Biomimicry: streamlining the front end of innovation for environmentally sustainable products: biomimicry can be a powerful design tool to support sustainability-driven product development in the front end of innovation.
A number of eco-design tools have emerged to support such green product innovation by integrating environmental considerations into product development (Karlsson and Luttropp 2006). These tools include guidelines such as the Ten Golden Rules, checklists like Fast Five Phillips, impact matrices such as Design for the Environment (DfE), and full life cycle assessment tools (Bovea and Perez-Belis 2012). But conventional eco-design tools provide only limited support for truly disruptive product innovation because they are evaluative rather than generative (Vallet et al. 2013; Petala et al. 2010; Lofthouse 2006; Walker 1998). In other words, they are designed to validate proposed solutions--providing analysis of the environmental performance of product concepts--rather than to explore possible solutions--generating new product concepts. For example, the DfE impact matrix might encourage a product designer to consider how a product can be disassembled easily so that each component can be recovered or recycled, or to look at using alternative materials that are more recyclable than those that might previously have been used. These kinds of considerations come into play only after a relatively well-developed product concept has been formulated.
Eco-design tools would be more likely to drive green product innovation if they could be introduced in the solution discovery phase, also known as the fuzzy front end of innovation (Koen et al. 2002). Early in the product development process, while ideas are still being introduced and shaped, there is greater flexibility to incorporate environmentally sustainable attributes and to reconsider basic attributes; waiting until later phases, when the solution approach has been determined and the most critical technical decisions have already been made, can limit designers and engineers to incremental improvements or rule out the possibility of including desirable environmental characteristics altogether (Bovea and Perez-Belis 2012).
One lesser known eco-design tool that is suitable for introduction in the front end of innovation is biomimicry. Biomimicry is defined as the technical emulation of biological forms, processes, patterns, and systems (Benyus 2013). As an innovation approach, it is based on the belief that natural selection favors high-performance, resource-efficient survival strategies--strategies that can be copied to address technical challenges. The redesign of Japan's 500 Series Shinkansen Bullet Train is an example of biomimicry. Before it was redesigned, the train, which reaches speeds up to 200 miles per hour, caused air pressure to build up in tunnels, which then created a sonic boom every time the train exited a tunnel. People living up to 15 miles away complained about the noise. The engineers tasked with redesigning the train's nose to reduce noise modeled their new design after the beak of the kingfisher, a bird that dives head first into water, a denser medium than air, without making a splash. The new train is quieter than the original model, meeting the goal of the project; it is also 10 percent faster and runs on 15 percent less electricity (Benyus 2009).
A number of examples demonstrate biomimicry's potential specifically to drive environmentally sustainable innovation. One company has created an environmentally friendly calcium carbonate powder inspired by coral's carbon dioxide-fixing process; the powder can replace a portion of Portland cement in traditional concrete mixes to reduce cement's carbon footprint (Lurie-Luke 2014). Another has created carpet tiles inspired by the organized chaos of a forest floor. The tiles' pattern and coloration allows for nondirectional installation, which is much faster and less wasteful--reducing waste from up to 14 percent for traditional broadloom carpet to as little as 1.5 percent (Interface, Inc. 2016). And the photosynthetic process has inspired design of cheap, energy-efficient solar cells made of inexpensive, eco-friendly materials (Reece et al. 2011).
To clarify, biomimicry does not necessarily yield environmentally sustainable solutions. However, practiced thoughtfully in the context of clear performance goals for environmental sustainability, it can be a powerful design tool that supports sustainability-driven innovation in the front end of innovation (Kennedy et al. 2015). Indeed, drawing on estimates of biomimicry's penetration in various industries, Fermanian Business & Economic Institute predicts that by 2030, biomimicry could account for $425 billion in US GDP and $1.6 trillion in global GDP, as well as generating savings associated with reduced resource depletion and pollution (Fermanian Business & Economic Institute 2013).
