Biomimetic Services: A New Perspective on the Design for Services by Daniela Ivanova

BIOMIMETIC SERVICES A new perspective on the design for services

Daniela Ivanova Master of Design Service Design Innovation Ravensbourne, London

September 2014

Course Leader Paul Sternberg

Thesis Supervisor Melissa Sterry

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Subject, Research Question and Aims

1.2. Why biomimetic service design thinking now?

1.3. Defining terms

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Overview of biomimetics

2.1.1. The roots of biomimicry and biomimetics

2.1.2. In search of the scope of biomimetics

2.1.3. Challenges to biomimetics

2.1.4. Specific biomimetic approaches

2.1.5. Problem-driven and solution-driven biomimetic approaches

2.1.6. Biomimetics by analogy

2.1.7. The Ecology metaphor

2.1.8. Biomimetics in business

2.1.8.1. Viewpoints

2.1.8.2. Economic impact

2.2. Service design literature

2.2.1. The inherent multidisciplinarity of service design

2.2.2. The IHIP model

2.2.3. Design for services map

2.2.4. The essence of exchange in services

2.2.5. The â&#x20AC;&#x153;naturalâ&#x20AC;&#x153; features of service design

2.2.6. Service ecology map

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. The distinctive nature of this study

3.2. Iteration

3.3. Reflective practice

3.4. Positioning service design in the theoretical biomimetic landscape

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

3.5. Deliverables

3.6. Thesis collaborators

4. BIOMIMETIC SERVICE DESIGN

4.1. Ecology and Service Design

4.2. Biomimetic Service Design Approach

4.2.1. Problem-driven and solution-driven approaches

4.3. Biomimetic service idea generation tool

4.4. Museum members engagement project - case study

4.4.1. Project background

4.4.2. Idea generation

4.4.3. Solution

4.4.4. Observations

5. FINDINGS

5.1. The biomimetic dilemma

5.2. Where the potential lies

5.3. Biomimetic services exist

5.3.1. Nestedness

5.3.2. Resource partitioning

5.3.3. Stigmergy

5.3.4. Coevolution

5.4. Challenges to biomimetic service design

5.5. Biomimetic engineering and biomimetic service design

5.6. Accessibility of biology

5.7. Business viability

6. CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

Image credits

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

LIST OF FIGURES Fig.1 Word cloud of the most popular topics in biomimetics

Fig.2 Biomimetic communities

Fig.3 Problem-Driven bio-inspired approach

Fig.4 The three-gaps theory

Fig.5 “Challenge-to-biology” process by Biomimicry 3.8

Fig.6 “Biology-to-design” process

Fig.7 Life’s Principles by Biomimicry 3.8

Fig.8 The structure of an analogy by Holyoak and Thagard

Fig.9 Design for Services Map

Fig.10 Research and Design process of this thesis

Fig.11 Biomimetic landscape and positioning of service design

Fig.12 Similarities between ecology and service design

Fig.13 Similarities as opportunities, ecology and service design

Fig.14 Differences between ecology and service design

Fig.15 TRIZ problem-solving logic

Fig.16 Review of the stages of key biomimetic approaches

Fig.17 Problem-driven idea generation tool for biomimetic service design

Fig.18 Ideation tool for service development by Namahn and Design Flanders

Fig.19 Museum membership project - proposed solution

Fig.20 Museum membership project - biomimetic idea generation

Fig.21 Bio-inspired solution to the museum membership scheme challenge

Fig.22 Way-finding as stigmergy

Fig.23 Example of human stigmergy

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank the supervisor to this thesis, Melissa Sterry, for her support and guidance throughout this research.

The author would also like to thank all collaborators to this project for their valuable input.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

INTRODUCTION Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Subject, Research Question and Aims This thesis explores the potential for the development of biomimetic service design as a way of creating meaningful services that are adaptable and sustainable just as nature has sustained life for billions of years. This subject evolved from the author’s kindled interest in biomimetics and the simple question “what does this mean for services?” The research question that drove this project was later defined as: What design lessons might be transferrable from biology to service design through biomimetics? This research question emphasises on two different aspects – firstly, the quest for a possible overlap of fundamental principles between biology and service design through the lens of biomimetics or biomimicry; and secondly, the intricacies and underlying challenges in the process of knowledgetransfer. This thesis also saw the need to evidence the abductive reasoning behind its subject by asking the supportive question “What would biomimetic services look like?” Thus this project aims to establish if service design can borrow knowledge from biology through biomimetics and to identify where the opportunity for knowledge-transfer lies. Furthermore, as service design is a very practice-based discipline and evidencing is one of its fundamental principles, this thesis aims to offer a practical exploration of possible biomimetic services. These two aims therefore scope this project as a two-fold research inquiry.

1.2. Why biomimetic service design thinking now? A mix of factors has created beneficial conditions for biomimetic service design thinking to emerge and develop. The new understanding of the position of design as a driver of change and a source of innovation has received support from institutions and organisations. In the UK specifically the Government’s Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth initiated in 2011 recognises innovation as “the only pathway to sustainable economic growth, higher real incomes and greater quality of life in the long term” (Design for Innovation, 2011). A particular focus is placed on design-led innovation1 . Additionally, the Design Council’s report that supplements the Government’s new strategy reveals that commercialising science is a key driver of innovation (Design for Innovation, 2011). The fact that science research teams are typically poor in user-led design represents a real opportunity to build capacity through this commercialisation (Design for Innovation, 2011). This places design in a unique position to build bridges with science towards significantly impactful ends. 1 It has been established that design-intensive businesses outperformed peers by 200% and that 80% of businesses see design as a competitive advantage (Design for Innovation, 2011).

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Introduction

Changes in the understanding of the role of services are another factor. The UK economy has showed a shift away from manufacturing towards services and particularly knowledge-intensive services as they currently account for a third of UK GDP and over a quarter of total employment (Growth Dashboard, 2014). In addition, the understanding of service design as a transformation tool is slowly evolving. Service design could go beyond designing experiences which make us “go into one coffee shop and not the other” (CaptainMotion.tv, 2011) and put a lot more emphasis on “acting as a provoker” and a force that brings vision and meaning to the design table (Manzini in Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). In the field of biomimetics and biomimicry the Da Vinci index2 has showed a rapid and significant growth of biomimetic and biomimicry research both in scholarly articles and in research grants papers. Biomimicry 3.8 has been successfully spreading the contagion of bio-inspiration for the last 16 years and has embedded enormous amounts of knowledge into education programs and published materials. A growing number of biomimetic research centers (25 worldwide in 2013) have also been established (Fermanian Business and Economic Institute, 2013). On the economic side, the Fermanian Business & Economic Institute (FBEI) at the Point Loma Nazarene University (PLNU) in San Diego, California, points that by 2030 bio-inspiration globally could generate $1.6 trillion of total GDP. In addition to the personal conviction of the author that biomimetic service design represents an untapped opportunity, the intersection of the described factors motivates the research study in this document.

1.3. Defining terms Various terms exist that signify nature-inspired design. Biomimetics, biomimicry, bio-inspired, biologically inspired and nature-inspired design all share the fundamental principle of taking inspiration from nature to solve human problems but seem to place emphasis on different aspects of bio-inspiration. Biomimetics is in most cases seen as the subdomain of engineering and is defined in terms of technological advancement through inspiration from nature while biomimicry’s integrative philosophy posits that we are part of nature and that we should take nature as model, measure and mentor (Benyus, 2002). The topic of this thesis uses “biomimetic services” as this formulation implies a merge between specialism and generalism. It is an embodiment of the belief that when employing biomimetics service design should gain a deep understanding of biological phenomena while retaining its holistic approach. Additionally, in this project the terms biomimetics, biomimicry and bio-inspired are used interchangeably to refer to this particular concept and mean design that emulates nature. 2 “The Index is compiled based on the number of patents issued in the U.S., scholarly articles published globally, the number of grants issued by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the value of those grants for any given period” (www.pointloma.edu)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Introduction

Like biomimetics service design has been defined with various definitions3. This thesis focuses on that aspect of service design that illuminates its capability to provide the “infrastructure” of value exchange. In the following pages service design is explored as an integral part of service science, which perceives service as value exchange. Although service design and service science emerged independently and although it took a few years after its first published research papers for service science to acknowledge service design as a part of its body of knowledge4 both disciplines have responded to the same global shift from goods to services and share many of their fundamental principles such as value co-creation, systems thinking, and perceiving the user as a resource and co-creator.

3 For definitions of service design see glossary in Appendix 1 4 Service science was perceived to be the short for Service Science, Management and Engineering (SSME) (Zhao et al., 2009). Around 2009 (Spohrer and Kwan, 2009) this abbreviation included design and read Service Science, Management, Engineering and Design (SSMED). However, the first publication identified by this thesis that saw service design as being a part of service science is Ostrom et al.’s ‘Moving Forward and Making a Difference: Research Priorities for the Science of Service’ (2009) where enhancing service design is identified as one of the ten key priorities for service science.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Introduction

LITERATURE REVIEW Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

2. LITERATURE REVIEW As a part of an inter-disciplinary study, this section reviews literature in both biomimetics and in service design. Firstly, it provides an overview of biomimetics in terms of its origin, scope, challenges, and approaches. The second part of the literature review gives an overview of service design, tracing its roots, scoping it with four main strands and exploring relevant features that are conducive to biomimetics.

2.1. Overview of biomimetics 2.1.1. The roots of biomimicry and biomimetics Biomimicry was coined as a term by biologist Janine Benyus to mean “The conscious emulation of life’s genius. Innovation inspired by nature.” (Benyus, 2002, p.2). The driving ethos of biomimicry is to look at nature as model, measure and mentor (Benyus, 2002). The manifesto-like book by Benyus that established biomimicry does not explicitly theorise the characteristics and methodologies of biomimicry but instead illuminates its value through a series of “living lessons”. It became a cornerstone in the biomimicry literature, sprouted a number of biomimetic initiatives and education programs, attracted many followers and was followed by the founding of the Biomimicry Guild (established 1998) and the Biomimicry Institute5 (established 2009). Biomimetics as a term originated from the engineering disciplines when in the 1950s Otto Schmitt, an engineer, biophysicist and the pioneer of biomedical engineering, recognised that a biologist’s approach to problems of physical science and engineering needed to be denoted with a term different from biophysics (Vincent et al, 2006). The strong relations of biomimetics to engineering is perhaps what determined the burgeoning of biomimetic research namely from the field of engineering and closely related sciences. Thus the majority of researchers argue that biomimetics lies in the domain of engineering (Mak and Shu 2004,Vincent et al. 2006, Mak and Shu 2008, Gebeshuber et al. 2009, Bogatyrev and Bogatyreva 2009, Bogatyrev and Bogatyreva 2014).

2.1.2. In search of the scope of biomimetics Biomimetics has been expanding exponentially since the 1990s6 and some researchers have tried to map its strongest areas of research. Lepora et al present extensive research and insightful statistics based on papers in engineering, physics, mathematics, computer science, robotics and other related disciplines. The study points to a few significant discoveries about the scope of the biomi5 In 2011 the Biomimicry Guild and the Biomimicry Institute were united under Biomimicry 3.8 6 In the mid-1990s less than 100 papers per year contained terms related to biomimetics, and in 2013 those publications amounted to more than 3000 per year (Lepora et al, 2013)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

metic field and its most impactful strands. Firstly, it reveals that there has been a boom in biomimetic research published in journals and in conference proceedings as well as in patents granted in biomimetics. Secondly, it convincingly shows the predominance of the technological applications of biomimetics in a generated word cloud – second most popular word (after biomimetic) is the word robot, followed by control. (Fig.1). Perhaps the most important discovery relevant to this project, however, is that Lepora et al. pin down five research communities in biomimetics (Fig.2). These include robotics – endeavours that focus on intelligent systems and machine learning algorithms; ethology-based robotics – predominantly engaged in building hardware that imitates movement of animals such as flying or swimming; biomimetic actuators, for example artificial muscle; biomaterials based on bone and tissue, and structural bioengineering which focuses on micro-structures in biological materials (Lepora et al., 2013). It should be noted that despite its high accuracy in reflecting the current state of the art in biomimetics, the focus of the study lies specifically in engineering and related disciplines. Hence, any research and biomimetic thinking within the design disciplines is likely to have remained obscured.

Fig.1 Word cloud of the most popular topics in biomimetics (Lepora et al., 2013).

The quantitative review by Lepora et al. is in contrast with Gebeshuber et al’s review that presents a qualitative approach to envision the future of biomimetics. The authors contextualise biomimetics beyond its technology-related interpretations by implying that developments in institutions, teaching, politics and management are to be expected. However, the technology bias in gauging the impact of biomimetics is present in their research as the researchers argue that limitations in technology do not allow biomimetics to make a significant impact in those global challenges that deal with economic, sociological and political issues7 (Gebeshuber et al). The areas estimated to yield the next generation of biomimetic inventions are materials science and production technologies, 7 The paper relates biomimetics to 6 of the 15 global challenges from the 2008 Millennium Project report: sustainable development, water, information technology, health, energy, and science and technology.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

energy systems, aero- and hydrodynamics, transportation and space travel, robotics and computer science and possibly politics and management (Gebeshuber et al, 2009). Again, design in its more specific terms, and service design in particular, is omitted from the future vision of biomimetics.

Fig.2 Biomimetic communities identified by Lepora et al. The five strongest communities are: robotics (blue), ethology-based robotics (green), biomimetic actuators (yellow), biomaterials (red), and structural bioengineering (black). (Lepora et al., 2013)

Unlike Lepora et al. who argue that biomimetics has gained a momentum and therefore can be considered a distinctive discipline Gebeshuber et al view biomimetics as a method rather than a science. It is differentiated as a trans-disciplinary approach, a tool in the three-gaps-theory (reviewed in section 2.1.5.) that bridges the gap between accumulated knowledge, application of knowledge and the diffusion of the end product. Thus biomimetics is presented as a tool in â&#x20AC;&#x153;accelerating scientific and technological breakthroughsâ&#x20AC;? (Gebeshuber et al, 2009).

