotheses formulated. This work, like much of the research work

in general, is iterative in its nature - moving between data analysis; data collection, and theorizing in

an iterative process. This allows for the formation of relationships in the data collected, for theories


to emerge in the process, and for the authors to modify the suggested relationships in the dataset as

more data is collected and analyzed.

Some authors offer abduction as a way to describe the combination of both inductive and deductive

modes of reasoning in a research project (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). Abduction has been called

the logic of exploratory data analysis, where the aim is not to test hypotheses nor to generalize from

cases to a wider population, but rather generate new ideas or hypotheses resulting in a plausible

interpretation (ibid, Schwandt, 2007).

“Within the context of scientific endeavors, abduction is the basis for the inventive construction of new ideas, explanatory propositions, and theoretical elements. Its importance lies in highlighting the discovery dimension of research, especially the central role played by puzzles, hunches, speculation, imagination, guesswork, and the like, in the process of developing theoretical insights (Locke, 2010,

p.1).”

In the abductive mode of reasoning, the researcher collects data while analyzing the data. The

ongoing analysis leads the data collection, and the researcher finish when s/he has come up with an

explanation with sufficient explanatory power, and other explanations seem less likely. Thus, using

abductive reasoning, the aim of the study is not to prove a hypothesis, rather it seeks to suggest a

framework for using creative tools and methods within the bio- inspired design discipline. The study

formulates casual relationships between categories, and resolutions to challenges identified, but it

does not necessarily provide full evidence of these relationships. The study builds on existing

knowledge - adds to it; extrapolates from it – while accepting that the information acquired is

subjective, contextual and cannot be interpreted as a universal truth. This process of exploration into

the field of bio- inspired design is performed in line with the abductive values of “being deliberately expansive and playful in thinking with observations (Locke, 2010, p.2)”.

2.2 Research Design

Research design can be defined as “the plan that provides the logical structure that guides the investigator to address research problems and answer research questions (DeForge, 2010)”.

This study takes a qualitative approach to answer the research question. In line with the mode of

reasoning, qualitative data analysis is better on facilitating exploration of different perspectives and

can give rich insights on the relationship between concepts that are observed (Silverman, 2004).

Qualitative analysis has been argued to have the highest viability in areas where phenomena or

events are less known (Field, 1985), as the research focus is on meanings, concepts, characteristics

and descriptions of things rather on the ‘amount’ or quantity of whatever it is that is being studied


(Berg & Berg, 2007). The qualitative method gives an opportunity to “develop analytic perspectives that speak directly to practical circumstances and process of everyday life which may be used to apply and evaluate general theory” (Karn and Cowling, 2006, p.502). Observation of context and

practical application is important when it comes to design processes and creativity research, as

much of the knowledge is tacit in nature, and thus hard to capture through means of quantitative

information.

Qualitative research does not usually follow a strict linear research design; rather it uses the initial

research design as a guide, while allowing for deviations and changes in the design during the

research process (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). Using a qualitative research design with an

abductive mode of reasoning, translates to a highly flexible research design with continuous changes

and iterations. Even though the research design might change during the process, it is still important

to formulate a research design for initial planning purposes. In particular, the collection of qualitative

interviewee data should be planned beforehand to avoid later problems of transparency and validity

(see data collection). Figure 3 sums up the main steps of qualitative research (adopted from Bryman,

2012)

Figure 3 : The Qual i tat ive Research Process . From Bryman (2012)

The study approaches the research design through the use of an exploratory case study. A case

study is a situation where the researchers ask “how” or “why” questions about a contemporary set of

events, over which the investigator has little or no control (Yin, 2003). Yin (2003) proposed the

following characteristics of case study research: It investigates a contemporary phenomenon within

Selection of relevant site(s) and subjects2

General Research Question1

Interpretation of data4

Collection of relevant data3

Writin! up conclusions/findin!s6

Conceptual and theoretical work5 Ti!hter specification of the research question5A

Collection of further data5B


its real-life context; the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident;

and multiple sources of evidence are used. The case study lends itself well to studying creativity and

creative processes, as creativity research requires rich data about the creative individual, the product,

the process, and the problem (Cohen, 2010). The exploratory approach was chosen as the field of

bio-inspired design is emerging and is relatively underexplored, and thus the data and theory needed

for proper hypothetical formulation is yet to be obtained (Streb, 2010). The exploratory research is

often applied as a preliminary step to a later bigger explanatory research project of a new field of

investigation, and is generally thought of as being more flexible, informal and intuitive than

explanatory and descriptive case studies (ibid). As the conclusions of exploratory research are not

verified in a strict academic sense, they are not usually useful for decision making by themselves.

Exploratory research can provide significant insight into a field; be indicative of potential

explanations, as well as suggesting areas for further studies.

2.2.1 Data col lect ion

2.2.1.1$Consideration$on$Sampling$

A realist point of view calls for thorough exploration and interpretation of the social phenomena

observed. It is thus important to set a clear parameter of the study, by having a clear consideration

on the information selection. The study leans on the approach that Patton (1990) and LeCompte

and Preissle (1993) refers to as purposeful sampling. Maxwell (2005) argues that purposeful

sampling is suitable for particular settings, persons, or activities deliberately selected in order to

gather information that cannot be acquired elsewhere. This poses a particular challenge on the

sampling process, as the term “sampling” implies the representation of population sampled.

However, due to the emerging and scattered practice of the subject of study, it is not possible to

generalize the findings to be applicable to all organizations. The purpose of the “sample”, thus, is to

build an inference based on various point of views of the different stakeholders within the field of

study.

As an initial data collection step, and to obtain an early understanding of the discourse on the varying

approaches in bio- inspired design, an open-ended question regarding the processes of bio- inspired

design was posted to a forum on the social network LinkedIn (Appendix 5). The forum, Biomimicry &

Innovation, counts over 2800 members and is the biggest active professional community identified

by the study. The post posted by one of the researchers quickly became one of the most popular

posts, and is currently among the top three most commented posts of the last six months (see

Appendix 5). The responses to the question posted gave a valuable early insight on the discourse,

and allowed for the mapping of key actors and approaches in the field.


Due to our time and expertise limitation, we only sample respondents who have the experience with

approaches that involve multidisciplinary collaboration and application of design thinking. The focus,

while limiting the generalization of the findings, is useful in several ways: Firstly, it allows us to get

rich, in-depth understanding from various angles on a specific subject, instead of a superficial

understanding that covers a great range of different practices. Secondly, Our findings are based on

practical experience, which allows us to assess each finding’s critical success factors as well as the

challenges.

Subsequent to us determining the focus of research, we began to inquire potential respondents that

we choose based on several criteria: First, that the respondents come from varying professional

and/or educational backgrounds. This means that we have to inquire not only biologists, but also

designers, engineers, and people with business backgrounds with a practical experience in bio-

inspired design. Second, the individuals should have an interdisciplinary profile, so that it allows for

critical reflection, by using their wide span of knowledge as a base for comparison.

2.2.1.2$Primary$Data$

We are using semi-structured, open-ended qualitative interviews as the main source of empirical

data in the study. An open-ended approach allow respondents to give as many details as possible

from their own frame of reference (Bogdan and Bilken, 1992). We are relying on interview guidelines

that include a set of topics that is adapted to the respondent’s background. During the interviews we

modified the flow of the interview depending on the interviewee answer. This way, we allowed for

more flexibility in our interview approach. On crafting the interview guideline, we also relied on our

secondary data e.g. web discussions, blogs, and other Internet sources.

The goal of the interview is to gain the understanding of the role of creativity in a bio-inspired design

process. To reach the balance between capturing a common understanding of what creativity entails,

while at the same time being able to acquire opposing world-views, we approached respondents

from diverse backgrounds. We conducted a total of four interviews with practitioners of bio-inspired

design, all with interdisciplinary profiles. A more elaborate discussion about our respondents can be

found in thesis collaborators section.

As all of our respondents reside outside of Denmark, three of our interviews were conducted over

Skype audio call, and one interview was written. Thus, we did not take into consideration physical

gesture and tone of voice in our transcribing process. The oral interviews lasted approximately 45 –

60 minutes, and were audio recorded. The transcripts and audio files of the oral interviews are found

in the appendix.


2.2.1.3$Secondary$Data$$

We are using secondary data to ensure a triangulation design of mixed sources in the research. We

utilize secondary data for two purposes. One, we use the data to support the arguments we gathered

from our interviews and the secondary literature. Two, we use secondary data to guide the primary

information gathering. The extensive information that we gathered from Internet sources, albeit

serving as secondary data, gave us an early understanding of the practical development on the field,

‘who is who’, and the key influencers on specific topic within the discourse. Through such

information, we were able to gauge the positioning of our respondents, to better understand their role

in the bio-inspired design discourse.

To better understand the bio-inspired methods used by our respondents, we consulted reports and

courses as secondary data. We used the “GeniusofBiome” report published in June 2013 by design

firm HOK, which is a recurring collaborator with Biomimicry 3.8. The report covers the use of

biomimicry life principles in relation to water, material, energy, social relations and economics

matters. Furthermore, we also took a course offered by Biomimicry 3.8, “Introduction to Biomimicry.”

It is an accredited course that introduces students to the biomimicry approach and range of case

studies. We also used information from the web-log of two of our respondents to elaborate on topics

discussed in the interviews, as well as to support our analysis3.

2 .2.2 Data analysis “Data analysis consists of examining, categorizing, tabulating, testing, or otherwise recombining the evidence to address the initial proposition of a study” (Yin, 1994, p.109). Data analysis methods in

qualitative research is characterized by a “fluid, interactive relationship” between data collection and

data analysis (Denzin, 1970 in Lee & Fielding, 2004), and are sometimes not extensively elaborated

– sometimes even described as being little more than heuristics or ‘tricks of the trade’ (Becker. 1998

in Lee & Fielding, 2004).

Aligning with the mode of reasoning in this study, data analysis was performed in an iterative

manner, where the ongoing analyses of the primary data and secondary literature led the data

collection, which in turn led to new categories and concepts. To uncover potential emergence,

dynamic categorization was applied, where the coding and clustering may change over time

depending on the new information that was gathered. No systematic analytical tool from the

methodology literature was utilized in the analytical process, as the amount of primary data collected

was limited.

3 Tim McGee’s blog: www.ecointerface.com (www1) and Carl Hastrich’s blog: bouncingideas.wordpress.com (www2)


2.3 Thesis Collaborators

In this section, we aim to familiarize the readers with the informants that we have chosen to

collaborate with in this thesis. As mentioned before, interdisciplinary background is one of our key

considerations on selecting the informants. Below is an introduction of the background of our

informants, along with their contribution within the field of bio-inspired design4.

Tim McGee / Biologist and Designer at IDEO

Mr. McGee is a biologist with an interest in integrating the fields of biology, design, engineering and

business to create regenerative systems, products, and services that revitalize our relationship to the

living world. He is currently working with IDEO Boston as Biologist & Designer. Prior to IDEO, he has

worked with Biomimicry 3.8 as Biologist and Strategist, as well as Senior Biologist at the Design

Table for The Biomimicry Guild. Biologist at the Design Table is an initiative started by Biomimicry

3.8 to encourage people with biology background to help designers and engineers to create

sustainable solutions. His work as Biologist at the Design Table connected him to IDEO, where they

worked together on the reorganization of United States Green Building Council (USGBC). The case

study serves as one of the most well known case studies where biomimicry method is combined

with design thinking method. Mr. McGee provide crucial insight on his practical experience working

with designers, and how the field of biomimicry and design thinking contribute to the enhancement

of creativity of both fields.

Carl Hastrich / Founder of Bouncing Ideas

Mr. Hastrich’s background is in Product Design, and he has worked as a toy designer before moving

to North America to work with the founder of Biomimicry 3.8 on the development of the Biomimicry

Guild, an innovation consultancy, and the Biomimicry Institute, an educational non-profit, to develop

core processes of engagement, research and translation between biology, ecology, design and

business. He has done design consulting and given lectures, teaching and workshops to audiences

as diverse as high school students to working professionals. His current venture, bouncing ideas,

serves as a studio for creating, discovering and sharing insights and possibilities that emerge

between design, biology, architecture, ecology, materials research, consumer insights, business,

systems thinking and anything else that is dug up. With his background as a designer and critical

creativity thinker, Mr. Hastrich contribute to our thesis by sharing his insight about biomimicry from

the angle of design and creative cognitive processes.

4 The background information is gathered from interviews, Linkedin profile, and respondent’s web-log (if applicable)


Colin Mangham / Chief Marketing Officer of Biomimicry 3.8, Founder of Biomimicry L.A, CEO and

Founder of Dailybrand Group

Mr.Mangham skills span over 22 years, in the diverse area of branding, marketing, design, and

business development. He has worked with a number of global corporations (+5% of the Fortune

500) and innovative start-ups. He described himself as a rapid incrementalist – his methods

combine quick start prototyping with a focus on daily actions achieving small victories that add up

exponentially over the long term. This belief guides the innovation consultancy that he founded, the

Dailybrand group. His first encounter with the field of biomimicry was in 2006, which subsequently

led him to lead the marketing for Biomimicry 3.8. He is also a certified biomimicry specialist. Mr.

Mangham provided his insight on the design process undertaken by Biomimicry 3.8. His experience

working with big corporations, small startups and Biomimicry 3.8 is vital to the analysis of the thesis

to understand the opportunities and challenges faced by Biomimicry 3.8 in bringing their ideas to the

world.

Denise DeLuca / Co-Founder of Biomimicry for Creative Innovation (BCI)

Mrs. DeLuca’s background is in engineering, and she has worked with several engineering firms, as

well as with Biomimicry 3.8 and the Swedish Biomimetics 3000. She is also a biomimicry design

and creative leadership lecturer at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design. Her current venture,

BCI, is a network of creative innovators, professional change agents, biologists and design

professionals who work in creative collaboration with each other to apply ecological thinking for

radical transformation. Their creative innovation approach emerges from biomimicry; however, their

focus is on business and organization, and how the biomimicry approach can influence the

interaction, role, relationship, organizational structure and the business’ core vision and values.

Having the experience of working in different realms of bio-inspired design, Mrs. DeLuca provided

crucial insight on the dynamics of the various bio-inspired design approaches. In addition, her

experience in creativity facilitation using biomimicry techniques serves a pivotal role in the thesis to

assess the interplay between biomimicry process and creativity.

2.4 Research Limitations

2.3.1 Considerat ions on Rel iabi l i ty Reliability is defined as “the degree of consistency with which instances are assigned in the same category by different observers or by the same observer on different occasion” (Silverman, 2011,

p.360). The concept of reliability is associated with a positivist approach, and authors argue whether

using the concepts of reliability and validity on qualitative research is appropriate at all (Yue, 2010,

Hammersley, 2008). One argument is that it is impossible to reproduce an observation in precisely


the same setting as the original recording (Silverman, 2011). But most researchers agree that one

should strive for building qualitative research that is considered reliable and valid (Yue, 2010).

In terms of primary data collected through interviews, one must acknowledge that we as researchers

are not objective value-free observers, but take part in the social context we are observing. Thus, we

must be careful not to let our own bias and opinions influence the interviewee. The interviews were

performed as semi-structured interviews, where we let the respondent talk as freely as possible

using his/her own definitions of creativity, and we were careful not to talk too much about how we

defined creativity. We have also used Silverman’s (2011) “low- inference descriptors” regarding

interviews in the research study, making sure to: (i) tape record interviews, (ii) carefully transcribing

the interviews, and (iii) presenting long extracts of responses in the analysis section. Thus, reliability

is in part ensured by transparency in the research methods. By ensuring transparency in our

theoretical standpoint, we also show what theoretical standpoint our interpretations are based on,

and how this produces particular interpretations and excludes others (Silverman, 2011). Theoretical

transparency is ensured through the literature reviews, which also serves as a theoretical framework.

Another way of ensuring reliable research outcome is by using the techniques of “triangulation” and

by having “equivalency” of data coding and analysis (Ward & Street, 2010). Triangulation is an

approach to data collection wherein the researcher collects data from multiple sources and by using

different types of data (ibid). The triangulation process allows for more confidence in the value of the

data because it is derived from multiple perspectives. We use a range of secondary sources and

secondary literature in our data analysis, and coupled with the primary data collected, we argue that

our study is sufficiently triangulated. Equivalency concerns the consistency of observation at a point

in time (ibid.). When a single researcher collects and analyses the data, errors in the observation

and/or the analysis may lead to biases that impacts the reliability of the analysis (ibid). We address

equivalency by having both researchers present during the interviews and data analysis, resolving

errors in observation and analysis continuously.

2 .3.2 Considerat ions on Val idity “Validity refers to the extent to which a concept is actually represented by the indicators of such concepts” (Yue, 2010, p.959), in other words, whether the findings are true. Abductive reasoning and

exploratory research is indicative. That means that truthfulness in its strictest sense may not always

be possible, as “the living experience of theorizing is messy, half-blind, wasteful, difficult to articulate, and lengthy. Observations are made, hunches occur, ideas are developed and are tried out in relation to existing or new observations, they are modified or set aside, new ideas are developed, and so on. If abduction is permissive, then false conjectures and blind alleys are necessarily part of the process. Abduction is fallible.” (Locke, 2010, p.2). By using an abductive form of reasoning, we accept the fact


that we might be wrong. That does not mean, though, that conducting exploratory research using

abductive reasoning gives the researchers ‘carte blanche’ to invent relationships without support in

the data. One way to ensure validity is by using the triangulation method described in the reliability

section above. By ensuring that data is collected from multiple sources and perspectives, we mitigate

the problem of potential biases in respondents and sources.

Furthermore, by being careful in not priming our respondents, we try not to let our potential biases

influence the research findings. We try to be consciously aware that we as humans might be

susceptible to confirmation bias, i.e. give undue emphasis to data that strengthen or confirm our pre-

existing beliefs. We are also aware that we as human beings have the tendency to value “the views of the articulate over the ill-informed and to those standing in a close rather than in a distant relation to the observer” (Miles & Huberman, 1994 in Lee & Fielding, 2004, p.533). The ability to counter these

tendencies grows weaker as the data set grows (Lee & Fielding, 2004). As interviews performed in

this study are relatively few, we hope that we have successfully countered these tendencies.

The social desirability bias concerns respondents’ tendency to respond to questions in a socially

acceptable direction (Spector, 2004). ‘Creativity’ and ‘innovation’ are concepts with strong positive

associations – people want to be seen as creative, or they would like to think of themselves as

creative. There is a strong normative pressure to endorse creative ideas (Flynn & Chapman, 2001 in

Mueller et al, 2012), and a strong social desirability bias against expressing any view of creativity as

negative (Runco, 2010 in Mueller et. Al, 2012). This might lead to validity issues in our study, as our

respondents usually were aware of us conducting a study about creativity and that we study

innovation. The potential problem can be mitigated to some extent by avoiding asking direct

questions about creativity, but rather asking open-ended question and using a neutral language

(Spector, 2004). Furthermore, only certain individuals exhibit the bias (ibid), and there does not seem

to be much evidence that suggest that the social desirability bias is a widespread problem in

qualitative research based on self-reporting (Moorman and Podsakoff, 1992 in Spector, 2004).

Finally, as part of the validity considerations, it is important to acknowledge that some actors and

respondents might have an agenda in promoting their own world-views and the approaches they

represent. Bio- inspired design is an emerging field, and thus respondents of the different competing

approaches may have the (unconscious) incentive to overemphasize the efficiency and value of their

own approaches. We acknowledge that some of the respondents in the study come from a

consultancy background, actively selling their bio-inspired design approach and solutions. This

potential problem of biased primary data is sought to be mitigated by using triangulation of sources

and perspectives, while being careful not to see respondents as a source of objective and universal

knowledge, rather taking into consideration the respondents deeper context.

section 3

literature revieworganizational creativitydesign thinkingbio-inspired design

section 3

literature revieworganizational creativitydesign thinkingbio-inspired design


This section elaborates theories and literature that we use as a base of our analysis in the

subsequent sections. The theories and literature are derived from three research fields:

organizational creativity, design thinking, and bio-inspired design. We form an analytical framework

on each of the research fields, by combining and synthesizing various theories and literature.

Our view of theories is that it consists of preliminary and changing assumptions that direct our

research (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). Thus, when applying theories in analysis, we see theories

not as a rigid structure of arguments, but as an argumentative base in which meaning is dependent

on its context and the relationship with other theories. This belief allows us to create a common

framework derived from various theories and the literature consulted.

Figure 4 illustrates how the theoretical frameworks apply to each sub-question:

Figure 4 : L i terature Review Framework

3.1 Literature Review Part 1: Creativity

This section details the theories and literature of creativity research. As noted in the clarification of

concepts, creativity theories are highly contextual, and there is a wide range of views as to what

creativity entail. Isaksen (1989) argues that the contradictory view on creativity emerges only when it

is seen from a micro perspective. Hence, a macro orientational framework is needed to reduce the

discrepancies in creativity (ibid.). To reflect the macro framework of creativity, this section is divided

into two parts. The first part, the theoretical part, aims at describing creativity from a systems level.

The theoretical framework of systems-level creativity is used as a building block to answer sub

question 1: How does the understanding of organizational creativity aid the identification of the challenges currently faced by bio-inspired design?

theories onor!anizationalcreativity

desi!nthinkin!

theories ondesi!n thinkin!

theories onbio-inspired

desi!n

holistic view on the role of creativity in bio-inspired desi!n (SQ1)

practical application of creativity in bio-inspired desi!n (SQ2)


In addition to the theoretical perspective of creativity, the second part of this section elaborates the

practical application of creativity through design thinking. The literature presented in the design

thinking section is mostly based on the practical experience of design thinking practitioners, for

example in working with IDEO, IBM, and the UK Design Council. The design thinking literature is used

as a building block to answer sub-question 2: In what ways can design thinking, as an applied method of creativity, influence the quest for novel and appropriate solutions in bio-inspired design?

3.1 .1 Organizat ional Creativ ity – Looking at Creativ ity from a Systems Level Several researchers have described creativity through a macro orientational framework. Rhodes

(1961) developed the 4P model of creativity, which breaks the aspect of creativity into ‘Person’,

‘Process’, ‘Product’ and ‘Press’. Amabile (1988) proposes the componential theory of creativity, which

describes creativity as composing of three within-individual components: domain relevant skills,

creativity relevant process, and task motivation, as well as the surrounding environment as a

component outside the individual. The two often-cited models share an underlying assumption of

creativity not being just a product of the individual, but also impacted by elements surrounding

him/her.

Most creativity studies focused on the creative capacity of individuals. Creativity tests are mostly

designed at the individual level (see Sawyer, 2012), although many studies have suggested that there

are external factors that influence individual creativity (e.g. Amabile, 1988; Pucio and Cabra, 2010);

Woodman et al, 1993). Burnside et al (1999) argue that creativity is associated with the effect of the

organization on the individual. Sawyer (2012) summarizes research that has been done on group

creativity, and suggests that group creativity cannot be explained by looking at individuals only. There

is a need for an approach that explains group dynamics, organizational culture and other external

factors (ibid.). Thus, we have chosen to look at creativity from an organizational angle. Woodman et

al (1993, p.293) define organizational creativity as “the creation of a valuable, useful new product, service, idea, procedure, or process by individuals working together in a complex social system.”