Despite its tremendous promise, however, awareness of biomimicry and the principles guiding its practice remains limited among R&D professionals. Little has been published on best practices, which limits understanding and effective use of biomimicry (Nagel and Stone 2012; Vincent et al. 2006). GOJO, a manufacturer of skin health and hygiene solutions, implemented biomimicry in its new product development process, with promising results. The biomimicry process significantly streamlined the front end of innovation, producing more intellectual property for a much smaller resource commitment--and at the same time offered product designs that promise significant energy savings. Though this is only a single case, the results suggest biomimicry could advance green product innovation while providing a high return on investment.
Developing a Better Soap and Sanitizer Dispenser Using Biomimicry
GOJO has a long history of bringing innovations to the hand hygiene market, including patenting the first portion-controlled soap dispenser in 1952, bringing the first sanitary sealed soap dispenser refills to commercial markets in 1983, and launching PURELL, the first alcohol-based hand sanitizer, in 1997. As part of its strategic approach to innovation, GOJO engages in technology- and capability-building partnerships with universities and other organizations. That history of collaboration led Great Lakes Biomimicry to approach the company in 2012 regarding a potential partnership in which GOJO, Great Lakes Biomimicry, and the University of Akron would sponsor an industrial assistantship program in Biomimicry for a PhD Fellow. The goal of the program was to embed biomimicry in the R&D organization and throughout the company over the five-year course of the fellowship. Believing that biomimicry could advance enterprise goals related to innovation and create sustainable value, GOJO's leadership accepted the invitation. (1)
In 2013, as it contemplated development of its next generation of liquid soap and sanitizer dispensers, the company turned to its Biomimicry PhD Fellow to integrate biomimicry into the development process. Liquid soap and sanitizer dispensing systems provide a dosed amount of product upon actuation. These dispensing systems are installed in schools, restaurants, hospitals, manufacturing facilities, fitness centers, office buildings, and other high-volume, public settings. For its new generation of dispensers, GOJO turned its attention to the environmental sustainability of these ubiquitous systems. With this in mind, the company conducted a full lifecycle assessment for its most advanced touch-free dispensing system, which showed that the batteries in the system were responsible for much more of the system's environmental impact than other components--four times more, in fact, than was accounted for by the manufacturing of all the refill pumps the dispenser would need throughout its entire life. This finding indicated that increasing the energy efficiency of the pump would likely be the most effective way to reduce the system's environmental impact, with likely environmental benefits exceeding the improvements that could be yielded by other approaches, such as incorporation of recycled content or dematerialization of the pump.
To generate ideas for ways to reduce the system's energy usage, the product development team turned to biomimicry. Low-energy survival strategies are prevalent in the biological world. Technological solutions tend to rely on energy inputs to achieve a functional goal; biological solutions, on the other hand, tend to leverage information transfer and hierarchical structures (Bogatyrev and Bogatyreva 2009; McKeag 2013). For example, Kevlar, a high-performance synthetic fiber, is formed by an energy-intensive chemical reaction that occurs at high tern peratures, while spider silk, a natural fiber up to 10 times tougher than Kevlar, is formed at room temperature using water-based chemistry.
A cross-functional team of 15 GOJO employees with organizational roles spanning engineering, biology, chemistry, design, marketing, and sustainability volunteered to tackle this challenge. In total, these 15 employees dedicated 165 hours to three collaborative workshop sessions co-led by the PhD Fellow and independent interim work. The goal of the first workshop session was to create a solution-neutral functional representation of the R&D challenge, intended to help the participants focus on a wide range of relevant solutions by stripping the problem of any distracting concrete attachments. This is the equivalent of re-representing the hypothetical challenge of designing a more effective toothbrush as the challenge of improving mouth hygiene. The team was introduced to biomimicry tools that support functional representation using biological terms, such as the Biomimicry Taxonomy (Biomimicry 3.8 Institute 2013), and an Engineering-to-Biology Thesaurus (Nagel, Stone, and McAdams 2010). The Biomimicry Taxonomy is a three-tiered hierarchy of functions represented in biology. The technical challenge of dispensing soap fits in the overarching taxonomy category Get, Store, or Distribute Resources, in the subcategory Distribute, and in the narrowest nested category Distribute Fluid. The Engineering-to-Biology Thesaurus maps engineering function terms to their biological function correspondents. For example, biological synonyms for the engineering function "dispense" include "excrete" and "transfer." The team used these tools to reframe the primary challenge as fluid distribution or fluid transfer.