2.1.3. Challenges to biomimetics Many researchers have argued that the accessibility of biology presents a major challenge in

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

biomimetics (Vincent et al 2006, Holbrook et al 2010, Stroble et al 2009, Helms et al 2009). Vincent et al. recognise that there is still no general framework to dictate the approach to biomimetics and that interpretation from biology is required. Stroble et al. from the Missouri University of Science and Technology argue that accumulating knowledge about biological organisms and processes poses a major challenge in the successful application of biomimetic practice and propose an engineering-to-biology thesaurus to aid this process. Furthermore, Holbrook et al in a conference proceeding to the “Social Biomimicry: Insect Societies and Human Design” 2010 conference note that fields that could be bridged by biomimcry might not yet have been connected by cross-communication channels. Accessibility of biological knowledge continues to be a major challenge in biomimetics. In response to the growing need of making biological knowledge readily accessible and well structured for biomimetic use a number of tools have been devised. AskNature.org is the biggest online database of biological phenomena sorted by function or process. The Georgia Institute of Technology developed DANE (Design by Analogy in Nature Engine), a tool that aims to facilitate the design process by providing biological descriptions of natural phenomena filtered by structure, behaviour and function (http://dilab.cc.gatech.edu). Additionally, researchers at the Missouri University of Science and Technology developed an engineering-to-biology thesaurus to aid the communication between biology and engineering (Stroble et al, 2009); and researchers at the University of Toronto have been developing a concept generation framework based on analogy (Vakili and Shu 2001, Mak and Shu 2004, Mak and Shu 2008). Architectural firm HOK produced the “Genius of Biome” report, which catalogues biome ecosystems phenomena and their corresponding design pattern abstractions. Critique of biomimicry has not been very prolific. But some experts point to a possible fundamental flaw with the idea of biomimicry. Rachel Armstrong critiqued the term biomimicry as a biased and idealised vision, a result of our perhaps wrongly defined love for anything “natural” (http:// www.architectural-review.com/). Similarly, Holbrook et al emphasise that effectiveness of biomimicry should be judged on the grounds of solving a human problem rather than on the inherent “natural” features of biomimetics (Holbrook et al, 2010).

2.1.4. Specific biomimetic approaches A method widely acknowledged by researchers in the field (Mak and Shu 2004, Mak and Shu 2008, Helms et al 2009, Salgueiredo 2013,) is the BioTRIZ methodology developed by the biomimetics team at the University of Bath, UK. Based on the original inventive problem-solving framework, TRIZ, by Altshuller (1984), the BioTRIZ approach facilitates knowledge-transfer between disciplines. Although it contains a wide range of tools, its most defining tool is its dialectic logic manifested in its contradiction matrix – every problem should be defined as a set of contradictory characteristics. These contradictions are then resolved through the contradiction matrix (Vincent et al., 2006).

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

The differences in the governing principles of the living and non-living systems have been a consistent theme in the work of the BioTRIZ team (Vincent et al 2006, Bogatyrev and Bogatyreva 2009, Bogatyrev and Bogatyreva 2014). Only a 12% similarity between technology and biology was empirically estimated (Vincent et al, 2006). Another key finding is that nature utilises information and space over material and energy (Vincent et al, 2006). This implies that engineers generally tend to solve problems by using a new material or increasing the energy requirement of a product unlike nature where materials are few and energy is sparingly used. Furthermore, nature is essentially emergent while technology aims to inhibit unpredictability. Natural resources are cycled in closed loop systems (Bogatyrev and Bogatyreva, 2009), while technology goes through a linear openended cycle of manufacture and disposal. Thus, the BioTRIZ team have been engaged in exploring the interplay between the living and non-living elements in biomimetic engineering. Since its inception in the early 2000s BioTRIZ has started to undergo adaptations that favour design in the context of living systems. A recent trend within BioTRIZ development has been to use the BioTRIZ framework in the context of permaculture (Bogatyrev and Bogatyreva 2013). By supplementing the methodology with additional axioms8 intended to facilitate communication between knowledge about living systems and methods that had largely been applied to non-living technological systems, Bogatyrev and Bogatyreva suggest that BioTRIZ is a win-win methodology. Critique of BioTRIZ is hardly present, but the methodology is sometimes critiqued for being normative. (Helms et al, 2009)

2.1.5. Problem-driven and solution-driven biomimetic approaches The more general approaches to biomimetics have been described as solution-driven (push) or problem-driven (pull) approaches by some researchers (Gebeshuber et al 2009, Helms et al 2009, Salgueiredo 2013). The problem-driven design approach by Helms et al. includes six design stages that occur in a non-linear and dynamic fashion, not unlike the design thinking process. These steps are illustrated in Fig.3.

8 These axioms are divided into two groups – biology-to-engineering and engineering-to-biology. The former includes the axioms of simplification of the biological prototype; interpretation of the biological strategy; ideal result related to copying the result of a function and not the means thereof; and contractions in terms of the “how” of a biological phenomenon. The latter includes the axioms of maximization of useful function; interpretation of engineering functions into biological language; ideal result where optimal functioning of the ecosystem is considered; and resolving contradictions between eco- and human requirements. (Bogatyrev and Bogatyreva, 2014)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

Principle Application

New constraints can form “compound analogies”

Principle Extraction

Abstraction in a solution-neutral form.

Deeper Understanding

Define Biological Solution

Look for: champion adapters, variation, multi-functionality

Biological Solution Search

Change constraints;

“Biologising” the problem

Reframe Problem

Functional optimisation

Functional decomposition

Problem Definition

Fig.3 Problem-Driven bio-inspired approach by Helms et al., 2009 (visualisation by author).

Similarly, Gebeshuber et al propose a “three-gaps-theory” to describe how knowledge is funnelled from idea to creation (Fig.4). The inventor space signifies where knowledge is generated. The innovator space is where the application of knowledge occurs and the investor space is where products move from application to production or diffusion. Thus the gaps in between these conceptual stages denote key challenges in knowledge management, as we need to strive to bridge the gaps between acquiring knowledge, finding its applications and finding ways to produce an outcome respectively. Depending on who is driving the process, this can be realised as either push or “dream-driven” approach where the people with knowledge (evangelists) strive to find an application of their inspiration, or as a pull or “vision-driven” approach where the need for a problem solution becomes a vision and requires innovation (Gebeshuber et al., 2009). Biomimetics in the three-gaps-theory is an intermediary entity, an interdisciplinary approach, which not only bridges the three gaps, but also contributes to the generation of new knowledge (Gebeshuber et al., 2009). In essence, the theory is an embodiment of a call for cross-disciplinary communication as the authors argue that “we need a joint language and a joint vision” (Gebeshuber et al, 2009, p.2912).

application

INVESTOR creation

MARKET Demand = Pull

knowledge

INNOVATOR

Third GAP

INVENTOR

Scout (vision-driven)

Second GAP

First GAP

IDEAS Potential = Push

Evangelist (dream-driven)

Fig.4 The three-gaps theory proposed by Gebeshuber et al., 2009 (visualisation by author)

The dichotomy of the problem-driven and the solution-driven approaches has also been inter-

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

preted by Biomimcry 3.8 as a “biology-to-design” and “challenge-to-biology” design processes, taught and distributed as a part of the Biomimicry DesignLens toolkit (Fig.5 and Fig.6). The former is initiated by inspiration from observing nature and wanting to find an application in design, while the latter starts with a specific problem and is iterated through different steps across the scoping, discovering, creating and evaluating stages. The Biomimicry Thinking approach differs from other approaches reviewed so far in that it includes the stages of scoping and evaluation. Both of these stages use Life’s principles (Fig.7), a set of principles devised by Biomimicry 3.8 from practice and experience since 1998 (www.biomimicry.net). Life’s principles are utilised to validate the solutions inspired by nature and to evaluate their efficiency.

Fig.5 “Challenge-to-biology” process by Biomimicry 3.8 (www.biomimicry.net).

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

Fig.6 “Biology-to-design” process by Biomimicry 3.8 (www.biomimicry.net).

2.1.6. Biomimetics by analogy By far the most widely used approach to biomimetics is analogical reasoning. Stroble et al, 2009 argue that “the use of analogy has been the most successful method in engineering design.” The researchers at the University of Toronto have explored the transfer of biological forms, behaviours and strategies into the engineering domain through analogy in a series of papers (Vakili and Shu 2001, Mak and Shu 2004, Mak and Shu 2008). More specifically, their approach includes identifying engineering functional keywords in a biological text (in the text “Life, the Science of Biology” by Purves et al, 2001) using a database of biological phenomena descriptions to find biomimetic solutions to engineering problems. The researches evolved the original process of five consecutive steps9 of searching by functional keyword (Vakili and Shu, 2001) into a process whereby a proprietary search tool is used to scour a database of biological phenomena. Referring to the work of cognitive scientists Holyoak and Thagard, the Toronto researchers argue that an analogy includes both superficial knowledge, or surface similarity, and deep knowledge, or deep similarity, which bond together to form a knowledge structure. For a successful analogy to 9 The steps are: 1) Select initial information source of biological phenomena; 2) Identify synonyms for engineering functional keywords; 3) Identify suitable bridge between engineering functional keywords and synonyms and biological phenomena; 4) Search for keywords and synonyms in bridge; 5)Identify and find more detail on relevant biological phenomena. (Vakili and Shu, 2001)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

occur in cross-disciplinary challenges, the knowledge structure from the source discipline needs to be mapped onto the knowledge structure in the target discipline (Mak and Shu 2008)(Fig.8). The analogy is manifested through similarity relationships between the two knowledge structures (red dotted lines in Fig.8). More specifically, there are four types of similarity relationships that are in play during this process: literal implementation refers to the literal transfer of a biological phenomenon into the engineering domain; biological transfer refers to replicating strategies inconsistently within the target domain, for example simply using the actors of the phenomenon in the context of the target domain; anomalies imply misinterpretation of the biological phenomenon or fixation on only a part of the biological phenomenon; and analogy is the proposed most suitable way of knowledge transfer where an abstraction of principles occurs and those principles are transferred without replicating the biological form (Mak and Shu, 2008).

Fig.7 Lifeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Principles by Biomimicry 3.8 (www.biomimicry.net)

The studies conducted by Mak and Shu (2008) empirically revealed a few important tendencies when using analogies in biomimetic design. Firstly, the formulation of the biological description

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

(form, behaviour, or principles) in most cases predetermined the type of similarity relationship used and hence it determined whether knowledge was successfully transferred or whether it was a literal implementation. Secondly, with simpler biological explanations that are largely descriptive and focus solely on form, it tends to be very difficult to efficiently find a solution that mimics biology on strategic level unless prior or external (additional) biological knowledge is used. These are significant findings as they recognise the importance of matching an analogy with the corresponding level of complexity from the biological phenomenon and also suggest that the formulation of the readily accessible biological knowledge plays an important part in determining the success of the biomimetic solution. Two other challenges empirically discovered by Mak and Shu (2008) were also identified by Helms et al. through observing the design process of engineering students at the Georgia Institute of Technology. These challenges include the inability of students to find a matching application in engineering and the fixation on a certain feature rather than the whole biological phenomenon. Specifically, fixation tends to occur in a solution-driven design approach where the first choice of analogy tends to persist throughout the rest of the process (Helms et al., 2009). Other challenges were also identified by Helms et al such as oversimplification of complex functions, vague problem definition, superficial analogy application, as well as “misapplied analogy”(Helms et al., 2009). The latter is referred to with a note of caution by Vakili and Shu who argue that “biological models exist at all levels of organisation” and replicating the correct level is an important consideration in biomimetic engineering.

Fig.8 The structure of an analogy by Holyoak and Thagard 1994, in Mak and Shu, 2008 (visualisation by author)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

2.1.7. The Ecology metaphor The ecology metaphor has pervaded some types of human-centred systems without necessarily being referred to as biomimetics. For example, information ecology uses the term ecology to denote “a system of people, practices, values, and technologies in a particular local environment” (www.firstmonday.org). Nardi and O’Day explore the interactions between humans and technology through the lens of ecological terms. The contextual use of technology in human systems is reminiscent of the processes and actors of ecological systems and suggests many common features. For instance, just like every species occupies a niche in ecology, so too in information ecology different people occupy different roles which are complimentary to each other; just as in a natural environment organisms co-evolve, in our information ecosystems humans and technology evolve together through the use of and continuous sophistication and advancement of technological devices. Nardi and O’Day contemplate on the interactions that occur between people and technology on a systems level, but the focus of this interaction is laid on humans whereas technology is perceived as a tool. In order for us to avoid being overwhelmed by technology, our technology needs to be infused with our human values (Nardi and O’Day, 1999). Thus, ecology here serves to “humanise” the artificial. Another very apt example comes from the study of organisational ecology. Mars et al. from the University of Arizona identified the lack of ecological grounding in organisational ecology and proposed a comparative study exploring the similarities and differences between biological and organisational ecosystems10. Table 1 presents a summary of the similarities and Table 2 presents a summary of the differences as established by Mars et al. Biological ecosystems Biological ecosystems are emergent

Organisational ecosystems Organisational ecosystems are in most cases emergent

Existence of system does not mean health of

system.

system

Stability is dependent on keystone species.

Stability is dependent on keystone actors.

Interaction of species is linked by flows of re-

Interaction of actors and organisations are

sources and information.

linked by flows of resources and information.

Biological ecosystems are made up of inter-

Organisational ecosystems are made up of in-

actions that range widely in outcome.

teractions that range widely in outcome.

10 The study is a result of the collaboration between Judith Bronstein, University Distinguished Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona, and Matthew Mars and Robert Lusch from the McGuire Center for Entrepreneurship at the University of Arizona.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

Biological ecosystems

Organisational ecosystems

Species can be specialised or generalised.

Actors can be specialised or generalised.

Nestedness within networks confers resilience.

Nestedness within networks often confers more resilience.

Table 1. Similarities between biological and organisational ecosystems (Mars et al., 2012)

Biological ecosystems

Organisational ecosystems

Species do not forecast future conditions.

Leaders try to forecast future conditions.

No contingency plans.

Include contingency plans.

Grassroots structures.

Grassroots or top-down structures.

Do not evolve for the greater good.

