Information-Processing Theories of Biologically Inspired Design

  • Ashok K. Goel
  • Swaroop Vattam
  • Bryan Wiltgen
  • Michael Helms
Chapter

Abstract

Starting from in situ studies, we develop an information-processing theory of biologically inspired design. We compare our theory with two popular theories of biologically inspired design: Biomimicry 3.8 Institute’s Design Spiral and Vincent et al.’s BioTRIZ. While Design Spiral and BioTRIZ are normative and prescriptive, our information-processing theory provides a descriptive and explanatory account of the design paradigm. We examine if and how the process of biologically inspired design is different from that of other design paradigms beyond the differences between biological and technological systems. We posit that biologically inspired design appears to be a distinct design paradigm in part because it entails solution-based analogies in addition to the problem-driven analogies typical of other design paradigms.

Keywords

Biologically inspired design Biomimicry Biomimetics Bionics Compound analogy Creativity Cross-domain analogy Design Innovation Problem decomposition Problem-driven analogy Problem–solution coevolution Solution-based analogy Task analysis Task model 

References

  1. Altshuller G (1984) Creativity as an exact science. Gordon and Branch Publishers, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashley S (2004) Bumpy flying Scalloped flippers of whales could reshape wings. Sci Am 291(2):18, 20Google Scholar
  3. Bar-Cohen Y (ed) (2011) Biomimetics: nature-based innovation. CRC Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Benyus J (1997) Biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature. William Morrow, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Biomimicry 3.8 Institute (2008) AskNature. http://www.asknature.org/. Last retrieved on April 25, 2011
  6. Biomimicry 3.8 Institute (2009) Biomimicry: a tool for innovation. <http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org/about-us/biomimicry-a-tool-for-innovation.html>. Last retrieved on April 25, 2011
  7. Biomimicry 3.8 Institute (2011a) Energy. <http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org/case-studies/case-studies/energy.html>. Last retrieved on April 28, 2011
  8. Biomimicry 3.8 Institute (2011b) Water vapor harvesting: namib desert beetle. <http://www.asknature.org/strategy/dc2127c6d0008a6c7748e4e4474e7aa1>. Last retrieved on April 28, 2011
  9. Boehm BW (1988) A spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE Comput 21(5):61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown D, Chandrasekaran B (1989) Design problem solving: knowledge structures and control strategies. Morgan Kaufmann, San MateoGoogle Scholar
  11. Chakrabarti A, Shu L (2010) Biologically inspired design. AIEDAM 24:453–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chandrasekaran B (1990) Design problem solving: a task analysis. AI Mag 11(4):59–71Google Scholar
  13. Clement J (2008) Creative model construction in scientists and students: the role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crandall B, Klein G, Hoffman R (2006) Working minds: a practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Deldin JM, Laux J, Shuknecht (2013) The AskNature database: enabling solutions in biomimetic design. In: Goel, McAdams, Stone (eds) Biologically inspired design: computational methods and tools (this volume)Google Scholar
  16. Dorst K, Cross N (2001) Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Des Stud 22:425–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunbar K (2001) The analogical paradox. In: Gentner D, Holyoak KJ, Kokinov BN (eds) The analogical mind: perspectives from cognitive science. MIT Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. Dym C, Brown D (2012) Engineering design: representations and reasoning, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans JH (1959) Basic design concepts. J Am Soc Naval Eng 71(4):671–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fish F, Battle J (1995) Hydrodynamic design of the humpback whale flipper. J Morphol 225:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. French M (1994) Invention and evolution: design in nature and engineering, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988Google Scholar