Team members then dispersed to use the functional representation to independently identify relevant biological models, through keyword searches of biological databases, exploration of nature documentaries, and immersion in a natural environment. All were encouraged to access and summarize peer-reviewed articles on the biological models they identified with the help of GOJO colleagues who had biological expertise (as a skin health and hygiene company, GOJO employs many microbiologists) or external subject matter experts. For some individuals, the breadth of the guiding question--How do biological systems distribute or transfer fluids?--was daunting. These individuals typically adopted more focused frames of inquiry, which were self-generated, to make sifting through an expanse of biological information more manageable (Table 1). These frames of inquiry might also be referred to as research lenses.
The second workshop session was devoted to reporting on these independently identified biological models and extracting their design principles--abstract representations of the biological phenomena embodied by the models. Formulating appropriate design principles is a fundamental hurdle in biomimicry (Nagel et al. 2010). Practitioners often skip this critical step, fixate on biological entities (Cheong and Shu 2013), and transfer surface features to a solution without appropriate abstraction (Mak and Shu 2004; Linsey and Viswanathan 2014). To borrow an extreme example from Helms, Vattam, and Goel (2009), a biomimicry practitioner designing a device to shell peanuts, lacking an appropriate abstract representation, might suggest training squirrels to shell the peanuts. Clearly, such direct transfer of the biological actors is not practical or sustainable and will not result in a marketable solution.
What is needed in place of a direct application of the biological model is an analogous concept that works in accordance with abstract design principles derived from the biological model. Extracted design principles should capture the essence of the biological strategy and translate it in a way that is biologically accurate but free of biological jargon, enabling non-biologists to use it as a stimulus for ideation (Baumeister 2014). Design principles should also be generalized as much as possible, eliminating irrelevant specifics that do not apply to the functional problem (Sartori, Pal, and Chakrabarti 2010).
Guided by these principles and with live facilitation by the PhD Fellow, the GOJO innovation team extracted a number of design principles from the biological models proposed (Table 2). Nearly 40 models were proposed, more than could be profitably explored in a relatively brief workshop. The list was winnowed to about a dozen, based on how well the team understood particular models or how easily additional information needed to sufficiently explain the mechanisms at play in a proposed model could be accessed. Publications heavy with biological jargon were difficult for many team members to parse; even the more accessible literature often described a biological behavior (the what) without adequately detailing its underlying mechanics (the how). A fundamental understanding of how the proposed biological model accomplished fluid distribution/fluid transfer behavior provided a necessary base for extracting design principles.
Team members were then charged to use the list of extracted design principles as stimulus for independent ideation of novel soap and sanitizer dispenser concepts. In the third workshop session, participants reported on their preliminary concepts and collaborated to enrich top concepts. Top concepts were chosen according to the criteria of novelty, perceived feasibility, and potential value with regard to environmental sustainability. The process of independent ideation and subsequent collaborative selection and enrichment of top concepts followed a "diverge then converge" approach supported by creativity and innovation research (Thompson 2003). After the conclusion of the workshop, GOJO engaged contract design services to further develop 20 leading concepts.
Ultimately, this effort resulted in four patent applications for novel dispensing systems. These solutions promised to generate sustainable value from a number of sources even beyond the energy-use reductions that were the primary goal (Table 3). One novel design that emerged from this process, the double-acting bladder pump, was inspired by the heart, a multichambered biological pump with common walls (Figure 1). Like the heart, the double-acting bladder pump has separate elastomeric chambers walled off from each other by a central spine that incorporates fluid inlet and outlet valves. Coupled drive arms are used to actuate the pump. Energy recaptured from the recovery cycle of one chamber helps compress the other chamber. This bio-inspired technology provides an estimated 50 percent energy savings compared to analogous pumps currently used by GOJO, with potential for up to 80 percent energy savings when combined with optimized valves and product formulations.