Not evolving for the greater good of society can be detrimental.

No purposefully designed strategies.

Organisations master-plan and design.

Ecosystem engineers modify the environment

Human engineering influences not only the lo-

and other species benefit.

cal environment, but a wider context too.

Table 2. Differences between biological and organisational ecosystems (Mars et al., 2012) Acknowledging and understanding both the similarities and the differences as well as dispersing any false precognitions is important if human organisations are to learn adaptability and resilience from nature.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

2.1.8. Biomimetics in business 2.1.8.1. Viewpoints From a broader economic perspective, natural capitalism rethinks fundamental business principles. Natural Capitalism is an overarching conceptual framework proposed by Lovins et al, where the aim is “to enable countries, companies, and communities to operate by behaving as if all forms of capital were valued.” (Lovins et al, 1999, p.10). Natural capitalism emphasises the value of natural resources, ecosystem services and closed-loops cycles. What is essential to this thesis is that biomimicry and services represent two of the four fundamental strategies of natural capitalism (See appendix 4). Biomimicry is seen as a base for not only inventing smart and non-toxic materials but also for revolutionising our industrial production processes by implementing closed loop systems where waste from one process can become the input of another process (Lovins et al, 1999). In addition, services are a fundamental part in the proposed “service-and-flow” category of business models in natural capitalism. Such business models deliver solutions rather than products to customers and thus also close the loop of resource reuse. Another perspective on doing business like nature is offered by PhD Tamsin Woolley-Barker who examines the concept of the superorganism in business and what we could learn from the sophisticated societies of eusocial species for the way we do business. Social insects have benefited from much research focus in the area of biomimetics as their strategies of social organisation, task allocation, foraging and other behaviours have instigated much research in computer sciences and robotics for the invention of optimised algorithms11 (Holbrook et al). What Woolley-Barker offers, however, is a perspective on organisational development inspired by nature. A superorganism is defined as “a group of creatures in which one individual can’t survive alone for long, and the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Division of labor is highly specialized, and individuals can’t survive by themselves for any extended period of time.” (Woolley-Barker, 2014, in press) A business could act as a superorganism if it emulated the six main characteristics of social species organisation: they cultivate diversity, create decentralised networks, unify action around a shared purpose, optimise their mating system, leverage information by honest signalling, and trust their emergent nature (Woolley-Barker, 2014, in press).

11 In a meeting report to the “Social Biomimicry: Insect Societies and Human Design” conference from 2010, Holbrook et al argue that social insects are “uniquely qualified to inform human design” (Holbrook et al, 2010, p. 431) referring to the sophisticated social organisation methods inherent to social insect societies. Also, during the writing of this thesis robotics researchers from Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering in Cambridge, Massachusetts, gained media attention after announcing their swarm of 1024 tiny robots that work in synch together (Hotz, 2014).

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

An important distinction pointed by the author bears significant implications in the context of this thesis. Namely, this is the fact that the human species is different from eusocial species as we plan, imagine, guess and manipulate conditions to our benefit. We are “political beasts” (Woolley-Barker, 2014, in press). We use technology to evolve rapidly unlike other species that evolve genetically (Woolley-Barker, 2014, in press). These considerations represent important factors when searching for and applying biomimetic solutions to our human world.

2.1.8.2. Economic impact Activity and economic impact of biomimicry has been consistently tracked by the Fermanian Business & Economic Institute (FBEI) at the Point Loma Nazarene University (PLNU) in San Diego, California, since 2000. FBEI created the Da Vinci index to measure activity in biomimicry, biomimetics and bio-inspiration in the US and globally. The Da Vinci index exhibited seven-fold rise between 2000 and 2013 (www.pointloma.edu). Additionally, results published in two reports from 2010 and from 2013 respectively have indicated that by 2030 bio-inspiration could represent $425 billion of US GDP and also may have incurred $65 billion in savings from resource depletion and pollution (Fermanian Business & Economic Institute, 2013). FBEI also tracks the development of some of the major business players12 in the field of bio-inspiration and estimates that ROI of about 40% to 50% can be expected from bio-inspiration output by 2030 (Fermanian Business & Economic Institute, 2013). Due to its rapid growth and its promising prospects, biomimicry is named an “economic game changer” by PLNU. Thus research suggests that biomimicry can have a major economic impact in linking business to nature.

2.2. Service design literature 2.2.1. The inherent multidisciplinarity of service design Service design, by its origin and definition, is a multidisciplinary design practice. Historically, service design emerged as a response to the changing design landscape and the rise of the service sector (Meroni and Sangiorgi 2011). The consolidation of service design as a distinctive discipline, however, appeared to be somewhat fragmented in its early days. On the one hand, researchers from industrial design and services marketing (Morelli, 2002) started focusing on services as part of Product-Service Systems (PSS) where service offerings are created around a product. On the other hand, researchers from the Politecnico di Milano, Italy, explored services from the lens of the IHIP (intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability, perishability) model which was originally intended to distance services from products in the studies of services marketing (Meroni and Sangiorgi 2011). Around the same time, at the turn of the new millennium, thought leaders like Henry Chesbrough alarmed that academic research had not been able to catch up with economic developments 12 Tracked businesses are: Biolytix, Biomatrica, Seal-Tite, Green Wavelength, InterfaceFLOR, Joinlox, PAX Scientific, Mirasol by QUALCOMM, STO Corp., and Bluetronix Inc.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

and called for the establishment of service science (FT 2004, Chesbrough and Spohrer 2006). Chesbrough reasoned that the indeterminacy of services, which manifested in our misuse and lack of understanding of the term, was a result from the fact that the 20th century had categorised economic sectors in agriculture, manufacturing and services, where the latter term included economic output that did not fit in the first two categories (FT 2004, Chesbrough and Spohrer 2006). In addition to services marketing and service science, service design is infused with influence from interaction design. Service design borrowed many of its tools and methods such as scenarios, storyboards, personas, role-play and experience prototypes from interaction design (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011).

2.2.2. The IHIP model The IHIP model mentioned above is an essential part of our understanding of what services are. The model was proposed by Zeithaml et al (1985) and is widely adopted (Edman 2009). In essence IHIP stands for intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability and perishability of services13. Critique of the IHIP model focuses on the argument that by aiming to differentiate services from products the model might present a skewed point of view of what services are not in relation to products rather than what else they encompass (Edman, 2009). For example, Edman argues that services can in fact be stored on a mobile device if they are Internet-based, and that they do depend on tangible products in many cases.

2.2.3. Design for services map Meroni and Sangiorgi offer a comprehensive scoping analysis of service design through visualisation of a “Design for Services Map” derived from analysis of 17 major case studies by some of the most impactful design organisations engaged in the practice of service design (Fig. 9). The genuinely diverse range of design skills of service designers is captured by the variety of levels that they engage in: • Designing Interactions, relations and experiences. Designers might focus on creating and improving experiences within a service to encourage “empathic” interactions between people and enable co-designing processes through participatory design practices. • Designing interactions to shape systems and organisations. Designers can also drive organisational change and innovation by rethinking user-staff, staff-service system or inter- service system interactions, in which case design has a strong transformational capacity in organisations to evoke more human-centred policies. • Exploring new collaborative service models. Designers might also apply their skills in invent13 See Appendix 3 for a more detailed description

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

ing new service models with an emphasis on the community, thus proposing new collaborative models, new behavioural patterns and exploring social structures for the improvement of community-level interactions. • Imagining future directions for service systems. Designers are sometimes the generators of visions and future scenarios for a more sustainable future on a regional scale, where they visualise and evidence those scenarios and evaluate how the lives of people would be impacted. Meroni and Sangiorgi argue that service designers work on a variety of levels – from design of interactions and experiences, to design of complex systems that constitute new business models. And what enables this diverse application of skills is the human-centred approach which is always fundamental to service design (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011).

2.2.4. The essence of exchange in services Service-Dominant logic is an area of inquiry, which emerged from the science of marketing and was pioneered by Vargo and Lusch in a series of publications (Vargo and Lusch 2004, Vargo and Lusch 2007). S-D logic evolved as the antithesis of goods-dominant logic that had been inherited by economics. In goods-dominant logic the traditional perception was that value is captured in products that are manufactured (Vargo and Lusch 2004). In contrast, in S-D logic service is defined as “the application of competences (knowledge and skills) for the benefit of a party” and thus is the fundamental basis of exchange (Spohrer et al 2008). Similarly, service science is exclusively based on value co-creation, a type of interaction between service entities that is of mutual benefit to both the service provider and the service beneficiary. Thus, in S-D logic and in service science this type of exchange translates into a form of mutualism between service entities14.

2.2.5. The “natural“ features of service design Contrary to the bias of engineering against the unpredictability of natural systems, service design is fundamentally conducive to emergence. Some researchers at Politecnico di Milano, Italy, refer to the outcome of design for services as an “action platform” (Manzini in Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011) and argue that in principle what is being designed is an “action platform” for service users, where certain actions are encouraged and others are made more difficult (Manzini in Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). The role of the designer is thus seen as an “enabler” or facilitator of collaborative platforms that foster interactions in the value-co-creation chain. (Meroni and Sangiorgi 2011).

14 Service entities can be people, businesses, government agencies, non-profit organisations, etc. (Spohrer et al., 2008)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

Fig.9 Design for Services Map (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011)

The concept of “dematerialisation” is also inherent to service design. It denotes the intangibility of services. Meroni and Sangiorgi describe one of the two discourses of thinking about services as “thinking by functions.” This method of reasoning focuses on what design for services can offer as opposed to how the offering is delivered. In principle, from this functional perspective, Meroni and Sangiorgi argue that the same level of user satisfaction from a product can be achieved by providing a service. This clarification, although obvious in the context of the intangibility of services, is im-

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

portant as it stands in contrast with the engineering sciences and implies environmental sustainability by moving away from products towards intangible services. Intended output from engineering, on the other hand, does not intentionally strive for environmental sustainability, but looks to nature for ”elegant and ingenious approaches to problem-solving” (Stroble et al, 2009) which might not necessarily result in greater environment sustainability.

2.2.6. Service ecology map Although only partially translated from biology and with limited adoption by practitioners, the ecology metaphor is present in service design. It has been used in service science to denote the service system ecology. Service system ecology is defined as “the macro-scale interactions of the populations of different types of service system entities15” (Spohrer et al., 2008). Live|work have been the only design firm known to this study to utilise the concept of a service system ecology albeit not in a direct relation to the service science definition of the term. Live|Work defined it quite simply as the “system of actors and the relationships between them that form a service” (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). Polaine et al explore the notion of service ecology through a service ecology map. Conscious of the connotations it entails, they relate the service ecology term to its natural counterpart, the ecosystem, and argue that there are two main reasons why the association is relevant in the context of service design. Firstly, the most obvious premise is that service systems are complex systems, just like natural systems. And secondly, services develop over time by co-evolving with their users. Through constant interaction, feedback and communication services adapt to their users. This literature review described the common understanding of biomimetics and biomimcry, listed key approaches and challenges in biomimetics, identified the significant role of analogy in extracting biomimetic principles and explored how bio-inspiration is perceived in business. It also reviewed the origins of service design and those of its features that are conducive to biomimetics, and it described the four main areas of service development through the Design for Services Map.

15 For a definition of service system entity, see Appendix 1

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Literature Review

METHODOLOGY Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Methodology

3. METHODOLOGY This section describes the methodology used to construct this thesis.

3.1. The distinctive nature of this study This research project discovered that direct theoretical parallels between service design and biomimetics are practically non-existent. While biomimetics has been prolifically developing in the engineering areas described in the literature review and in some fields of design such as architecture, urban planning, organisational development, and product design, an explicit link to, or theoretical exploration in the context of service design was not found. Therefore, presented with the challenge of identifying possible areas of overlap where knowledge might be transferrable between biology and the design for services, this research study has undertaken a strategy which aims towards two main goals: inventing the strategy, as opposed to following a standard research design; and adapting quickly in an iterative fashion by constantly revisiting the research question as well as purpose and scope of this study. This approach is described in the remainder of this section.

3.2. Iteration This thesis is by its nature an iterative and qualitative project of inquiry. It followed the double-diamond design process16 and included several main stages: initial findings, scoping and positioning of service design within biomimetics, converging on a main argument that defines the deliverable of the project, then diverging into concept development and again converging on the outcome of the concept research and validating it through the feedback of thesis collaborators and practical solutions. Naturally, a few iterations in the first space of discovery were prompted by the findings made or the lack thereof. These iterations were related to: • Departure form the initial research topic and question which had been centred around social biomimicry (what service design can learn from nature in the scope of social insects societies and their sophisticated behavioural patterns) towards a more general approach of exploring biomimetic services, their current state-of-the-art and potential prospects. • Departure from engineering approaches to biomimetics due to differences between engineering and service design. • Departure from extensive review of case studies as a way of illuminating biomimetic service design thinking; one case study is presented in a comparative review in Section 4. 16 The double-diamond process was developed by the Design Council in the UK in 2005 to describe the design process (www.designcouncil.org.uk)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Methodology

Fig.10 Research and Design process of this thesis (visualisation by author)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Methodology

3.3. Reflective practice In view of the lack of formal description of biomimetic services as an area of ongoing research, this exploration of biomimetic services saw the need to embed reflective practice in order to yield a viable and conclusive statement. The use of iteration described in the previous subsection is one such manifestation of reflective practice. Reflective practice was coined as a term by Donald Schön, a philosopher, researcher and MIT professor who sought to investigate how the process of learning occurs and how professional knowledge is accumulated. Schön argues that professionals know more than they can articulate – that they have a reservoir of implicit knowledge which is manifested in the act of doing and practicing (Smith, www.infed.org). The choice of a methodology and the methodological alterations that followed herein can be explained by the following definition by Schön: “[practitioners] frame the problem of the situation, they determine the features to which they will attend, the order they will attempt to impose on the situation, the directions in which they will try to change it. In this process, they identify both the ends to be sought and the means to be employed.” (Schön 1983 in Surgenor 2011) Reflective practice also implies systematic inquiry: “It means applying critical thinking to practice by asking, probing or challenging questions, both of self and collectively so that transformation can take place.” (Taylor, 2014, Lecture Handout) This constant state of inquiry is what the author of this thesis felt was indeed in order to uncover answers to the research question that drives this study.