  22. French M (1996) Conceptual design for engineers, 3rd edn. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Gentner D (1983) Structure mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cogn Sci 7(2):155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gentner D, Holyoak K, Kokinov B (eds) (2001) The analogical mind: perspectives from cognitive science. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Gick M, Holyoak KJ (1983) Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cog Psych 15:1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goel A (1997) Design, analogy, and creativity. IEEE Expert 12(3):62–70MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goel A, Bhatta S (2004) Use of design patterns in analogy-based design. Adv Eng Inform 18(2):85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goel A, Bras B, Helms M, Rugaber S, Tovey C, Vattam S, Weissburg M, Wiltgen B, Yen J (2011a) Design patterns and cross-domain analogies in biologically inspired sustainable design. In Proceedings AAAI spring symposium on AI and sustainable design. Stanford University, Palo Alto, 45–51 Mar 2011Google Scholar
  29. Goel A, Chandrasekaran B (1992) Case-based design: a task analysis. In: Tong C, Sriram D (eds) Artificial intelligence approaches to engineering design, vol II: innovative design. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 165–184Google Scholar
  30. Goel A, Vattam S, Wiltgen B, Helms M (2011b) An information-processing account of creative analogies in biologically inspired design. In: Proceedings eighth ACM conference on creativity and cognition, Atlanta, 71–80 Nov 2011Google Scholar
  31. Goel A, Vattam S, Wiltgen B, Helms M (2012) Cognitive, collaborative, conceptual and creative—Four characteristics of the next generation of knowledge-based CAD systems: a study in biologically inspired design. Comput Aided Des 44(10):879–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamilton W, Seely M (1976) Fog basking by the Namib Desert beetle, Onymacris unguicularis. Nature 262(5566):284–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Helms M, Goel A (2012) Analogical problem evolution in biologically inspired design. In: Proceedings 5th international conference on design computing and cognition, College station. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  34. Helms M, Vattam S, Goel A (2009) Biologically inspired design: process and products. Des Stud 30(5):606–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Helms M, Vattam S, Goel K (2010) The effect of functional modeling on understanding biological systems. In: Proceedings ASME 2010 international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference (IDETC/CIE 2010). Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 15–18 Aug 2010Google Scholar
  36. Hofstadter D (ed) (1996) Fluid concepts & creative analogies: computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought. Harvester Wheatsheaf, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Holyoak K, Thagard P (1996) Mental leaps: analogy in creative thought. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Hubka V, Eder W (1988) Theory of technical systems: a total concept theory of engineering design. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  39. Keane M (1988) Analogical problem solving. Ellis Horwood, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  40. Kolodner J (1993) Case-based reasoning. Morgan Kauffman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  41. Kruger C, Cross N (2006) Solution-driven vesus Problem-driven design: strategies and outcomes. Des Stud 27(5):527–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Linsey J, Wood K, Markman A (2008) Modality and representation in analogy. AI Eng, Des, Manuf 22:85–100Google Scholar
  43. Maher ML, Tang H (2003) Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design. Res Eng Design 14(1):47–64Google Scholar
  44. Mak T, Shu L (2008) Using descriptions of biological phenomena for idea generation. Res Eng Design 19(1):21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nagel J, Stone R, McAdams D (2013) Function-based biologically inspired design. In: Goel, McAdams, Stone (eds) Biologically inspired design: computational methods and tools (this volume)Google Scholar
  46. Nelson B, Wilson J, Yen J (2009) A study of biologically-inspired design as a context for enhancing student innovation. In: Proceedings 39th ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference, 2009Google Scholar
  47. Newell A, Simon H (1972) Human problem solving. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  48. Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote K (2007) Engineering design: a systematic approach, 3rd edition. Translated and edited by Wallace K, Blessing L, Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Ritzmann R (1974) Mechanisms for the snapping behavior of two alpheid shrimp, Alpheus californiensis and Alpheus heterochelis. J Comp Physiol 95:217–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shanyengana E, Henschel J, Seely M, Sanderson R (2002) Exploring for as a supplementary water resource in Namibia. Atmos Res 64(1–4):251–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shraagen J, Chipman S, Shalin V (eds) (2000) Cognitive task analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum, USAGoogle Scholar