GOJO Industries Comparative Case Study
The quantity and quality of intellectual property generated by the biomimicry project, in terms of both potential sustainable value and technological novelty, was impressive, especially given the low resource investment--just 165 total hours committed by internal personnel. In an effort to capture the extent of the advantages offered by biomimicry, we compared the biomimicry project's performance in terms of resource commitments and outcomes to a similar pump development project GOJO executed in 2010. The historical pump project had similar goals--to develop a low-cost, energy-efficient, smaller, and more easily recyclable pump than the existing model in the market--and a comparable scope to the biomimetic pump project. The key difference between the two projects was the approach to solution discovery in the fuzzy front end, regarded as one of the biggest opportunity areas for improving the innovation process (Koen et al. 2002). In the historical project, the front end process began with assessing the intellectual property (IP) landscape both within the industry (that is, peristaltic soap pumps) and in analogous industries (for instance, beverage dispensing technologies in the food industry). Patentable solutions were then generated by bridging gaps in existing IP and combining existing technologies in novel and useful ways. In comparison, the approach to solution discovery during the biomimicry project involved identifying relevant biological models and extracting design principles embodied by those models to use as ideation stimuli. The concepts based on those design principles were then screened for prior art.
Data for the quantitative comparison were collected by reviewing internal project documentation and crosschecking the currency and accuracy of those documents by interviewing employees who were involved in one or both projects. The results of our analysis suggest that biomimicry can be a much more efficient way to generate useable concepts in the early stages of product development. The biomimicry project required approximately one-sixth of the personnel and financial resources required by the historical project and produced double the intellectual property to reach the same stage of development as the historical project; the concepts resulting from the biomimicry project offered an estimated double to quadruple the energy savings of those emerging from the historical project, as well (Table 4). Additionally, a greater proportion of the concepts emerging from the biomimicry project converted from notices of invention to patent applications. (Two remaining notices of invention from the biomimicry project are still under consideration.) These preliminary data strongly suggest that biomimicry may offer real advantages in the front end of innovation, both for improved innovation performance and for improved sustainability.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
IP landscaping, the solution discovery approach used in the historical project, was more time consuming than the biomimicry project, tended to produce more incremental designs, and did not integrate sustainability as closely in the concepts generated. The biomimicry approach, presumably because it used models of sustainable systems as sources of ideas, resulted in more sustainable, often more radical product concepts. IP landscaping can complement the application of biomimicry as a secondary validation step in the front end, but IP landscaping alone did not, in our cases, offer the same results as biomimicry.
Structured interviews with two engineers who participated in both the biomimicry and the historical project provided additional qualitative insights on the two processes. Both of the engineers interviewed are longtime employees with solid innovation track records (more than 70 patents between them). Their responses suggest that biomimicry significantly accelerated the front-end development process and improved the quality of the concepts emerging from it. Engineer One said, "The speed of coming up with new, innovative concepts increased dramatically with the biomimicry approach. Totally new concepts came out of that process versus concepts that had some nuance but weren't completely novel." Similarly, Engineer Two told us, "The resource drain [with the biomimicry project] was far less [than with a typical pump development project] ... The stimuli were completely different and allowed for completely unique ideas rather than building upon prior art." These remarks confirm empirical findings from other researchers (Wilson et al. 2010) that suggest that exposure to biological analogies during idea generation may increase the novelty of design ideas.
Their participation in the biomimicry project also had long-term implications for the engineers' approach to innovation. Asked what learnings from the biomimicry project they had carried forward in their work, the engineers offered detailed responses. Engineer One said that biomimicry "pushed us to look beyond the initial project scope and not just look at the pump technology but look at the overall system--the packaging, the actuation--in order to optimize the whole product. Looking at the overall system is something I've carried forward from that approach." Engineer Two focused on the efficiency of the approach, suggesting that when innovators "follow nature, nonobvious decisions are made obvious or more attainable. The [heart-inspired double-acting bladder pump] concept was remarkably simple, but would not have been obvious without using biomimicry. Biomimicry cuts down on the number of product innovation iterations we would typically go through."
Engineer One's response suggests that biomimicry encourages systems thinking. This makes intuitive sense, since biological systems tend to leverage low part-count, multifunctional designs (Baumeister 2014). These multifunctional biological mechanisms preclude innovators from considering one component of a system in isolation. Thus, biomimicry helps innovators understand and leverage the interdependencies of system components, as previous researchers have suggested (Seebode, Jeanrenaud, and Bessant 2012).
Further, our observations of project participants during workshops and of the engineers in the follow-up interviews suggest an additional hypothesis: that biomimicry is intrinsically motivating. Intrinsic motivation--defined as interest, enjoyment, and satisfaction in work itself--is positively correlated with higher levels of creativity (Hennessey and Amabile 2010). Verbal and nonverbal cues from participants in the biomimicry project (describing the work as "fun" and "cool," laughter, smiling, and attentive posture during the workshops) suggest they were highly engaged in the process, particularly during the reporting of the independently identified biological models. If this hypothesis can be backed by empirical data confirming that biomimicry is intrinsically motivating, and therefore heightens levels of creativity, the finding would be a powerful motivator for more widespread adoption of biomimicry in product development.
Biomimicry, as implemented at GOJO Industries, generally comprised five phases:
1. Problem definition
2. Specification of desired functions
3. Identification of biological models exemplifying desired functions
4. Extraction of design principles embodied by biological models
5. Ideation of biomimetic solutions using design principles as stimulus
This multiphase process is not intended to be prescriptive, but it does provide a malleable template other R&D managers may adapt to their own organizations and processes. Specifically, managers can find ways to integrate biomimicry with existing approaches to innovation in the front end, such as IP landscaping, to maximize return on investment. To implement the template effectively, managers will need to think in advance about how to address the breadth of potential biological models, the accessibility of biological literature, and the challenge of extracting well-formulated design principles.
Our study of GOJO's approach to biomimicry in the front end of innovation suggests the potential biomimicry may offer to accelerate solution discovery in the front end of innovation. It also suggests biomimicry's ability to drive environmentally sustainable innovation, a finding worth highlighting given the challenges currently faced by industry with regard to sustainability. A relationship between the thoughtful practice of biomimicry and generation of green product concepts makes intuitive sense, given that natural selection favors biological strategies fit for life on earth over the long haul.
Further work is warranted to determine how and to what extents our results are generally applicable. Even without that further research, however, this study stands as justification for R&D practitioners to try biomimicry in their organizations by illuminating its potential as a low-risk experiment with a potentially very high return on investment. In short, biomimicry is a highly promising approach meriting further investigation by R&D leaders and researchers alike.
The authors thank Nick Ciavarella and Jack McNulty for direct contribution to this research; Matthew Archer for figure illustration; and April Bertram, Steve Bromberg, Lynn DeLuca, Peter Niewiarowski, Dave Macinga, and Roberto Bellino for providing feedback on this manuscript.
Albino, V., Balice, A., and Dangelico, R. M. 2009. Environmental strategies and green product development: An overview on sustainability-driven companies. Business Strategy and the Environment 18(2): 83-96.
Baumeister, D. 2014. Biomimicry Resource Handbook: A Seed Bank of Best Practices. Missoula, Montana: Biomimicry 3.8.
Benyus, J. M. 2009. Biomimicry in action. Presentation given at TEDGlobal, Oxford, England, July, https://www.ted.com/ talks/janine_benyus_biomimicry_in_action?language=en
Benyus, J. M. 2013. A biomimicry primer. In Biomimicry Resource Handbook: A Seed Bank of Best Practices. Biomimicry 3.8. http://biomimicry.net/b38files/A_Biomimicry_Primer_ Janine_Benyus.pdf
Biomimicry 3.8 Institute. 2013. Biomimicry taxonomy, http:// static.biomimicry.org/asknature/biomimicry_taxonomyv6.0.pdf
Bogatyrev, N. R. and Bogatyreva, O. A. 2009. TRIZ evolution trends in biology and technology: Two opposites. Presentation given at the 19th CIRP Design Conference--Competitive Design, Cranfield University, UK. http:// www.biotriz.com/sites/default/files/BIOTRIZ.pdf
Bovea, M. D., and Perez-Belis, V. 2012. A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating environmental requirements into the product design process. Journal of Cleaner Production 20(1): 61-71.