3 .1 .2 Creative Change Model and the Componential Theory of Creativ ity The interest in looking at creativity from an organizational level is mainly driven by the need for

organizations to adapt quickly to changing circumstances (Pucio and Cabra, 2010; Sawyer, 2012).

Furthermore, the presence of organizational systems and processes that enable creativity tend to

strengthen individual creativity efforts (Amabile, 1988). Bharadwaj and Menon (2004) studied the

elements of creativity found in organizations, and highlighted two specific areas of organizational

creativity: individual creativity mechanisms (activities individuals pursue to cultivate their personal

creativity) and organizational creativity mechanisms (practices adopted by organization to foster


creative behavior). Pucio et al (2007) developed the ‘creative change model’, a useful framework for

reviewing variables that influence organizational creativity. The creative change model was

developed with the initial understanding that innovation in an organization is a result of interaction

among people; processes they engage in, as well as the environment in which they work (Pucio and

Cabra, 2010).

Figure 5 : Creat iv i ty : A System Model

The model has several components (taken from Pucio and Cabra, 2010):

1. Person refers to the individual skills, background, experience, personality, knowledge and

motivation.

2. Process relates to the stages of thought people engage in when working alone or with

others to creatively address predicaments and opportunities at work.

3. Environment relates both to the psychological and physical setting in which a person

works.

The interplay between the three components of the model leads to the creation of products or

services. However, creative change can only be realized when the creative product is adopted

through the means of innovation or a ‘catalyst of change’ (Pucio and Cabra, 2010). The model is

supported by Bharadwaj and Menon’s (2000) experimental study finding that creative individuals

can only produce better creative output than less creative individuals when surrounded by an

organizational atmosphere that facilitates creativity. The model is iterative in nature, as the adoption

of change will impact the organization’s way of working, as well as influencing the people within the

organization (Pucio and Cabra, 2010).

PERSON PROCESS

ENVIRONMENT

LEADERSHIP

Interaction leads to

PRODUCT(e.!. theories,

solutions, ideas,intervention)

adoptionleads to

CREATIVECHANGE

(e.!. social chan!e,personal chan!e,

innovation)


We use the creative change model as the orientational framework of creativity. The model

incorporates the commonly referred 4Ps of creativity (see Rhodes, 1961), and intersects with the

creativity elements of Amabile’s componential theory (see Amabile, 2012). The creative change

model adds the elements of leadership as part of its creativity components (Pucio and Cabra, 2010).

The leadership variable puts it focus on articulation on leadership qualities that foster creativity in an

organization (Pucio and Cabra, 2010). It includes traits like tolerance for ambiguity; risk taking ability,

openness to change, and ability to balance passion and objectivity (Andrew and Sirkin, 2006).

3.1.2.1$Person$$

As organizations are composed by individuals, it is important to consider the individual aspect of

creativity as a important element of organizational creativity (Amabile, 1988). The creativity-relevant

skills of individuals influence innovation in organizations, and such skills can be developed, sustained

and enhanced through organizational mechanisms (ibid.). The investigation of individual creativity

led to the formation of several creativity frameworks, one of which is the oft-referred Amabile’s

componential theory. The theory elaborates the core features of what makes an individual creative

(Amabile, 2012, p. 1-2):

Domain-relevant sk i l ls : include the technical skills and intellectual mastery of the particular

domain where the problem solver is working. This aspect is closely related to the person facet in the

creative change model.

Creat iv i ty-re levant process : include cognitive style and personality characteristics that are

conducive to independence, risk-taking, and taking new perspectives on problems, as well as a

disciplined work style and skills in generating ideas. This aspect is closely related to the process facet

in the creative change model.

Task Mot ivat ion : refer to the underlying reason that motivates one to undergo a task. Central to

this theory is the argument that intrinsic motivation is a principle of creativity. People are most

creative when they feel motivated primarily by the interest, enjoyment, satisfaction, and the challenge

of the work itself – and not by extrinsic motivators. This aspect can be seen as the result of the

interplay between person, process, and environment.

The Socia l Environment : refer to factors in the environment where the problem solver is

working that serves as obstacles or as stimulants to intrinsic motivation and creativity.

3.1.2.2$Environment$

On a practical level, “creativity, like all behavior, is a function of transactional relationships between the individual and his (or her) environment” (Stein, 1968 p. 936). The research on creativity has

transitioned from being individual-trait focused to a concern for the impact of the environment and

creative behavior (Pucio and Cabra, 2010). Environment contributes to creative outputs through a

variety of means. First, it can provide stimuli for the problem solver. Second, the social environment


interacts with the problem solver’s personality, positively or negatively impacting the idea generation

process (Mac Crimmon and Wagner, 1994; Amabile, 2012).

Hucker (1988 p. 272) stated, “Environments are important to creativity. Some inhibit creativity by being too dark, too loud or too cramped. It is hard to be creative if you are uncomfortable … creativity flourishes when tools, support, and inspiration abound. An environment can inspire creativity by being beautiful and unusual. It can foster creativity by allowing freedom or feedback. “Places don’t create, people do” is an oft-said aphorism. True. But it is also true that a place can help a person be more creative.”

In the internal organizational context, organization culture plays an important role in influencing

creativity. There is little empirical research on creativity and organizational culture, but there seems

to be a set of agreed upon organizational values, beliefs and norms that influences creativity (Martin

and Terblanche, 2003). Martin and Terblanche (2003) aimed at synthesizing the organizational

culture that influences creativity through an integrative framework that encompasses: (1) A shared

vision and mission that explicitly incorporate an innovation strategy, (2) an organizational structure

that fosters flexibility, freedom and group interaction, (3) Organizational support mechanisms e.g.

rewards, recognition and availability of resources, (4) Behavior that encourages innovation, including

mistake handling, continuous learning, idea generating, risk taking, competitiveness and conflict

handling, and (5) an open communication approach.

3.1.2.3$Process$

In order to promote creative thinking, organizations have developed management practices designed

to help employees better engage in a creative process (Pucio and Cabra, 2010). Jouini and Duboc

(2000) observed the creative process in a prominent automobile supplier and outlined

organizational practices that supported the successful outcome of the process. Key factors include; a

broad scope for the innovation unit, a dual role of project and normal work responsibilities among

team members, a healthy flow between knowledge and concept development, and cross functional

teamwork (ibid.). However, a creative process in an organization is more than a series of formulas of

management practices. As creativity is essentially about problem solving, the understanding of

cognitive action in problem solving is necessary for the construction of the creative process (Beaton,

1990).

Ward and Kolomyts (2010) refer to creative cognition as the fundamental cognitive process that

transforms stored knowledge into novel and appropriate ideas. Finke et al (1992) suggested a

commonly known descriptive framework for creative cognition through the Geneplore model. The

model explains the development of novel and useful ideas, which results from an interplay between


generative processes that produces range of ideas and exploratory processes that expand the

creative potential of the ideas (Finke, et al, 1992). The important take-out from the Geneplore model

is the understanding that creative process is not a singular entity, rather, it results from the

relationship between various cognitive processes that influence the probability of a creative

outcomes (Ward and Kolomyts, 2010).

Research on the creativity process has led to various process tools that take creative cognition into

consideration. Wallas (1926) developed the creative problem-solving model incorporating four

stages; preparation, incubation, illumination and verification (see Beaton, 1990; Mac Crimmon and

Wagner, 1994; Pucio and Cabra, 2010). The model has been described as the dominant western

model of the creative process (Lubar, 1990 in Beaton, 1990). Sawyer (2012) incorporated Wallas’

model with other prominent creativity process models into an integrated framework of creative

process. For the purpose of the literature review, we will use Sawyer’s integrated model to explain the

problem solving process in creativity. The literature review if focused on the process part of

organizational creativity, as the thesis is mainly concerned with the process of bio-inspired design.

Step 1 : F ind the Problem. While the focus of creativity has been about solving problems, many

researchers believe that problem finding is also important to creativity (Sawyer, 2012). A big part of

creative success involves the ability to formulate a good question (Sawyer, 2012; Ward and Kolomyts,

2010). Mumford et al (2003) further elaborate the importance of formulating problem in creativity,

as most creativity occurs when working with a problem that is not well defined5. This stage involves

making a better sense of the problem by constructing, formulating or defining the problem or task to

be accomplished (Ward and Kolomyst, 2010). This can be done through the retrieval of past

experiences, seeking out relevant information and/or generating a potential course of action (ibid.).

Step 2 : Acquire the Knowledge. To synthesize a problem, one has to learn everything relevant

about the problem (Sawyer, 2012). Gardner (1993) proposed the 10-year rule of it taking

approximately ten years of study in a domain before a person makes his or her creative contribution

(ibid.). Ericsson et al (1993) proposed a variation of the 10-year rule through an empirical study that

suggests a world-class performance is only possible after a person has invested 10,000 hours of

deliberate practice in the domain (ibid.). However, some studies (e.g. Cox, 1926) have suggested that

knowledge can have an inverse relationship with creativity. After a certain point, additional formal

education can interfere with creativity (Simonton, 1984). Sawyer (2012) further elaborate the

reasoning behind and conclude that after a person has enough education to internalize the domain, 5 (1) They can’t be solved through rote application of past experience (2) the problem situation is not clearly specified, (3) the goal state is not clearly specified, (4) there may be different end states (there are multiple potentially viable path to the end state) (Mumford, Baughman & Sager, 2003)


any further training may lead to ‘oversocialization’ in the domain, resulting in a conventional way of

thinking.

Step 3 : Gather ing re lated informat ion . This phase requires constant awareness of the

environment, and the absorption of information from a wide range of resources (Sawyer, 2012). In

the field of applied creativity, like design thinking, this phase requires a deep understanding of the life

context of people, which is commonly referred to as empathy (Brown, 2009). Gathering information

is an integral part of creativity as “creative people are better at seeing gaps, at spotting difficulties, at

noticing opportunities and flaws.” (Perkins, 1981 p. 285 in Sawyer, 2012).

One critical aspect of this phase relates to fixation. Fixation refers to “something that blocks or impedes the successful completion of various types of cognitive operations, such as those involved in remembering, solving problems, and generating creative ideas (Smith, 2000, p.4)”. Knowledge and

the incorporation of new information in the creative process can lead a person to build implicit

assumptions, that has been made without the person being aware that the assumptions has been

made (ibid.). Such assumptions can impede creative cognition, and often difficult to ferret out (ibid.).

Smith (2000) suggests incubation as a way to clear the mental blocks from fixation, which will be

elaborated further below.

Step 4 : Incubat ion . To resolve fixation, Weisberg and Alba (1981) suggest a complete

restructuring of a problem. Often this is pursued through incubation, “the effects of break and fresh context” (Smith, 2000, p.20). Incubation is often seen as a mysterious and less-understood aspect

of creativity (Mac Crimmon and Wagner, 1994). The process of incubation is somewhat counter-

intuitive, in the sense that instead of working on the problem, the merit lies in the time away from the

problem (Smith, 2000). It is a part conscious, part unconscious phase of deliberation that is invisible

to external observer (Mac Crimmon and Wagner, 1994).

Smith (2000) proposes that the merit of incubation lies in the fact that it can avoid fixation issues if

the break effect leads to different path of idea generation. Sawyer (2012) also argues that as

incubation is mainly an unconscious process, the mind can incubate on many projects at a time,

unlike the conscious mind that is often only able to focus on one thing at a time. Hence, while there

is still mystery associated with incubation, it is clear that breaks can be valuable in the creative

process, especially when it leads to a new path of creative direction. Step 5 : Generate Ideas . This phase is often associated with the path to insight, or the process

that leads to the “a-ha!” moment (Sawyer, 2012). Creativity, especially in the western model, has

been associated with idea generation, hence reflected in the amount of research dedicated to this


process (see Runco, 2010; Mednick, 1962; Guilford, 1968). Research on this process has often been

focused on divergent thinking (Runco, 2010). Mednick (1962), one of the prominent researchers in

divergent thinking, argues that idea generation is a matter of associations, that one idea leads to

other ideas through the connection between the functions or experimental proximity of those ideas.

He further explained that creativity occurs within remote associations, the ideas that are found late in

the chain of associations (ibid.). Remote associations, thus, is more likely to be original or novel

(Runco, 2010).

Fixation has the tendency to block our minds to access the remote associations (Smith, 2000). The

Gestaltist belief about creativity argues that our past experiences may lead us to the path of fixation

(Sawyer, 2012). However, it is important to note that there are creativity researchers (e.g. Weisberg

and Alba (1981)) that suggest that the right kind of prior experience and knowledge could actually

ease one’s path to gaining insight. Sawyer (2012, p.114) aimed to marry the conflicting beliefs by

suggesting that “creativity is not about rejecting convention and forgetting what you know.” By being

aware of our cognitive state, prior experience and knowledge can actually make it easier for us to

dissect a problem (ibid.).

Step 6 : Combine Ideas . This phase has been referred to as ‘conceptual combinations’ (Ward

and Kolomyts, 2010), ‘Synectics’ (Weaver and Prince, 1990), and ‘making connections’ (Mac

Crimmon and Wagner, 1994). It is part of a creative process whereby previously separated ideas and

concepts are mentally merged (Ward and Kolomyts, 2010). ‘Combination’ can be seen as a process

directly relevant to creativity as it can yield to emergent features, instead of just serving as a mere

summation of ideas (ibid.). These emergent features are triggered by our mind’s inherent capacity to

connect seemingly irrelevant ideas into a set of coherent thought models (Weaver and Prince, 1990).

‘Combination’ can be done through both internal and external associations (Mac Crimmon and

Wagner). While internal associations aim to connect elements of the focal problem, external

associations connect the focal problem with external, seemingly unrelated factors (ibid.). Mednick

(1962) refer to such external connections as remote associations. He argues that it is within these

remote associations that creativity occurs (Mednick, 1962).

Analogy has been seen as a way to capture remote associations, through the application of

structured knowledge from a familiar domain into a novel or less familiar one (Holyoak and Thagard,

1995). The multiconstraint theory of analogy describes a way to process analogy, which is through

recognition of similarities in attributes or the underlying (abstract) structure between two events

(ibid.). Hence, a valid and useful analogical reasoning involves high causal similarities, and utilize

multiple sources of analogies (ibid.). The use of analogy can be purposeful not only in applying


knowledge of a domain to another, but also to communicate new idea in a concise, understandable

way (Ward and Kolomyts, 2010).

Step 7 : Select Best Ideas . Sawyer (2012) argues that creativity is a product of divergent

thinking, while convergent thinking requires more intelligence. However, many researchers (e.g.

Sternberg and Lubart, 1995; Runco, 2003) argue that creativity requires both idea generation and

critical evaluation abilities. Furthermore, creativity is enhanced by the relationship between

convergent and divergent thinking (Runco, 2003; Cropley, 2006).

The tendency of many creative practitioners to focus solely on divergent thinking is a challenge to

the appropriateness part of creativity, that is, bringing the solution into reality (Cropley, 2006). Hence,

knowledge becomes important in divergent thinking (Sawyer, 2012; Cropley, 2006). Knowledge

provides criteria and allows for quick evaluation of effectiveness and novelty (ibid.). The domain

specific nature of convergent thinking is what may actually deter its relevance to creativity. The lack

of knowledge, incorrect information, misunderstanding and the like can lead convergent thinking into

a narrow pathway, thus narrowing the range of possibilities produced through divergent thinking, or

even blocking it (Cropley, 2006).

Step 8 : External ize Ideas . This phase is mostly directed and conscious, and focuses more on

bringing the idea into reality (Sawyer, 2012). Many creativity researchers discount this phase from a

creative process due to the structured nature of the phase, and they perceive externalization as

nothing more than straightforward execution of an idea (ibid.). However, to externalize an idea, one

does not have to wait until the idea is fully formed (ibid). Thus, this phase often results in iterations,

and, its iterative nature makes externalization happen throughout the creative process (ibid.).

Externalization is particularly critical when it comes to evaluating ideas, because it can be challenging

to capture insights without sketching the idea (Sawyer, 2012). Externalization of ideas often involves

spatial thinking: a creative cognition process that involves formation, inspection, transformation and

maintenance of visual stimulus (Matthewson, 1999). Locher (2010), observed the creative process of

designers in an automobile company by asking the designers to verbally explain their design process

while doing it. He concludes that their creative process is highly salient, with creative ideas emerging

throughout the development of the artifacts (Ibid.). It is then important to continually externalize

ideas through the means of visualization. Furthermore, visualization of information is useful to

envision the relationship between facts, the context and the connection that can make information

meaningful (MacCandless, 2009).


3.1 .3 Design Thinking as a Model of Appl ied Creativ ity

3.1.3.1$Design$Thinking:$What$and$Why$

The field of design has historically been treated as a downstream step in the innovation process,

where the designer’s role is to focus on the beautification of the idea, without playing an initial role in

the substantive work of innovation (Brown, 2009). However, designers often deal with complex

problems (Utterback, 2010). Buchanan (1992) refers to the complex problems as wicked problems, in where information is incomplete and ill-formulated, decision makers have conflicting values, and

with confusing ramification of systems. Hence, design solutions tend to be holistic (Utterback, 2010).

It requires the ability to embrace different kinds of knowledge, and most importantly, the ability to

integrate them (ibid.).

Design thinking emerged as a field drawing from designers’ way of working and applied it into the

human context. It is a human-centered innovation process that is driven by designer’s sensibility and

methods (Brown, 2008; Lockwood, 2010). A human-centered approach means that design thinking

puts its core tenet on thoroughly understanding people wants and needs in their lives (Brown, 2008).

An organization that puts its focus on understanding its consumers will do a better job on satisfying

their need, which is important to long-term profitability and sustainable growth (Brown, 2009; Fraser,

2009). An important aspect of design thinking is its focus on value creation. As design is essentially

about making intent real (Clark and Smith, 2008), in design thinking, designers use their sensibilities

and methods to “match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity” (Brown, 2008, p. 86).

Lockwood (2010) and Brown (2008) refer to design sensibilities and design methods as a

distinguishing factor between the act of thinking and doing in the design thinking process. Fulton Suri

and Hendrix (2010), argue that an effective design thinking process is a product of design methods

and the organization’s ability to cultivate people’s design sensibilities. Hence, for the purpose of the

literature review, it may be useful two divide the essence of design thinking into two sets of

interlinked variables: mindset and methods. The mindset, as Cross (1982) puts it, is their “way of

knowing” – how designers gain knowledge and their cognitive mode on dealing with the nature of

their tasks. The mindset is translated into artifacts through the means of ‘doing’. The discipline

emphasizes methods used by designers to tap into the holistic nature of the problem, by means of

observation; collaboration, fast learning, visualization of ideas, rapid prototyping, and concurrent

business analysis (Lockwood, 2010).

3.1.3.2$Design$Thinking$as$Mindset

Design thinking as an approach has received a great deal of attention since the mid 2000s, however,


toward the end of 2000’s we see some failures in applying design thinking (see 3.1.3.5). Nussbaum

(2012) argues that the failure of design thinking is largely attributed to organizations treating the

discipline as a mere process, using by-the-book toolbox, performed in a linear manner. However,

innovation process requires flexibility in the way of expressing the strategic part of the project, as well

as the fine detail of implementation (Fulton Suri and Hendrix, 2010). Designer sensibilities guide the

aforementioned process, and thus design thinking entails more than applying methods.

We elaborate on the design thinking mindset according to five traits identified in the design thinking

literature in Figure 66:

F igure 6 : The Design Thinking Mindset

Empathy : As human-centeredness is part of design thinking’s key tenets, a focus on empathy is

needed to build the emotional connection with people (Fulton Suri and Hendrix, 2010). Empathy is

the ability to see things from multiple perspectives, and requires an astute awareness of the world

and people in general (Fraser, 2009; Brown, 2008). One builds empathy by observing what is visible

and articulated, while sensing the latent needs, the needs that are unarticulated by people (Fraser,

2009). Clark and Smith (2008, p.9) argues that empathy requires emotional intelligence, which is

“the ability to understand and embrace in the context of culture that which moves us to act and which creates attachment, commitment, and conviction.”

Spir i t of Col laborat ion : As products, services and experiences become increasingly complex, the

spirit of a “one man show”, or working in silos, is no longer sufficient to drive the innovation process

(Brown, 2008; Buxton, 2010). As a design thinker, it is essential to have the spirit of open-minded

collaboration, where the design team is composed of individuals from diverse backgrounds, working

together in an environment receptive to new insights and ideas (Fraser, 2009; Brown, 2008; Buxton,

2010). Buxton (2010) argues that collaboration calls for compromise in a design process. He argues

that “Each (stakeholder) has its own legitimate priorities, and these priorities will often come in conflict with each other (Buxton, 2010, p.149)”. While this remains true in most design processes, an

effective design thinking team is composed of polymaths; individuals who excel in more than one 6 Agreed upon traits and mindset of the design thinker, based on Brown, 2008; Brown, 2009; Fulton Suri and Hendrix, 2010; Fraser, 2009; Clark and Smith, 2008; Lockwood, 2010; Buxton, 2010.

Empathy : perceptive awareness of the people and the world surrounding them

Spi r i t of collaborat ion: working together in the pursuit of complimenting each other’s skills

Spi r i t of experimentat ion: The optimism to explore range of solutions

Abduct ive Th inking: The ability to switch divergent and convergent mental mode to build synthesis

Visual Th inking: The ability to express data into visual representation


discipline (Brown, 2008; Nussbaum, 2004). By working in an open interdisciplinary setting, the team

can feed off new insights and build upon ideas of others, “embracing the friction that comes with intense collaboration” (Fraser, 2009, p.64). All skills are essential when it comes to resolving wicked problems, but none are sufficient on its own (Buxton, 2010; Buchanan, 1992).

Spir i t of Exper imentat ion : When facing wicked problems, as the solution ground is unknown

and there is a need to explore different unchartered territories, it is important for design thinkers to

embrace the spirit of experimentation (Buchanan, 1992; Foster; 2009). Brown (2009) defines an

effective design-thinking environment to be a social and spatial environment in which people are

permitted to take risks; experiment, and explore the full range of their faculties. The critics of

iterations and experiments would argue that it takes more time (and capital) to commercialize an

idea (Brown, 2008). However, iteration gives space for early failures, allowing team members to

explore a range of solutions, and inhibit them from “falling in love” with a specific idea making it

difficult to change or kill it (Brown, 2008; Fraser, 2009). Hence, “experiments and iterations are necessary to keep the cost of failure low, and the rewards of a possible breakthrough high” (Fraser,

2009, p. 64), or in the word of Tim Brown (2009, p.17) “Fail early to succeed sooner.”

Abduct ive Thinking : Several researchers describe the design process as a way to find clarity in

the midst of chaos, which is done through organization of complexity (Kolko, 2010). To do this,

designers rely not only on analytical process, but also utilizing their skills to sense their surroundings

and creating change by exploiting people’s perception of things (Brown, 2008; Fulton Suri and

Hendrix, 2010). Brown (2008, p.87) refers to such skills as integrative thinking – “the ability to see all of the salient – and sometimes contradictory – aspects of a confounding problem and create novel solutions that go beyond and dramatically improve existing alternatives.” Such mode of

thinking can act as an enabler to link diverse consumer needs and business capabilities into a value

creation system (Clark and Smith, 2008).