  52. Shu L, Ueda K, Chiu I, Cheong H (2011) Biologically inspired design. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 60:673–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simon H (1996) Sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Srinivasan V, Chakrabarti A (2010) An integrated model of designing. ASME JCISE 10(3). doi:10.1115/1.3467011 (from http://computingengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1402109)
  55. TRIZ Matrix (2004) Interactive TRIZ contradiction matrix. (http://www.triz40.com/)
  56. Vattam S, Helms M, Goel A (2007) Biologically inspired innovation in engineering design: a cognitive study. Technical report GIT-GVU-07-07, graphics, visualization & usability center, Georgia Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  57. Vattam S, Helms M, Goel A (2010a) A content account of creative analogies in biologically inspired design. AI Eng Des, Anal Manuf 24:467–481 Special issue on biologically inspired designGoogle Scholar
  58. Vattam S, Helms M, Goel A (2010b) Biologically inspired design: a macrocognitive account. In: Proceedings ASME 2010 international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference (IDETC/CIE 2010). Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 15–18 Aug 2010Google Scholar
  59. Veros C, Coelho D (2011) Biologically inspired design: methods and validation. In: Coelho D (ed) Industrial Design—New Frontiers. InTech open access books; Available in creative commons: http://www.intechopen.com/books/industrial-design-new-frontiers/biologically-inspired-design-methods-and-validation
  60. Vincent J (2013) Finding the gaps in BID. In: Goel, McAdams, Stone (eds) Biologically inspired design: computational methods and tools (this volume)Google Scholar
  61. Vincent J, Mann D (2002) Systematic transfer from biology to engineering. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 360:159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vincent J, Bogatyreva O, Bogatyrev N, Bowyer A, Pahl A (2006) Biomimetics: its practice and theory. J R Soc Interface 3:471–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vogel S (2000) Cat’s paws and catapults: mechanical worlds of nature and people. W.W Norton and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilson J, Rosen D, Nelson B, Yen J (2010) The effects of biological examples in idea generation. Des Stud 31(2):169–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wiltgen B, Goel A (2011) Case-based reasoning all over the place: the multiple roles of CBR in biologically inspired design. In: Proceedings workshop on human-centered and cognitive approaches to case-based reasoning at the 19th international conference on case based reasoning. Greenwich, London, 2011. (An updated version is available at http://dilab.gatech.edu/publications/wiltgengoel-icccbr-mbr-2011.pdf.)
  66. Wiltgen B, Goel A, Vattam S (2011) Representation, indexing, and retrieval of biological cases for biologically inspired design. In: Proceeding 19th international conference on case based reasoning. Greenwich, London, Sep 2011Google Scholar
  67. Yao H, Dao M, Imholt T, Huang J, Wheeler K, Bonilla A, Suresh S, Ortiz C (2010) Protection mechanisms of the iron-plated armor of a deep-sea hydrothermal vent gastropod. Proc Natl Acad Sci (PNAS) 107(3):987–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yen J, Helms M, Goel A, Vattam S (2010) Evaluating biological systems for their potential in engineering design. Adv Nat Sci 3(2):27–40Google Scholar
  69. Yen J, Helms M, Tovey C, Weissburg M, Goel A (2013) Adaptive evolution of a biologically inspired design course. In: Goel, McAdams, Stone (eds) Biologically inspired design: computational methods and tools (this volume)Google Scholar
  70. Yen J, Weissburg M (2007) Perspectives on biologically inspired design: introduction to the collected contributions. J Bioinspiration Biomimetics 2. doi:10.1088/1748-3190/2/4/E01 (from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-3190/2/4/E01)
  71. Yen J, Weissburg M, Helms M, Goel A (2011) Biologically inspired design: a tool for interdisciplinary education. In: Bar-Cohen Y (ed) Biomimetics: nature-based innovation. Taylor & Francis, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashok K. Goel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Swaroop Vattam
    • 1
  • Bryan Wiltgen
    • 1
  • Michael Helms
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Interactive ComputingGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Center for Biologically Inspired DesignGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations