How is the Eastgate Building NOT like a Termite Mound?
Posted: January 3, 2012 Filed under: Biology Research, Biomimicry Methodology | Tags: bridging biology research to design, deepening biomimicry, eastgate building and lungs, iterative design and science research, strategic research and innovation, termite mound as lungs 8 Comments
Image from J Scott Tuner and Rupert C Soar - Figure 9 from excellent paper available by clicking the image above.
Why is biomimicry superficial?
Back at the beginning of this blog I wrote an entry commenting that biomimicry does not guarantee sustainability. It was not meant as a critique against biomimicry as a methodology, but rather at those who only wish to learn superficial insights from nature. A recent comment highlighted the complexity of this conversation, when Jamie Saunders commented that “biomimicry” as a term might suggest non-systems thinking;
Might this be supported if ‘ecomicry’ rather than ‘biomicry’ was initially considered ? Co-evolution and ‘ecomimicry’ – drawing a conceptual understanding and insight from the ‘whole’ ecosystem’ – ‘the interwoven systems that can provide “life support” for current and future multi-species inhabitants.’
My answer, in full here, explains that “bios” has always been interpreted by those pioneering biomimicry to incorporate all of life sciences; including biology, ecology, evolutiona and much more. In other words, at all scales and at multiple levels; form, process and ecosystem. Unfortunately, most stories celebrate a form based level of inspiration; velcro for example, and skip over the deeper, more complex stories; such as Paul Hawkins using redwood forests to evolve business models.
Should the Eastgate Building be a Lung?
We've all seen or used one of these images (I'm guilty), but perhaps we didn't really know what we were comparing?
Design, Engineering, Science – Their Differences through the lens of Biomimicry
Posted: November 12, 2011 Filed under: Biomimicry Methodology, Strategic Research and Innovation | Tags: design engineering and science, innovation holy trinity, integrated design methodologies, integrative engineering, strategic biomimicry, strategic research and innovation, strategic thinking, strategy tactic vision 9 Comments
Is this holy trinity of innovation? Note: Am making sure that strategy and tactics are at the same hierarchy - I think that is critical.
I have had the opportunity to spend some time with amazing people over the last couple of weeks. These include everything from researchers in basic science laboratories looking for nature’s recipes, to architects working on enormous projects collaborating directly with engineers, and the never ending flow of creative students who keep willingly signing up for my design thinking experiments. At the risk of gross over simplification, I’m beginning to see some repeating patterns.
Vision, Strategy and Tactics – the holy trinity of innovation
I wrote about vision, strategy and tactical thinking when I first began this blog, but it has never really been out of my mind. Here is my current synthesis regarding what they mean to me;
- Vision = WHY. These are the fundamental values that drive an individual or business forward, and ultimately form the framework to measure success.
- Strategy = WHAT. This defines the opportunities within the vision, or the problems that must be solved, in order to achieve the vision.
- Tactics = HOW. These are the pragmatic, executable actions that must be resolved in order to achieve the vision.
Design as Strategy, Science and Engineering as Tactics
Is anyone offended by the above generalizations? There are of course individuals or sub categories within disciplines that live more one one side than another... perhaps business should also sit on the left page, fitting in at the why/what stage
Biomimicry as Journey vs Destination
Posted: October 12, 2011 Filed under: Biomimicry Methodology, Strategic Research and Innovation | Tags: biomimicry as destination, biomimicry as journey, conflicts within innovation approaches, innovation challenges, innovation project management, strategic foresight research, strategic research and innovation 6 Comments
The two personalities are required for productive innovation, and are of course an integrated part of creative process, but they don't always play well together. Note: you could easily replace biomimicry with innovation for the following conversation.
Last week I had an “ah-ha” moment around questions of teaching and consulting biomimicry. It became apparent through conversations with architects, project managers and design students that there are two different “audiences” or “practitioners” of biomimicry (or innovation in general), and consequently two different ways of approaching them.
Explorers – Biomimicry as journey
Explorers are people who don’t care where they end up, and are passionate enough to dive in the deep end without seeing what’s below the surface. They are hungry for process and enjoy the experience of growing, learning and evolving. These maybe companies looking for transformative change, or individuals looking for personal growth.
The experiences explorers are looking for challenge them conceptually and personally. These are often candidates for biomimicry fanaticism, i.e. whole hearted true faith in biomimicry as a solution to every human challenge.
Bouncing Ideas 
Recent Comments