Cheong, H., and Shu, L. H. 2013. Reducing cognitive bias in biomimetic design by abstracting nouns. CIRP Annals--Manufacturing Technology 62(1): 111-114.
Fermanian Business & Economic Institute. 2013. Bioinspiration: An Economic Progress Report. San Diego Zoo Global. http://www.pointloma.edu/sites/default/files/filemanager/ Fermanian_Business__Economic_Institute/Economic_ Reports/BioReport13.FINAL.sm.pdf
Helms, M., Vattam, S. S., and Goel, A. K. 2009. Biologically inspired design: Process and products. Design Studies 30(5): 606-622.
Hennessey, B. A., and Amabile, T. M. 2010. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology 61(1): 569-598.
Interface, Inc. 2016. Innovation: Entropy. http://www.interfaceglobal.com/Sustainability/Products/Innovation.aspx
Karlsson, R. and Luttropp, C. 2006. EcoDesign: What's happening? Journal of Cleaner Production 14:1291-1298.
Kennedy, E., Fecheyr-Lippens, D" Hsiung, B.-K., Niewiarowski, P., and Kolodziej, M. 2015. Biomimicry: A path to sustainable innovation. Design Issues 31(3): 66-73.
Koen, P. A., Ajamia, G. M., Boyce, S., Clamen, A., Fisher, E., Fountoulakis, S., Johnson, A., Puri, P., and Seibert, R. 2002. Fuzzy Front End: Effective Methods, Tools, and Techniques. Wiley, New York, NY.
Laszlo, C. 2008. Sustainable Value: How the World's Leading Companies Are Doing Well by Doing Good. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
Linsey, J. S., and Viswanathan, V. K. 2014. Overcoming cognitive challenges in bioinspired design and analogy. In Biologically Inspired Design, ed. A. Goel, 221-241. London: Springer London.
Lofthouse, V. 2006. Ecodesign tools for designers: Defining the requirements. Journal of Cleaner Production 14(15-16): 1386-1395.
Lurie-Luke, E. 2014. Product and technology innovation: What can biomimicry inspire? Biotechnology Advances 32(8): 1494-1505.
Mak, T. W., and Shu, L. H. 2004. Abstraction of biological analogies for design. CIRP Annals 53(1): 117-120.
McKeag, T. 2013. Framing your problem with the bio-design cube. Zygote Quarterly 6: 102-109. https://issuu.com/ eggermont/docs/zq_issue_06_final/104
Metz, P., Burek, S., Hultgren, T. R., Kogan, S., and Schwartz, L. 2016. The path to sustainability-driven innovation. Research-Technology Management 59(3): 50-60.
Nagel, J. K. S., Nagel, R. L., Stone, R. B" and McAdams, D. A. 2010. Function-based, biologically inspired concept generation. AI EDAM 24 (Special Issue 04): 521-535.
Nagel, J. K. S. and Stone, R. B. 2012. A computational approach to biologically inspired design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 26(2): 161-176.
Nagel, J. K. S., Stone, R. B., and McAdams, D. A. 2010. An engineering-to-biology thesaurus for engineering design. Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. http://prosedesign.tamu.edu/publications/an_ engineering-to-biology.pdf
Petala, E., Wever, R., Dutilh, C., and Brezet, H. 2010. The role of new product development briefs in implementing sustainability: A case study." Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 27(3-4): 172-182.
Reece, S. Y., Hamel, J. A., Sung, K., Jarvi, T. D., Esswein, A. J., Pijpers, J. J. H., and Nocera, D. G. 2011. Wireless solar water splitting using silicon-based semiconductors and earth-abundant catalysts. Science 334(6056): 645-648.
Sartori, J., Pal, U., and Chakrabarti, A. 2010. A methodology for supporting 'transfer' in biomimetic design. AI EDAM 24 (Special Issue 04): 483-506.
Seebode, D., Jeanrenaud, S., and Bessant, J. 2012. Managing innovation for sustainability. R&D Management 42(3): 195-206.