3.4. Positioning service design in the theoretical biomimetic landscape Asking what knowledge might be transferrable from biology to service design implies a situation which is in a potential state rather than in a realised state. Therefore the first major task of this study was to scope existing knowledge in biomimetics and to establish how it relates to the service design discipline. A map was created where parallels between research areas were identified (Fig. 11). Acknowledging what links are missing is just as important in the context of this thesis. Thus, it can be argued that: • No direct communication exists between service design and biomimetics • Service design has not borrowed research in biomimetics from the engineering sciences • Service design benefits from indirect communication with biology through the ecology metaphor

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Methodology

• There are common features between design thinking and Life’s Principles • Service design is part of the service-and-flow strategy of Natural Capitalism These arguments are discussed in the following sections of this thesis.

3.5. Deliverables There are two parts to the outcome of this thesis that reflect the aims of the project as stated in the introduction. 1. Identify a common ground between service design and biology where knowledge might be transferrable to the practice of service design to offer increased sustainability of services for people 2. Evidence and test biomimetic service thinking by proposing an idea generation tool for biomimetic services. To support these two deliverables, work carried out in the Deliver stage of the project includes: • Interviews where possible (one collaborator) • Digital communication with collaborators (discussions and questionnaires via email) • LinkedIn network discussion with diverse contributors • Design of idea generation tool for biomimetic services • Testing the tool through a case study

3.6. Thesis collaborators Tamsin Woolley-Barker An Evolutionary Biologist and a Contracted Biologist at the Design Table at Biomimicry 3.8. Tamsin is the author of the “The Biomimicry Manual” at Inhabitat.com. She is currently working on a book about organisational transformation. Nicola Sherry A Service and Visual & Interaction Designer and a Sessional Lecturer at Ravensbourne, London.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Methodology

Fig.11 Biomimetic landscape and positioning of service design (visualisation by author)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Methodology

BIOMIMETIC SERVICE DESIGN Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

4. BIOMIMETIC SERVICE DESIGN This section explores parallels between ecology and service design, introduces a biomimetic idea generation tool for service design and tests the tool through a case study.

4.1. Ecology and Service Design This project chose to probe into possible similarities between service design and the natural world through the lens of ecology. There are three main reasons behind this choice. Firstly, the ecological metaphor had already started to permeate the service design practice with the service ecology map by Live|Work as mentioned in the literature review. Secondly, ecology and service design share the same level of organisation, which is the systems level. The main entity in ecology is the ecosystem17. Similarly, in service science the basic unit is the service system, which is perceived to be “a dynamic value co-creation configuration of resources, including people, organisations, shared information (language, laws, measures, methods), and technology, all connected internally and externally to other service systems by value propositions (Spohrer et al. 2007).” Lastly, both areas of study are highly relational. Ecology studies the “interactions of organisms with their physical environment (abiotic) and with one another (biotic)” (www.biophysics.sbg.ac.at). Likewise, in service design relations are paramount. Service blueprints map front- and backstage interactions; stakeholder maps describe the interplay between various groups within a service; customer journeys map service touchpoints where service encounters between the user and the service provider occur, etc. Therefore, in an attempt to uncover opportunities for biomimetic services, a comparative review of similarities (Fig.12), possible future opportunities (Fig.13) and one crucial difference (Fig.14) are illustrated below.

17 For a definition of ecosystem see glossary in Appendix 1

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

Fig.12 Similarities between ecology and service design (visualisation by author)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

Fig.13 Similarities as opportunities, ecology and service design (visualisation by author) Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

Fig.14 Differences between ecology and service design (visualisation by author)

4.2. Biomimetic Service Design Approach 4.2.1. Problem-driven and solution-driven approaches Before a biomimetic service idea generation tool can be devised, a review of four key approaches presented in the literature review section was conducted. Fig.16 illustrates the different stages of problem-driven approaches to biomimetics as described and applied by Helms et al. at the Georgia Institute of Technology (2009); Vakili and Shu at the University of Toronto (2001), whose research was subsequently published by Mak and Shu (Mak and Shu 2004, Mak and Shu 2008); the BioTRIZ team at the University of Bath whose approach was originally described by Vincent et al (2006); and the Biomimicry Thinking methodology by Biomimicry 3.8. It must be noted that gaps in some of the stages do not necessarily indicate missing processes but instead refer to processes that occur as part of the cognitive process rather than a conscious step in the approach. Thus we can infer where the focus is placed in each approach. The table leads to the following insights and considerations: • All processes use analogical reasoning and go through the pipeline of specific problem definition, analogy, principle extraction and application. • Scoping or evaluation is not included in the formal process except for the case of biomimicry thinking. • In the case of BioTRIZ general principles have already been extracted18 and thus do not need to form separate steps. • It is not a common practice to abstract a principle in design before searching for an analogical principle in biology. The BioTRIZ methodology is of special interest to this study as it is based on the TRIZ problem-solving logic, which is arguably cross-domain, and it is believed that BioTRIZ can yield good solutions regardless of the discipline that utilises it (Bogatyrev and Bogatyreva, 2014). It rests on a problem solv18 The TRIZ matrix is a result of reviewing more than three million patents in order for patterns to be extracted (www.triz-journal.com). The PRIZM matrix as part of BioTRIZ is a result of a more general approach based on the principle “things do things somewhere” and was developed after reviewing about 2500 functional contradictions (Vincent et al, 2006)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

ing approach that starts from the specific problem definition and moves towards general definition, general solution and yields specific solution, as illustrated in Fig.15.

Fig.15 TRIZ problem-solving logic (www.triz-journal.com)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

Fig.16 Review of the stages of key biomimetic approaches (visualisation by author) Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

4.3. Biomimetic service idea generation tool The hereby proposed tool (Fig.18) is a blend of inspirations from two sources. Firstly, it is intended to follow the same paradigm of specific-general-general-specific approach as in the TRIZ problemsolving methodology. Secondly, it bears resemblance to the Ideation (Lotus Blossom) tool from the Service Design Tookit developed by design firms Namahn and Design Flanders (www.servicedesigntoolkit.com) (Fig.18). The latter tool diverges the thinking space of the designer into eight different directions by specifying eight design requirements. Thus, the service idea generation tool is based on the following steps (from the centre outward in visual, Fig.17): definition of the design challenge and definition of eight design requirements; abstraction of design principle which needs to define each design requirement in more general terms; searching for a biological analogue to each abstraction; and extraction of the principles behind each biological example which is intended to prompt a deeper understanding behind “how does nature do this.” (Fig.17) As we saw in Fig.16, the abstraction in design step is rarely employed by existing biomimetic approaches. Helms et al. describe a similar step of reframing or “biologising” the problem, but reframing implies only partial abstraction. In BioTRIZ the abstraction in design is embedded in the contradiction matrix hence not a defined step in the BioTRIZ approach. In contrast, the idea generation tool that is proposed here includes a distinguished step of abstraction in design because as it was discovered through the work of Mak and Shu (2008) and Helms et al (2009) (section 2.1.6) matching the correct corresponding level of complexity in design and in biology is a vital factor in arriving at a successful analogy. This study acknowledges the fact that a more rigorous approach is required to arrive at a practical tool that has deep biological and service science knowledge embedded in it. Thus, the hereby proposed tool is intended to serve only as a conceptual proposition of what biomimetic service design might “look like”. It is the evidencing of a proposed vision, the minimum viable product, intended to spark a conversation.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

Fig.17 Problem-driven idea generation tool for biomimetic service design (visualisation by author) Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

Fig.18 Ideation tool for service development by Namahn and Design Flanders (www.servicedesigntoolkit. com)

4.4. Museum members engagement project - case study 4.4.1. Project background In order to be able to test the biomimetic service idea generation tool and to gauge its value in terms of how much biomimetic service design would contribute to a solution as opposed to nonbiomimetic service design, the following case study was selected. In the second half of the Master of Design course at Ravensbourne College the author of this thesis took part in a collaborative project19 funded by the Share Academy20. The project was centred 19 â&#x20AC;&#x160;Collaboration between Design Management and Service Design pathway of the MDes course 20 â&#x20AC;&#x160;Share Academy is a partnership between University College London, University of the Arts London and

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

around finding ways to increase members’ engagement in small independent museums in London so as to foster communities of interest. A rigorous research process included going out in the field, talking to museum staff and volunteers, using prior insights form the case study of the British Music Experience museum in London, organising and conducting a workshop with various stakeholders of the BME, speaking to organisations with successful engagement programs such as IdeasTap, attending the Museums+Heritage 2014 show held in London, reviewing case studies papers from MLA Yorkshire and the Association of Independent Museums. The findings of the project converged on the observation that small independent museums in London focus predominantly on attracting new audiences. Therefore the journeys of existing museum members represented a gap in strategy. The gap was identified as one of misaligned expectations between the museum and its members. Whilst the majority of museum members had intrinsic motivation for joining a membership scheme and expected diversity of offers and opportunities to be engaged in, and contribute to the museum, the many problems that small independent museums grapple with in their day-to-day activities inhibited adequate opportunities to be put in place. Furthermore, small independent museums being very niche in their subjects naturally benefited from, or had the potential to benefit from a large volunteer base that, if utilised well, could turn out to be the keystone in the museum strategy. In response to this challenge, the Ravensbourne team proposed a toolkit comprising major strategic goals to strengthen the relationship of museums with their members and volunteers alike. The elements in this museum toolkit focused on (Fig.19): • Identifying the different levels of engagement within the membership scheme and providing relevant opportunities for each levell • Constant feedback between the museum and its members, friends and volunteers • “Taster” sessions of membership and of different experiences related to the membership, which would make commitment not seem as a big decision • Systematic rewards, both intrinsic and extrinsic

the London Museums Group, and is funded by Arts Council England. The Share Academy project aims to build sustainable and mutually beneficial relationships between the higher education sector and specialist museums in London (http://www.londonmuseumsgroup.org).

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

Fig.19 Museum membership project - the proposed solution is a system of opportunities for museum members to engage in (visualisation by author).

4.4.2. Idea generation Using the proposed idea generation tool (Fig.17) a brainstorming exercise might yield ideas similar to the ones shown on Fig. 20. A summary of the biological principles identified by the brainstorminhg exercise is presented in Table 3.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

Fig.20 Museum membership project - biomimetic idea generation (visualisation by author)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

Design Requirement

Bio-inspiration Stigmergic signals through pheromone trails

Constant feedback

and short decay rate of signals (Woolley-Barker, 2014, in press) Social insect societies self-organise by using

A sense of community

simple rules of interactions around a shared purpose (Woolley-Barker, 2014, in press). Cooperative relationships occur between

Co-creation

species with different specialisms. (Genius of Biome, 2013). Fungus and plant root symbiosis; jays and oaks symbiosis. Ecotone gradients encourage interaction between species. This interaction can result in

Entry to membership should not be perceived

properties previously found in neither of the

as a big commitment

adjacent ecosystems (Kark, 2007). Perforation in an ecotone could encourage or inhibit flow of information. (Genius of Biome, 2013) Ecotones encourage accidental encounters (Genius of Biome, 2013) and act as centres of

Inclusivity

evolutionary novelty (Kark, 2007). Hence, ecotones demonstrate inclusivity towards members that are non-native to a given ecosystem. Darwin’s finches are an example of adaptive radiation . One premise of adaptive radiation

Variation in type of members according to the niche of a museum

is that species evolve to occupy a new niche and to utilise resources in a given new environment (www.biology-online.org). Thus, variations of the same species bear different traits depending on the locality of their niche. Red harvester ant societies include some individuals that are socially more connected than

Always being “up-to-date”

others, thus creating interaction “hubs” that are believed to accelerate information flow (Pinter-Wollman et al., 2011).

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

Design Requirement

Bio-inspiration A prairie maintains its diversity by accommo-

Diverse offers

dating hundreds of complimentary species (Benyus, 2002).

Table 3. Bio-inspiration principles derived from concept generation process

4.4.3. Solution A bio-inspired solution to the museum members’ engagement challenge could make use of the following four strong inspirations from biology: • Communication utilising short-decay signalling • Diversity through members’ complimentary skills and interests • Transition zones where interaction between existing members and new members is encouraged; likewise, interaction between museum visitors and museum members is encouraged • Most active and dedicated members could act as interaction “hubs” Embedding these requirements into a possible design scenario, a solution can be envisioned where each visitor or museum member is handed a “smart” card that allows them to interact with the technology in the museum and gives them access to the museum’s virtual platform21. The virtual platform is proprietary to the given museum and is intended to connect different actors in the museum ecology, including both members and non-members. The platform might provide the functionality for different groups or communities of interest among museum members to form thus ensuring transparency and flow of information that helps individual museum members understand the ecology which they have become part of. These groups can form based on ideas, hobbies, interests, specialities or expertise, or as a result of collaborative projects. Upon each subsequent visit museum members might decide to “mark” a certain spot in the museum, a certain exhibition or object which is of particular interest to them and which is related to any of the groups they participate in. Thus they can leave a “trail” for other group members to follow and allow them to cluster around a specific object of interest. As the signalling is real-time, web-based and accessible through a mobile device, feedback is quick and dynamic. Once a certain threshold of enough signals or “marks” is met, an interaction “hub” evolves and a new member-specific activity can begin where the members with the greatest contribution or those that are most active initiate that activity (this might be a new group of interest, a specific event, a communication thread, etc.). The virtual en21 Smart cards are in fact widely used. The British Music Experience museum had already employed the practice of handing a smart card to each visitor.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

vironment will also be publicly accessible by non-member visitors who will be able to get a glimpse of memberâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s activity and will have the opportunity to communicate with members on a particular activity or to form collaborative endeavours. This would ensure a transition zone where interaction is encouraged and where the boundary between visitors and museum members is not as strict and as rigid as with most museums today where communication between members and regular visitors is hardly accomplishable. A simple scenario of this concept is illustrated in Fig. 21.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

Fig.21 Bio-inspired solution to the museum membership scheme challenge (visualisation by author) Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