Integrative thinking yields to new knowledge based on the collection of insights and patterns, hence

requiring a leap of inference (Fraser, 2009). This type of argumentation is commonly known as

abduction, which can be thought as the “step of adopting a hypothesis as being suggested by the facts.. a form of inference (Kolko, 2010, p.19)”. It produces some form of insights, or a new

knowledge that “makes the most sense given observed phenomenon or data and based on prior experience (Kolko, 2010, p. 20).”

Central to abductive reasoning is synthesis (Kolko, 2010). A synthesis can be defined as an act of

making sense of data to create cohesive ideas for information building (Brown, 2009; Kolko, 2010).

Without synthesis, data and facts are of little value, as they don’t speak for themselves (Brown,


2009). However, the synthesis process is often seen as a hidden activity as it operates off-the-map

of the whole design process (Kolko, 2010). The insight gathering process is clearly tangible, however,

the reflective process is hard to be articulated as it runs within the mind of the designers (ibid.).

Designers have tried to articulate synthesis by explaining it through the mode of mental states

(Brown, 2009). The logic of deduction has led many people to work in a linear direction – to take

series of inputs and build an analysis with the purpose of converging into one solution (ibid.).

Convergent thinking allows us to decide between various alternatives, but it does not do a good job in

allowing flexibility in exploring new problems and possibilities (ibid.). If convergent thinking leads us

to a solution, divergent thinking allows multiplication of options and generation of new possibilities.

When dealing with wicked problems, it is important for designers to be able to define, redefine and

change the problem along the path of exploration in the design process (Cross, 1982). Hence, to

explore the ambiguous road of abductive thinking, one needs to be able to dance between the

mental state of convergence and divergence.

V isual Thinking : A universally understood part of design involves sketching (God, 1995; Gedenryd,

1998; Suwa & Tversky, 1996 in Buxton, 2010). Cross (1982) argues that designers use “codes” in the

form of metaphoric appreciation, to translate abstraction into concrete objects. Regardless of the

label, one can conclude that visualization of complex information is an archetypal activity in design.

Through visualization, designers accelerate their learning and are able to better connect bits and

pieces of information into a coherent structure (Lockwood, 2010; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010).

Design problems often composed of interrelated elements that can only make sense when captured

as a whole (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). Visualization makes such a model tangible and allows for

discussions to be brought to life (Brown, 2009; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). Hence, the ability to

visualize information is central to supporting the designer’s trait of abductive thinking and

collaboration. Visualization helps designers to synthesize information as it allows them to capture the

big picture and see relationships between elements (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). At the same time,

visualization act as a collective reference point, a shared language that brings different team

member’s tacit knowledge into explicit information (ibid.)

3.1.3.3$The$Design$Thinking$Process$

This section explains the problem-solving process commonly undertaken by design thinkers. We can

see design thinking process as the derivative of the design thinking mindset; hence it relies heavily

on iteration, rapid prototyping, interdisciplinary collaboration, and human immersion (Brown, 2009;

Fraser, 2009). It is important to note that design thinking process does not go through the sequence

of orderly steps (Brown, 2009). The exploratory notion of design thinking calls for iterative process


with a system of overlapping spaces (Ibid.). After reviewing methods used by several prominent

design thinking practitioners, We believe that Brown (2009) offers a thinking model that can be used

as an umbrella to explain various, yet similar, design thinking processes.

Inspirat ion . The earliest phase of design thinking process begins with gathering inspiration

motivating the search for solutions (Brown, 2009; HCD Toolkit, 2008; Design Council, 2005). In the

inspiration phase, the general mental model is divergent, as there is a need to explore a possible

range of design problems. This phase often referred to as the discovery phase, in which designers

identify user needs through means of research, observation and user immersion (Design Council,

2005; Brown, 2009). The necessity to immerse into people’s life calls for emphatic design approach,

in order to develop a deep understanding of the people’s life context and their needs (Leonard and

Rayport, 1997; Lockwood, 2010). Through emphatic design, designers can better capture

unarticulated user needs, intangible attributes of the products, and the interaction between the

product and the user’s environment (Clark and Smith, 2008; Katz, 2009).

Ideat ion . In this phase, designers utilize the information that they gathered on the inspiration phase

to generate, develop and test ideas (Brown, 2009). First, the concrete data gathered during the

inspiration phase will be synthesized into a set of design problems, which is commonly the most

abstract part of the process as it requires a mode of narrowing down and translating information

(HCD Toolkit, 2008). Second, with a well-defined design problem at hand, designers begin to diverge

through the means of brainstorming and rapid prototyping (ibid.). Hence, the ideation phase

generally calls for interchange between convergent and divergent mental states.

Design Council (2005) with its ‘double diamond model’ divides the ideation phase into two stages:

define and develop. In the define stage, insights are interpreted and aligned with business objectives,

while in the develop stage, design-led solutions are developed and iterated (ibid.). Experimentation

through rapid prototyping is important in this phase as it allows idea to be tested early (and cheaply),

and allows a healthy dialogue between team members around possible strategies (Fraser, 2009;

HCD Toolkit, 2008; Brown, 2009).

Implementat ion . The final phase of the design thinking process entails delivering the solutions

into the market (Brown, 2009). On this phase, designers are mainly operating on a convergence

mental state, as it involves alignment of all the concepts developed throughout the process with

business realities (Fraser, 2009). Solutions are realized through profitability modeling, capability

assessment, and implementation planning (HCD Toolkit, 2008). Many challenges can emerge in this

phase, as good ideas can be halted due to rigid organizational systems or commercial requirements.

A summary of design thinking process can be seen in figure 7:


F igure 7 : Summary of The Design Thinking Process

3.1.3.4$Skepticism$of$Design$Thinking$

Design thinking has received a great deal of attention since the mid 2000’s, but with the rise in

interest also came the critical voices, and as the buzz of design thinking started taking off, designers

increasingly started distancing themselves from it (McCullagh, 2010). The main criticism of design

thinking can be divided into three main arguments: (i) design thinking is a pre-wrapped management

tool, applied to areas not appropriate for design, and sold as a new ‘snake oil’ by management and

design consultants; (ii) design thinking oversimplifies the design process, and makes creativity into

little more than process steps; and (iii) design thinking does not lead to radical innovation. The

criticism will be elaborated and commented on below.

Bruce Nussbaum, one of the early advocates of design thinking declared design thinking a failed

experiment on the grounds that in the process of adopting the design thinking process, uncertainty

averse companies turned design thinking into a “linear, gated, by-the-book methodology, that delivered, at the best, incremental change and innovation. The mess, conflict, failure, emotions, and circularity, that characterizes the creative process were in effect shed to appeal to the business culture of process (Nussbaum, 2011).” This argument of design thinking being ‘misapplied’ and

‘mauled’ by business thinking is also found in opinion pieces by writers such as Brian Ling (2010),

Walters (2011), and Merholtz (2009). Mulgan (2010) and Raford (2010) argue that design thinking

has been oversold, and while being a good tool for designing artifacts, products, and services, it is not

necessarily appropriate (at least on its own) for more complex design problems like that of

organizational transformation and social transformation. While design thinking perhaps has been

oversold, both by design consultants and by businesses looking for the next ‘big thing’, our study

does not argue that design thinking is a easily adoptable ‘silver bullet’ for anyone who wants to

Brown, 2009 Inspiration Ideation Implementation

Clark and Smith, 2008 Understand Conceptualize ImplementObserve ValidateDouble Diamond, 2005 Discover Define Develop Deliver

HCD Toolkit, 2008 Hear Create Deliver

concrete

abstract

diver!econver!e


innovate with bio-inspired design, rather we argue that adopting certain elements and mind-sets of

design thinking might lead to more creative outcomes. Innovation process requires flexibility in the

way of expressing the strategic part of the project, as well as the fine detail of implementation

(Fulton Suri and Hendrix, 2010). Designer sensibilities guide the aforementioned process, and thus

design thinking entails much more than applying methods. “In order to create value, methods must be applied together with design sensibilities.” (Fulton Suri & Hendrix, 2010, p.59).

A related criticism pertains to design thinking oversimplifying the creative process, reducing it to

simple process steps. While this might be countered by the argument of ‘misapplication’ of the

proper design thinking process, Don Normann (2010a) argues that creative thinking has always been

around, and one does not need a pre-wrapped process sold by design agencies to have creative

outcomes in an organization. Similarly, Dan Saffer (Interaction Design Association, 2012) in his highly

entertaining, albeit somewhat tabloid, lecture criticizes design thinking for boiling down the complex

and difficult process of design into ‘fun and games’. This thesis will not argue that design thinking is a

substitute for professional design, neither that it is a process reserved for design professionals, rather

we argue with Moggridge (2010) in saying that the value of design thinking lies in highlighting the

elements of the creative process to designers as well as non-designers, and that it is a tool for an

interdisciplinary inquiry into a challenge. Don Normann (2013) has since changed his stance and now

acknowledges that what is labeled as design thinking, is in essence practiced by all great thinkers in

all fields. “Design Thinking turns the often serendipitous nature of creative work into a systematic, practice defining method of creative innovation (Normann, 2013).”

A third criticism relates to value of the outcome of the process rather than the process itself.

Verganti (2009) argue that design thinking does not lead to radical innovation, as its human-

centered approach in practice leads the designers to asking what consumers want based on their

current circumstances – reinforcing their current needs – rather than proposing new needs and

meanings. This view is shared by Normann (2010b), who argues that technological inventions lead

the innovation process - that products discovers needs, not designers, and people slowly adopted

them. This last point pertains more to the user-centeredness of design thinking. Vincent et al. (2006)

has shown that there is only a 12% similarity between biological and technological principles in

organisms surveyed, indicating that the source domain for bio-inspired design is in itself a source for

disruptive and radical innovation. Thus the discussion on whether human centered innovation leads

to radical innovation or not does not necessarily applies in this context. The added empathy from

design thinking might serve as making these innovations even more successful in disseminating to

the wider society.


3.1.3.5$Design$Thinking:$Creativity$Applied$

We aim to describe the relationship between organizational creativity theory and its application

within the field of design thinking through means of visualization. The visual representation (Figure 8)

is one way to suggest the relationship between the key elements of organizational creativity and its

practical application through design thinking.

Figure 8 : Design Thinking as an Appl ied Method of Creat iv i ty

Desi!n Thinkin!: Dom

ain-R

elev

ant S

kills

Crea

tivity

Pro

cess

Task

Mot

ivatio

n

Person

Or!

aniza

tiona

l Cul

ture

Or!

aniza

tiona

l Stru

ctur

e

Phys

ical S

pace

Environment

Prob

lem

Fin

din!

Acqu

ire K

nowl

ed!e

Gath

er In

fo

Incu

batio

n

Com

bine

Idea

s

Sele

ct Id

eas

Exte

rnal

izatio

n

Min

dset

Empathy

Abductive Thinkin!

Collaboration

Experimentation

Iteration

Visual Thinkin!

Inspiration Phase:

Problem Formulation

Analysis

Observation

Ideation Phase:

Brainstormin!

Prototypin!

Implementation Phase:

Synthesis

Implementation Plan

Interdisciplinary Skills

Autonomy

Multidisciplinary Team

Openness to Failure

Desi!ner’s Sensibilities

Space for Play

Culture of Optimism

Met

hods

Supp

ort S

yste

m

Process

Suspend Jud!ement

Gene

rate

Idea

s

Creative:

Applied t

hrou!

h


3.2 Literature Review Part 2: Bio-inspired Design

Much of the literature of the bio-inspired design field is technical papers detailing various organisms

and their potential for emulation, yet there is a small but growing literature on cognitive studies of

bio-inspired design (e.g. Vattam et al, 2010; Mak & Shu, 2004; 2008; Wilson et al, 2010), as well as

some works covering the process or methodology of Bio-Inspired Design (e.g. Vincent & Mann,

2002; Wen et al, 2008; Badarnah Kadri, 2012; Trotta, 2011; Helms et al, 2009; Glier et al, 2011;

Santulli & Langella, 2010; Sartori et al, 2009; Chakrabarti et al, 2005; Bar-Cohen, 2006). In general,

research in and on bio-inspired design falls under two high level categories: (a) methods to support

search, retrieval; and representation of biological phenomena for design, and (b) studies to better

understand and therefore support the application of biological analogies to design (Shu et al 2011).

3 .2.1 Rising interest in Biological Inspired Design The scholarly interest in bio-inspired design has expanded rapidly since the mid-1990s (Bonser &

Vincent, 2007), and is now approaching a mature field with almost 3000 papers published a year

(Lepora et al, 2013). Lepora et al (2013) argue that biomimetics is becoming a leading paradigm for

the development of new technologies; technologies that will potentially lead to a significant scientific,

societal and economic impact in the near future (ibid). The analysts at Fermanian Business &

Economic Institute have reached a similar conclusion, projecting that the field will represent USD

300 billion of annual US GDP by 2025, and correspondingly USD 1 trillion globally (Fermanian

Business & Economic Institute, 2010). The Institute has in cooperation with the San Diego Zoo

Institute for Conservation Research developed the Da Vinci Index. The index is based on annual

numbers of scholarly articles published, number of US patents, number of grants awarded, and the

dollar value of the grants (Fermanian Business & Economic Institute, 2011). Using the year 2000 as

a base year with the index value of 100, the latest reading of quarter 2012 has shown more than a

tenfold expansion in the field, with the index reaching 1052 (Fermanian Business & Economic

Institute, 2013).

3 .2.2 Case Examples There are not many case examples of commercially successful bio-inspired design-products

available, and even fewer detailed accounts of how inspiration from nature was developed into a

concept and product (Sartori et al, 2009). We will describe some of the more ‘famous’ examples

below. For further examples see Vincent & Mann (2002), Floyd et al (2006), and Shu et al (2011),

and for an extensive list of bio-inspired design examples, see Vincent (2006).


Qualcomm$MEMS$Technologies$

Qualcomm has invented the Mirasol display system based on the way colors are created in

butterflies. The color is generated when specific wavelengths are reflected off the surface of the

butterfly and are visible to the human eye. The colors are based on the microscopic structure of the

butterfly wing; there is no pigment or ink. The display has the advantage of being viewable in

sunlight, i.e. there is no glare. Furthermore it uses about one third of the energy of a comparable

system with an LCD (Fermanian Business & Economic Institute, 2011, www3). After struggling with

popularizing the technology for years, the company recently announced that they are teaming up

with electronics company Sharp to create mobile and watch displays.

InterfaceFLOR$

InterfaceFLOR is one of the few case examples available of a company that has pursued a

Biomimicry approach. The company has set a goal of achieving a zero environmental footprint by

2020. The solutions inspired by nature are less ‘deep level’ than other biomimetic examples. The

flagship i2 carpet line is inspired by the randomness of colors that naturally occurs on the forest

floor. The carpet is cheaper to manufacture and install, as each carpet square can be made and

installed without taking into consideration whether it fits with the pattern. Furthermore, the carpets

are not glued to the floor; rather the company uses the weight of the carpets themselves to keep the

carpets in place - another insight reportedly from nature. (www4)

IDEO$and$USGBC$

As a part of the Fast Company Biomimicry Challenge, the design firm IDEO combined their human-

centered approach with biomimicry to redesign the organizational structure of the US Green Building

Council (www5). The organization was growing, and had grown in to a rigid top-down style

organization hindering effectiveness and organizational agility. Based on a two day intensive

collaborative session with biologists and designers, IDEO came up with a new organizational

structure based on insights from reproductive strategies seen in nature, the role of the forest fungus

Mycorrhiza in supporting trees in a bottom-up way; as well as the color- signaling used by for

example shrimps. Although the solution was purely conceptual, the case is interesting as it presents

an alternative way of doing bio- inspired design wherein solutions from nature are not copied and

implemented, but rather serves more as an inspiration for ideation.

The$Eastgate$Centre$

The Eastgate Centre in Harare, Zimbabwe, is the biggest shopping and office building in the country.

It has no conventional air-conditioning or heating, and thus uses about 10% of the energy of a

conventional building that size. The principle used for cooling and heating is based on the termite

mounds found throughout Zimbabwe. The termites farm fungus inside the mounds as their primary


source of food. The fungus must be kept at exactly 30C, while the outside temperature ranges from

2 to 40 degrees Celsius. The termites achieves a constant 30 degree Celsius by building a series of

vents, sucking air in at the lower part of the mound and up to the peak of the mound. The Eastgate

Centre achieves a similar function by using the principles of airflow to cool or heat the building

(Badarnah Kadri, 2012). It has later been shown that the principles identified were in fact not how

termites cool their mounds, and the insights were thus built on erroneous science (Turner & Soar,

2008). This highlights the fact that bio- inspired design is not mimicking nature itself, but rather a

human model of how biological systems and entities function (Sartori et al, 2009).

Lotusan$Paint$

The Lotus leaf has an extremely rough and fine structure that barely allows dust and dirt particles to

stick to the surface. A German botany professor spent four years developing a coating for buildings

that uses the same principle, and makes the building in effect self-cleaning. The coating comes at a

price premium of 10-15%, but last twice as long as any comparable coating (Badarnah Kadri, 2012)

Velcro$

One of the most cited examples of bio-inspired design, Velcro was invented by a Swiss engineer,

after he noticed how burrs, or seeds, of the burdock plant kept sticking to his dog after a trip to the

Alps. Viewing the seeds under a microscope helped the engineer extract the principle of how the

burrs attach themselves to loops, which he mimicked in a product using nylon hooks and loops for

attachment (Nachtigall, 1974).

The$Humpback$Whale$$

The humpback whale at about 36,000 kg is surprisingly dexterous considering its sheer size and

weight. This agility is attributed to the flippers, which have large, irregular looking bumps called

tubercles across their leading edges. The principle was uncovered and applied by an American

scientist who noticed a statue of a humpback whale while driving through a town. The scientist

believed that the creator of the statue had made an error in putting the bumps on the leading edge

of the flippers, and inquired within a nearby shop. The realization that the humpback whale in fact

has flippers with bumps on the leading edge led the scientist to start exploring the principles behind

the tubercles, and later to create the company Whalepower selling the technology extracted from the

research. Windmills, propellers and fan blades using the technology has been shown to have up to

32% less drag and 8% rise in lift, making them more quiet and efficient. Similarly, a fan using the

technology uses up to 20% less energy than comparable conventional fans. (www6)


3.2.3 Bio- Inspired Design Methodologies The cases above demonstrate the variety of the field of bio-inspired design. The InterfaceFLOR and

the USGBC cases stands out from the others, as they are not a result of years of research and

extraction of biological systems, but rather uses a wider range of examples from biology to inform

different parts of a solution. The Mirasol systems and Lotusan Paint cases are examples of the

typical biomimetic process as defined above, where principles from biological systems are

uncovered through several years of research before they are being taken to the market. The case

descriptions make no mention of whether the natural examples were discovered out of serendipity or

because they fit with an initial problem. The Velcro and humpback whale cases are examples of the

latter, where the principle behind the source biological entity was discovered serendipitously and an

application for the technology was found post-discovery. Looking at the reported cases of bio-

inspired design, it seems that the use of biological systems and entities as design inspiration has

often been the result of chance encounters with interesting phenomena (Mak and Shu, 2008).

Furthermore, detailed accounts of the transfer process from nature to the human domain are a rare

find among the cases found on the Internet and in the literature (Sartori et al, 2009). Despite the growing popularity of bio-inspired design, as a discourse it is still growing and there does

not seem to be a universally agreed upon normative process for the practice of bio-inspired design

(Helms et al, 2009, Vattam et al, 2010). The practice of bio-inspired design is rather characterized

by an ad-hoc approach, with little systematization of either biological knowledge for the purposes of

design or the process of transferring knowledge of biological designs to human problems (Vattam et

al, 2009). Both practitioners and academics have sought to formulate a framework for bio-inspired

design, spanning from single tools to be used in the solution finding process (Vincent et al, 2006) to

approaches that offer a complete process for bio-inspired design (Chakrabarti et al, 2005, Helms et

al, 2009, Sartori et al, 2009 Badarnah-Kadri, 2012, Biomimicry 3.8). Some of the approaches will

be described later in this section.

ProblemRbased$vs.$solutionRbased$

The source biological system or entity can be found through an extensive informed search for a

solution to a predetermined human problem. Alternatively, the principles of a biological system or

entity can be uncovered first, and then a search for appropriate problems is performed. The former

approach of an inspiration in nature leading to a technological design is referred to in the literature

under various terminologies; a bottom up design process (Speck and Speck, 2008), Biology to

Design (Baumeister, 2012) and a solution-based design process (Vattam et al, 2007). Reversely, the

approach of seeking a solution from nature to a particular problem is referred to as; top-down

(Speck and Speck, 2008), Challenge to Biology (Baumeister, 2012) and problem-based (Vattam,

2007). This current work uses the terms problem-based and solution-based.


3.2.4 Selected Bio-Inspired Design Methodologies

Biomimicry$3.8$

Biomimicry 3.8 was founded in 1998 under the name of Biomimicry Guild to consult organizations

on how to use biological phenomena to inspire problem solving (Badarnah Kadri, 2012). The

organization is an umbrella for the Biomimicry Guild, the Biomimicry Institute promoting study and

research on biomimicry and sustainability; the AskNature.org online database of nature’s solutions;

as well as the biomimicry certification program (www7). Biomimicry builds on the biomimicry framework formulated by the biologist and author Janine Benyus, with biomimicry defined as

learning from and then emulating natural forms, processes, and ecosystems to create more sustainable designs (Benyus, 1997). Biomimicry differs from other approaches in the discipline with

their weight on developing sustainable solutions. Concepts and solutions are validated against a set

of principles called Life’s principles, which are identified design principles found in nature.

The Biomimicry Design Lens is the design methodology taught and practiced by the biomimicry

professionals. The methodology approaches the problem by identifying functions, asking, “what do I

want my design to achieve” rather than “what do I want to design” (Badarnah Kadri, 2012). The

identified functions and accompanying verbs from the problem statement are used to identify

appropriate solutions in nature using online databases (ibid). The method is iterative, and has four

phases. In the Scoping phase one seeks to identify or uncover the problem, looking at context,

criteria and constraints. In the Discovery phase one goes out in nature physically or metaphorically,

consulting the biology literature, using databases, and collaborating with biologists. Sketching,

brainstorming and idea exploration takes place in the Creating stage, while the Evaluation phase is

used to determine if the initial goals were met, as well as testing the feasibility and gathering and

incorporating feedback (Biomimicry 3.8). Depending on the type of project, there is no

predetermined starting point for the process (Biomimicry 3.8). One can start from the discovering

phase when encountered with a natural example, and move to scoping to define the context relevant

to a human-centered problem. It is also quite common to see one start from the scoping phase, if

one starts with a human-centered problem, which intended solution is inspired by nature.

Biomimicry 3.8 claims to differ from the other approaches in bio-inspired design, as well as

sustainable design, in their focus on the core elements of ‘emulate’, ‘ethos’ and ‘reconnect’

(Biomimicry 3.8, 2013). ‘Emulation’ refers to solving problems through bio-inspiration, thus

minimizing the human impact on nature (ibid). ‘Ethos’ is the underlying philosophy of biomimicry, the

respect, gratitude, and responsibility for nature and other species on earth (ibid). Finally, ‘reconnect’ is

the practice and mindset exploring the relationship between humans and the rest of nature (ibid).

Activities involving ‘reconnect’ include basic observation, looking for patterns, tracking change over

time in a natural system, and translating a natural phenomenon observed using technical language


(ibid).

Figure 9 Biomimicry Core Elements & The Design Lens

Center$for$Biologically$Inspired$Design,$Georgia$Institute$of$Technology$$

Goel, Vattam and Helms at the Center for Biologically Inspired Design at Georgia Institute of

Technology leads a team of biologists, engineers and computer scientists seeking to develop

human-centered computational tools to enhance innovation and creativity in bio-inspired design

(www8). The researchers conduct research on cognitive processes in bio- inspired design, with a

focus on analogical reasoning (Helms et al, 2009). Observing the participants in a senior-level

interdisciplinary bio-inspired design course at Georgia Tech, the researchers aims at understanding

the various motivations of the design process, for the purpose of effective strategies development for

biologically inspired designs (Badarnah Kadri, 2012, Helms et al, 2009, Helms & Goel, 2012). Based

on the observations of the process in the course, the researchers have outlined a general descriptive

methodology of bio-inspired design, partly based on the Biomimicry Design Lens described above

(Badarnah Kadri, 2012). In addition to analyzing and describing the process, the project team has

also developed an interactive knowledge database supporting the bio-inspired design process, called

DANE (Design by Analogy to Nature) (Vattam et al, 2011, www9).

Biomimetics$for$Innovation$and$Design$Laboratory,$University$of$Toronto$

A similar research interest to that of Goel, Vattam and Helms, Shu is doing research for the

‘Biomimetics for Innovation and Design Laboratory’ at the University of Toronto. His work focuses on

creativity in conceptual design and systematic identification and application of biological analogies in

bio-inspired design (www10). Shu, together with Vakili (2001) propose a strategy for biomimetic

concept generation, detailing search strategies and principles, as well as selection criteria


(Vakili & Shu, 2001). Building on, in part, the research of Goel, Vattam and Helms, Shu has also

conducted cognitive studies on the use of biological analogies for concept generation (Mak & Shu,

2008). Building on his research findings, Shu has participated in developing a database, BioMAPS,

that uses a natural language model to identify “bridge verbs” to connect biology and engineering

lexicons leading to relevant biological phenomena (Cheong & Shu, 2012; Shu, 2010).

F igure 10: B ioMAPS Search Engine

3.2.5 A Generic Bio- inspired design methodology Sartori et al. (2009) analyzed and summarized the process descriptions of Gramman (2004), Hill

(1997, 2005), Helms et al. (2009), and Schild et al. (2004), and formulated the following generic

process steps of problem based bio-inspired design:

1. Formulate problem and search objectives

2. Search for biological analogies

3. Analyze biological analogies

4. Transfer

The design process encompasses three domains: the initial problem domain, the nature domain

where natural phenomena are identified and analyzed, and finally the solution domain where

principles of natural phenomena are transferred into the human domain. In the literature, the human

domain is usually engineering.

The process of Goel, Vattam and Helms; Shu, and Biomimicry 3.8 described earlier in this section, all

have similar initial phases: that of the problem formulation (Badarnah Kadri, 2012). Biomimicry 3.8

differs by including the Life’s principles as initial constraints for their problem formulation. Essential

in the problem phase is the extraction of functions from the initial problem or challenge (ibid). The

abstraction of principles is performed by identifying verbs in Shu (2010), or ‘biologizing’ or reframing


the question in terms of biology in Biomimicry 3.8 and Goel, Vattam and Helms (Helms et al, 2009).

Based on the principles formulated in the initial phase, one starts looking for potential natural

phenomenon to be applied in the design process. The framework proposed in Shu (2010) uses the

BioMaps natural language database to find appropriate natural phenomenon in the exploration

phase. Biomimicry 3.8 and Goel, Vattam and Helms rely on a mix of using biological databases (such

as AskNature.org and DANE) and inquiring biologists. Biomimicry 3.8 also encourages participants in

the process to immerse themselves physically in nature, reconnecting with nature, for inspiration

both at the exploration and the later ideation stage (Biomimicry 3.8).

The analogies identified in the exploration stage are further assessed by extracting, or abstracting, the working principles of the biological analogy. Goel, Vattam and Helms classify the information

gathered using their structure- behavior- function (SBF) schema (Goel et al, 2009), while Biomimicry

3.8 uses the biomimicry taxonomy of nature’s functions, strategies and groups (Biomimicry 3.8).

The principles sourced from biological analogies are used for concept generation or emulation.

There does not seem to be much emphasis on this phase in the literature we covered: most studies

tend to focus on the phases of searching for biological analogies and the following principle

extraction (e.g. Vincent, 2006, Shu, 2010, Vattam et al, 2011). Biomimicry 3.8 (2013) and Goel et al.,

(2009) suggest brainstorming and sketching in their framework, but does not detail it further. Much

of the cognitive processes behind the concept generations, apart from those concerning the

identification of, and abstraction from, biological analogies, are rarely covered in the literature.

Based on Badarnah Kadri (2012) we divide the process into three domains, with two transitions from

the problem domain to the nature domain, and from the nature domain to the solution domain.

These transitions are again divided into the four subdivisions of abstraction, exploration and

investigation, classification; and design concept (see figure 11). The model is thus a model of bio-

inspired design concept generation, as it does not cover the implementation of the concepts.


F igure 11 : Summary of The Bio-Inspired Design Process

3.2.6 Mult idiscipl inarity in the Bio-Inspired Design Approach Bio- inspired design translates and transfers principles from the nature domain to the human

domain. Therefore the designer(s) need a clear understanding of the function the natural structure is

designed to perform, as well as the technological system they are designing for (Santulli & Langella,

2010). Thus it is argued that bio- inspired design both is, and should be a multidisciplinary discipline

(Speck & Speck, 2008; Schild et al, 2004; Santulli & Langella, 2010).

Schmidt (2005) argues that the process of bio-inspired design is not a unidirectional transfer of

knowledge, but rather an interdisciplinary circulation of knowledge between domains. Thus, bio-

inspired design does not start from biology or engineering, but rather an undefined core, for example

the communication between a biologist and an engineer (Sartori et al, 2009). Biology knowledge is

needed to access and analyze models of nature, while knowledge of the target domain is needed for

a successful adaption into a model of a technological system. Consequently, there is a challenge of

accessibility of knowledge for the designers. As seen above, it has been argued that this can be

addressed with a multidisciplinary approach, with the designers either acquiring the knowledge of the

source or target domain themselves, or working in teams with participants from different disciplines.

For the latter approach, a common language of bio- inspired design is needed, as there is an issue of

the disciplines having different languages and worldviews.

Using a biologist as a knowledge source for the source domain of nature may not be ideal, as

biologists (as any other experts) might have a narrow field of expertise (Shu et al, 2011). Biologist

might also be biased towards his/her own field of expertise, risking more appropriate source

phenomena being left unexplored (ibid). A response to this issue has been for several researchers to

develop databases of natural phenomena and their functions for designers to consult (e.g. Shu, 2010;


Vincent et al, 2006; Vattam et al, 2011), and thus sidestepping the need for a biologist in the design

process. One of the main disadvantages with such an approach is that the search results are limited

to what is entered into the database, and thus some base knowledge of how biological entities

function is still needed (Schild et al, 2004; Shu et al, 2011; Santulli & Langella, 2010). Furthermore

the databases are limited by the time and effort required to add descriptions and explanations of

biological phenomena to the database (Glier et al, 2011). The databases aid the designers in the

abstraction process, but offer little assistance in the rest of the transfer process, that is, putting the

developed analogy to be emulated in a solution.

While it has been argued that bio-inspired design should be a multidisciplinary approach, very little

has been written on how this ‘multidisciplinarity’ should be approached, less the authors proposing a

database approach. Biomimicry 3.8 uses “biologists at the design table” in addition to using online

knowledge repositories, but has not published anything on why one should use biologists or how they

should be incorporated into the process.

3.2.7 The Use of Analogies in Bio-inspired Design Analogies are created when knowledge is mapped from a source domain to a target domain (Mak &

Shu, 2008) and is defined as “a statement about how objects, persons, or situations are similar in process or relationship to one another” (VanGundy, 1981 in Schild et al, 2004, p. 3). As seen earlier

in the creativity literature review, it is a fundamental process of creativity (Vattam et al, 2009, Mak &

Shu 2004), and one of the main drivers of innovation (Schild et al, 2004; Wilson & Rosen, 2009).

Furthermore, the distance between the domains that the analogy is based on has also been argued

to be positively correlated with levels of creativity (Dahl & Moreau, 2002) as well as increasing the

probability of achieving breakthrough innovation (Schild et al, 2004).

Bio- inspired design has been described as the process of using analogies to biological systems to

develop innovative solutions for engineering problems (Vincent & Mann, 2002), where biology is the

source domain and engineering is the target domain. Biology is considered a distant domain from

engineering, as the two domains are conceptually and structurally different (Mak & Shu 2008). While

most of the literature refers to the target domain as engineering, the same arguments can easily be

applied to other human domains as well. As the analogies of bio-inspired design are distant, the

solutions of the source problems cannot be transferred directly, rather it has to go through a

translating and abstraction process. The level of abstraction needed for the transfer of far analogies

increases the cognitive effort needed in the bio-inspired design process, as both the target problem

and source solution has to be abstracted to a functional level (Wilson & Rosen, 2009; Shu et al,

2011). Mak & Shu (2004) show that most successful analogical transfers happen at higher


abstraction levels; that is analogies based on the working principles of biological entities, rather than

its form or behavior.

Mak & Shu (2008) argue that concepts based on the strategy and principles of the source entity are

less likely to lead to design fixation on specific forms or behaviors. Similarly, analogies created from

ambiguous descriptions of source entities tend to be less fixating (Benami & Jin, 2002, in Mak &

Shu, 2008) and stimulate more ideas among the practitioners (Mak & Shu, 2008). Mak & Shu

(2008) thus indicate that ambiguous descriptions, in other words, descriptions containing little

biological information, lead to more creat ive solutions, while more non-ambiguous descriptions of

source entities lead to more practical (or feasible) solutions, but run the risk of leading to design

fixation.

While the transfer is hard enough even when the analogy between a solution to the source problem

and the target problem has been found, the distance between domains also makes the search for

appropriate organisms complex and difficult. A major block to the successful use of an analogy is the

failure to spontaneously recognize its relevance to the target problem (Holyoak, 1980, in Wilson &

Rosen, 2009), as evaluating the relevance of analogies across domains is a more complex process

than evaluating the relevance of matches to specific information sought (Shu et al, 2011). As seen

earlier in section 3.2.4, several research-groups have created databases of biological examples to

facilitate the search for relevant biological phenomenon and to lessen the need for intimate

biological knowledge in the bio- inspired design process. Schild et al (2004) points out that the

relevance of the search outcome in a database is very much limited to what one enters into the

database, and thus a search strategy involving databases requires a specific understanding of both

the target problem and source solution in order to be able to properly evaluate the search results.

Schild et al (2004) argue that working in interdisciplinary teams, having a culture of information

sharing, and regularly consulting lead users in different fields, is a better way to address the distance

in domains when working with analogies.

3 .2.7 Observed challenges to the Bio-inspired Design process When developing concepts based on biological phenomena, a range of cognitive difficulties and

errors might occur in the process. Helms et al (2009) and Mak & Shu (2004) follows students

participating in problem-based bio- inspired design projects and sums up a the most common errors

made. Shu et al (2011) identifies four types of similarities between biological phenomena and the

final concepts, three of which being labeled as erroneous in a bio- inspired design setting (see figure

12):

1) Litera l implementat ion of a biological phenomenon: Using biological entities directly to


solve a problem, not abstracting the functional principles of the entity and transferring the

strategy (Shu et al, 2011). Helms et al (2009) labels these as “off-the-shelf” biological

solutions.

2) Biological Transfer : Transferring the biological entities themselves into the solution, for

example using bacteria to clean clothes instead of mimicking and adapting the way bacteria

cleans the clothes (Shu et al, 2011). Related to this is Helms et al’s (2009) identified problem

of improper analogical transfer where one transfers functions that are critical to the source

biological phenomenon, but not necessarily relevant to the problem.

3) Anomaly (Shu et al, 2011) or misapplied analogy (Helms et al 2009): Solutions where the

concept cannot be traced back to the original biological phenomenon, likely due to a lack of

understanding of the phenomenon or a fixation on a few words in a description of the

phenomenon while disregarding the overall strategy presented. While it is an error in the

sense that the final solution is not mimicking the functions or strategy of a biological

phenomenon, the anomalous concept may very well still be novel and useful - the biological

phenomena having served as cognitive stimulation in the concept generation process

(Wilson & Rosen, 2009).

4) Analogy : The application of functions and/or the strategy from the biological phenomenon

to the concept without transferring the biological entities, making the final solution an

analogy to the source biological solution (Shu et al, 2011). The abstraction of knowledge, and

the following biomimetic transfer of the knowledge through the use of an analogy, is argued

to be the core of the bio-inspired design process (Sartori et al, 2009)

Other common difficulties identified by Helms et al (2009) are: (i) problems being defined too

vaguely to limit the search space and for appropriate functional modeling of the problem, (ii)

oversimplification of complex functions; and (iii) simplification of optimization problems, fixating on a

single biological function instead of looking at complex and competing biological functions in

biological entities. These findings are closely related to the findings of Santulli & Langella (2010).

Furthermore, participants often fixate on the first biological phenomenon identified, and thus fail to

consider other possible more appropriate phenomena (ibid; Mak & Shu, 2004; 2008). Helms et al

(2009) note that participants tend to prefer the initial phenomena when comparing the phenomena

to subsequent ones, and showed that out of nine project teams in the study, only one team replaced

their initial phenomenon with another during the process. Exposure to case solutions by instructors

during initial lectures of bio- inspired design has also been shown to have a fixation effect on the

participants (ibid). Cheong & Shu (2013) showed that for a sample of 96 concepts developed by

final-year engineering students, 43% of the concepts exhibited some form of fixation. For a specific

task where the students were asked to develop concepts based on a description of a biological

phenomena handed to them, 30% of the concepts demonstrated ‘correct’ analogical transfer, while


anomalies (or misapplied analogies in Helms et al, 2009) accounted for 21% of the concepts

(Cheong & Shu, 2013).

F igure 12 : Type of s imilar i t ies between biological phenomena

and developed concepts , based on f igure in Mak & Shu (2004)

Literal Implementation

Abstraction of biolo!ical entities

Stra

te!i

c Ac

cura

cyLiteral Implementation Analo!y

Biolo!ical Transfer Anomaly

Use bacteria to fill pores of clothes to prevent dirt settlin!

“O"-the-shelf” biolo!icalsolutions

Develop material to fillpores of clothes to preventdirt settlin!

Misapplied analo!y

Develop material that reactswith air to decomposedirt

Use bacteria to eat dirt

Improper analo!icaltransfer

Mak and Shu, 2004Helms et al, 2009

section 4

analysis part 1 identifying challenges in bio-inspired designthrough the understanding of creativity


This section aims to explain the bio-inspired design process through the lens of creativity.

Furthermore, this section intends to answer sub-question 1: “How does the understanding of organizational creativity aid the identification of the challenges currently faced by bio-inspired design?” We believe that in deconstructing the elements of bio-inspired design using a creativity framework,

we can contribute to a better understanding of bio-inspired design. Furthermore, by looking at bio-

inspired design from the angle of creativity, we can observe the role of creativity in the process.

The understanding of creativity in a macro-orientational framework, as elaborated earlier in the

literature review, provides an understanding of not only the process, but also the environmental,

individual and cognitive factors surrounding the creative production process. Thus, we argue that the

understanding of creativity leads to a better understanding of the elements and working process

required in bio-inspired design. One of our respondents highlighted the importance of creativity in

bio-inspired design:

“Bio-Inspired Design suffers from huge expectations. That introducing nature will instantly, automatically and quickly transforms the thinking. It is actually a very difficult process to go beyond literal interpretation or to integrate process and systems level thinking beyond basic form. Creativity is deeply required to make the framework for that initial change possible.” (Appendix 2, par. 7)

The complexity of the systems and the analogical nature of bio-inspired design has led various

researchers to observe bio-inspired design from the point of view of creativity (see literature review).

Creativity as a point of departure is likely to be chosen because of the importance of analogical

reasoning in the bio-inspired design framework (see Vattam et. al 2010; Mak & Shu 2008). In

addition, Vattam et al (2010) argue that the practice of bio-inspired design is largely ad-hoc, with

little systemization of the transfer process from biological example to engineering problems (in-

context of the research). Thus, there is a need to transform the paradigm of bio-inspired design into

a set of principled methodology (ibid.). Such belief has led several of the creativity researchers in bio-

inspired design to focus on recommendations to minimize the challenges in the transfer process

through the use of a principled methodology.

While we believe that the construction of a principled methodology has significant merit to address

the challenges in the transfer process within bio-inspired design, a principled methodology in itself

may not fully address the whole spectrum of challenges faced by bio-inspired design. Just like any

other design process, the methodology has to be supported by the understanding of the mindset and


tacit knowledge involved. One of our respondents elaborate the importance of the understanding of

mental models used in a creative process as a prerequisite to applying bio-inspired design:

“Humans cannot directly emulate nature. Our materials and processes are not advanced enough. There has to be some level of abstraction and synthesis of the research in order to make an application possible.” (Appendix 2,

par.9)

A well-built principled methodology can help address the search for biological analogies, but may

still face a challenge in translating the analogies into a set of relevant, feasible outcomes. In addition,

creativity involves more than analogical thinking. It may serve as a framework for the understanding

of how people produce original and useful solutions. Thus, by observing the interplay between

creativity and bio-inspired design, we can identify the prerequisites that have to be in place in order

for bio-inspired design to generate creative outcomes. This section aim to elaborate on the interlink

by looking at bio-inspired design from a two-fold perspective:

F igure 13 : Perspect ives on Creat iv i ty in Bio- inspired Design (BID)

The f i rst perspect ive deconstructs the bio-inspired design paradigm using the framework of

organizational creativity. It is an abstract level analysis that aims to capture and organize the various

elements of bio-inspired design, by integrating it into the organizational creativity framework.

The second perspect ive synthesizes the findings gathered from applying the first

perspective. The analysis elaborates on the role of creativity in bio-inspired design, and on how

creativity can emerge through bio-inspired design7.

7 The notion of “in and through” as a expression of the dual-role of bio-inspired design in fostering creativity is originally coined by Vattam, et al (2010).

bio-inspireddesi!nprocess

or!anizationalcreativity

creative performance in

BID

creativeprocess in

BID

role ofcreativity in

BID


To summarize this section of analysis, we describe how the understanding of creativity can better

identify the challenges that are faced by bio-inspired design in relation to generating original and

useful solutions. We are using the identified challenges as a bridge to the subsequent section of the

analysis, which is aimed at outlining how design thinking can help addressing the aforementioned

challenges.

4.1 Bio-Inspired Design from the Context of Organizational Creativity

To obtain a holistic understanding of the paradigm of bio-inspired design, there is a need to explain

the approach through a framework that includes a review of not only on the methodology, but also

other important elements surrounding bio-inspired design. Just like any other design discipline, a bio-

inspired design approach requires more than the understanding of the process. As elaborated in the

creativity literature review, the organizational creativity serves as a framework that explains creativity

from a systems level. The framework recognizes different factors that influence creativity, and

observe how the interaction between those factors can hinder or foster creativity in an organization.

This section observes bio-inspired design from an individual, process, and environment point of view.

Specifically, we are looking at (1) the individual and environmental elements influencing the creative performance in bio-inspired design; and (2) the process of bio-inspired design observed through the

creative process perspective.

4 .1 .2 The Creat ive Performance

The study of the elements within an individual that influences the practice of bio-inspired design is

rare. These elements within individuals are not restricted to only way of thinking (e.g. the way we

approach problems), but also other factors like expertise and motivation (Amabile, 1998). In a

specialized discipline like bio-inspired design, the understanding of the range of skills needed in

exercising the approach is of importance. The quality of the outcome in such a specialized discipline

is influenced by the expertise of the individuals responsible for the task. In addition, as bio-inspired

design approach spans different domains, the discipline faces challenges in motivating individuals to

familiarize themselves with new fields.

Bio- inspired Design and Domain Relevancy Amabile (2012, p. 2) argues that creative production is dependent on the individual’s ability to “combine the elements of their skills to create possible combinations of responses or use their expertise against which the individual will judge the viability of response possibilities.” Thus, it is

important to first understand what skills are needed in applying bio-inspired design. The

understanding of biology has been argued to be a crucial skill in bio-inspired design. However, the

extent of biology needed in bio-inspired design depends highly on the context of the approach.


Based on our findings, we argue that the perception of biology skills being synonymous with bio-

inspired design often intimidates individuals who have no background in biology.

“If you take business, engineers or designers working in world of nature - that’s all unknown. People shut down and have terrible responses …so for example if you put an engineer in front of plant and ask them to learn about system or structural design of the plant, they will stand there frozen having no clue what to do …engineers feel stupid when they ask about biology, they don't want to feel stupid.” (Appendix 4, par. 39)

The perception that bio-inspired design requires an individual to have some expertise in biology may

hinder the growth of the discipline, especially in industries that does not require extensive technical

knowledge. As we observe in the example of IDEO USGBC case, it is useful to have biologists around

in the process. The case demonstrates how the interplay between biology and other skills can

generate a more powerful outcome in bio-inspired design. Tim McGee, a biologist involved in the

IDEO USGBC case, described the merit of such interplay:

That experience forged for me the key idea that it is the partnership between a biologist and a designer that enables biomimicry success in the world. I mean this in the most general way. A biologist can be anyone who looks to living systems as a measure, model, or mentor. A designer is anyone who has the craft of creation. Both of these can live within just one person (as Leonardo da Vinci) or they can exist in a creative team of the 8+ individuals that I found at IDEO in Cambridge. And maybe, by considering the broader context of life, the resulting creations, relationships, systems, and processes will reflect the wisdom found in 3.8 billion years of evolution. (McGee, Eco-Interface Blog)

Hence, despite informed by biology, the bio-inspired approach requires multidisciplinary

understanding. As elaborated by one of our respondent:

“It (biomimicry) cannot stand alone. But oddly enough…there has been a lot of people who have said that biomimicry can just be a standalone discipline. It just doesn't work that way. Even design thinking is multidisciplinary.” (Appendix 3, par. 18)

We can justify the multi-disciplinary nature of bio-inspired design, as the discipline requires a

multitude of skills in order for a concept to be commercialized. Biologist may play a role in

transferring biological examples into the context of the problem, as well as decoding the functional

parts of the natural phenomena. In addition, engineers and designers play a crucial role, as they are

the one who assess the feasibility and translate the biological analogy into the final solution. In

summary, the journey from concept to commercialization requires different skills to be tied up

together.

The interplay between technical domains in bio-inspired design is not without challenges. It is a

dilemma to combine the rigidity of science and the flexibility of design. Specifically, the mode of


reasoning of science and that of design, two professional domains involved in applying bio-inspired

design. As argued by Gregory (1966; in Cross (2007, p. 24), “the scientific method is a pattern of problem-solving behavior employed in finding out the nature of what exists, whereas the design method is a pattern of behavior employed in inventing things of value which do not yet exist. Science is analytic; design is constructive.” In essence, a key skill that is largely nurtured within the design

discipline is abstraction, or the ability to see beyond the literal concept of the observed object.

Sometimes, scientists have difficulty in applying such abstraction, as suggested by one of our

respondent:

“The ability to abstract is crucial to any bio-inspiration. Designers get in trouble from scientists for "breaking" the research - i.e. exceeding the limits of the original natural model …I just had a conversation …about the difficulty of biologists remaining on the project while the engineer is developing an idea. The biologist, valued for their specialty, gets uncomfortable when a peripheral topic is being discussed …they are unwilling to explore the interstitial spaces outside of their research.” (Appendix 2, par. 3)

Furthermore, science has predominantly been about specialized expertise in a specific domain.

Amabile (1988) argues that a specific knowledge in a certain domain enhances creative production,

as one obtain more expertise about the domain. However, such specialized skills may also have a

detrimental effect on creativity, especially when it alters one’s ability to look at a more holistic picture.

Wickelgren (1979) argues that the more specific a concept or proposition is, the less capacity we will

have available to learn general principles and questions that crosscut different areas and

perspectives. In light of this argument, we argue that to better support creativity in a bio-inspired

design setting, there has to be a way to find the right balance between the designer’s and the

scientist’s mode of reasoning. Both the deep expertise valued in science and the innate ability to

abstract in design can contribute to a better creative production within bio-inspired design.

Bio- inspired Design and Task Mot ivat ion Creativity is most likely to appear conditions of intrinsic motivation – a motivational state generated

by the individual reaction to intrinsic properties of the task, and not generated by the extrinsic factors

(Amabile, 1988). In this part of the analysis we elaborate the motivational factors that drive people to

immerse themselves into bio-inspired design. In relation to creative performance, we aim to

elaborate practices that may encourage intrinsic motivation, drawing from the experiences of our

respondents in facilitating bio-inspired design projects.

It is common for practitioners in bio-inspired design, particularly within biomimicry, to have a strong

interest sustainability issues. Many bio-inspired solutions emulate nature in a way that promotes

sustainability (e.g. the cradle-to-cradle approach on waste management and the Biomimicry 3.8

focus on ‘ethos’ and ‘re-connect’). The founder of biomimicry, Janine Benyus, believes that


technology inspired by nature can be used for good or bad purposes (Benyus, 2009). She uses the

example of the airplane, which was inspired by the bird flight, used for destruction in wars within a

mere eleven years subsequent to its invention (ibid.). Two of the essential elements of biomimicry,

‘ethos’ and ‘re-connect’, ensure that solutions from the biomimicry approach “fit in” on earth. With the

growing prominence of biomimicry within the bio-inspired design, we can infer that many bio-

inspired design practitioners are motivated by the sustainable outcome of the approach.

While sustainability can be an apparent intrinsic motivational factor that encourages people to

practice bio-inspired design, it is not always the case. Especially in the context of established

corporations, sustainability is often a net cost, and “selling” bio-inspired design on sustainability alone

may not be an element of motivation.

“Right now, everything that has to do with sustainability for businesses is a burden. You can get some extra marketing out of it, maybe you can save some money. But basically, most of the projects and programs around sustainability are a net cost to the business. If you are interested in coming up with a high-tech innovation, the nature and sustainability part wouldn't do unless you had a really good reason to do it …But if you do it as an add-on at the end it certainly is a net cost.” (Appendix 4, par. 19)

If sustainability alone is not enough to ensure intrinsic motivation, then there has to be other

mechanisms in place to better encourage creativity in the process. Koestler (1964), Rogers (1954),

and Crutchfield (1962) in Amabile (1988) argued that creativity is generated under the condition of

freedom of control, and that self-perception of personal freedom is necessary for creative thought

and expression. Thus, the ability of an individual to exercise control over their actions is a factor that

can support motivation.

In the context of bio-inspired design, such “perception of control” is even more prevalent, as a big

part of bio-inspired design is about diving into the unknown world. Some suffer from lack of

motivation because they have little or no knowledge of biology, as well as the experience in applying

bio-inspired design. Amabile (1988) argues that the presence or absence of extrinsic constraints, the

factors that are intended to control or could be perceived as controlling individual’s performance on

the task in a particular instance, largely impact motivation. Thus, a possible way to minimize extrinsic

constraints as a result of unfamiliarity is through, simply put, making the unfamiliar, familiar.

“Creativity and innovation is in the area of the unknown. So, part of it is making people help make it feel like known. So a lot of activities we do focus on comfort, familiarity, and sense of wonderment. So they go away and suddenly find themselves able to do the things they can't do before. So for example if you put an engineer in front of plant and ask them to earn about system or structural design of the plant, they will stand there frozen having no clue what to do. But if you say, ok, I want you to try and describe, pretend like this is an engineered product from a


competitor, and they have made it look like a plant. I want you to reverse engineer the structural system, the water system, and then oh! I know structural system. Suddenly you put it in a world of a known, and that very same person five minutes later can ask biological question that 5 minutes before they couldn't.” (Appendix 4, par. 39)

Thus, engagement is key to bringing intrinsic motivation to life, especially in the context of creating

familiarity in a new domain. Another way to foster the perception of freedom is through the

establishment of ownership. Our respondents agree on the importance of ownership, and a part of

the initial exercise in a bio-inspired design project often involves the establishment of ownership. “I asked the design team to go to nature and find one example of something that resonated with them … That engaged the team in a process of thinking about what those were, rather than just presenting something to them the next day. So I think there was something critical about getting the team engaged in coming up with the actual organism themselves, even in a playful way.. I think that was a really important part to get a group to be part of the process. There are other times where I have not done that and just come in to a group and present it, it kind of falls flat and sort of go.. that amazing.. but.. how do we use that?” (Appendix 1, par. 27)

4.1 .3 The Creat ive Process

A review on bio-inspired design process usually involves an observation of different methodologies

of bio-inspired design (e.g. Sartori et al, 2009; Badarnah Kadri, 2012). It follows a sequence of steps

that describe the activities undertaken from recognition of problem to the emulation of natural

principles. As elaborated in the literature review, a review of methodology is useful to outline a

generalization of different frameworks of bio-inspired design. However, just like the understanding of

other design approaches, a methodology on its own is arguably not enough to explain the complexity

and the depth of the discourse.

The elaboration of the creative process, as explained by Sawyer (2012), describes the sequence of

stages of not only activities that leads to generation of creative solutions, but also the mental models involved. These mental models encompass identifiable cognitive principles that have been known to

influence creativity. Thus, a review of bio-inspired design, using a creative process perspective, may

explain the process in terms of both methodology and the associated mental models.

Problem Finding Bio-inspired design methods to problem solving are essentially shaped by two main approaches;

problem-based and solution-based. Some of the examples of bio-inspired design presented in the

literature review (e.g. Velcro and the humpback whale) are examples of a solution-based approach.

Practitioners are described as discovering natural phenomena, often serendipitously, with principles

he/she believes can be translated into solving human problems. Many of the examples of bio-

inspired design are skewed more towards a solution-based approach; hence, it may leave some


wondering on how to apply bio-inspired design in a problem-based setting.

When bio-inspired design is exercised as part of a larger design space, it is quite likely that the

approach contributes in addressing a predetermined problem. In addition, as most creativity occurs

when people are working on an ill-defined problem (Sawyer, 2012), we can argue that creativity

plays a key role in a problem-based bio-inspired design approach. Thus, we can turn to the problem

formulation stage in the creative process to describe the pattern of problem finding in bio-inspired

design. In a problem-based approach of bio-inspired design, the problem finding poses a challenge

as the process involves a two-tiered approach. First, just like any other design discipline, the initial

step is directed at discovering the root of the problem. Second, the problem has to be translated in to

a biological language in order to assist the search of natural model.

The two-tiered model of problem finding is not something that all bio-inspired design practitioners

agreed upon. Many tend to directly “biologize” a problem. This means that there is a tendency to

directly formulate the problem in biological language without taking a closer look on what the real problem is. Such a practice is prone to hindering the effectiveness of bio-inspired design in a number

of ways. Jumping straight to biological questions can hinder integrative thinking, which is essential in

the abstraction process.

“I have become a tyrant to collaborators in biomimicry for people to slow down and stop rushing to biological solutions too quickly. Biomimicry has a tendency for the natural model to impose rules on the broader creative process that shuts down integrative thinking. If a natural model shifts your perspective and allows you to reframe a given challenge, then capture all the insights, thank the model and move on. The organism might have done its job. You will likely require new models to inform the next stages of thinking and that’s ok. It’s still ok if during the solutions development you need to relax the grip on your organism in order to achieve a result. In fact, the more organisms you have, and the more you have abstracted your insight to the level of a principle the easier this will be.” (Hastrich, 2013)

From the interview quote, we can infer that there is a tendency for practitioners, when rushing to

“biologize” a problem, to fixate themselves on a certain principle. Apart from the fact that fixation is a

factor that obstructs creative thought, there is also a risk for one to be fixated into something that

may not be able to address the core issue in the first place. In addition, integrative thinking often

better emerges in a multidisciplinary setting. Jumping straight to biology, as discussed in the task

motivation part of the analysis, is a hindrance to motivation for practitioners who have little or no

knowledge of biology.

“That’s the key to talking to an interdisciplinary team, to define the problem in a language that everyone can understand. And so before biologizing it, especially with innovation people and creative people like ourselves, it is


very easy to jump to "hey, there's a solution, and there's a solution". Biomimicry thinking, and especially Biomimicry 3.8, highly cautions us to not jump straight to a solution.” (Appendix 3, par. 50) The second-tier in the problem-finding phase involves the translation of a problem to a biological

question. This does not mean that once a problem has been defined, one can jump directly to

biological solutions. Prior to solution generation, it is important to correctly frame the question in a

biological language. Framing of the question becomes important in bio-inspired design, as the

solutions space of biology is big, making it easy to get lost in the complexity, and to oversimplify the

search process. In bio-inspired design, problems that are nebulously defined are either too vague to yield to a functional description, or result in a too large a search space (Helms, et al, 2009, p.617).

One of our respondent describe an example of such framing:

“In the multidisciplinary process, there is a big difference between asking how DOES nature and how WOULD nature. For example, take thermoregulation, so managing temperature. If I say managing temperature to you, that is not a "biologized" question. But what we do, is ask how DOES nature manage temperature …in this case for automotive seats where you might start to sweat because of the temperature inside or outside the car. So, how can you regulate the temperature between your body and that form. So what we looked at was heat dissipation, we looked at elephant ears, we looked at toucan beaks, we looked at jack rabbit ears. Things that use a broad surface, a membrane surface, that would allow for a dissipation of heat. So we looked at these things relative to how DOES nature. On a broader scale you would look at how nature WOULD design a better automotive seat. It is a different question, and it is a broader context.” (Appendix 3, par. 49)

From the example presented above, one can infer that the framing of the problem highly influences

the biological search space. In the “DOES” framing, while simplifying the search process by focusing

solely on nature’s heat dissipation methods, it may not address the core issue of the problem. What

if thermoregulation is not really the problem? The “WOULD” scenario gives space for abstract

exploration, by using an analogy of how nature would design a better automotive seat. However, such

generalization can lead to a too vague problem definition, resulting in a too large search space. Thus,

we argue that the two-tiered approach can be used to balance the gap between the two approaches.

The first tier, where one identifies the core problem, can be a process full of abstraction and

exploration. The second tier, however, needs to be addressed with a straight to the point, “biologized”

framing of the question.

Acquir ing Knowledge The acquiring knowledge stage of the creative process is interrelated with the domain-relevancy

element of creativity. We have elaborated the domain-relevancy in bio-inspired design in the

previous section, and outlined the need for multi-domain expertise in the design process. However,

we are interested in exploring the extent of expertise needed in applying bio-inspired design: That is,

what level of technical expertise in different domains is needed in applying bio-inspired design?


One respondent, Carl Hastrich, argues that there are two different practitioners within the field of

bio-inspired design: the explorers and the executors. Explorers are people who dive into bio-inspired

design as part as of their growing and learning process (Hastrich, 2011). They do not care where they

end up and explore bio-inspired design without the need to go below the surface (ibid.). These are

the people who utilize nature as an avenue for inspiration, or those who use natural examples as a

tool in their creative process. Many practitioners of biomimicry fit with this this archetype. Executors, on the other hand, are the result-oriented people who utilize bio-inspired design to achieve a desired

result within the constraints of cost and time (ibid.). These are the people who practice biomimetics,

bionics and other technical bio-inspired approaches. A respondent further elaborates the distinction

between biomimicry and biomimetics:

“People in the biomimetics world are not motivated by nature and sustainability. I'm of course generalizing …but [Biomimetic Company] don't care at all about the inspirational part of nature, or sustainability …Biomimicry is a fantastic source of creativity. And I use (the approach) just for that. I taught workshops where the only goal was creativity …While biomimetic is about just getting the job done, making a better product, but I would argue they struggle on the creativity side.” (Appendix 4, par. 19)

The different expectations between explorers and executors call for different levels of specialized

knowledge in achieving the intended outcome. It seems that some practitioners are not aware of

what depth of knowledge is needed for a certain bio-inspired project, which in turn leads to an

imbalance between expertise and expectation.

“They say that Biomimicry is Innovation Inspired by nature, but it is more like "conceptual design" inspired by nature, and a lot of people don't know that. They get frustrated. They say "Ohh, I'm going to do Biomimicry - innovation…" and no, you're really just doing inspiration and ideation... the pathway is very long to get to innovation.” (Appendix 4, par. 8)

We thus argue that during this phase, it is important for practitioners to align their expectations with

the level of expertise available. This can be done through a thorough skill mapping of the individuals

within the group, and a proper understanding of the expected outcome of the project. We argue that

the more concrete the expected outcome, the more specialized are skills needed to deliver the

expectation, and vice versa.

Gathering Information A major effort in bio-inspired design research has been aimed at addressing the complexity in

gathering relevant information used to support the transfer process. Gramman (2004) proposed a

three-step approach to gathering information in biomimetics projects. First, formulate the search


objective in terms of function or constraints. Second, search for biological examples that relate to the

search objective. Third, analyze the biological system. Analyzing the biological system means

breaking down the elements of the biological example. As elaborated in the previous section, there

are different levels of outcomes of a bio-inspired approach. For example, biomimetics practice often

requires deep understanding of the functional principles of the natural example, as the approach

often entails direct emulation of natural examples. However, in the context where natural examples

are used as means of inspiration, or as guiding principles, the information gathering process as

suggested by Gramman might lead to the fixation of functional elements.

“So say you talk to a refrigerator company and they want to make a new door. So we kind of take on the face value of what the challenge was, and dive into that challenge looking at biology by looking at the function behind the door. Well, maybe it keeps things cool, maybe it closes …trying to understand the function behind it and look to nature as a direct translation to see, oh these mechanism that solves this. So it’s very sort of, R&D, functional …but we kind of struggle when it comes to product design, and we think where the connection with biology needed to be more flexible or more loose, more extrapolation …you have a lot more translation that is needed, or a lot more ambiguity in how its going to be applied.” (Appendix 1, par. 7)

As elaborated in the literature review, the complexity of the search process is often addressed

through the establishment of search databases (e.g. BioTRIZ, Sapphire, AskNature.org). While the

approach help address the simplification of the search space, the above quote also suggest that

some bio-inspired design projects call for more than a direct translation. In that case, more

abstraction is needed, requiring practitioners to be able to build a mental connection between the

problem and the information gathered. This is a challenge, as practitioners tend to build such

connections based on superficial similarity (Helms, et al, 2009). As an example, taking the cleaning

properties of the lotus leaf to address the problem of making a better detergent is problematic (ibid.).

While the function “cleaning” is similar, the lotus leaf relies on the structural details of the structure to be cleaned, which a detergent cannot manipulate (ibid, p.617).

In the context of the creative process, the information gathering process entails constant awareness

of one’s environment, as well as the absorption of information from wide range of sources (Sawyer,

2012). Thus, it requires one to be able to spot opportunities to link new information with existing

problems (ibid.). As such connection making remains as one of the challenges in the bio-inspired

design transfer process, we argue that the understanding of the creative process involved in

gathering information can be helpful in addressing the challenge. The next phase of creative process,

incubation, might serve as aiding the process of making sense of all the information gathered.


Incubation Creativity is often associated with the occurrence of a flash of insight, by which a creative idea is

frequently reported to occur (Cross, 2007). There is a high level of saliency surrounding the process

developing these insights/illuminations. The process is often referred to as a creative leap, which is

defined as a sudden perception of a completely new perspective on the situation previously understood (Cross, 2007). The saliency of the creative leap is a likely explanation to why people tend

see creativity as a serendipitous process. While we do not deny the serendipitous nature of the

creative leaps, we still argue that the incubation process may contribute to the generation of the

creative leaps.

In the context of bio-inspired design, such a creative leap is crucial, as the process requires the ability

to abstract and building connection through the use of analogies. In addition, fixation is a common

challenge in the bio-inspired design process. We thus argue that the understanding of incubation is

important to address the challenges in the connection-making and fixation in the bio-inspired

process. The incubation process in bio-inspired design can be approached in a number of ways. One

of our respondents suggests lessening the grip on biology in order to be able to come up with more

flexible ideas:

“A few years ago we did research in healthcare, that led to zero specific design ideas, but deep principles outlining opportunities of innovation that were received very positively …the important turning point in the project was when we realized the students were running around madly developing ideas from biology, without really understanding the problem. It was a great sigh of relief when we put all the biology away and went did some design 101. Going and visiting a hospital and having deep conversation with the people directly affected by the issue led to bursts of insight into where and why the biology was of value.” (Appendix 2, par. 22)

Although the respondent did not specifically refer to the process as incubation, the quote

demonstrates the value of taking a break from the source of fixation (in this case, biology) and get

fresh perspective from other context. One can also argue that examples from nature in itself can be

a good way of incubation. Several respondents practice bio-inspired projects by taking the

participants to nature for inspiration. Within the Biomimicry 3.8 framework, this exercise is part of ‘re-

connect’ element. While the purpose of ‘reconnect’ is to form a connection between participants and

nature, it also has the function of providing them with new inputs and ideas.

“But whenever you're stuck with something, you can literally look out the window or go for a walk or keep the stuff

at your desk, and you can ask stuff like "how would a pine cone do this?" And it seems like an absurd question, and it is at that level of absurdity that the creativity comes in.” (Appendix 4, par. 35)


Ideat ion A prominent theme of creativity research is the generation of ideas. The current perception of the

idea generation process is that it involves a divergent mode of thinking. While research of creativity

supports the importance of divergent thinking in idea generation, the process cannot be purely

divergent. As elaborated in previous sections, a challenge in bio-inspired design is to build feasible

connections between problem and solution. Connection making, is thus an embedded part of

divergent thinking that may help ground the process.

“Something overlooked in "divergence" is the ability to connect . Creativity remains "kooky" when it is pure divergence, playful extrapolation with no need for grounding. Connecting those starting inspirations with other elements: insights from other research, disciplines, knowledge domains and more, is not necessarily limited to "convergence". Part of good divergence is the crafting of connections to explore the implications of ideas. Our students are best at using their natural models when they can communicate visually or verbally their inspiration without showing the specific natural model. At this stage they are able to make more connections - because the end point doesn't have to "look" the same as the starting point.” (Appendix 2, par. 5)

In bio-inspired design, ideas are mostly generated through the use of analogies. Analogical thinking

encourages radical ideas, as practitioners are “forced” to see things outside of its literal context. At

the same time, the complexity of analogies makes the idea generation process a challenge. Thus, the

awareness of the implications and the connection between an idea and the problem may help

minimizing the complexity in “diverging” within the bio-inspired design process. Some of the

database has been created to assist idea generation process in bio-inspired design. Nevertheless,

Cross (2007) argues that the difficulty in computational modeling based on analogy is in abstracting

the appropriate behavior features of an existing design. Thus, while databases may aid in generating

ideas, an awareness of the cognitive processes needed in the idea generation process is also of

importance.

External izat ion The core tenet of bio-inspired design lies in its power to change the context of a given problem, by

resorting to nature as a source of inspiration. A major part of bio-inspired process involves concept-

generation, and the externalization phase often relies on the technical expertise from other design

field. Thus, we can argue that the bio-inspiration part plays most of its role in the early stages of the

design (from conceptualization to idea generation), and that the emulation of natural examples is

subsequently distributed to other fields of design. The implication of such segregation is that

technical expertise is crucial to ensure externalization in the bio-inspired approach.

“Too often people think biomimicry is a route to answers, when in fact the most powerful aspect of biomimicry is that it changes the relationship to the problem, and then alters the very questions that are asked. The result is a


ground-shift in thinking, but if you are not an engineer or designer with means of production, it leaves many wondering – now what? How do I make this brilliant concept happen?” (McGee, Eco-Interface Blog)

A branch of bio-inspired design, biomimetics, puts a strong focus on the emulation process. Thus, a

biomimetic project is usually composed of individuals from technical backgrounds e.g. engineers,

scientists and designers. The focus on emulation allows most biomimetics projects to run over an

extended period of time, with more resources dedicated for the projects, as indicated by our

respondent below.

“If you're going to do biomimetics from scratch, it can be a huge science- engineering project. One of [company] first technology platforms was inspired by the [organism], and it was a few years of pure university research, and then [company] heard of this, and said "we want to work with you" so they hired the scientists and licensed and patented the process, and it took them a few more years to come up with a workable machine. And now they are in the process of adapting it to all sorts of commercial uses and partnering with companies to commercialize it.” (Appendix 4, par. 31)

The externalization challenge is more apparent the field of biomimicry than biomimetics, as the

practical application of biomimicry projects do not necessarily involve technical expertise. However,

biomimicry is known to provide rich inspiration advancing creativity, which is a challenge in a highly

structured process like biomimetics. In the context of externalization, we argue that not all bio-

inspired projects need to involve in-depth scientific research. Nevertheless, the externalization phase

will be more feasible through the collaboration with the relevant expertise from the engineering or

design domains.

4.2 The Role of Creativity in Bio-Inspired Design

The first section of our analysis is used to explain the elements and process in bio-inspired design

through the perspective of organizational creativity. The analysis indicates how each stage of the bio-

inspired process should be approached, in order to generate creative outcomes. Figure 14 outlines

the summary of key findings and the important elements of the interplay between bio-inspired

design and organizational creativity.


F igure 14 : Key Findings of important e lements on the re lat ionship between Bio- inspired Design

and Organizat ional Creat iv i ty

This section elaborates on the role of creativity within bio-inspired design. Based on the findings, we

group the key role of creativity into two main points:

1. Bio-inspired design is part of a bigger creative space, thus the understanding of creativity act

as a connector between bio-inspired design and other design fields (creativity in bio-inspired design).

2. Natural examples can act as creative inspiration, disrupting the linear mode of thinking by

connecting the problem at hand to remote associations (creativity through bio-inspired design).

Bio-inspired design as part of a bigger creat ive space Our findings support the argument that bio-inspired design is/should be multidisciplinary, and that

the understanding that a common mode of reasoning can be a way to better integrate the different

domains. Bio-inspired design process requires mental models often used by designers and creative

practitioners, such as abstraction, connection-making, and analogies. By seeing bio-inspired design

as a part of a bigger design space, practitioners can better acknowledge the importance of using the

mental models associated with creativity. The nurturing of such mental models can be fostered by

THE CREATIVE PERFORMANCE (PERSON + ENVIRONMENT)

DOMAIN RELEVANCY

TASK MOTIVATION

THE CREATIVE PROCESS

PROBLEM FINDING

ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE

GATHER INFORMATION

INCUBATION

IDEATION

EXTERNALIZATION

Require multidisciplinary understandin!s

Balance between specialized and !eneralized mode of reasonin!

