The ATraMS Methodological Framework for Assessing Biomimicry Design Failure in Industrial Design Innovation

Biomimicry is increasingly recognized as a sustainability-driven approach in industrial design; however, its translation into viable industrial applications remains inconsistent. Many biomimicry concepts fail during development due to limitations in interpreting biological principles and aligning them with technical and production constraints. Despite this, existing research predominantly focuses on successful applications, with limited attention to systematic failure evaluation. This study proposes the ATraMS conceptual framework as a structured methodological tool for assessing failure risks in biomimicry design. Developed through literature review and thematic analysis, the framework integrates four critical dimensions: appreciation, transformation, manufacturability, and scalability. A qualitative evaluation model is applied to seven conceptual design case studies to examine feasibility across these dimensions. The findings identify transformation as the most influential factor affecting design failure, with weak translation of biological principles significantly reducing feasibility regardless of manufacturability or scalability. In contrast, designs demonstrating balanced performance across all dimensions exhibit lower failure risk. While the study is limited by its conceptual and qualitative nature, the ATraMS framework contributes a systematic approach for early-stage evaluation, supporting more rigorous decision-making and improving the reliability of biomimicry industrial design outcomes.

Biomimicry, Industrial Design, Failure Evaluation

1. Amin, K., Moscalu, R., Imere, A., Murphy, R., Barr, S., Tan, Y., Wong, R., Sorooshian, P., Zhang, F., Stone, J., Fildes, J., Reid, A., & Wong, J. (2019). The future application of nanomedicine and biomimicry in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Nanomedicine, 14(20), 2679–2696. https://doi.org/10.2217/nnm-2019-0119 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Antonini, E., Boeri, A., & Giglio, F. (2022). Classification criteria and markers for biomimetic building envelope within circular economy principles: A critical review. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 18(4), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2021.1891858 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Appio, F. P., Achiche, S., Martini, A., & Beaudry, C. (2017). On designers’ use of biomimicry tools during the new product development process: An empirical investigation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29(7), 775–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2016.1236190 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bănică, C. F., Sover, A., & Anghel, D. C. (2024). Printing the future layer by layer: A comprehensive exploration of additive manufacturing in the era of Industry 4.0. Applied Sciences, 14(21), 9919. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bilici, S. C., Küpeli, M. A., & Guzey, S. S. (2021). Inspired by nature: An engineering design-based biomimicry activity. Science Activities, 58(2), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2021.1918049 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Chayaamor-Heil, N., & Hannachi, N. E. H. (2024). Biomimicry as a catalyst for circular economy: A systematic review of design methodologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 412, 137350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.137350 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Clayton, C., & Tian, B. (2019). Biomimicry for injectable mesh nanoelectronics. Bioelectronics in Medicine, 2(2), 55–58. https://doi.org/10.2217/bem-2019-0017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Coban, M., & Coştu, B. (2023). Integration of biomimicry into science education: Biomimicry teaching approach. Journal of Biological Education, 57(1), 145–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.1877783 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cohen, Y. H., & Reich, Y. (2016). Biomimetic design method for innovation and sustainability. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. de Sá, A. A. M., & Viana, D. M. (2023). Design and biomimicry: A review of interconnections and creative potentials. Biomimetics, 8(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8010061 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Eid, M. A. H., & Al-Abdallah, G. (2024). Sustainable development through biomimicry: Enhancing circular economy practices for environmental sustainability. Sustainable Development, 32(6), 6045–6056. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Fecheyr-Lippens, D., & Bhiwapurkar, P. (2017). Applying biomimicry to design building envelopes that lower energy consumption in a hot-humid climate. Architectural Science Review, 60(5), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2017.1359145 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Ibrahim, I., & Nasreldin, R. (2025). Investigating the integration of biomimicry and eco-materials in sustainable interior design education. Architecture, 5(2), 39. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Innovation inspired by nature: Applications of biomimicry in engineering design. (2024). Biomimetics, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics9090523 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kantaros, A., Ganetsos, T., Pallis, E., & Papoutsidakis, M. (2025). Smart design aided by mathematical approaches: Adaptive manufacturing, sustainability, and biomimetic materials. Designs. https://doi.org/10.3390/designs9050102 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Kantaros, A., Ganetsos, T., Pallis, E., & Papoutsidakis, M. (2025). Biomimetic additive manufacturing: Engineering complexity inspired by nature’s simplicity. Biomimetics, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics10070453 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Kanwal, N., & Awan, U. (2021). Role of design thinking and biomimicry in leveraging sustainable innovation. In Industry, innovation and infrastructure (pp. 956–967). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Kennedy, E. B. (2017). Biomimicry: Design by analogy to biology. Research-Technology Management, 60(6), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2017.1373052 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Liu, J., Li, R., Zhang, H., He, X., Huo, Y., & Yang, H. (2025). A systematic literature review of sustainable design of complex customised products in Industry 5.0: Connotation, methodologies and prospects. Journal of Engineering Design. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2025.2476877 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Moheb, E. A. (2025). Exploring challenges, limitations, and opportunities in integrating biomimicry principles into design education to advance sustainability objectives (Doctoral dissertation, Carleton University). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Nagpal, K., Mohan, A., Thakur, S., & Kumar, P. (2018). Dendritic platforms for biomimicry and biotechnological applications. Artificial Cells, Nanomedicine, and Biotechnology, 46(sup1), S861–S875. https://doi.org/10.1080/21691401.2018.1438451 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Omar, W. N. F. W., & Rahman, K. A. A. (2015). Development of conceptual framework of biomimicry thinking process. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 8(5), 55–76. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Omar, W. N. F. W., Rahman, K. A. A., Subri, S., Khalis, F. M., Yusuf, A., & Hashim, H. (2022). Appreciative of the biomimicry design process for revolutionary furniture development. In Design-Decoded 2021 Proceedings. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Qureshi, S. (2022). How students engage in biomimicry. Journal of Biological Education, 56(4), 450–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2020.1841668 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Rotondo, B., Bakker, C. A., Balkenende, R., & Arquilla, V. (2025). Integrating circular economy principles in the new product development process: A systematic literature review and classification of available circular design tools. Sustainability, 17(9), 4155. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094155 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Ulhøi, J. (2015). Framing biomimetics in a strategic orientation perspective (biopreneuring). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27(3), 300–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2014.987226 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Wang, J., Chen, H., Tian, X., Hu, D., Liu, Y., Li, J., Zhang, K., Huang, H., Yan, J., & Li, B. (2025). Biomimetic daytime radiative cooling technology: Prospects and challenges for practical application. Materials, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma18194556 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Weidner, B. V., Nagel, J., & Weber, H.-J. (2018). Facilitation method for the translation of biological systems to technical design solutions. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 6(3–4), 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2018.1428689 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study