4.4.4. Observations The bio-inspired solution is different from the original solution in two main ways. Firstly, more focus is placed on the bottom-up behaviour and interconnectedness of museum members. The original service would require that a museum put different policies and mechanisms in place to ensure the flow of information among members is consistent and to provide opportunities for engaging in museum activities. The bio-inspired solution, on the other hand, takes inspiration from pheromone trails communication and thus an emphasis is placed on letting museum members themselves connect to each other and initiate the creation of their own opportunities by providing only one tool that is the infrastructure of a virtual environment. Thus, less effort from the museum as an organisation is needed and greater power lies in the hands of museum members to self-organise. The second distinctive feature is the interaction between regular museum goers and museum members. Whilst the original design solution may have overlooked the role and impact of nonmember visitors for the engagement of members, the bio-inspired solution provides a perforation in the transition zone â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a transparent way for visitors to learn what activities are taking place through the virtual platform and choose to communicate, interact and take part in those activities. Through the lens of Holyoak and Thagardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s analogy structure the presented bio-inspired ideas represent only surface similarity (section 2.1.6.). At the last step of extracting principles the identification of deep similarities is needed and thus deeper causal knowledge has to be employed. This solution perhaps lacks the level of depth that could benefit a better solution. Therefore it can be argued that bio-inspiration for service design will encounter the same obstacles as bio-inspiration for engineering â&#x20AC;&#x201C; accessibility of biological knowledge, oversimplification and misapplied analogy (Helms et al., 2009), and fixation (Mak and Shu, 2008, Helms et al., 2009) Taking into account the two differing features, however, this review of a bio-inspired and non-bioinspired design solution reveals that some of the design strategies that might be arrived at through taking inspiration from nature might contain more promising ideas. This section explored some possible overlaps between biology and service design. A set of key ecological concepts was compared to their closest equivalents in the design for services, thus pointing to where opportunities exist for service design. A biomimetic service idea generation tool was introduced that aims to facilitate knowledge-transfer between biology and service design. The tool was tested through a case study and observations revealed advantageous outcomes as well as obstacles to it.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Biomimetic Service Design

FINDINGS Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Findings

5. FINDINGS Here we explore some key considerations of applying biological knowledge to service design and illuminate biomimetic thinking in the service design practice today.

5.1. The biomimetic dilemma As argued in the introduction of this document, there is a certain amount of tension between terms used to refer to biologically inspired design. This research has further discovered that this translates into the polarisation of the biomimetic practice into two different strands. Firstly, some practitioners adopt the explorer’s view. This view is humbling and awe-inspired by nature. And secondly, other practitioners adopt the scientist’s view. This one is utilising and it sees nature as a pool of useful ideas and elegant solutions. A similar dichotomy was also observed by Carl Hastrich who used the terms explorers and executors to refer to the two types of biomimeticians – those who explore the field of bio-inspired design only on the surface and those who practice technical bio-inspired approaches and are results-driven (Aksdal and Anggakara, 2013). Vincent et al. argued that some biomimetic examples might be “the product of overenthusiasm” (Vincent et al., 2006). Rachel Armstrong in a critique to Mazzoleni’s Architecture Follows Nature book has critically pointed that biomimicry is sometimes perceived as a skewed and idealised vision that is removed from reality: “If there is one thing that biomimicry does very well indeed, it is to provide inspiration through relentlessly optimistic and seductive visions” (Armstrong, www.architectural-review.com) The nature of this dichotomy is in essence about causal (explanatory) versus correlational (descriptive) knowledge (Gebeshuber et al., 2009). Mak and Shu also raised the polemic question whether a deeper understanding rather than mere inspiration is needed for successful biomimetic analogy implementation (Mak and Shu, 2004). While acknowledging the fact that more in-depth understanding of biological phenomena can elicit a better biomimetic implementation, the authors conclude that a level of ambiguity might prove beneficial for the variety of solutions found (Mak and Shu, 2004). However, biological knowledge is vast, intimidating and nature is largely undocumented (Vakili and Shu, 2001). Biological knowledge is mainly correlational (Gebeshuber et al., 2009) as biologists seek to understand and describe nature (Helms et al., 2009). The clash between superficial understanding and deep knowledge has to be resolved; the gaps in the three-gaps theory have to be bridged. Variety of solutions is one of the strengths of service design as service designers follow the non-normative process of design thinking and ask What If questions to imagine future scenarios. Every service is unique and there is no such thing as “standard” service design (Sherry, 2014b). But to ensure that biomimetics in general and biomimetic service design in particular do not mean creating bio-inspired products in the spirit of innovation for innovation’s sake we must rely on causal

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Findings

knowledge while being awe-inspired practitioners.

5.2. Where the potential lies What can service design learn from ecology? Some of the identified analogies are almost direct and evident. For example, ecological niches can be referred to the different actors involved in a service system and analysis could be performed as to who acts as a keystone, what their keystone function is, who of the actors are the engineers and how other actors benefit from their influence within the service ecosystem. The exploration of ecological and service design concepts in section 4.1. might prompt the questions “What if we looked at stakeholders as occupying specific niches within the service ecology – keystone, engineer, etc.?”, “What if we try to map the flow not only of funds and information, but also of energy?”, “What if we try to identify functional groups within a system so as to learn how we could future-proof a service?”, “What if we try to intentionally design transition zones to allow for more and better inter-actor communication within a service system?” Another direction of analogical reasoning might look at interactions between actors in a service system. Services in principle aim for mutualism because in service science interactions are perceived to be value co-creation interactions22 bound by value propositions (Spohrer et al., 2008). “Normative service science is the study of how one system can and should apply its resources for the mutual benefit of another system and of the system itself.” (Maglio et al.,2009, p.405) An analysis from the lens of biology can help diagnose service interactions and determine which interactions exhibit mutualism, predation, commensalism, competition or another type of a relationship. These ecological concepts do not bring entirely new and revolutionary knowledge to service design but give a new perspective to it, a perspective that can lead to useful insights. A particularly interesting and perhaps the most potent set of parallels between ecology and service design is related to how services could build resilience. As discovered during a conversation with Nicola Sherry23, services are generally not perceived to be resilient but instead as either well designed or poorly designed. However, “Because we take for granted the many service interactions that are part of our daily routines, it is a good exercise to ask ‘what if’ this service was disrupted, then what?” (Spohrer et al, 2008, p.13). Future-proofing a service is hard for two main reasons: firstly, every service is unique, and secondly, technology “moves on” and some services become extinct (Sherry, 2014a). Therefore service

22 Value co-creation interactions are defined as “intuitively the promises and contracts that entities agree to because they believe following through will realise value co-creation for both entities.” (Spohrer et al, 2008) 23 For interview notes by author, see Appendix 2

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Findings

disruption24 or service collapse might well be an area that would benefit significantly from learning from ecosystem resilience. One mechanism nature uses to confer resilience is nestedness (Mars et al., 2012) where a kind of “modularity” in the structure of a system prevents catastrophic events from cascading across all structures and resulting in ecosystem collapse. In service science Spohrer et al. recognise that the growing trend of increased interdependency between service actors can lead to catastrophic cascading failures in service networks (Spohrer et al., 2008). Authors also acknowledge that interdependency in services might represent an under-researched area where scientists should “rapidly create an appropriate body of knowledge to describe, explain, predict, and where possible design and control the evolution of this phenomenon” (Spohrer et al., 2008, p.5). With natural systems readily providing honed and refined strategies for nested structures, this call for further research could be efficiently answered by biomimetics. Looking back to the Design for Services map from section 2.2.3. it is clear that biomimetic service design does not fall into one single category of design for services. Instead, because of the incredible variety of life the possible impacts of biomimetic services can spread across various levels of service. Biomimetic service design might be applied to shape systems and organisations by employing inspiration from social animals while keeping a strong human-centred focus on the organisation’s employees; it can propose collaborative service models based on knowledge of the behaviour of social species and the wealth of examples of mutualistic and cooperative relationships in nature; last but not least, biomimetic service design can bring vision. This vision posits that we are part of nature, that we should tune in to the same frequency as nature and transform our systems and structures to be in sync with nature.

5.3. Biomimetic services exist This thesis has consistently asked the question “what would biomimetic services look like?” and has found no coherent answer from service design as practiced today. Some fields of study such as information ecology and organisational ecology have been revealed as already taking inspiration from nature by embedding the ecology metaphor in the fibres of their knowledge bank despite not being explicitly biomimetic. Arguably, service design is another such example. Although not evidently being biomimetic the practice of service design exhibits biomimetic elements. Biomimetic services exist. To illustrate this, a number of examples follow.

5.3.1. Nestedness In natural ecosystems a number of “insurance” mechanisms are in play that confer resilience25 24 Disruption here means inconsistent customer experience rather than innovation 25 For a definition of ecosystem resilience, see Appendix 1

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Findings

and ensure that ecosystem processes persist over time. Such mechanisms include redundancy and functional diversity. When different species in an ecosystem have similar effect on the ecosystem as a whole, they are perceived to form a functional group. Thus if one species dies or withers for any reason, a species in its functional group may take up its function and continue to provide for the ecosystem thus ensuring survival. For example, when the American chestnut trees (keystone species) died in US biomes due to fungal infection their function as a primary food source was taken by other species such as oak trees, sugar maples and others that had previously been dormant (redundant) (Genius of Biome, 2013). Although they have gone unrecognised, functional groups do exist in services. For instance, different modes of payment can provide the same function of successfully realising a transaction; different modes of transport can make the same journey possible; different means of communication can establish feedback between a customer and a service provider.

5.3.2. Resource partitioning A range of different species might use the same resource at different times and in different ways thus decreasing competition and increasing the productivity of the resource itself (Genius of Biome, 2013). For instance, nectar-feeding species that rely on the same flowers for food use them at different times - bees during the day and some bats during the night can feed off the same flowers (Genius of Biome, 2013). In a similar fashion, museums that manage their footfall by creating schemes that attract different visitors at different times of the day or the year are in reality practicing resource partitioning.

5.3.3. Stigmergy Stigmergy is the indirect communication between species through modification of their environment (Woolley-Barker, 2014, in press). For example, termites start building their mounds by placing small mud balls infused with pheromones on the ground. Gradually as termites are guided by the intensity of the pheromone trails (more mud balls at one place means a stronger signal), they start placing more mud balls thus creating a cluster that becomes the foundation of a mound (Franklin, www.msci.memphis.edu). Humans also excel at stigmergic interactions. For example, a train travel includes many way-finding (modification of the environment) techniques that allow for an easy and undisrupted customer journey (Fig.22). Any signs and promotional materials used by brands to indirectly communicate a message to their customers can also be considered human stigmergy (Fig.23). Recommendation systems for online rating are another manifestation of stigmergy. Essentially in service design touchpoints that enhance the service intensity can represent direct or indirect communication. What if we were to look at customer journeys as journeys along a pheromone trail? Could we gauge how reliable a touchpoint is according to its stigmergic strength? Possibly, yes. Stigmergy represents an opportunity for further investigation in biomimetic service design.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Findings

Fig.22 Way-finding as stigmergy (author’s archive)

Fig.23 Example of human stigmergy - work in progress is being promoted to by-passers for advertising purposes (author’s archive)

5.3.4. Coevolution The interplay between service and technology is another possible channel for employing biological knowledge. In the early days of service design Nicola Morelli argued that cultural and social frames are embedded into technological artefacts and that they are “relevant to the development of services because they often enhance or limit the potential of the service” (Morelli, 2002, p.7). This relationship between service and technology would mean that both entities are interdependent and inform each other. Given that there is a trend among service actors to be very tech-

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Findings

driven (Sherry, 2014b), this interplay presents a suitable case to be examined from the viewpoint of biological coevolution. Nardi and O’Day described this opportunity in as early as 1999 in the context of information ecology: The social and technical aspects of an environment coevolve. People’s activities and tools adjust and are adjusted in relation to each other, always attempting and never quite achieving a perfect fit. This is part of the dynamic balance achieved in healthy ecologies a balance found in motion, not stillness. (Nardi and O’Day, www.firstmonday.org) In the context of services coevolution occurs in service ecologies that are tech-heavy. Examples are online services such as Amazon or EBay that make constant changes to their front-end interfaces based on customer data (Polaine et al., 2013).

5.4. Challenges to biomimetic service design A major factor that will influence the way we practice biomimetic service design is that humans are very different from other biological species. “We are not ants” (Woolley-Barker, 2014, in press). In communication with the author on the distinctiveness of humans PhD Tamsin Woolley-Barker suggested that our distinguishing characteristics include our social mind, empathy, promises and strategy. We try to balance our personal goals and values with those of the group. We devise strategies, plan ahead and reverse-engineer, points out Wooley-Barker. However, these deliberate actions need to be balanced with emergence. Emergent strategies are in constant interplay with intentional strategies and what is needed is the balance between the two (Woolley-Barker, 2014). Designing services for people would then mean that a balance between purposeful and emergence-driven strategies would need to be embedded in the service. When applying biological patterns for the improvement of human systems, we should also remember to avoid standardisation. Nicola Sherry shared in an interview that there are no standard measurements to determine how successful a service is. Every service is unique and success criteria vary depending on what kind of service is being designed. These could include an increase or decrease in adoption or the scale of the service and whether it reaches certain areas (Sherry, 2014b). Therefore when a principle or a strategy has been identified from biology, the cultural and social context of the service as well as its relevant success criteria should dictate the validity of that biomimetic principle or strategy.

5.5. Biomimetic engineering and biomimetic service design Although biomimetic research has been rapidly growing26 and various biomimetic approaches from the engineering disciplines have been employed, these approaches cannot be seen as di26 2013 saw a 28% rise from 2012 in published scholarly articles in biomimetics, biomimicry and bio-inspiration according to the Da Vinci index (http://www.pointloma.edu)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Findings

rectly applicable in the field of service design. Engineering operates in the context of the artificial and the non-living in terms of output. There is a 12%-gap between technological strategies and biological strategies (Vincent et al., 2006) and there is a fundamental evolutionary difference between technology and nature in the way problems are solved. They are “two anti-systems” (Bogatyrev and Bogatyreva, 2009). Engineering is “prescriptive and it generates rules and regularities” (Vincent et al., 2006, p.474). Engineering biomimetic tools provide little means to accommodate human expectations, motivations and unpredictability that are at the heart of human-centred design. “This focus on people (being users, service staff, communities, or humanity in a wider sense) and on providing them with the tools to effectively engage with their environment is central to design in general, and particularly strong in the rhetoric and practice of designing for services” (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011). In addition, unpredictability is not a favourable effect in engineering. In contrast, in service design “[…] the focus is not on attempting to standardise or control service practices but rather to design better conditions for possible behaviours to emerge.” (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011, p.20-21) Therefore employing engineering methods might pose the risk of introducing the very mechanistic view that design has sought to overcome. It should be preceded with critical examination of the compatibility of these methods with the service design ethos. Nevertheless, biomimetic approaches from engineering do have a lot to teach disciplines such as service design that might follow the path of biomimetics. The principles of resolving contradictions (BioTRIZ at the University of Bath) as well as the nature of analogical reasoning as employed in biomimetics (University of Toronto) are practices that have been honed and refined through rigorous scientific research. Service design would be wise to learn from these practices and to embed important insights from them in its biomimetic service design thinking.

5.6. Accessibility of biology As the literature review revealed, accessibility of biological knowledge presents a huge challenge to furthering biomimetic research. There is a general consensus among biomimetic researchers that a communication platform is needed to cross-pollinate knowledge between disciplines. Currently knowledge transfer is accomplished either through tools and methodologies for knowledge-transfer or through consulting a biologist at project runtime, or both. Service design has lagged behind in learning from biology. Nicola Sherry pointed that one of the reasons why service design has not employed bio-inspiration is the lack of a communication platform (Sherry, 2014b). Such a platform would need to be especially comprehensive towards the designer’s thinking as biological knowledge is generally seen as vast and intimidating by designers (Sherry, 2014b). It is clear that one of

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Findings

the high-priority milestones in biomimetic service design is to establish a communication channel with biology.

5.7. Business viability There seem to be contradicting views on the business viability of biomimetics. The outlook for the economic impact of biomimetics seems very promising as research at the Fermanian Business & Economic Institute suggests (section 2.1.8.2.). However, reports are largely predictive and it is unclear whether estimates will be met. Bogatyrev and Bogatyreva argue that we are blindly applying nature-inspired solutions and there is no support from business as there is no single proof that biomimicry has added economic value: Inspiration from biology at present an irresponsible strategy, because there is no single proof that biological mechanisms being literally applied to the economy will not cause new economic disasters. (Bogatyrev and Bogatyreva, 2014, p.2) In contrast to this, Natural Capitalism posits that it is profitable to be environmentally sustainable. The vision is that in our economy goods should give way to services and that access to a highquality service is superior to traditional product make-sell logic. This is a “shared incentive” for both the provider and the consumer of services for a number of reasons27 (Lovins et al., 1999). Subsequent and independent research from service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) and service science (Chesbrough and Spohrer, 2006) signalled that the shift from goods to services was underway. The service economy has been steadily growing ever since accounting for 72% of UK GVA as of mid-2014 (Growth Dashboard, 2014). In summary, views on the business viability seem to differ and this might be an indication that despite the exponential growth of biomimetics business in general has not been able to catch up with academic research. However, one prime example of Natural Capitalism proves that embracing sustainability and embedding Life’s principles into the fibre of a company’s culture can be profitable. This example is InterfaceFLOR, the world’s largest provider of modular carpet flooring. Just as nature turns every bit of waste into a reusable resource, Interface has innovated the production process and is fiercely working to close the loop of resource integration. InterfaceFLOR has already reduced its environmental impact significantly - there is a reported 88% reduction in waste sent to landfills since 1996 (www.interfaceflor.co.uk). Achievements in the path to their Mission Zero (zero impact on the environment by 2020) include glue-less tiling (TacTiles); technologically advanced system to recycle yarn-to-yarn and backing-to-backing tiles producing almost identical products to be reused (ReEn27 Namely, for the provider: quality of service means more competitive edge; materials minimization as products remain an asset in the business’ repository; increased employment; stabilized business cycle due to continuous purchases as opposed to one-off transactions. For the customer – having their needs met; purchasing a service is more accessible than purchasing a product.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Findings

try); producing locally and transporting products over rail rather than road or freight. For instance, 98% of shipments in Italy were transferred from road to rail (Let’s be Clear, 2012, p.24). Despite the daunting challenge of “clean water, clean air and healthy carpets to be the only things that leave our factories” (www.interfaceflor.co.uk), Interface have managed to also accumulate many intangible assets that have translated in their employees’ engagement: “[…] people come here as it is green. […] The subject is ingrained in the business, in the way in which we design for sustainability and talk to raw materials suppliers. We could not stop this thing now if we wanted to. I would not want to stop it, but if I did I would lose 80 per cent of the people who work for us.”(Parnell in Murray, 2011) The bottom-line shows $438 million savings from avoided waste in a company with $1 billion revenue per year28. The closed-loop outlook is on the rise not only in manufacturing but also in the field of services. The rise of the sharing economy has seen the successful growth of hospitality services such as Airbnb, car-sharing services such as Zip-car and peer-ride-sharing services such as Lyft among many others. In the UK the sharing economy has been estimated to generate £9 billion by 2025 (currently this revenue amounts to £0.5 billion) (Carson, 2014). Globally, 68% of people in 2013 were willing to share or rent29 (Nielsen, 2014). Service design is an integral part of the sharing economy as it operates in the context of various product-service systems (PSS) and facilitates the shift from ownership of a product to access to a solution. Thus described the business landscape for biomimetic service design suggests that all the right ingredients for viable and impactful biomimetic services are already present – the steady growth of the service sector, the emergence of new business models that favour services over products and the estimated major economic impact of bio-inspired design. Findings presented in this section identified the importance of causal knowledge in biomimetics, located relevant areas of opportunity for employing biomimetics in service design and listed features of service design that already exhibit biomimetic thinking. Also, key challenges were identified such as the incompatibility of some existing biomimetic approaches with service design thinking as well as the difficulties of accessing biological knowledge. The section also concluded that promising prospects exist for biomimetic service design in terms of business viability.

28 For more statistics on InterfaceFLOR, see Appendix 4 29 The Nielsen Global Survey of Share Communities was conducted between August 14 and September 6, 2013, and polled more than 30,000 online consumers in 60 countries.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Findings

CONCLUSION Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Conclusion

6. CONCLUSION This research study set on a quest for inter-disciplinary cross-pollination of knowledge between biology and service design with the aim to identify areas where knowledge from biology might be transferrable to service design through the study of biomimetics. The literature reviewed helped produce a map (section 3.4.) that scopes the influence of both disciplines. The ecology metaphor was identified as one channel through which ecological thinking has permeated the design for services. In the context of Natural Capitalism, service design has been a major driver towards sustainability by encouraging access to services as opposed to ownership of goods. A closer look uncovered that biomimetic services do exist despite the fact that they have only partially and â&#x20AC;&#x153;unconsciouslyâ&#x20AC;? embedded biological principles. Some key concepts from ecology are already present in the design for services - mutualistic relationships are the basis for service science, redundancy is already applied in various services, stigmergic communication is omnipresent and resource partitioning can also be observed in some services. Another prompt example is our relationship with, and dependency on technology and how we co-evolve with technological items. Thus biomimetic service design has employed biological principles that perhaps impact at least three strands of service design - the nature of service interactions, organisational development and collaborative service models. Also an implication for the envisioning of future services and scenarios lie in the further development of biomimetic service design. Both the scoping exercise and the review of current implementations revealed that areas of overlap between biology and service design exist and that they remain untapped opportunities. Biomimetics, however, highlights the conscious emulation of life (Benyus, 2002). What is needed is for service design to consciously strive to uncover knowledge from biology and infuse bio-inspired principles into its strategies. The first step in this new inter-disciplinary communication would be the creation of a logical framework that would make biological knowledge accessible to designers. In this challenging task service design can collaborate with, and learn from the engineering disciplines that have a tradition in biomimetic research and have been honing various biomimetic strategies with great scientific rigor. Biomimetic service design would not develop without facing some challenges along the way. Fundamental differences between engineering and service design such as standardisation and the bias against unpredictability would perhaps inhibit inter-disciplinary communication. Furthermore, accessibility of biological knowledge and the risk of slipping off on the tangent of irrelevant or unrealistic nature-inspiration are other major challenges. Especially important in the context of humancentred design is also the balance between emergence and intent. We bear unique behavioural characteristics and have unique needs as findings in communication with Tamsin Woolley-Barker indicated. This creates an imperative for service design to seek the balance between emergent prin-

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Conclusion

ciples and intentional human strategies. What is needed is not substitution of the human-centred design principles with biomimetic thinking, but integration between the two. This thesis also proposed a method for integrating biological knowledge into the service design process through the biomimetic idea generation tool for service design (section 4.3.). The experimental application of this tool to the case study of the museum membersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; engagement project suggested some important findings. It demonstrated that in applying biological knowledge service design would need to tackle problems that are very similar to those already identified by some biomimetic researchers. Oversimplification of complex functions, fixation on a given solution or misapplication of analogies might limit analogical reasoning to the level of surface knowledge. However, if causal knowledge from biology is accessible and promptly applied, the design solution space can be expanded to include design opportunities that have previously remained unrecognised and thus bring more value to design. This research project is an embodiment of simple â&#x20AC;&#x153;What If..?â&#x20AC;? questions. What if we turned to nature as a model, measure and mentor in order to build services that are long lasting and adaptable? What if we established a bridge between science and design to collaboratively arrive at solutions that are more relevant, efficient and effective? And what if we learned to extract not resources but knowledge from nature? This project established that answers to these questions are in the making. Many biomimetic research centres and individuals have already embarked on the quest for finding these answers. Service design would also need to peek out of its tech-driven shell and join this quest as nature has already devised sustainable solutions not only through its forms and functions but also in its sophisticated collaborative models of interaction.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Conclusion

REFERENCES Aksdal, T. and Anggakara, K. (2013) Exploring Creativity in Bio-inspired Design. Master Thesis. Copenhagen Business School. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/6075085/Exploring_Creativity_in_Bio-inspired_Design Accessed 3 September 2014 Armstrong, R. (2013) ‘Rachel Armstrong on Biomimicry as Parametric Snake Oil’, The Architectural Reveiw. Available at: http://www.architectural-review.com/reviews/rachel-armstrong-on-biomimicry-as-parametric-snake-oil/8650000.article (Accessed: 30 August 2014). Banks-Leite, C. and Ewers, R. (2001) ‘Ecosystem Boundaries’, Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Available at: http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0021232.html (Accessed: 13 September 2014). Barker, T., Mortimer, M., Perrings, C., Aronson, J., De Groot, R., Fitter, A., Mace, G., Norberg, J., Pinto, I. and Ring, I. (2010) ‘Biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services’, in Kumar, P. (ed.) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations. London and Washington: Earthscan. Benyus, J. (2002) Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by Nature. New York. Harper Perennial. Biomimicry 3.8, (2013) Biomimicry DesignLens. Available at: http://biomimicry.net/about/biomimicry/biomimicry-designlens/biomimicry-thinking/ (Accessed: 17 July 2014). Bogatyrev, N. and Bogatyreva, O. (2014) ‘BioTRIZ: a win-win methodology for eco-innovation’, in Azevedo, S., Brandenburg, M., Carvalho, H. and Cruz-Machado, V. (ed.) Eco-innovation and the Development of Business Models: Lessons from Experience and New Frontiers in Theory and Practice. Springer International Publishing, pp. 297-314. Bogatyrev, N. and Bogatyreva, O. (2013) ‘Permaculture and TRIZ – methodologies for cross-pollination between biology and engineering’, in TRIZ Future International Conference, pp. 83-90. Bogatyrev, N. and Bogatyreva, O. (2009) ‘TRIZ Evolutionary Trends in Biology and Technology: Two Opposites’, in CIRP Design Conference, pp. 293-299. Bronstein, J. (2009) ‘The evolution of facilitation and mutualism’, Journal of Ecology, 97(6), pp. 1160-1170. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01566.x/abstract (Accessed: 18 August 2014). Bronstein, J., Dieckmann, U. and Ferriere, R. (2004) ‘Coevolutionary dynamics and the conservation of mutualisms’, Evolutionary Conservation Biology, pp. 305–326. Available at: http://user.iiasa. ac.at/~dieckman/reprints/BronsteinEtal2004.pdf (Accessed 17 August 2014)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

References

Brown, T. (2008) ‘Design thinking’, Harvard business review, 86(6), p. 84. Available at: http://www. ideo.com/images/uploads/thoughts/IDEO_HBR_Design_Thinking.pdf

(Accessed

September

2014) CaptainMotion.tv, (2011) This is Service Design Thinking. [Video] Available at: http://vimeo. com/20527888 (Accessed: 27 August 2014) Carson, G. (2014) ‘Five key sharing economy sectors could generate £9 billion of UK revenues by 2025’, PwC. Available at: http://pwc.blogs.com/press_room/2014/08/five-key-sharing-economysectors-could-generate-9-billion-of-uk-revenues-by-2025.html (Accessed: 13 September 2014). Chesbrough, H. (2004) ‘A failing grade for the innovation academy’, Financial Times. Available at:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9b743b2a-0e0b-11d9-97d3-00000e2511c8.html#axzz3AlMVzUZm

(Accessed: 18 August 2014). Chesbrough, H. and Spohrer, J. (2006) ‘A research manifesto for services science’, Communications of the ACM, 49(7), pp. 35–40. Available at: http://ssmenetuk.org/docs/p35-chesbroughsphrer2006.pdf (Accessed: 18 August 2014) Crossman, N., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., Willemen, L., Petz, K., Palomo, I., Drakou, E., Martín-Lopez, B., McPhearson, T., Boyanova, K., Alkemade, R., Egoh, B., Dunbar, M. and Maes, J. (2013) ‘A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services’, Ecosystem Services, 4, pp. 4-14. Design for Innovation. (2011). Design Council. Available at: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/ sites/default/files/asset/document/DesignForInnovation_Dec2011.pdf (Accessed: 14 September 2014) Edman, K. (2009) ‘Exploring Overlaps and Differences in Service Dominant Logic and Design Thinking’, in First Nordic Conference on Service Design and Service Innovation. Fermanian Business & Economic Institute, (2013) Bioinspiration: An Economic Progress Report. San Diego Zoo Global. Available at: http://www.pointloma.edu/sites/default/files/filemanager/Fermanian_Business__Economic_Institute/Economic_Reports/BioReport13.FINAL.sm.pdf