Makin! the unfamiliar, familiar

Personal freedom/ownership

tendency to jump strai!ht to biolo!y questions

ill-defined problems

di"erent archetypes of bio-inspired practitioners

mismana!ed expectation between skills andoutcome

search database

abstraction and connection makin!

Know when to leave biolo!y

Nature as form of incubation

diver!ent thinkin! and connection-makin!

Inspiration from nature to disrupt thinkin!

Understandin! analo!y

collaboration with other discipline for emulation

Bio-inspired desi!n as part of bi!!er creative spaceNature as creative inspiration

Challen!es in bio-inspired desi!n


being exposed to and working with practitioners from other design disciplines within the bigger

design space.

Hastrich (2011) argues that bio-inspired design does not include only biology research, but also

design research. According to Hastrich:

“While this might be obvious for some, there are many more who think the design insights should magically appear from thin air, with no need for context from the area of research. The reality suggests otherwise …introducing biology research adds a layer of healthy complexity to the design research and makes the whole process more time consuming (also pronounced “rewarding”). And guess what, this is also the reason why businesses and design practices are not jumping vigorously on the biomimicry bandwagon; it’s hard work.” (Hastrich, Bouncing Ideas Blog)

We argue that the understanding of bio-inspired design being a part of a bigger creative space can

set the right expectation for practitioners. It entails the understanding that collaboration between

biology and design (or “creative disciplines”) is needed throughout the whole sequence of bio-

inspired design process.

Nature as creat ive inspirat ion Examples from nature that is used in bio-inspired approach have the potential of disrupting

conventional thinking. It is common for creativity practitioners to gather inspiration by immersing in a

new environment, be it a physical space, an unfamiliar culture, or new knowledge outside the context

of the research. Our findings support the suggestion that creativity can be exercised through bio-

inspired design.

First, creativity occurs, as established in the literature review, through remote associations. When one

turns to nature and ask, “what would nature do?”, it serves as a way to disrupt the linear mode of

thinking, by looking at distant associations to things. One of our respondents elaborate and

exemplifies how he used natural models to engage creativity:

“I deliberately use natural models to challenge given assumptions and allow people to see a situation from different angles. When framing a business as a parasite, we can be cheeky about the pros and cons in a way that you can’t be if you label the business as outright negative. Parasites exist in nature, they thrive in many situations and in the Daintree rainforest in Australia strangler figs play a very positive role in the overall structural resilience of the ecosystem. Strangler figs grow around host trees, ultimately sapping them of all their nutrients over a long period of time …but that’s ok, because the strangler fig sends vines in all directions and many of the trees in the forest remain standing despite a lack of vertical integrity. It’s even better than ok, because the daintree rainforest gets hit by a lot of. The lateral vines that spread throughout the forest help provide flex and stability when buffeted by these storms. So a parasite can be a good thing. Therefore if I’m speaking in the context of a business we can begin to explore ideas of transforming a negative parasitic relationship into a positive one by asking “What is different? What is missing?” (Hastrich, Bouncing Ideas Blog)


Second, incubation is seen as a crucial part of creative process. Some bio-inspired approaches

incorporate excursions in nature as part of the early stage of the process. As incubation is essentially

about the effect of fresh and breaks from the common setting, excursion to nature can be a way to

provide such effects. Thus, we can conclude that creativity can be gained through bio-inspired design

approach with two means: utilization of natural models to disrupt thinking and in capitalizing the

incubation effect from excursions in nature.

$Summing up: How the understanding of creativity helps

identifying challenges faced by BID !

The overlay of organizational creativity framework on the bio-inspired design process offers a

comprehensive analysis on the mechanism of bio-inspired approach. We identify some of the key

challenges faced in bio-inspired design, especially in relation to its ability to come up with both

original and feasible solutions. This section summarizes the findings from the first part of the

analysis, by elaborating the challenges faced by bio-inspired design. The challenges described serve

as a basis for our analysis in the next chapter. Figure 15 gives an overview of the challenges

identified in the analysis.

F igure 15 : Overv iew of the chal lenges faced in the b io- inspired design process

Area of the unknown. As a growing discipline, bio-inspired design faces the challenge of

encouraging individuals from various domains (especially non-biology/non-engineering domains) to

immerse into the process. Our key findings suggest that this may be due to the “unknown” nature of

bio-inspired design. Consequently, the unfamiliarity of the domain often hinders intrinsic motivation.


I l l -def ined problems. A poorly defined problem in bio-inspired design can result in too large of a

search space, improper use of analogy, or unclarity on what the problem really entails. Based on our

findings, the poorly defined problem is sometimes a result of practitioners jumping straight to

“biologizing” the questions.

Mismanaged expectat ion . Misalignment between expectations of outcome and resources

available leads to bio-inspired design enthusiasts diving right into the process with high expectations,

but with insufficient skills.

Design F ixat ion . Design Fixation is the tendency to be fixated on a specific natural example, as

outlined in the literature review. Fixation can be a challenge if it results from “over-simplification, to skip the complex ‘insighting’ process in order to hold onto something manageable.” (Appendix 2, par.

37)

Integrat ive Thinking . Various mental models are at play throughout the different stages of the

bio-inspired design process. Analogical thinking, connection-making, and abstraction, are examples

of mental models that play a role in the process of bio-inspired design. Based on our findings, the

absence of the understanding of the need of such integrative thinking is a key challenge in bio-

inspired design.

Integrat ion between domains . From our findings we can infer that multidisciplinary expertise is

needed in bio-inspired design. However, the challenge lies in integrating the domains, as different

expertise entails different mode of reasoning and way of working.

External izat ion . As shown in figure 15, we believe that the issue of externalization is not a stand-

alone challenge. The challenges that we have presented above have an influence in directing the

externalization of a bio-inspired project. Without a clear expectation, an adequate skill-set and a

sound process, feasibility of the project becomes a challenge.

section 5

analysis part 2applying design thinking in bio-inspired design


This section of the analysis aims to analyze how design thinking can address the challenges

presented in the previous section of the analysis. Specifically, this section aims to answer the

research question “In what ways can design thinking, as an applied method of creativity, influence the quest for novel and appropriate solutions in a bio-inspired design process?” Design thinking is not a substitute for professional design and the art and craft of design; rather it is a

methodology for innovation and enablement (Lockwood, 2010). In using design thinking as a

methodology within the Bio- Inspired design field, one adopts the tools and mindset of design to

approach the process of turning lessons from nature into viable concepts in the human domain. In

the literature review we have elaborated on the importance of viewing design thinking in its context

as both a process and a mindset. Thus, this section address the research question by looking at how

elements of the design thinking process and mindset, when applied in a bio-inspired approach, can

help address the challenges in bio-inspired design.

5.1 Comparing Design Thinking and Bio-Inspired Design Process

The literature review section summarized various approaches of both design thinking and bio-

inspired design. This section aims at comparing the methodology used in both disciplines, to assess

the fit of design thinking as a lens to evaluate the bio-inspired design process. As a point of

departure, we argue that the design thinking process resembles the Bio-inspired design process,

particularly when comparing the objectives of each design phase. As suggested by one of our

respondents elaborating on the biomimicry process:

“I actually think that biomimicry is a derivative of design thinking… Human-centered design is where we traditionally see of (design thinking)… But basically they do the same thing… You are trying to understand the problem and you try to execute on it.. people just do that sort of thing however they can, but the biomimicry process is not actually that different from design thinking and vice versa.” (Appendix 1, par. 37)

Figure 16 describes the intersection between the generalized model for Design Thinking process

(Brown, 2009) and Bio-inspired design (Badarnah Kadri, 2012):

Figure 16 : Comparison of Design Thinking and Bio-inspired Design Process


As seen in figure 16, design thinking and bio-inspired design process share similar pathways in

achieving its intended aim. Both process starts off with the proper identification of the challenge,

involving the discovery and the definition of the insights and/or problems. Once identified, the

insights are carried over into the ideation phase, ideally leading into a set of viable solutions to be

emulated/implemented. We can argue that the main difference between design thinking and bio-

inspired design is on its object of affection. Design Thinking as we traditionally know it, focuses its

tools and methodologies to capture the insight from social and cultural immersion, whereas bio-

inspired design generally put its core tenet on emulation of organisms.

An important consideration in working with design thinking process is to view it as a continuum of innovation (Brown, 2009). While figure 16 describes Design Thinking process in a series of

sequential steps, it is best seen a system of overlapping spaces (ibid.). Hence, this section of the

analysis focuses more on observing the dynamics of the bio-inspired design process in each of the

design thinking innovation spaces (inspiration, ideation and implementation). To further understand

the key differences between the two processes, and how it may give a better understanding of the

bio-inspired design challenges, we aim to explain the process of bio-inspired design using design

thinking process as contextual reference.

Observat ion 1 : The inspirat ion space and its relat ion to a better understanding of i l l-defined problems

The inspiration phase in design thinking serves as an initial exploratory space where practitioners

search for problems or insights motivating them for the search of a solution (Brown, 2009). In

general, the inspiration phase usually involves two exercises. The discover exercise is a starting point

aimed at exploring the users needs and aspirations (Design Council, 2005). The define exercise is

aimed at the interpretation of insights or definition of problems (ibid.). The problem domain phase in

the bio-inspired design process serves the same purpose, as it involves the definition of the

challenge and the scoping of the problem. In the bio-inspired design process, however, the

inspiration seems to be gathered from two domains – the people and the nature domain. The people

domain, theoretically, involves observation that is similar to that of the design thinking process.

However, in bio-inspired design, the identified problem has to subsequently be transferred into the

natural domain. We have elaborated the two-tiered approach of bio-inspired problem formulation in

Analysis 1, where the identified problem has to be formulated as a biological function in order to find

an appropriate analogy in the natural domain.

11


At the heart of design thinking is the innate ability to deeply understand the context of what is

observed. In design thinking, the emphasis on people may help capture relevant needs on their end,

which we argue can contribute to a more appropriate and useful solution. Thus, we argue that the

challenge phase in bio-inspired design process, when executed with a design thinking mindset, can

better influence the quest for useful solutions. However, there is a tendency for bio-inspired

practitioners to skip this phase and jump straight to the natural domain.

“Design thinking the way IDEO practice it is better on understanding what the problem is upfront than the biomimicry approach. The biomimicry approach is interesting to get to functional level, which is great, and can be very aspirational more so than a lot of design thinking can be, but then you limit it to rational by focusing on the functional part. Biomimicry can lead you down this path, where we don’t know when we can get to achieve that point. It’s really hard to know what is feasible and what’s not with just bunch of biologists in the room. We can learn what’s amazing, and what’s possible, but maybe not what’s feasible today, or within a timeline that matters for business. So design thinking has skill set that bring that back down, so I think, together, there’s a nice synergy where you can build on the strength of each other to create, to add value.” (Appendix 1, par. 37)

A practical example of the synergy of people immersion and natural examples was exhibited in the

IDEO USGBC case. The workshop began with an inspiration exercise, where the designers brought

examples from nature they found relevant to the project brief. The inspiration exercise also required

the designers to share an example of extreme or inspirational organizations stories, as well as an

interview session with the stakeholders to better understand their needs. The findings were then

converged in a parallel fashion: while the designers synthesize their findings by defining various

people-centered problem formulations, the biologist provided examples similar problems solved by

nature. The co-creation between designers and biologists produced more problem formulations,

from which biologists generated more biology-oriented questions to be explored in the nature

domain. The parallel process ensured coherence between the people’s needs, as translated by the

designers, and the relevant natural examples. The parallel process also provided the designers and

the biologists with a better understanding of the respective approaches, a key prerequisite in creating

a condition conducive for multidisciplinarity. Thus, when observed through the lens of design

thinking, the problem-domain phase in bio-inspired design process may be more fruitful if paired

with human-centered design and undertaken in an overlapping, parallel manner.

Observat ion 2: The ideation space and its relat ion to a better understanding of design f ixat ion

The ideation space in design thinking involves the generation, development and testing of ideas

(Brown, 2009). While ideation seems like a natural subsequence to the inspiration phase, overlaps

2


and iteration often occurs between the two spaces. In the bio-inspired design process, the purpose of

the abstraction phase is similar to that of the ideation space, that is, to further investigate the natural

principles and to develop a design concept through means of brainstorming and structuring the

principles. Thus, the abstraction phase seems to involve more convergent thinking, as the ideation

part is derived from certain natural analogies, and the role of brainstorming is more to converge into

the depth of the functional principles of the selected natural examples. The convergent nature of the

ideation phase in bio-inspired design process may ease the complexity of abstracting natural

principles by allowing practitioners to focus only on a specific analogy.

“They (designers) are searching about this one thing. That’s a common tradition to find the overarching theme you want to go with, to then execute on. Because without that, it’s hard to get a team to do anything. So, if you end up having 50 different design ideas and they’re all good and powerful, at some point you have to pick one and move forward.. I think it depends on where you are in the process, sometimes it can be good, and sometimes it can be bad” (Appendix 1, p. 21)

The challenge with the convergent nature in the ideation phase of bio-inspired design process is that

it is prone to design fixation. Fixation is not an issue unique only to bio-inspired design, but it is a

challenge shared by all design processes. Cross (2007) argues that fixation may be a result of

designers being too solution-focused, adopting a more realistic strategy of finding a satisfactory solution, rather than generating an optimum solution to a well-defined problem. Thus, design fixation,

especially in the context of working with ill-defined problems, can be a way to minimize some

complexities that may come from the pursuit of an optimum solution. However, it is important to

have a proper balance in managing fixation, as it can also trigger negative stagnation in the ideation

process. One of our respondent elaborate the challenge of negative stagnation in the context of bio-

inspired design:

“Creative thinking can stagnate when someone is holding onto a natural model too tightly. I see this happen a lot when there is one specific model that has become the sole solution of a given project. In architecture it will occur when there is a fixation on a given organism and all the work becomes the literal translation between model and application. Due to the scale, complexity and general differences between organism and a building the translation is not possible until you let go of the model. In product design it is easy to become overwhelmed because we just can’t do what nature is presenting us. In most cases our materials and technology can not replicate the subtle complexity of nature and if the organism model can not be fully translated frustration sets in and creativity stops.” (Hastrich,

2011)

While design fixation often helps designers to focus on a certain model, there are also major

drawbacks, especially in the context of generating creative solutions. In the context of bio-inspired

design, there has to be some level of improvisation in translating the analogy into design principles.

Our technology and materials has not yet reached a point where we can directly copy natural


organisms. Thus, on approaching the ideation space, divergent thinking plays an important role in

inhibiting fixation, and allows different interpretations and improvisations to emerge. In design

thinking, the ideation space involves a high degree of creativity. In the ideation phase, tools are often

used deliberately to take the ideation out of the context of the problem, so diverse associations can

emerge. Thus, in applying bio-inspired design process, there may be merit in having both divergent

and convergent ideation exercises. On approaching the ideation space, it is also important to have a

great degree of flexibility in the selection of natural models. The purpose of the ideation phase, then,

can be an avenue to connect different natural examples to come up with a new base for emulation.

The ideation space in design thinking also includes the testing of ideas, which is mostly done through

means of rapid prototyping. Prototyping serves as one of the core tools in design thinking, and it

helps to reduce fixation by releasing the cognitive load (Youmans, 2011). As design processes

commonly require mental manipulation of complex relationships among the design features, it is

thus taxing cognitive capacity (ibid.). Jang and Schunn (2010, in Kershaw et al, 2011) found that

innovative designs are more likely to emerge when prototypes are used during the ideation phase,

but not so much on the refinement phase. We thus suggest that the use of rapid prototyping

methods should not only be limited to the emulation phase. The use of prototypes may play a role in

reducing negative stagnation in bio-inspired design, especially when it is used during the transfer

phase from natural principles to design concepts.

Observat ion 3: The implementat ion space and the importance of bio-inspired design to be part of a bigger design space

A major part of both the processes of design thinking and bio-inspired design involves ‘insighting’

and ideation, with little focus on the implementation part. One major drawback in the application of

design thinking, as elaborated in the literature review, is the perception of it being a start-to-end

innovation process. However, design thinking is a tool for creating creative concepts, concepts that

can only be brought to life through the collaboration with practitioners from other design domains.

The misconception of design thinking and bio-inspired design as being full innovation processes

makes the lack of feasibility outcomes more apparent. This is particularly more evident in the bio-

inspired design process, where the emulation phase covers some aspects of implementation, but not

so much on the commercialization aspect of the solutions. As a result, many practitioners of bio-

inspired design struggle with bringing their solution to life. We argue that the lack of implementation

plans is not a sign that both design thinking and bio-inspired design’s process are incomplete; rather,

both processes should be incorporated as part of a bigger design space.

3


Design thinking process has solid tools and methodologies that can be used in dealing with the

concept generation phase. The concept generation skills nurtured in design thinking can assist other

fields of design (especially the ones focusing more on technical mastery) to develop more sound

and holistic concepts through thorough exploration, rather than jumping straight to solutions. Thus,

as most bio-inspired practitioners currently come from scientific or technical domain, the

introduction of design thinking process in bio-inspired design may provide the right balance between

the exploratory and implementation phase of the process.

5.2 Applying Design Thinking Mindset in Bio-inspired Design

The first three observations analyze the process of bio-inspired design using the lens of design

thinking process. As design thinking involves both process and mindset, it is essential to observe the

application of the design thinking mindset in bio-inspired design. We have elaborated the mindset of

design thinkers in the literature review, and this section is aimed at describing how each mindset of

design thinking may contribute to addressing the challenges faced by bio-inspired design.

Observat ion 4: Explaining mental models involved in Design Process through ‘Designerly Ways of Knowing’

The literature describing the process of bio-inspired design, as elaborated in the literature review,

focus is largely on methodology and tools used within each phase of the process, rather than the

mindsets involved. In the design thinking methodology, the mental models involved in each design

space in the process are usually outlined. The double diamond model, for example, uses the

interplay between divergent and convergent thinking model in explaining the dominant mental

models involved in the different phases of the process. The understanding of the mental models

involved in the process is important as it allows conditioning of the kind of thinking process that has

to be fostered in different phase of design.

Nigel Cross (2007) refers to ‘designerly ways of knowing’ as the behavior and the cognitive

processes that designers undertake to solve a problem. The understanding of the ‘designerly ways of

knowing’ is of particular importance in bio-inspired design, as the approach deals with ill-defined

problems requiring creative thinking. In addition, the analogical nature of bio-inspired approach calls

for different creative cognitions, such as abstraction and connection making. In analysis part one we

elaborate on the creative cognition’s role in bio-inspired design process.

The challenge in understanding ‘designerly ways of knowing’ lies in its tacit nature (Cross, 2007).

Hence, the nurturing of ‘designerly ways of knowing’ is often through apprenticeship (ibid.). The tacit

4


nature of ‘designerly ways of knowing’ serves as another point as to why the involvement of

designers is crucial when applying bio-inspiration. However, we have also observed that designers

attempt to externalize the nature of ‘designerly ways of knowing’ through means of artifacts. In the

design thinking process, for example, there is a link between the methodologies and the mental

models involved. Design-thinking practitioners have created tools and exercises aimed at better

externalizing the nature of ‘designerly ways of knowing’. Mapping is a common tool used during the

exploratory process in design, in where designers make sense of complex information by structuring

and forging connections. Enactment is also a common way for designers to communicate the tacit

nature of their thinking process. Tools like bodystorming, role-playing, and experience prototyping

are used to communicate their thinking through enactment8.

“Draw what you think the organism is doing, not what the organism is. So, if you're drawing a cactus, I don't care about the spines - I care that the spines reflect light. We push very hard to get people to "see" beyond the literal. It is very hard. They do a lot of writing, describing what they want to occur and why, freeing them from the limitations of drawing or modeling something that is "possible". Suspension of disbelief is surprisingly difficult even for an undergraduate design student. We make it a requirement to have diagrams showing relationships between their organism and others, and emphasis on flow diagrams more than sexy renderings. Being able to visually communicate is very important and should be ingrained if you are a design thinker.” (Appendix 2, par. 12-17)

It can be inferred from the above interview quote that being able to communicate visually is a skill

nurtured by designers for them to better make sense of the problem they are working on. Exercises

like mapping and reenactment serve the same purpose as visualization; it is aimed at externalizing

the tacit part of designer’s trail of thoughts. In bio-inspired design, where reciprocation occurs

between the natural model and the initial problem formulation, being able to connect the two parts

becomes crucial. Categorizing natural models into functional principles using multi-layer

categorization can be a rigorous task if one is not able to visualize the connections. Thus, we argue

that being able to communicate visually is a skill that bio-inspired design practitioners should hone,

as it can be a way to make better sense of the complex information common of the bio-inspired

approach.

Observat ion 5: Bringing the spir i t of col laborat ion to l i fe

Throughout various sections in the analysis, we have emphasized the importance of

multidisciplinarity in bio-inspired design. The complexity of bio-inspired design approach calls for

diverse skill-sets and perspectives that are best achieved through multidisciplinary collaboration. In

8 Bodystorming: A method where designers set up scenarios and act out roles, with or without props, focusing on the intuitive responses prompted by the physical enactment Role Play : A method involving identification of stakeholders involved in the design problem and assign those roles to members of the team Experience Prototype: A prototype of a concept using available materials and use it in real life in order to learn from a simulation of the experience using the product Source: IDEO Method Cards


addition, multidisciplinary collaboration allows for critical feedback and self-reflection, which may

help reduce fixation in the design process (Youmans, 2011). However, while collaboration is one of

the mindsets fostered in design thinking, integrating individuals from different domains is a challenge

on its own. For example, we have elaborated in the previous section on the common conflict of

reasoning used between designers and scientists. In addition to the integration challenge, obtaining

individuals to work in a multidisciplinary team is also part of the challenge faced in the formation of

such team. The following sections assess how the aforementioned challenges are addressed in

design thinking.

Collaboration$through$Interdisciplinarity$

Acquiring individuals to be part of a multidisciplinary team can challenging since it requires

individuals who are confident enough in their expertise to go beyond it (Brown, 2009). While the

notion of “multidisciplinarity” is often perceived as a formation of individuals with various skill-sets, in

design thinking, the spirit of collaboration calls for a different approach to assessing

multidisciplinarity. In a traditional multidisciplinary team, each individual becomes an advocate for his

or her own skills, and a project often becomes a protracted negotiation among them (ibid.). In design

thinking, there is a collective ownership of ideas and everybody takes responsibility for them (ibid.).

Such collaboration is referred to as interdisciplinarity.

In the context of bio-inspired design, interdisciplinarity is not something that is commonly advocated,

although there is various literature and practices emphasizing the importance of multidisciplinarity.

The collective ownership of ideas in an interdisciplinary team is often achieved, as individuals are

equipped with the mastery of multiple skill-sets. Guest (1991) describes such individuals as the “T-

Shaped” person. These people have a disciplinary depth, for example in biology, but with arms

reaching out to other disciplines (Amber, 2000). Design thinking, as practiced in IDEO has long

advocated the importance of T-shaped people, and uses the quality as part of their resume

assessment. To date, the company has employed biologists with design backgrounds, architects with

psychology backgrounds and many other polymaths. In the context of the bio-inspired approach, the

conflict of reasoning between the science and design realms can be bridged with the presence of

individuals who has the ability to understand both perspectives.

“For scientist, its really useful to be reductionist, to be completely argumentative, to make a stand, to have a depth of knowledge. It is also very good for them to switch, like, I understand that you are just not made this way, let’s think about how we can do it in a new way. There are very few people who practice doing both, but when you find them they tend to be doing really well on their field.” (Appendix 1, par. 35)


Collaboration$through$the$establishment$of$common$values$

Integrating domains is prone to conflicts, as different domains involve different modes of reasoning

and ways of deploying principles. Interdisciplinarity can help address such conflicts from an internal

perspective, as the effort comes from the individuals themselves. To better ensure the integration

between domains, an external effort can also be considered, one of which through the establishment

of an environment aimed at generating common values. The introduction of a design thinking

mindset, with its focus on integrating different stakeholder needs, may serve as a set of common

values that can be deployed in the bio-inspired design team.

In bio-inspired design, there is a lack of common language for explaining the natural principles. The

use of biological vocabulary to explain the principles, especially to individuals who are not familiar

with biology, could potentially lead to miscommunication and conflict within the team. Thus, the first

step to generating common values should be the scoping of natural principles in a way that everyone

can understand.

The method of defining and scoping the challenge relative to biological abstraction with language everyone can understands, is very, very important. That is the key to talking to an interdisciplinary team, to define the problem in a language that everyone can understand… Being comfortable working in teams and allowing everyone to have a voice is crucial. (Appendix 3, par. 52) “To be good at the practice of making meaningful functional connections for innovation, a biomimic needs to acquire a large set of ‘labels’ that capture a complex set of biological conceptual elements and how they relate. Learning Biomimicry consists in part in learning (and often creating) a language of biomimicry. A deeper understanding of how to engage in biomimicry innovation requires a richer (and more precise) vocabulary that is currently absent from everyday language.” (McGee, Eco-Interface blog)

Furthermore, a predetermined consensus on the expected aim of the project can generate a

common understanding in the team. It is common for first-timers to have high expectations when

they start to exercise bio-inspired design. We have earlier pointed out that bio-inspired design is a

complex process, and there has to be various prerequisites in place in order for the teams to achieve

their intended aim. In the conclusion we show how such a common understanding can be

constructed through a strategic framework.

Observat ion 6. Experimentat ion and Empathy as a way to dive into the unknown world

Freedom$of$control$in$Design$Thinking$

One of the challenges identified in the first section of the analysis is the challenge of practitioners

having to immerse themselves in a different domain than their original expertise. For a biologist to


practice bio-inspired design, one has to learn the design tools of, and familiarize oneself with, the

technology of the target domain. Conversely, engineers and/or designers have to attain an

understanding of the biological phenomena in the source domain. In analysis one we argue that one

of the key factors for motivation in practitioners is the perception of freedom of control. For one to

better familiarize oneself with a new domain, the feeling of mastery is important.

“The thing I found was that they have a hard time working with new ideas at all. I ran across that so many times hence why I developed set of tools and activity that people can use to be creative. You're taking a radically different approach, and try to use it in a conventional setting. It doesn't work really well, it's very fragile. So, learning how to help people work together with new ideas. It is curious that neurologically humans do not like in the world of the unknown at all. If you take business, engineer or designer working in world of nature - that’s all unknown. People shut down and have terrible responses. So, part of it is making people help make it feel like known.” (Appendix 4,

par. 39)

When faced with so-called wicked problems, there is a need to explore unknown territories, and thus

also a need to approach it with a spirit of experimentation. A design-thinking environment has been

argued to be one that encourages exploration, experimentation and risk-taking. The experimental

spirit is useful in dealing with complex problems, as it allows one to quickly navigate around different

solutions. Nigel Cross (2007) argues that the experimental spirit is central to design activity, as it

relies on the fairly quickly generation of satisfactory solutions, rather than a prolonged analysis of the

problem. Thus, design activity is generally a “satisficing” rather than optimizing approach (ibid.). We

thus argue that the complexity in bio-inspired design shall not be approached with the mindset of

“optimization”.

Empathy:$A$relevant$factor$in$bioRinspired$design?$

The spirit of experimentation assists in the navigation of a complex problem. However, the spirit of

experimentation on its own may not be enough if it is not grounded on a solid understanding of the

issue at hand. Solution can be perceived as far-fetched or irrelevant in the absence of deep

understanding of people. In the design thinking mindset, the spirit of experimentation is paired with

empathy, which is aimed at producing satisfactory and appropriate solutions. Thus, we can argue

that the spirit of experimentation serves as a map in exploring the unknown world, while empathy

serves as the compass that keeps the journey grounded.

A good design thinker must nurture the ability to extend beyond him/herself. The empathy mindset

cultivates the designer’s ability to deeply understand the context of a problem, and in the case of

human centered design, the need of people. In bio-inspired design, the complexity of natural

principles can only be contextualized through a deep understanding of the natural principles and the

connection with problems at hand. The nurture of empathy, thus, can be a way for bio-inspired


practitioners to gain the skills to deeply understand nature in a systematic way.

“If you need to learn really how nature does things, you have to use design thinking when looking at nature. So if you're looking at a leaf, you basically have to pretend you're the leaf. If I'm a leaf "how would I do that. How would I experience this. How is my experience in this system or this context and this leaf.. Why do I have fuzzes on my back and shiny on the front and.." So it is my understanding of Design Thinking that you really have to get your head into the head of the consumer, "what is the consumer, or end-user, experiencing what I want them to experience". So it is a really great.. Design Thinking is exactly what you need to do to understand how nature works.” (Appendix 4, par.

13)

The nurture of a deep understanding has an impact of how practitioners with empathy perceive a

given problem. While ill-defined problems are often met with skepticism, empathy cultivates the

ability to see ill-defined problem with optimism. Thus, when diving into the unfamiliar territory,

empathy can be a means for one to embrace the unfamiliarity, instead of being discouraged by it.

One of our respondents describes empathy as the biggest lesson that bio-inspired practitioners can

learn from design thinking:

“I think the biggest benefit has been this focus on empathy. As a biologist you sort of look at the world, and you see destruction, challenges in the ecosystem. The way it framed to you.. I know a lot of biologist who don’t like people.. they’re angry at the world. As a result, they just want to study their organism, and they just close off, and they’re very skeptical. I think the design community is the opposite. You’re building empathy for people. You love people. You love the thing that people do even if they’re crazy and kooky. You’re trying to work from a place of understanding, rather than a place of frustration, or place of anger. For me, it’s really good to see a community of people that are genuinely optimistic about people and like to think about how people can be better in the world, rather than, being angry at what they’re doing. So that has been like a cultural shift for me.” (Appendix 1, par. 47)

Summary of Analysis Section 2

This section is aimed at assessing how design thinking can address the challenges faced by bio-

inspired design. Our comparison of design thinking and bio-inspired process has provided a better

understanding of the similarities between design thinking and bio-inspired design, and allowed us to

suggest how some of the challenges in bio-inspired design can be addressed by applying elements

of design thinking in the bio-inspired design process.

We also analyze the relevance of the design thinking mindset in bio-inspired design. One of the

biggest drawbacks of design thinking, as outlined in the literature review, is some practitioner’s

tendency to see it as a step-by-step process without the proper understanding of the associated

mindset of design thinking. Our analysis suggests that some of the challenges faced by bio-inspired

design may be addressed through the adopting and the nurturing of elements of the design thinking

mindset. Ultimately, we stress the importance of both approaches being seen as being part of a

bigger design space, as we argue both design thinking and bio-inspired design are not full innovation


processes. Figure 17 summarizes the variables in design thinking process and mindset that may help

address challenges we argue are faced by bio-inspired design:

F igure 17 : How Design Thinking addressed chal lenges faced by b io- inspired design

As seen in figure 17, there is a link from the various challenges to the challenge of feasibility /

externalization. We argue that in order for bio- inspired design to systematically deliver feasible

solutions - that is solutions that are novel, useful, and applicable - bio-inspired design should be seen

as a part of a bigger design space and adopt the tools and mindsets of other design processes. We

argue that the challenge of externalization is not a standalone challenge; rather it is a result of

various unaddressed challenges, which may impact the ability of the bio-inspired process to come

up with a feasible solution. Clearer expectations, better team formations, a better fit between skills

and aims, and integrative thinking can all bring better synergy to the process, making the concepts

developed more feasible. The next section of this thesis concludes our inference in both sections of

the analysis, by proposing a strategic framework that can support the application of bio-inspired

design. The strategic framework is developed based on the common denominator of the challenges

that we have explored throughout the analysis, with a focus on aiding the bio-inspired design in

developing novel and useful solutions.

section 6

conclusiona strategic framework supporting the application of bio-inspired design


The first part of our analysis examines the process of bio-inspired design using the understanding of creativity as the observational lens. Throughout the analysis, we identify some of the key challenges

currently faced by bio-inspired design that might hinder the practice from producing novel and

useful solutions. In the second part of our analysis, we aim to observe how design thinking, as an

applied method of creativity, can address the aforementioned challenges.

The synthesis of our analysis generates three important inferences in regards to the application of

bio-inspired design. First, bio-inspired approach is a broad approach that requires a synergy between

the expected outcome and the available resources (skills, process and environment). Most

challenges we have identified in the first part of our analysis can be attributed to the failure of

aligning the expected outcome with the available resources. Second, design thinking contributes to

bio-inspired approach by creating a condition that promotes the quest for novel and useful solutions.

Design thinking helps define what processes and environmental conditions that has to be in place, in

order for a bio-inspired approach to get closer to its intended outcome. Third, the interaction

between bio-inspired design and other design approaches helps create a condition that is conducive

for the bio-inspired approach to fulfill its intended outcome.

In our analysis we show that one of the challenges is that bio-inspired design practitioners does not

necessarily see bio-inspired design as being part of a bigger design space, rather a discipline of its

own. Furthermore, the application of bio-inspired design requires a certain mindset and mental

models that is often associated with creativity. Such mindset and mental models are nurtured in the

design process of other design fields. Thus, we argue that the understanding of creativity can act as

the glue that establishes bio-inspired design as part of a bigger design space.

Many of the challenges faced by bio-inspired design can be addressed through an integrated

application of bio-inspired design and other design fields. We argue the integrations should be

continuous throughout the whole process, and not only in the execution phase. However, integration

requires additional resources and more effort in bridging the different discourses. Thus, it is

important to clarify the expected outcomes of the bio-inspired approach early in the process, to be

able plan the process based on where it will fit in the bigger design space.

“It is one of (biomimicry) life principles to create condition conducive to life. What I am finding is we first need to create a condition conducive to, whether its biomimicry or biomimetics. Once you create this condition, the emergence will happen. So what I’m trying to do is to create the condition, bring people from different field, and then so.. ooh.. I get it. So biomimetics people will understand the need to be creative, and the biomimicry people will understand the business …because biomimicry people are really hung on to their dogma, so that’s their biggest constraints, and the biomimetics people cannot stand the “la-la-la”. So, I think we have create a condition to this, not


one versus the other.. The other part will just naturally emerge once you crate those condition.. I think fantastic will happen because the world needs radical innovation!.” (Appendix 4, par. 57)

6.1 The Antenna of Bio-Inspired Design

The ability to sense the interaction between different components making up the process, and to

identify conditions that have to be in place to adapt to the expected outcome of the project, is crucial

in the planning and application of any design approach. Thus, based on our findings from the

primary data and the secondary literature, we offer a strategic framework to support the resource

planning and application of a bio-inspired design process.

The framework does not serve as a methodology describing sequential steps of the bio-inspired

process, as we believe that a more extensive research has been undertaken to offer such a

framework. We call the framework ‘the antenna of bio-inspired design’ (BID Antenna). An antenna is

a sensory organ on the head of insects and crustaceans that is used mainly to feel and touch things.

In addition, in some species, it is also necessary for orientation during migration. Thus, we offer the

‘BID Antenna’ as a way to sense the fit between the expected outcomes of a bio-inspired project with

its elements that has to be in place to support the outcome. In essence, the purpose of the antenna

is two-fold:

1. Alignment of expectations through the sensing of fit between the aim of the project and the

skills of the team members, and

2. A signaling tool for developing an awareness of the process and environmental elements that has to be in place to support the aim of the project.

F igure 18 : The Antenna of Bio-Inspired Design

aim

skills

process environment


6.1 .1 The Bio-inspired Design Continuum In the ‘BID Antenna’ framework, the expected outcome (aim) and the current skill level of the project

team need to be first identified. It is a holistic level identification based on the common distinction

between various bio-inspired approaches. In addition, based on the analysis in the prior section, we

aim to identify the elements of bio-inspired design that are important to be aligned and

acknowledged. Figure 19 outline the abovementioned components:

F igure 19 : BID Antenna: The predetermined components –aims and ski l ls

Ident i f icat ion of the broad a im:

The extent of emulat ion ( Indirect to Direct) : The aim of a direct emulation is to emulate

the functional principles of a certain natural example. The cases of the humpback whale and Velcro

fit into the definition of direct emulation. On the contrary, in an indirect emulation setting, there may

not be any visible or direct traces between the ideas generated and the natural examples used in the

process. In the indirect setting, natural examples often act as a source of inspiration or a way to

disrupt thinking.

The source of inspirat ion (solut ion-based to problem-based) : In a problem-based

setting, natural examples are used to address a predetermined problem. An example is the IDEO

USGBC case, where inspiration from nature is used to address the organizational design of the

company. In a solution-based setting, one usually encounters a certain natural phenomenon that

inspires one to emulate the principles in creating new products or services.

The approach of b io- inspired design (Journey to Dest inat ion) : The component is

identified based on the different archetypes of practitioners within the field, explorers and executors,

as suggested by Hastrich (2011). When one aims to exercise bio-inspired design as a journey, the

focus is on the experimentation without much concern on the emulation of a solid solution, that is,

one embarks on a bio-inspired journey without knowing where the process will lead. When bio-

inspired design is seen as a destination, one sets out with a clearer notion of what problems are to be

solved and with a more targeted process aimed at producing sound and feasible solutions.

Ident i f icat ion of sk i l ls :

We acknowledge that defining the skill-level needed purely based on two continuums is a somewhat

simplified approach. However, the purpose of this process is to gain a high-level understanding of

journey approach destination

directextent of emulation indirect

probleminspirationsolution

lo biolo!y familiarityhi

loexperience with creative problem-solvin!

hi

lorelevant technical specialization

hi

SKILL-SET AIM


the skill level of each individual within the team, an understanding that will ultimately help to better

gauge the general skill-level of the team. Throughout our analysis, we infer that two important skill-

sets that should be acknowledged in bio-inspired design are the level of familiarity with biology, as

well as the level of experience in creative problem solving.

B io logy famil iar i ty : The level of knowledge of biology. The knowledge of biology assessed

through the team members experience, education and personal interest. A high familiarity of biology

means that the individual is in position to provide various natural examples for a certain

phenomenon.

The exper ience in creat ive problem solv ing : The variable relates to the experience, not

the theoretical understanding of creative problem solving. In the context of creative problem solving,

skills are nurtured through experience, as the mental models associated with the process are often

tacit in nature (Cross, 2007). Thus, the variable can help identifying the extent of the team member’s

experience in nurturing mental models associated with creative problem solving (elaborated in the

analysis).

Relevant technical specia l izat ion : Apart from the biology and creativity skill-sets, technical

specialization is an important skill contributing to the externalization of the bio-inspired concepts.

These technical specializations can cover a range of disciplines, like engineering, architecture, and

other design fields.

As we will see in the subsequent section, all of the components presented above are linked together.

The intersection between the different components act as the antenna, signaling the appropriate

condition that has to be in place to reach the expected outcome.

6.1 .2 The Ski l l and Aim Alignment The first part of assessing the interplay of the different components is the identification of the

collective skill-set of the team (skill mapping). Skill mapping is important in bio-inspired design, as

mismanaged expectations is a challenge potentially faced in the process. As elaborated in the

analysis, mismanaged expectation is likely to be driven by a misalignment between the aim of bio-

inspired project and the skill-levels that the project team possesses. Thus, one should seek to align

the team skill-set with the expected aim of the associated bio-inspired design project before the

project is started.

Figure 20 offer an example on how the skills-aim alignment can be applied to identify the skill gap.

The skill-gap can be identified through the overlaying of the skill-set mapping into the aim

continuum. Subsequent to the identification of which skills and aim spectrum the project team is in

(based on the continuum outlined in figure 19), each of the important skills is paired with a related

expected aim. We argue that each of the skill-sets impacts the appropriate aim of the process.


Biological knowledge impacts the extent of emulation one should aim for, as a direct emulation

requires more detailed biological knowledge, particularly when it comes to extracting the functions of

the biological elements. In regards to the variable ‘inspiration’, the more experienced one has with

creative problem-solving skills, the more s/he is able to utilize the mental models needed to abstract

from, and make connections between, a problem at hand and the relevant biological organism. Thus,

a problem-based approach requires a greater level of experience when it comes to creative problem

solving. Furthermore, the level of technical specialization the team possesses influences the

approach of bio-inspired design, as absence of such skills will make it more difficult for the team to

come up with a tangible and feasible solution. A high technical specialization in the team is

conducive to a more ‘destination’ type approach, where one has a clearer picture of where one wants

to go.

F igure 20: BID Antenna: Ski l ls-Aim al ignment

A practical example is outlined in figure 20. The grey bar represents the current skill level of an

example project team possesses. Based on the skill-map, the team fits better with a ‘journey’ type

bio-inspired approach, and using natural examples more as a creativity driver. The high-experience

in creative problem solving allows the team to work on either solution-based or problem-based

approaches. The blue bar represents the initial aim of the team based on an earlier exercise of

formulating the aim of the process. Thus, the blue area represents the skill gap between the current

team and the optimal level for the type of bio-inspiration the team aims to perform. To close the gap,

the team thus has to either change their initial aim of the process, or acquire the missing technical

and biological expertise.

The skills and aim alignment serves as a sensing tool that identifies whether the initial aim of the

project is backed with the required skills. Once the alignment of skills and aim is achieved, the next

step is to identify the process and environment that has to be in place to support the initial aim of

bio- inspired project.


6.1 .3 Aim and Process Al ignment The next phase of the alignment involves the identification of elements, based on the initial aim that

has to be in place in the bio-inspired design process. Different forms of expected outcomes calls for

different approaches needed to achieve the objective. To define the process, we are looking at the

relationship between two variables influencing the aim of the project: ‘inspiration’ and ‘approach’.

As detailed in the analysis, there is a difference in approaching problem-based and solution based

projects. In the problem-based setting, we argue that the two-tier problem formulation process has

to be in place. The approach requires a deep understanding of the target problem, before ‘biologizing’

the problem (see analysis 1). Thus, problem finding and formulation should be a key phase in the

process of the problem-based approach. In addition, as biological examples are used to address

human-centered problems, perspectives from various disciplines have to be applied to the problem,

to allow for critical feedback and reflection.

In the solution-based setting, oversimplification may occur during the transfer process, as

practitioners may fail to fully consider the complexity in breaking down natural principles into a set of

functions. The oversimplifying often results from practitioners skipping the complex and diverse

insight process in order to hold on to something more manageable (Appendix 2, par. 37). It is thus

important in a solution-based setting to allocate time and resources in the information and

knowledge-gathering phase, in order to capture the rich insights that arise from observing the natural

examples. In addition, to widen the span of possible solutions, the idea generation phase should not

only be focused on the direct emulation, but also on the non-obvious aspects of the knowledge

gathered.

The initial intention of the project also influences the process of bio-inspired design. As the ‘journey’ approach entails more experimentation, the process should support this through the formation of

iterative cycles; focus on rapid prototyping, and the establishment of creative exercises throughout

the idea generation phase. In the ‘destination’ approach, however, each phase of the process should

be evaluated. As a feasible outcome is the ultimate aim, a clear set of parameters (performance

indicators) has to be established prior to the execution of the process, which is used to evaluate the

progress. In addition, it is easy to rush into solution in a ‘destination’ setting. For practitioners

intending to use a ‘destination’ approach, one has to acknowledge that breaking natural functions

into functional principles is a complex process, and hence one should allow for ample time used in

the phase.

Figure 21 offers a visualization of how the process can be managed, depending on the initial aim of

the project. For example, in the top right ‘problem-destination’ square, clear parameters have to be


defined prior to starting the project. The process has to be managed in a parallel fashion, with an

equal focus on the idea generation, emulation, and problem formulation phases.

Figure 21 : BID Antenna: The Process Matr ix

6.1 .4 Aim, Ski l ls and Environment Al ignment The last phase of the alignment process involves an identification of the environmental factors that

has to be in place to create a condition that is conducive to achieving the initial aim of the process.

As we show in our analysis, the extent of biology familiarity has an influence in the individual’s

motivation. When dealing with team members who have little familiarity of biology, the environment

has to be shaped in a way that make them feel comfortable in exploring an unknown space. The

failure to do so might negatively influence the motivation of the team members in exploring an

unfamiliar domain. Thus, the use of familiar language, and the shaping of an environment that

embeds some familiar elements of the practitioners are important when it comes to managing their

motivation. In addition, our findings suggest that it is easy for individuals who have little knowledge in

biology to get primed by the first biological examples presented to them. An environment that

fosters a slow and wide exploration of biology by the practitioners may prevent the priming to turn

into fixation.

A high familiarity of biology and other sciences influences the mode of reasoning of the process. As

the level of biology and/or science specialization increase, there is a tendency for one to feel

uncomfortable on diverging to a more peripheral topic (see Analysis 1). Based on our findings, this

may be driven by the mode of reasoning in science that values a concern for truth over imagination (Cross, 2007). Thus, the environment has to be shaped to aid the individuals in knowing when put

aside their scientific mode of reasoning, and start exploring a more peripheral area.

problem

solution

journey destination

parallel processproblem formulation

parametersmore time

experimentation

idea !enerationrisk of oversimplification


The intention of bio-inspired approach also calls for different environmental set-up. A conducive

environment can smooth the process, and tackle obstacles that may get in the way of achieving the

aim. In a ‘journey’ setting, for example, one is prone to losing oneself in the experimental space,

resulting in the process losing direction. It is therefore important for the environment to provide focus

when it is needed, especially when the process is driven by experimentation and iteration. The

environment, in this sense, can provide some constraints limiting the team from exploring endlessly.

The constraints can be in form of time, space, or structure. Conversely, a destination setting may

benefit from a more creative environment, particularly in a ‘solution’ focused process setting. The

creative environment may help promote incubation, especially in a time of fixation, as well as

encouraging the team members to search beyond the face value of a problem.

Figure 22 offers a visualization of how the environment has to be managed, depending on the initial

aim of the project. For example, in a high biology-familiarity destination setting (e.g. biomimetics), a

creative environment encourages the individuals to share skills and diverge into different areas. In

such environment, each individual is not a champion for his/her own specialization, but works

together with the team to achieve a common aim.