Thompson, L. 2003. Improving the creativity of organizational work groups. Academy of Management Executive 17(1): 96-109.
Vallet, F., Eynard, B., Millet, D., Mahut, S. G., Tyl, B., and Bertoluci, G. 2013. Using eco-design tools: An overview of experts' practices. Design Studies 34(3): 345-377.
Vincent, J. F. V., Bogatyreva, O. A., Bogatyrev, N. R., Bowyer, A., and Pahl, A.-K. 2006. Biomimetics: Its practice and theory. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 3(9): 471-482.
Walker, S. 1998. Experiments in sustainable product design. Journal of Sustainable Product Design 7: 41-50.
Wilson, J. O., Rosen, D., Nelson, B. A., and Yen, J. 2010. The effects of biological examples in idea generation. Design Studies 31(2): 169-186.
(1) We use the term sustainable value as it is defined by Laszlo (2008): sustainable value yields economic, social, and environmental gains for the enterprise and its stakeholders. It is about making business decisions that both benefit people and are nondestructive, and ideally that are supportive of the planetary ecosystem.
Emily Barbara Kennedy is a PhD candidate in integrated bioscience at the University of Akron whose research is focused on assisting innovators in exploring biology as a source of creative inspiration and a model for environmental sustainability. For her dissertation, she is generating and testing theories about biomimetic innovation and developing a reliable procedural template that can be implemented by business practitioners. Emily is a 2016 recipient of the Creativity Foundation Legacy Prize and a Eureka Ranch-certified Innovation Engineering Black Belt. Emily holds a BA in international relations with a minor in environmental studies from Colgate University, firstname.lastname@example.org
Thomas Andrew Marting is the facilities and resources management director for GOJO Industries, a leading global producer of skin health and hygiene solutions. As such, he directs plant maintenance, safety, security, environmental compliance, and facilities construction activities for multiple manufacturing and distribution locations. Fie is also responsible for driving sustainability into the operation of those facilities and embedding sustainable value into the new product development process by applying eco-design tools, such as lifecycle assessment, chemical hazard assessments, and biomimicry. In 2015, he was recognized by the City of Akron, Summit County, and the Greater Akron Area Chamber of Commerce as a Summit of Sustainability Changemaker. Fie holds a BS in chemical engineering from Ohio University. MartingT@GOJO.com
TABLE 1. Frames of inquiry adopted by members of the product development team to identify relevant biological models Frame of Inquiry Assumption Similar context: What bioloqical Biological models inhabiting models exist in a context similar environments similar to the to the problem context? problem context will adopt strategies that may be relevant to the problem. Extremes: What biological models Biological models most challenged deal with extreme versions of the by the problem will embody the problem? most robust strategies for addressing it. Convergence: What biological A strategy independently evolved strategy for accomplishing the in different contexts is likely function of interest is used by to be a beneficial approach. many, distantly related species? Stasis: What biological strategy A strategy that has been for accomplishing the function of conserved through evolution is interest has persisted over time? likely to be effective and difficult for competitors to defeat. Frame of Inquiry Resulting Focus Similar context: What bioloqical Models living in environments models exist in a context similar where there is persistent fluid to the problem context? movement (i.e., cilia lining Animalian breathing tubes, which move mucus from the lungs to the throat) Extremes: What biological models Models living in regions with deal with extreme versions of the extremely high-volume fluid problem? influx (i.e., sphagnum moss growing on the rainforest floor, which must manage high annual rainfall) Convergence: What biological Winged flight, a fluid (air) strategy for accomplishing the passage strategy, independently function of interest is used by evolved by birds, bats, and many, distantly related species? insects Stasis: What biological strategy Underwater locomotion of the for accomplishing the function of chambered nautilus, a pelagic interest has persisted over time? marine mollusk that has remained morphologically constant for ~400 million years TABLE 2. A selection of biomimetic design principles relevant to the fluid distribution/fluid transfer problem Model Biological Description Vertebrate Conducting arteries have elastic walls that expand to arteries