(Accessed 13

September 2014) Fermanian Business & Economic Institute, (2010) The Global Biomimicry Efforts: An Economic Game Changer. San Diego Zoo Global. Available at: http://www.sandiegozoo.org/images/uploads/BiomimicryEconomicImpactStudy.pdf (Accessed 12 August 2014) Forlizzi, J. (2013) The Product Service Ecology: Using a Systems Approach in Design. Available at: http://systemic-design.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Forlizzi.pdf (Accessed: 14 August 2014) Franklin, Stan. (1996) ‘Coordination without communication’. University of Memphis. Available at:

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

References

http://www.msci.memphis.edu/~franklin/coord.html (Accessed 9 September 2014) Gebeshuber, I., Gruber, P. and Drack, M. (2009) ‘A gaze into the crystal ball: biomimetics in the year 2059’, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 223(12), pp. 2899-2918. Available at: http://www.iap.tuwien.ac.at/~gebeshuber/ Kristallkugel.pdf (Accessed: 1 August 2014). Genius of Biome. (2013). Biomimicry Group, Inc. and HOK Group, Inc. Available at: http://issuu. com/biomimicry38/docs/gobiome_051713/23?e=6758301/2533977 (Accessed: 15 July 2014). Growth Dashboard. (2014). Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, GOV UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/337297/Growth_ Dashboard_July_2014.pdf (Accessed: 5 September 2014). Helms, M., Vattam, S. and Goel, A. (2009) ‘Biologically inspired design: process and products’, Design Studies, 30(5), pp. 606-622. Available at: http://home.cc.gatech.edu/svattam/uploads/7/DS1. pdf (Accessed: 1 August 2014). Holbrook, C., Clark, R., Moore, D., Overson, R., Penick, C. and Smith, A. (2010) ‘Social insects inspire human design’, Biology Letters, 6(4), pp. 431-433. Available at: http://171.66.127.192/content/6/4/431.full.pdf+html (Accessed: 15 July 2014). Hotz, R. (2014) ‘Harvard Scientists Devise Robot Swarm That Can Work Together’, The Wall Street Journal. Available at: http://online.wsj.com/articles/harvard-scientists-devise-robot-swarm-thatcan-work-together-1408039261 (Accessed: 15 August 2014). Iansiti, M. and Levien, R. (2004) ‘Strategy as Ecology’, Harvard Business Review. Available at: http:// www.cs.cmu.edu/~jhm/Readings/HBR-Strategy_as_Ecology.pdf (Accessed: 17 August 2014). Kark, S. (2007) Effects of Ecotones in Biodiversity. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Available at: http:// enviro.doe.gov.my/lib/digital/1385472293-3-s2.0-B9780122268656005730-main.pdf

(Accessed:

September 2014). Lang, J. M. & Benbow, M. E. (2013) Species Interactions and Competition. Nature Education Knowledge 4(4):8. Available at: http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/species-interactions-and-competition-102131429 (Accessed 11 September 2014) Let’s Be Clear.(2012). InterfaceFLOR. Available at: http://www.interfaceflor.co.uk/web/sustainability/lets_be_clear (Accessed: 20 July 2014). Lovins, A., Lovins, L. and Hawken, P. (1999) ‘A Roadmap for Natural Capitalism’, Harvard Business Review, pp. 146-158. Available at: http://www.natcap.org/images/other/HBR-RMINatCap.pdf (Accessed: 8 August 2014).

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

References

Lovins, A., Lovins, L. and Hawken, P. (1999) ‘The Next Industrial Revolution’, in Natural Capitalism. Rocky Mountain Institute, pp. 1-21. Maglio, P. (2009) Toward a Science of Service Systems. IBM Corporation, p. 15. Available at: https://www-304.ibm.com/easyaccess/fileserve?contentid=188955 (Accessed: 13 September 2014). Maglio, P., Vargo, S., Caswell, N. and Spohrer, J. (2009) ‘The service system is the basic abstraction of service science’, Information Systems and e-Business Management, 7(4), pp. 395-406. Mak, T. and Shu, L. (2004) ‘Abstraction of Biological Analogies in Design’, Annals of CIRP, 53(1), pp. 117-120. Available at: http://www.mie.utoronto.ca/labs/bidlab/pubs/Journal/2004_MakShu_CIRP_ BiomimeticAbstraction.pdf (Accessed: 31 August 2014). Mak, T. and Shu, L. (2008) ‘Using descriptions of biological phenomena for idea generation’, Res Eng Design, 19(1), pp. 21-28. Available at: http://www.mie.utoronto.ca/labs/bidlab/pubs/Journal/2008_MakShu_RED_BiomimeticDescription.pdf (Accessed: 31 August 2014). Mars, M., Bronstein, J. and Lusch, R. (2012) ‘The value of a metaphor’, Organizational Dynamics, 41(4), pp. 271-280. Available at: http://www.sdlogic.net/uploads/2/7/3/5/2735531/mars_bronstein_ lusch_og_dyn.pdf (Accessed: 16 August 2014). Meroni, A. and Sangiorgi, D. (2011) Design for services. Burlington, Farnham, UK.Gower. Morelli, N. (2002) ‘Designing Product/Service Systems: A Methodological Exploration’, Design Issues, 18(3), pp. 3-17. Available at: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jhm/Readings/Morelli.pdf (Accessed: 15 August 2014). Murray, J. (2011) ‘BusinessGreen Leaders Award 2011: InterfaceFLOR lays template for greener business’, Business Green. Available at: http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/feature/2096546/businessgreen-leaders-award-2011-interfaceflor-lays-template-greener-business (Accessed: 13 September 2014). Naeem, S. (1998) ‘Species Redundancy and Ecosystem Reliability’, Conservation Ecology, 12(1), pp. 39-45. Available at: http://www2.ib.unicamp.br/profs/thomas/arch/AS002_2008/Naeem 1998 Species redundancy Cons Biol.pdf (Accessed: 19 August 2014). Nardi, B. and O’Day, V. (1999) ‘Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart: Chapter Four: Information Ecologies’, First Monday, 4(5). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/ article/view/672/582 (Accessed: 12 August 2014). Nielsen, (2014). Nielsen Press Room. Available at: http://www.nielsen.com/lb/en/press-room/2014/ global-consumers-embrace-the-share-economy.html (Accessed: 5 September 2014). Nunez, M. and Dimarco, R. (2012) ‘Keystone Species’, The Berkshire Encyclopedia of Sustainability:

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

References

Ecosystem Management and Sustainability. Berkshire Publishing Group. Ostrom, A., Bitner, M., Brown, S., Burkhard, K., Goul, M., Smith-Daniels, V., Demirkan, H. and Rabinovich, E. (2010) ‘Moving Forward and Making a Difference: Research Priorities for the Science of Service’, Journal of Service Research, 13(1), pp. 4-36. Available at: http://jsr.sagepub.com/content/13/1/4.full.pdf (Accessed: 18 August 2014). Pinter-Wollman, N., Wollman, R., Guetz, A., Holmes, S. and Gordon, D. (2011) ‘The effect of individual variation on the structure and function of interaction networks in harvester ants’, Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 8(64), pp. 1562-1573. Available at: http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/ content/8/64/1562.short (Accessed: 11 September 2014) Polaine, A., Løvlie, L. and Reason, B. (2013) Service design. New York: Rosenfeld Media. Salgueiredo, C. (2013) ‘Modeling biological inspiration for innovative design’, in i3 Conference, pp. 1-17. Schluter, D. (2000) The Ecology of Adaptive Radiation. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 10-11.

Available

at:

http://www.google.co.uk/books?id=Q1wxNmLAL10C&pg=PA10&redir_

esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (Accessed: 9 September 2014). Sherry, N. (2014a). ‘Biomimetic Service Design’. Interviewed by Daniela Ivanova. In person. London. 28 August. Sherry, N. (2014b). ‘Biomimetic Service Design’. Interviewed by Daniela Ivanova. Internet. London. 12 September. Smith, M. K. (2001, 2011). ‘Donald Schön: learning, reflection and change’, the encyclopedia of informal education. Available at: www.infed.org/thinkers/et-schon.htm (Accessed: 5 September 2014) Spohrer, J., Anderson, L., Pass, N. and Ager, T. (2008) Service science and service-dominant logic. Otago Forum 2 - Academic Papers. Available at: http://www.business.otago.ac.nz/marketing/ events/OtagoForum/Final forum papers/Otago Forum Paper 2_Spohrer.pdf (Accessed: 18 August 2014). Spohrer, J. Kwan, S. (2009). ‘Service science, management, engineering, and design (SSMED): an emerging discipline - outline and references’. International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector 1(3), pp. 1-31. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/266483/Service_Science_ Management_Engineering_and_Design_SSMED_An_Emerging_Discipline-Outline_and_References (Accessed 18 August 2014) Spohrer, J. and Maglio, P. P. (2009) Service Science: Toward a Smarter Planet. Available at: http://

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

References

mars.ing.unimo.it/didattica/ingss/Lec_SaS/SmarterPlanet.pdf (Accessed 18 August 2014) Stickdorn, M. and Schneider, J. (2013) This is service design thinking. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. BIS Publishers. Stroble, J., Stone, R., McAdams, D. and Watkins, S. (2009) ‘An Engineering-to-Biology Thesaurus To Promote Better Collaboration, Creativity and Discovery’, in 19th CIRP Design Conference - Competitive Design, p. 355. Surgenor, Paul. (2011).‘Tutor, Demonstrator and Coordinator Development at UCD’. Available at: http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/Reflective%20Practice.pdf (Accessed: 5/09/2014) Taylor, Janthia. (2014). ‘Reflective practitioner’. MDes Studio Practice Handout 14th May 2014 Tilman, D. (2001) ‘Functional Diversity’, Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Available at: http://www.cbs. umn.edu/sites/default/files/public/t1797.pdf (Accessed 19 August 2014) Vakili, V. and Shu, L. (2001) ‘Towards Biomimetic Concept Generation’, in ASME 2001 Design Engineering Technical Conferences, pp. 1-9. Vargo, S. and Lusch, R. (2004) ‘Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing’, Journal of marketing, 68(1), pp. 1–17. Available at: http://belkcollegeofbusiness.uncc.edu/jaredhansen/Teaching/SD%20Logic.pdf (Accessed 16 August 2014) Vargo, S. and Lusch, R. (2007) ‘Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), pp. 1-10. Available at: http://www.sdlogic.net/Vargo_and_ Lusch_2008_JAMS_Continuing.pdf (Accessed: 17 August 2014). Vargo, S. and Lusch, R. (2011) ‘Service-Dominant Logic: Looking Ahead’. Available at: http:// www.sdlogic.net/Naples%20Forum%202011%20Looking%20Ahead.pdf (Accessed 20 August 2014) Vincent, J., Bogatyreva, O., Bogatyrev, N., Bowyer, A. and Pahl, A. (2006) ‘Biomimetics: its practice and theory’, Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 3(9), pp. 471-482. Available at: http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664643/ (Accessed: 27 July 2014). Woolley-Barker, T. (2014) SuperOrganizations: Nature’s Game-Changing Guide To Collaborative Innovation. In press. Zhao, Guojun, Harry G. Perros, and Zhanhong Xin.(2009) ‘How service science management and engineering (SSME) can evolve to an academic discipline?.’ International Journal of Web Engineering and Technology 5(4),pp. 459-467. Available at: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~hp/Guojun1.pdf (Accessed 18 August 2014)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

References

http://biology-online.org http://biomimicry.net http://designcouncil.org.uk http://dilab.cc.gatech.edu http://interfaceflor.co.uk http://servicedesigntoolkit.org http://triz-journal.com http://www.caryinstitute.org http://www.eoearth.org http://www.globalchange.umich.edu http://www.londonmuseumsgroup.org/ http://www.pointloma.edu http://www.terrapsych.com

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

References

Image credits Thesis Cover, p.1 Bulgaria, 2012, author’s archive

Introduction section cover, p.7 Isle of Skye, Scotland, 2014, author’s archive

Literature Review section cover, p.11 Cairngorms National Park, Scotland, 2014, author’s archive

Conclusion section cover, p.64 Isle of Skye, Scotland, 2014, author’s archive

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

References

APPENDIX 1 Glossary of ter ms Adaptive Radiation Adaptive radiation is the evolution of ecological and phenotypic diversity within a rapidly multiplying lineage (Schluter, 2000).

Biological Phenomenon Any natural phenomenon pertaining to the biological sciences - the term “biological phenomena” includes all levels of organisation pertaining to the biological sciences.” (Vakili and Shu, 2001)

Biomimetics The study of the formation, structure, or function of biologically produced substances and materials (as enzymes or silk) and biological mechanisms and processes (as protein synthesis or photosynthesis) especially for the purpose of synthesising similar products by artificial mechanisms which mimic natural ones (Harkness, 2001, in Vincent et al., 2006)   “Biomimetics is the development of novel technologies through distillation of principles from the study of biological systems. Biomimetic technologies arise from a flow of ideas from the biological sciences into engineering, benefiting from the millions of years of design effort performed by natural selection in living systems.”(Bar-Cohen in Lepora et al., 2013)

Biomimicry “Biomimicry is an innovation method that seeks sustainable solutions to human challenges by emulating nature’s time-tested phenomena, patterns and principles. The goal is to create well-adapted products, processes, designs and policies by mimicking how living organisms have survived and thrived over the 3.8 billion years life has existed on Earth.” (Genius of Biome, 2013) Biomimicry is the conscious emulation of life’s genius (Benyus, 2002).

Competition Competition is most typically considered the interaction of individuals that vie for a common resource that is in limited supply, but more generally can be defined as the direct or indirect interaction of organisms that leads to a change in fitness when the organisms share the same resource (Lang, 2013).