F igure 22: BID Antenna: The Environment Matr ix

6.2 The BID Antenna as a Dynamic Framework

The notion of sensing and signaling in the BID Antenna refers to the intended use of the framework

as a guide to adapting the skills, processes, and environment, to the aim, or expected outcome, of the

bio-inspired project.

hi

lo

journey destination

diver!ence

creativity

focus

biolo!y fixation

biolo!y familiarity

motivation


The framework is dynamic, meaning that within a certain bio-inspired project, the aim may shift and

alter depending on the changing dynamics of the project. What is initially a solution-driven approach

may change into a problem-driven approach as new discoveries are made. Similarly, what is

intended as a journey can turn into a destination-aimed approach in instances where the

experimentation process yields to a feasible solution. Thus, the BID antenna is a dynamic framework

that indicates what components has to be in place when such a shift in the aim occurs. In this sense,

the framework is based on the principle of ‘i terat iveness ’ . The BID Antenna takes into consideration the interaction between the different components within a

bio-inspired approach. The framework starts with aligning the skills of the team with the intended

outcome, the initial aim of the project, and subsequently elaborate what process and environment

has to be in place to support the outcome. Thus, each components observed are in terconnected , and the shift in one component leads to an adjustment of the other components.

6.3 Limitations of the Framework

The BID Antenna is an aim to construct a generalized framework that can assist practitioners on

creating a condition conducive for bio-inspired approach to foster novel and useful solutions. We are

aware that the establishment of such generalized framework, especially in a discipline that still has

yet to develop a shared discourse, requires thorough observation and empirical testing. Our empirical

work is based on expert interviews, but we are aware that their views are not necessarily

representable for the discipline of bio- inspired design as a whole. In addition, the framework has not

yet been tested in a practical setting, thus it is not possible for us to observe the challenges that

practitioners may face on using the framework, nor the value that it may bring on a practical level.

As we are fully aware of the limitations of the framework, especially in the context of practical

application and the extent of the generalization, we are keen to propose the framework as a first attempt to build a framework that can support the application of bio-inspired design. The framework

can further be established through testing in practical setting. Furthermore, the framework can also

benefit from a more thorough elaboration on the components making up the process and

environment matrixes.

6.4 Concluding Remarks

The thesis is aimed at exploring how an understanding of creativity can support the application of

bio-inspired design. An initial suggestion made is that the understanding of creativity may explain

some of the challenges faced by bio-inspired design. Furthermore, we argue that the interplay

between bio-inspired design and design thinking, as an applied form of creativity, may contribute in

addressing these challenges. Our analytical approach is to examine the bio-inspired design approach


from a holistic point of view. While the approach may limit the applicability of our insights in a

context-specific process of bio-inspired design, we believe that the holistic viewpoint allows us to

observe bio-inspired design beyond its methods. In using a macro-orientational approach we identify

the individual and environmental factors influencing the ability of bio-inspired design to deliver novel

and useful solutions.

Creativity is a product of the interaction of creative processes, individual skills, motivation, and an

individual’s environment. Thus, the understanding of creativity entails an understanding that method

on its own may not support more creative outputs of bio-inspired design. What is equally important

is the effort to create a condition that can support the application of the method. Such a condition

can be created through the understanding of how the individual, process, and environmental factors

can support each other and fit together in a unified framework. The BID Antenna emerge as a result

of the synthesis of our findings from primary data and secondary literature. The ultimate aim of the

BID Antenna is to provide practitioners with an understanding of the conditions that have to be in

place for the bio-inspired design process to deliver novel and useful solutions. Furthermore, we

believe the understanding of creativity may serve as a common language connecting the different

disciplines in applying bio-inspired design.


6.5 Visualization of flow of Inference in this Thesis

Figure 23 Visual izat ion of the f low of inference in th is thesis


Bibliography

Alasuutari, Pertti, Leonard Bickman, and Julia Brannen, eds. “The SAGE handbook of social research methods.” Sage, 2008. Amabile, Teresa M. "Creativity in context." (1996). Amabile, Teresa. “Componential theory of creativity.” Harvard Business School, 2012. Amabile, T. M. “How to Kill Creativity”, hbrreprint (98501) HBS Austin, Robert., Friis, Silje Kamille, & Sullivan, Erin E. “Design: More than a Cool Chair”. Boston: HBR. 2007 Badarnah Kadri, Lidia. “Towards the Living Envelope: Biomimetics for building envelope adaptation.” Wohrman Printed Service BV. 2012 Barbour, Rosaline. “Introducing qualitative research: A student's guide to the craft of doing qualitative research.” Sage, 2007. Bar-Cohen, Yoseph. "Biomimetics—using nature to inspire human innovation."Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 1.1 (2006): P1. Benyus, Janine M. “Biomimicry.” HarperCollins e-books, 2009. Bharadwaj, Sundar, and Anil Menon. "Making innovation happen in organizations: individual creativity mechanisms, organizational creativity mechanisms or both?." Journal of product innovation management 17.6 (2000): 424-434. Berg, Bruce Lawrence. “Qualitative research methods for the social sciences.” Vol. 5. Boston: Pearson, 2004. Biomimicry 3.8. “Introduction to Biomimicry (Course Material).” 2011 Biomimicry 3.8 [no author listed]. (2013). “Learn More. Biomimicry course handbook.” [digital class handout]. Biomimicry 3.8, Missoula, Montana. Blumberg, Boris, Donald R. Cooper, and Pamela S. Schindler. “Business research methods.” Vol. 2. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2008. Boden, Margaret A., ed. “Dimensions of creativity.” MIT Press, 1996. Boland, Richard J., and Fred Collopy, eds. “Managing as designing.” Stanford University Press, 2004. Bonser, R. H. C., & Vincent, J. F. V. “Technology trajectories, innovation, and the growth of biomimetics.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, (2007): 221(10), 1177-1180. Brown, Tim. “Change by design.” HarperCollins, 2009. Brown, Tim. “Design Thinking.” Boston: HBR, June 2008. Buchanan, Richard. "Wicked problems in design thinking." Design issues 8.2 (1992): 5-21. Buxton, Bill. “Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design.” Morgan Kaufmann, 2010. Bryman, Alan. “Social research methods.” Oxford university press, 2012. Cabrera, Derek, Laura Colosi, and Claire Lobdell. "Systems thinking."Evaluation and program planning 31.3.” (2008): 299-310.


Chakrabarti, A., Sarkar, P., Leelavathamma, B., & Nataraju, B. S. "A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas." Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 19.2 (2005): 113-132. Cheong, H., Shu, L.H., 2012, “Automatic Extraction of Causally Related Functions from Natural-Language Text for Biomimetic Design,” Proceedings of ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Chicago, IL, August 12-15, DETC2012-70732 Cheong, Hyunmin, and L. H. Shu. "Using templates and mapping strategies to support analogical transfer in biomimetic design." Design Studies (2013). Cheong, Hyunmin, and L. H. Shu. "Reducing cognitive bias in biomimetic design by abstracting nouns." CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology (2013). Chiu, I., & Shu, L. H. “Biomimetic design through natural language analysis to facilitate cross-domain information retrieval.” AI EDAM, (2007): 21(1), 45-59. Cohen, A. “Case Study in Creativity Research.” In Albert J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. (2010). (pp. 82-85). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412957397.n31 Cropley, Arthur. "In praise of convergent thinking." Creativity Research Journal18.3 (2006): 391-404. Cross, Nigel, John Naughton, and David Walker. "Design method and scientific method." Design studies 2.4 (1981): 195-201. Cross, Nigel. “Designerly ways of knowing.” Birkhauser Boston, 2007. Dahl, Darren W., and Page Moreau. "The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation." Journal of Marketing Research (2002): 47-60. Dargent, Eric, “Biomimicry for Business?” Exeter Business School MBA dissertation (2011) DeForge, B. “Research Design Principles.” In Neil J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design. (pp. 1253-1260). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412961288.n381. (2010). De-Friis Olivarius, Morten. “The Neurobiology of Creativity.” Draft. 2012 Dorst, Kees, and Nigel Cross. "Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution." Design studies 22.5 (2001): 425-437. Douven, Igor. "Abduction." (2011). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) Dubberly, Hugh. "COVER STORY Toward a model of innovation." Interactions 15.1 (2008): 28-36. Dubberly, Hugh. "ON MODELING Design in the age of biology: shifting from a mechanical-object ethos to an organic-systems ethos." interactions 15.5 (2008): 35-41. Florida, Richard, and Jim Goodnight. "Managing for creativity." Harvard business review 83.7 (2005): 124. Floyd, S, Keegan, T and Sitti, M. “A novel water running robot inspired by Basilisk lizards”, in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ Intelligent Robot Systems Conference, Beijing, China, Nov. 2006, (2006): pp 5430-5436 Gilgun, Jane F. "Qualitative research and family psychology." Journal of Family Psychology 19.1 (2005): 40. Glier, M. W., McAdams, D. A., & Linsey, J. S. “Concepts in Biomimetic Design: Methods and Tools to Incorporate Into a Biomimetic Design Course.” (2011)


Goel, Ashok K. "Design, analogy, and creativity." IEEE expert 12.3 (1997): 62-70. Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M. W., & Ingram, A. E. "Managing creatives: Paradoxical approaches to identity regulation." Human Relations 63.6 (2010): 781-805. Guild, Biomimicry. "Biomimicry: an introduction." (2005). Guild, Biomimicry. "Innovation Inspired by Nature Work Book." Biomimicry Guild, April (2007). Guild, Biomimicry. "Life's Principles." (2007). Guild, Biomimicry. "Nature as Measure." (2011). Gramann, J. “Problemmodelle und Bionik als Methode.” PhD Thesis. Technical University Munich. (2004) Hammersley, Martyn. "Assessing validity in social research." The SAGE handbook of social research methods (2008): 25-44. Haskell, Robert E. "Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought (Book)."Metaphor and Symbol 12.1 (1997): 89-94. Helms, Michael E., and Ashok K. Goel. "Analogical Problem Evolution In Biologically Inspired Design." Proc. Fifth International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition, College Station, Texas. 2012. Helms, Michael, Swaroop S. Vattam, and Ashok K. Goel. "Biologically inspired design: process and products." Design Studies 30.5 (2009): 606-622. Hill, Bernd. "Goal Setting Through Contradiction Analysis in the Bionics‐Oriented Construction Process." Creativity and Innovation Management 14.1 (2005): 59-65. Hill, Bernd. “Innovationsquelle natur: naturorientierte innovationsstrategie für entwickler, konstrukteure und designer.“ Shaker, 1997. Hodgson, Geoffrey M. "Darwinism in economics: from analogy to ontology."Journal of evolutionary economics 12.3 (2002): 259-281. Holyoak, Keith James. “Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought.” MIT press, 1996. Hutchins, Giles. “The Nature of Business: Redesigning for Resilience.” Green Books. 2012 Kershaw, Trina C., Katja Hölttä-Otto, and Yoon Soo Lee. "The Effect of Prototyping and Critical Feedback on Fixation in Engineering Design."Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society CogSci’11, Boston, MA. 2011. Karn, J. S., and A. J. Cowling. "Using ethnographic methods to carry out human factors research in software engineering." Behavior research methods 38.3 (2006): 495-503. Kimbell, Lucy, and Park End Street. "Beyond design thinking: Design-as-practice and designs-in-practice." CRESC Conference, Manchester. 2009. Lee, Raymond M., and Nigel G. Fielding. "Tools for qualitative data analysis."Handbook of data analysis (2004): 529-546. Leedy, Paul Dellinger, and Jeanne Ellis Ormrod. "Practical research: Planning and design." (2005). Lepora, Nathan F., Paul Verschure, and Tony J. Prescott. "The state of the art in biomimetics." Bioinspiration & biomimetics 8.1 (2013): 013001.


Levallois, Clement. "Why Were Biological Analogies in Economics “A Bad Thing”?” Edith Penrose's Battles against Social Darwinism and McCarthyism."Science in Context 24.04 (2011): 465-485. Locher, P. "How does a visual artist create an artwork?." The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (2010): 131-144. Locke, K. “Abduction.” In Albert J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. (pp. 1-4). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412957397.n1 (2010) Lockwood, Thomas. “Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience, and Brand Value.” Allworth Press. 2009 McCandless, David. “Information is beautiful.” HarperCollins UK, 2009. MacCrimmon, Kenneth R., and Christian Wagner. "Stimulating ideas through creative software." Management Science 40.11 (1994): 1514-1532. Mahmoud‐Jouini, Sihem Ben, and Florence Charue‐Duboc. "Enhancing discontinuous innovation through knowledge combination: the case of an exploratory unit within an established automotive firm." Creativity and Innovation Management 17.2 (2008): 127-135. Mak, T. W., and L. H. Shu. "Abstraction of biological analogies for design."CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology 53.1 (2004): 117-120. Mak, T. W., and L. H. Shu. "Using descriptions of biological phenomena for idea generation." Research in Engineering Design 19.1 (2008): 21-28. Martins, E. C., and F. Terblanche. "Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation." European journal of innovation management 6.1 (2003): 64-74. Martin, Roger L. “The design of business: why design thinking is the next competitive advantage.” Harvard Business Press, 2009. Mathewson, James H. "Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators." Science Education 83.1 (1999): 33-54. Meadows, M. G., Butler, M. W., Morehouse, N. I., Taylor, L. A., Toomey, M. B., McGraw, K. J., & Rutowski, R. L. "Iridescence: views from many angles." Journal of The Royal Society Interface 6.Suppl 2 (2009): S107-S113. Mueller, Jennifer S., Shimul Melwani, and Jack A. Goncalo. "The Bias Against Creativity Why People Desire but Reject Creative Ideas." Psychological science 23.1 (2012): 13-17. Nachtigall, W. (1974). “Biological Mechanisms of Attachment:the comparative morphology and bionengineering of organs for linkage New York” : Springer-Verlag Norman, Donald A. "Technology first, needs last: the research-product gulf." interactions 17.2 (2010): 38-42. Nussbaum, Bruce. “The Power of Design.” Business Week, May 17, 2004. Penrose, Edith Tilton. "Biological analogies in the theory of the firm." The American Economic Review 42.5 (1952): 804-819. Pólya, George, ed. “Mathematics and plausible reasoning: Induction and analogy in mathematics.” Vol. 1. Princeton University Press, 1990. Puccio, Gerard J., and John F. Cabra. "Organizational creativity: A systems approach." Cambridge handbook of creativity (2010): 145-173. Reichertz, Jo. “Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory.” Sage, 2007.


Runco, Mark A. “Divergent Thinking, Creativity, and Ideation.” Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (2010): 412-446. Sanders, Elizabeth B-N., and Pieter Jan Stappers. "Co-creation and the new landscapes of design." Co-design 4.1 (2008): 5-18. Santulli, Carlo, and Carla Langella. "Introducing students to bio-inspiration and biomimetic design: a workshop experience." International Journal of Technology and Design Education 21.4 (2011): 471-485. Sartori, Julian, Ujjwal Pal, and Amaresh Chakrabarti. "A methodology for supporting “transfer” in biomimetic design." AI EDAM (Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing) 24.4 (2010): 483. Sawyer, Keith (2012). “Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation.” 2nd edition. Oxford Press. Speck, T., Speck, O., Beheshti, N., & McIntosh, A. C. "Process sequences in biomimetic research." Design and nature 4 (2008): 3-11. Spector, P. “Social Desirability Bias.” In Michael S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & Tim Futing Liao (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. (pp. 1045-1046). Sage Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412950589.n932. (2004). Schild, Katharina, Cornelius Herstatt, and Christian Lüthje. “How to use analogies for breakthrough innovations.” No. 24. Working Papers/Technologie-und Innovationsmanagement, Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg, 2004. Shu, L. H. “A natural-language approach to biomimetic design.” AI EDAM (Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing”), (2010): 24(4), 507. Shu, L. H., Ueda, K., Chiu, I., & Cheong, H. "Biologically inspired design." CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology 60.2 (2011): 673-693. Silverman, David. “Interpreting qualitative data.” Sage, 2011. Smith, Steven M. "The constraining effects of initial ideas." (2003). Sternberg, Robert J., ed. “Handbook of creativity.” Cambridge University Press, 1998. Streb, C. "Exploratory case study." Encyclopaedia of case study research 1 (2010): 372-373. Stroble, J. K., Stone, R. B., Mcadams, D. A., & Watkins, S. E. "An engineering-to-biology thesaurus to promote better collaboration, creativity and discovery." Proceedings of the 19th CIRP Design Conference–Competitive Design. Cranfield University Press, 2009. Suri, Jane Fulton and R. Michael Henrix. “Developing Design Sensibilities.” HBS Product #ROT113. Boston: HBS Publishing. 2010 Tidd, Joe, and John Bessant. “Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change.” Wiley, 2011. Todd, Nancy Jack. (2005). “A safe and sustainable world: The promise of ecological design.” Island Press. Trotta, Maria G. "Bio-inspired Design Methodology." International Journal of Information Science 1.1 (2011): 1-11. Turner, J. Scott, and Rupert C. Soar. "Beyond biomimicry: What termites can tell us about realizing the living building." Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Industrialized, Intelligent Construction. 2008. Vakili, V., and L. H. Shu. "Towards biomimetic concept generation." Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference. Vol. 4. 2001.


Vattam, S., Helms, M., & Goel, A. “Biologically inspired design: A macrocognitive account.” In Proc. 2010 ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methods. (2010, August). Vattam, Swaroop S., Michael E. Helms, and Ashok K. Goel. "A content account of creative analogies in biologically inspired design." AI EDAM (Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing) 24.4 (2010): 467. Vattam, Swaroop S., Michael E. Helms, and Ashok K. Goel. "Nature of creative analogies in biologically inspired innovative design." Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition. ACM, 2009. Vattam, S., Wiltgen, B., Helms, M., Goel, A. K., & Yen, J."DANE: fostering creativity in and through biologically inspired design." Design Creativity 2010. Springer London, 2011. 115-122. Verganti, Roberto. “Design driven innovation: changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean.” Harvard Business School Press, 2009. Vincent, Julian FV, and Darrell L. Mann (2002). “Systematic technology transfer from biology to engineering.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,360(1791), 159-173. Vincent, J. F., Bogatyreva, O. A., Bogatyrev, N. R., Bowyer, A., & Pahl, A. K. "Biomimetics: its practice and theory." Journal of the Royal Society Interface 3.9 (2006): 471-482. Wahl, D. C. “Bionics vs. biomimicry: from control of nature to sustainable participation in nature. Design and nature III: comparing design in nature with science and engineering” (2006) 87, 289-298. Walliman, Nicholas. “Social research methods.” Sage, 2006. Ward, K., & Street, C. “Reliability.” In Albert J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. (pp. 801-803). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412957397.n293. (2010). Weaver, W. Timothy, and George M. Prince. "Synectics®: Its Potential for Education." The Phi Delta Kappan 71.5 (1990): 378-388. Wen, H. I., Zhang, S. J., Hapeshi, K., & Wang, X. F."An innovative methodology of product design from nature."Journal of Bionic Engineering 5.1 (2008): 75-84. Wilson, J. O., Rosen, D., Nelson, B. A., & Yen, J."The effects of biological examples in idea generation." Design Studies 31.2 (2010): 169-186. Yin, Robert K. “Case study research: Design and methods.” Vol. 5. Sage, 2009. Youmans, Robert J. "The effects of physical prototyping and group work on the reduction of design fixation." Design Studies 32.2 (2011): 115-138. Yue, A. “Validity.” In Albert J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. (pp. 959-964). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412957397.n353 (2010). Onl ine Sources : Fermanian Business & Economic Institute, Point Loma Nazarene University (2010). Global biomimicry efforts: an economic game changer. Retrieved from http://www.pointloma.edu/sites/default/files/filemanager/Fermanian_Business__Economic_Institute/60690_PLNU_watermark.pdf Fermanian Fermanian Business & Economic Institute, Point Loma Nazarene University (2011). Da Vinci Index. Retrieved from http://www.pointloma.edu/sites/default/files/filemanager/Fermanian_Business__Economic_Institute/Da_Vinci_Index_methodology.pdf


Fermanian Fermanian Business & Economic Institute, Point Loma Nazarene University (2013). The Da Vinci Index - 2012 Year Total. Retrieved from http://www.pointloma.edu/sites/default/files/filemanager/Fermanian_Business__Economic_Institute/Da_Vinci_Index_2012_-_Year_Total.pdf Interaction Design Association. (2012 March 20). “Dan Saffer: How to Lie With Design Thinking [Video file].” Retrieved from vimeo.com/38870717 Ling, B. (2010, March 31). “Design Thinking is killing creativity.” Design Sojourn. Retrieved from http://www.designsojourn.com McCullagh, K. (2010, March 29). “Design Thinking: Everywhere and Nowhere, Reflections on the Big Re-think [Web log message, Core77].” Retrieved from http://www.core77.com/blog/featured_items/design_thinkingeverywhere_and_nowhere_reflections_on_the_big_re-think__16277.asp Merholtz, P. (2009, October 9). “Why Design Thinking Won't Save You [Web log message, Harvard Business Review].” Retrived from http://blogs.hbr.org/merholz/2009/10/why-design-thinking-wont-save.html Moggridge, B. (2010 August 2). “Design Thinking: Dear Don… [web log message, core77].” Retrieved from http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/design_thinking_dear_don__17042.asp Mulgan G. (2010). “Design in Public and Social Innovation. What Works and What Could Work Better.” Nesta. Retrieved from http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/GMDesignWhatWorksWhatCouldWorkBetter.pdf Normann, D. (2010a June 25). “Design Thinking: A Useful Myth [Web log message, Core77].” Retrieved from http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/design_thinking_a_useful_myth_16790.asp

Normann, D. (2013 March 19). “Rethinking Design Thinking [Web log message].” Retrived from http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/rethinking_design_thinking_24579.asp Nussbaum, B. (2011, April 5). “Design Thinking is a Failed Experiment. So What's Next?” [Web log message, Fast Company Co.Design]. Retrieved from http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663558/design-thinking-is-a-failed-experiment-so-whats-next Raford N. (2010 March 8). “A DJ is not a conductor: Different design skills for different levels of complexity” [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://news.noahraford.com/?p=373 Walters, H. (2011, March 24). “"Design Thinking" Isn't a Miracle Cure, but Here's How It Helps.” Fast Company Co.Design. Retrieved from http://www.fastcodesign.com www1. Mc Gee, Tim. “Eco Interface Blog.” http://www.ecointerface.com/ www2. Hastrich, Carl. “Bouncing Ideas: emerging design ideas of biomimicry, critical creativity, sustainability and strategic thinking.” http://bouncingideas.wordpress.com/ www3. “Mirasol Display Technology.” <www.qualcomm.com/mirasol> www4. “Interface Sustainable Innovation” <www.interfaceglobal.com/Sustainability/Our-Progress/Innovations.aspx> www5. Walker, Alissa. “Biomimicry Challenge: IDEO taps Octopi and Flamingos to Reqorganize the USGBC.” (2010). <http://www.fastcompany.com/1643489/biomimicry-challenge-ideo-taps-octopi-and-flamingos-reorganize-usgbc> www6. Biomimicry 3.8. “Learning from Humpback Whales How to Create Efficient Wind Power.” <http://biomimicry.net/about/biomimicry/case-examples/energy/> www7. Biomimicry 3.8. “Biomimicry 3.8 Institute.” <http://biomimicry.net/about/biomimicry38/institute/> www8. Computational Tools for Enhancing Creativity in Biologically Inspired Engineering Design. <http://nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0855916> www9. Design By Analogy to Nature Engine. <http://dilab.cc.gatech.edu/dane> www10. L.S Shu Resume. <http://www.mie.utoronto.ca/labs/lcdlab/shu/>

exploring creativity in bio-inspired design

Documents

bioinspired design approach

bioinspired design process

field bioinspired design

bioinspired design space

bioinspired design antenna

bioinspired approach

application of bio

mindset of design thinking