accommodate blood pumped by the heart during systole and relax during diastole, propelling blood onward. The elasticity of artery walls dampens flow pulsatility. Xylem in Several synergistic mechanisms allow vascular plants plants to transport water against gravity: cohesion (the attractive force among water molecules) and adhesion (the attractive force between water molecules and the xylem walls) allow plants to draw water up from the root like a rope, and transpiration, vaporization, and release of water into the atmosphere at the leafs surface generate a pressure gradient that exerts an upward pull on the water column in the xylem channel. Archerfish The archerfish spits a jet of water to knock its insect prey into the water. Although the fish can exert a max force of 500 watts/kg, the jet strikes the prey with a force of 3,000 watts/kg due to Rayleigh-Plateau instability and kinematic gathering: the back end of the cylindrical jet moves towards the front end to form a compact globule, resulting in acceleration of the jet in the air. Squid A squid moves by enlarging the intake to its mantle locomotion cavity so that the cavity rapidly fills with water, then contracting the cavity, forcing water out a rear-facing funnel tube. Rove beetles To skim across water with speed, the semiaquatic rove beetle secretes a superhydrophobic substance that repels water, thereby propelling the beetle. Cilia Cilia are minute, hair-like organelles that beat in rhythmic waves, providing locomotion to ciliate protozoans and moving liquids along internal epithelial tissue in animals. The row stroke of a cilium is nonreciprocal, producing a net propulsive force in the wave direction. Model Design Principles Vertebrate * The wall of an elastic reservoir functions as an arteries energy capacitor when stretched. * Flow pulsatility is lessened in elastic pumps versus rigid ones. Xylem in * Cohesive/adhesive fluids can be pulled upward plants through narrow tubes without breakage in the fluid column. * With other variables held constant, fluid moves from regions of higher to lower pressure; given sufficient pressure, this occurs even when that movement opposes external forces like gravity. Archerfish * An elongated liquid that is in motion tends to amass and accelerate due to surface tension. * Leveraging entropic forces moves fluids further and faster with fewer initial energy inputs. Squid * The larger the flow area of an intake valve, the locomotion lower the pressure differential required to pull fluid in to fill a cavity. Rove beetles * Significant force is generated when one material comes in contact with another that repels it. Cilia * A flexible appendage with an optimized row stroke can produce a net propulsive force. TABLE 3. Potential sources of sustainable value in biomimicry-based dispensing system technologies Environmental Sustainability Improvements Primary Technology Inspiration Material Optimization Double-acting Human heart Parity with current solutions bladder pump Elastic bladder Vertebrate Reduced weight dispenser arteries Reduced batteries Pillow bag with Squid Reduced part count integrated foam locomotion pump Pressurized, Xylem in plants Parity with current solutions collapsible liquid container Environmental Sustainability Improvements Technology Energy Savings Waste Reduction Double-acting Less energy used per Parity with current bladder pump wash (energy of one solutions chamber recovering helps compress sympathetic chamber) Elastic bladder Less energy used per Reduced weight dispenser wash (energy stored in Reduced batteries stretched bladder wall used to eject product) Pillow bag with Parity with current Reduced weight integrated foam solutions pump Pressurized, Less energy used per Ejection of totality collapsible liquid wash (air pressure vs. of product container mechanical force facilitates collapse) TABLE 4. Comparative resource commitments and outcomes, biomimicry case vs. historical project Biomimicry Project Historical Project Man Hours 285 1620 Total Cost $23,000 $129,000 $13,000 Employee time $100,000 Employee time $10,000 Contracted $29,000 Contracted design services design services Notices of 6 5 Invention Patent 4 2 Applications Lead Concept 50%-80% * 20% ** Energy Savings * engineering estimate ** prototype performance data
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||FEATURE ARTICLE|
|Author:||Kennedy, Emily Barbara; Marting, Thomas Andrew|
|Date:||Jul 1, 2016|
|Previous Article:||Resource realignment in servitization: a study of successful service providers explores how manufacturers modify their resource bases in...|
|Next Article:||Peering into the future of innovation management: as the world changes, innovation professionals consider what the future holds for innovation and...|