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Appendix 1

Ecology The scientific study of the processes influencing the distribution and abundance of organisms, the interactions among organisms, and the interactions between organisms and the transformation and flux of energy and matter (http://www.caryinstitute.org). Ecology: from the Greek oikos (household) and logos (study): the study of interrelationships between organisms and their environment. The term was coined in 1866 by German biologist and philosopher Ernest Haeckel, famous also for his discredited but interesting dictum that ontogeny (individual physical development) recapitulates phylogeny (the evolutionary development of its species)(http://www.terrapsych.com).

Ecosystem An ecosystem is a community of organisms interacting with each other and with their environment such that energy is exchanged and system-level processes, such as the cycling of elements, emerge (http://www.eoearth.org). The complex of living organisms, their physical environment, and all their interrelationships in a particular unit of space (http://www.britannica.com).

Ecosystem boundaries Ecosystem boundaries are the locations exhibiting gradients of change in environmental conditions and a related shift in the composition of plant and/or animal communities (Banks-Leite and Ewers, 2001).

Ecosystem processes Changes or reactions occurring in ecosystems; either physical, chemical or biological; including decomposition, production, nutrient cycling and fluxes of nutrients and energy (Crossman et al., 2013).

Ecotone A sharp transition zone between two or more different ecological communities or regions (Kark, 2007)

Functional diversity The range and value of those species and organismal traits that influence ecosystem functioning (Tilman, 2001).

Functional group

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Appendix 1

A set of species that have similar traits and that thus are likely to be similar in their effects on ecosystem functioning (Tilman, 2001). A biological category composed of organisms that perform mostly the same kind of function in the system; for example, all the photosynthetic plants or primary producers form a functional group. Membership in the functional group does not depend very much on who the actual players (species) happen to be, only on what function they perform in the ecosystem (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu) Groups of organisms that perform particular operations in an ecosystem (Barker et al., 2010, p.15).

Information ecology An information ecology is a system of people, practices, values, and technologies in a particular local environment (Nardi and O’Day, 1999).

Mutualism (ecology) Mutualisms are reciprocally positive interactions between pairs of species, whether the benefits are quantified in terms of fitness or population dynamics (Bronstein, 2009). Mutualisms are interspecific interactions in which each of two partner species receives a net benefit (Bronstein et al., 2004)

Product service system (PSS) A PSS “consists of a mix of tangible products and intangible services designed and combined so that they jointly are capable of fulfilling final customer needs” (Tukker and Tischner, 2006, in Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011, p.14)

Product service ecology The Product Service Ecology is an ecological system, inspired by social ecology theory, which takes a systems approach to describe and understand the dynamic relationships between people, products, social activities, and the context that surrounds a system (Forlizzi, 2008, in Forlizzi, 2013).

Resilience The capacity of an ecosystem to withstand perturbations without losing any of its functional properties (Barker et al., 2010, p.49-50). Resilience is commonly referred to as “the capacity of a system (e.g. a community, society or ecosystem) to cope with disturbances (e.g. financial crises, floods or fire) without shifting into a qualitatively different state (Gunderson and Holling 2002, in Barker et al., 2010, p.50)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Appendix 1

Services Services are acts performed for others, including the provision of resources that others will use. (Steve Alter in Spohrer et al., 2008)

Service design Service design is the activity of planning and organizing people, infrastructure, communication and material components of a service in order to improve its quality and the interaction between service provider and customers. The purpose of service design methodologies is to design according to the needs of customers or participants, so that the service is user-friendly, competitive and relevant to the customers (http://www.service-design-network.org/). Service Design is an emerging field focused on the creation of well thought through experiences using a combination of intangible and tangible mediums. It provides numerous benefits to the end user experience when applied to sectors such as retail, banking, transportation, & healthcare. Service design as a practice generally results in the design of systems and processes aimed at providing a holistic service to the user. This cross-disciplinary practice combines numerous skills in design, management and process engineering. Services have existed and have been organised in various forms since time immemorial. However, consciously designed services that incorporate new business models are empathetic to user needs and attempt to create new socio-economic value in society. Service design is essential in a knowledge driven economy. (The Copenhagen Institute of Interaction Design, 2008, in Stickdorn and Schneider, 2013)

Service ecology “Live|work defines a ’service ecology’ as a ’system of actors and the relationships between them that form a service.’ (www.livework.co.uk)” (Meroni and Sangiorgi, 2011, p.22)

Service ecosystems Relatively self-contained, self-adjusting systems of resource-integrating actors connected by shared institutional logics and mutual value creation through service exchange (Vargo and Lusch, 2011).

Service science […] An interdisciplinary approach to the study, design, and implementation of services systems – complex systems in which specific arrangements of people and technologies take actions that provide value for others (Maglio, 2009, p.3). The study of the creation of value within and among service systems (resource integrators) (Vargo

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Appendix 1

and Lusch, 2011). An emerging interdisciplinary field of inquiry that focuses on fundamental science, models, theories, and applications to drive service innovation, competition, and well-being through cocreation of value (Ostrom et al., 2010).

Service system A service system is a dynamic value co-creation configuration of resources, including people, organizations, shared information (language, laws, measures, methods), and technology, connected to other service systems by value propositions (Maglio, 2009, p.15).

Service system ecology Ecology: At the highest level, service system ecology is the population of all types of service system entities that interact over time to create outcomes (Spohrer and Maglio, 2009, p.7).

Service system entities Service system entities are dynamic value co-creation configurations of resources, including people, organizations, shared information, and technology (Spohrer et al., 2008).

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Appendix 1

APPENDIX 2 Communication with collaborators Nicola Sherry *The following does not represent an interview transcript but instead lists the authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s notes during the interview Why has service designed not borrowed from biomimetics so far? One of the reasons is because there is no defined framework for it. There are so many tools to focus on. If there were a framework, people would adapt that more readily. That framework would have to be very comprehensive in terms of methodology because you could be designing anything and you could be drawing from anything. Also biology is so big that it is an intimidating thing to think about. Perhaps another reason is because everyone is very tech-driven, the current trend is to be very tech-driven. How do we measure success in service design? There are no standard methods in services to define a service as successful. It totally depends on what you are designing. It could be increase or decrease in the number of adopters or the scale of the service (if it reaches certain areas). It is very individualistic. It cannot be really summarised in a nutshell. It varies from service to service. What does sustainability in service mean? From my personal point of view sustainability is very much an economic term. It is related to whether the service sits within an ecosystem that allows it to generate more income, to have enough users or have a good rate of adoption. If the service that is being designed does not have the correct business model to allow that, then it is not sustainable. How will we be able to tell if a service is more successful because it is biomimetic? This could be a proposition for an experiment. The two approaches can be compared through running a pilot. Or consider an existing service designed by â&#x20AC;&#x153;standardâ&#x20AC;? methods. Then try and improve on it and test the outcome. See if you even can improve it as you might find out that you cannot for whatever reason. Apart from testing, there really is no other way of measuring. Opinion on the case study in section 4.6. and ecology-and-service design comparison.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Appendix 2

It is a great approach but I am not sure if it would survive under scrutiny. It is generalist. It shows how to open up one’s thinking, to identify gaps and suggest more innovative solutions. But from a business case point of view, it needs to be tested whether it is easier and cheaper to implement, whether it is more interesting and more adoptable. These frameworks are good. The ecology comparison is a little bit harder for me to get my head around. Where in the design process does biomimetics fit? Ideation and Evaluation stages seem most suitable? Biomimetics in the design process needs to be upfront, to be present at early stages. I would use biomimetics as an evaluation tool only if I had used it in the early stages. In order to determine whether a biomimetic approach would work or if it were suitable, you should test whether it is upfront. Accessibility of biology That’s a design challenge in itself. It could be some sort of a platform or access to a platform of knowledge. It could come in when you’re assembling a team. Just like you have a business expert, a technology expert and a design expert, why not add a biology expert into that mix. Or have a process similar to pairing - pair up with another expert for the day. Although that’s just form an anecdotal point of view, to learn what somebody else does in the company. What is service disruption? Service disruption is generally perceived to be the process of identifying that some service or portion of a service is not working and then improving it, thus disrupting it. If we talk about disruption meaning that the experience is poorly designed, then this comes down to the same point of this being a design challenge in itself. It is irrelevant whether what is being designed is a portion of a service or a totally new service. How can we create a service that can sustain itself? For me this comes down to the same point of measurements and what measurements are used whether that’s adoption or whether that’s measuring if the service lasted longer, etc. Sustainability is not one thing. It depends on the context of the service. In your project you could gauge empirically if a service can be perceived as more sustainable by proposing a “standard” and a biomimetic service and asking a number of people for their pref-

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Appendix 2

erences. Or you could identify weak touchpoints in both and quantitatively compare them. Any method would require some sort of inspection. How do you feel about biomimetic service design? It is certainly very interesting although I havenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t really come across it. If it works for engineering, there is really no reason why it would not work for this industry of design. There is room for further investigation. I hope it does not fall into the category of unused service design tools. There are so many service design tools.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Appendix 2

APPENDIX 3 Auxiliary Infor mation The IHIP model (Meroni and Sangirogi, 2011) Feature Intangibility

Heterogeneity

Inseparability

Perishability

Description Services cannot be seen, felt, tasted, or touched in the same manner in which goods can be sensed. The quality of the performance may vary from time to time, depending on the situation and service participants. Most services require the presence of customers for the production of services. Most services can’t be stored and therefore depend upon the ability to balance and synchronise demand with supply capacity.

Features of service science and service-dominant logic. The following is a summary of the main features of Service Science and Service-Dominant Logic as described by Spohrer et al in “Service science and Service – Dominant Logic”, Otago Forum 2 (2008) Academic Papers. Service science

Service-dominant logic

1. Resources

1. Service is the fundamental basis of

All namable-things are resources. 4 types of resources:

exchange

physical-with-rights (e.g., a person) not-physical-with-rights (e.g., a business) not-physical-with-no-rights (e.g., shareable information or documents, such as a description of a patent) physical-with-no-rights (e.g., technology)

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Appendix 3

Service science

Service-dominant logic

2. Entities

2. Indirect exchange masks the fun-

Dynamic value-cocreation configurations of resources,

damental basis of exchange

including people, organizations, shared information, and technology. 3. Access rights Access rights deal with the social norms and legal reg-

3. Goods are distribution mechanisms for service provision

ulations associated with resource access and usage. Owned Outright (OO) Leased-contracted (LC) Shared Access (SA) Privileged Access (PA) 4. Value co-creation interactions Also known as value-proposition-based interaction mechanisms, are intuitively the promises and contracts

4. Operant resources are the fundamental source of competitive advantage

that entities agree to, because they believe following through will realize value- cocreation for both entities. 5. Governance Interactions Intuitively, governance mechanisms are a type of val-

5. All economies are service economies

ue-proposition between an authority service system entity and a population of governed service system entities.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Appendix 3

Service science

Service-dominant logic

6. Outcomes

6. The customer is always a co-crea-

The ISPAR (Interact-Service-Propose- Agree-Realize)

tor of value

model defines ten possible outcomes of service system interaction (Spohrer, Vargo, Maglio, Caswell 2008). (1) value is realized, (2) the proposal (value proposition) is not understood, (3) the proposal is not agreed to, (4) value is not realized and disputes do not arise, (5) value-cocreation disputes are resolved in a manner that is OK for all stakeholders, (6) value-cocreation disputes are resolved in manner that is not OK for all stakeholder (7) an interaction is not a service interaction and is welcomed, (8) an unwelcomed non-service interaction is not criminal, (9) an unwelcomed non-service interaction is criminal and justice results, (10) an unwelcome non-service interaction is criminal and justice does not result. 7. Stakeholders The four primary types of stakeholders are customer,

7. The enterprise cannot deliver value but only offer value propositions

provider, authority, and competitor. 8. Measures The four primary types of measures are quality, produc-

8. A service-oriented view is inherently customer oriented and relational

tivity, compliance, and sustainable innovation.

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Appendix 3

Service science

Service-dominant logic

9. Networks

9. All economic and social actors are

Formed by â&#x20AC;&#x153;routine interactionsâ&#x20AC;? that form patterns

resource integrators

between service system entities. 10. Ecology

10. Value is always uniquely and phe-

Different types of service systems entities exist in populations, and the universe of all service system entities

nomenologically determined by the beneficiary

forms the service system ecology or service world (Bryson, Daniels, and Warf 2004).

Natural Capitalism: summary of four main strategies (Lovins et al., 1999) Strategy

Description Using resources more effectively to: slow down

Radical Resource Productivity

resource depletion, lower pollution, and create employment.

Biomimicry

Eliminate the idea of waste by continuous closed loop cycles. A shift from goods as a measure of affluence

Service and Flow Economy

towards services where quality promotes wellbeing.

Investing in natural capital

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Reinvestment in natural capital stocks.

Appendix 3

InterfaceFLOR Statistics (www.interfaceflor.co.uk) • 82% reduction in manufacturing waste to landfill (per unit of production) since 1996 • 76% reduction in total volume of manufacturing waste to landfill since 1996 • $438 million in cumulative avoided waste cost since 1995 • 82% reduction in water intake per unit of production since 1996. • Carbon offsetting: “Since 1996 we have achieved an actual reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 35% from baseline”. • Normalised total energy use is down by 43% since 1996. • “Currently, 91% of the electricity we use and 30% of our total energy consumption globally is from renewable sources”. • Closing the loop: “40% of our products now made from recycled or bio-based content, up from just 0.5% in 1996” • Closing the loop: 12,500 tonnes of carpet and carpet scraps diverted from landfill in 2010. “Our ReEntry reuse and recycling programme has enabled us to divert over 103,434 tonnes of carpet from landfill globally since 1995.”

Biomimetic Services, Ivanova, 2014

Appendix 3

Contact author Daniela Ivanova daniela@divanova.eu d.docheva.ivanova@gmail.com

Biomimetic Services: A New Perspective on the Design for Services A Masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Thesis by Daniela Ivanova MDes Service Design and Innovation Ravensbourne SE10 0EW London