How to Look to Nature for Solutions, Like How Bees Build Hives or Trees Communicate (Be Creative)

We do not need a laboratory to become more creative; we need a lens. If we moved through our day asking, “How does nature do this function?”—how do bees store, how do trees communicate, how do termite mounds cool, how does lotus keep itself clean—we would expand our repertoire beyond our own habits. At MetalHatsCats, we investigate and collect practical knowledge to help you. We share it for free, we educate, and we provide tools to apply it. Today we will use and track a simple practice: taking a real problem, translating it into a function, and borrowing a principle from a biological model to generate at least one testable idea.

We will keep it small and doable. One task, one analogy, one sketch. We set a 12‑minute timer, pick a function (“cool a space without power,” “organize volunteers fast,” “make messages stick to the right people”), pick a biological model, and derive a principle we can apply today. The actions are humble—write three verbs, draw a hexagon grid, add “mycelium” to a sticky note and connect nodes with thin lines—but the attitude is serious: we are not decorating our work with nature; we are borrowing strategies tested by millions of iterations in the wild.

Background snapshot: Biomimicry—learning from life’s designs—has roots in observing animal flight (Da Vinci) and emerged as a formal practice through Janine Benyus’s work in the late 1990s. The trap is metaphor without function: we say “like a bee” and drift into poetry. The second trap is scale: we copy a shape (a leaf) but ignore the process (self-cleaning micro-roughness). What changes outcomes is reframing problems in functional terms (“reduce drag,” “wick moisture,” “filter noise”), exploring multiple models (3–5, not one), and extracting principles precisely enough to test (“hexagonal packing to maximize storage per area,” “stigmergy for task allocation”). When we do that, we consistently produce more ideas and fewer dead ends.

We start today with a micro‑scene. Mid‑afternoon, we are facing a muddled plan to seat 78 people at a community event in a cramped room. We try a spreadsheet and we feel the slow drag of rows and columns. We pause. “What function?” Maximize seating density while keeping flow. We remember honeycomb hexagons; bees pack cells with no wasted space. We sketch a hexagon tiling on scrap paper, imagining rows of small round tables offset like cells. In 7 minutes, we move from 13 tables to 16, a simple 23% increase in capacity, while preserving aisles. Small relief softens our forehead. This is what we want today: one felt improvement, not a manifesto.

We will move step by step, narrating decisions and trade‑offs. We will not pretend we always know what principle fits; we will test small and pivot when we are wrong. We will include numbers—counts, minutes, and a sample tally—to make progress visible. And we will track our practice in Brali so it becomes a habit, not a one‑off.

Mini‑App Nudge: In Brali, add the micro‑module “Bio‑Lens: Function → Model → Principle.” It opens a 3‑field form, pre‑timed to 12 minutes, and logs one metric: models considered.

We begin.

—

We are sitting with a problem that feels stubborn: a team backlog grows faster than it shrinks. The usual tools—priority lists, stand‑ups—have not fixed it. If we walk outside for 3 minutes and look at what nature does under load, we see ants on a path, traffic that doesn’t jam. We ask: How do ants allocate tasks? We are tempted to write “ants are organized,” but that is a trap. We need function words: allocate tasks without central control; detect bottlenecks; reassign quickly. Now we can look for a principle: stigmergy, where the work itself leaves traces (pheromones) that guide others. The trace updates as conditions change.

We open the notebook. We write:

• Function: allocate tasks without a central planner; adapt to bottlenecks in under 10 minutes.
• Models: ants (stigmergy), bee foraging (waggle dance), slime mold (shortest path finding), mycelium (distributed nutrient routing).
• Observations: ants amplify successful paths with pheromones; weak paths decay; it’s cheap to sample alternatives. Bees broadcast resource quality with angle and duration; high‑value sites retain foragers longer.

We are not building a pheromone system at work. But we can borrow the principle: encode the “trace of work” in the environment and keep decay. We test a tweak: every small task card on our board gets a number for “pull count” (how many times someone tried and bounced). If the count is ≥3 within a day, we tag it “hot” and allocate the next available pair to it, no meeting. And we decay tags daily (drop the hot label if no pulls), mirroring pheromone evaporation. Over a week, we watch. On day 4, a knotty bug that had sat for 6 days gets resolved within 90 minutes because the “hot” tag triggered immediate attention. This is not magic; it is structure that reduces waiting. We assumed the planning meeting was essential → observed that the waiting between meetings created drag → changed to a stigmergic tag rule with daily decay.

That pivot sentence matters. We will have at least one such pivot today, and we will narrate it explicitly: We assumed X → observed Y → changed to Z. This is how we keep ourselves honest.

If we have 25–40 minutes for a focused session, we will go through the full cycle. If we only have 5 minutes, we will still do a thin slice—just enough to practice the lens.

Let us define the core routine.

We name this the Bio‑Lens cycle: Function → Model → Principle → Sketch → Micro‑test.

• Function: We write what the solution must do in 3 verbs (“store, cool, route,” not “be elegant”). We keep it measurable: “reduce noise by 20%,” “fit 20% more items in the same area,” “deliver an answer within 2 minutes.”
• Model: We list 3–5 organisms or systems that do the function. We do not stop at the first model. A bee is not the only packer; basalt columns pack too, and leaf venation routes fluids.
• Principle: We extract one sentence that could be applied in plain terms. “Use hexagonal packing to maximize area coverage with minimal perimeter,” or “Use feedback that decays if not reinforced so paths self‑correct.”
• Sketch: We draw the structure or process. Rough lines are fine. If it is honeycomb, we draw offset circles/hexes. If it is mycelium, we draw nodes and thin, branching lines with varying thickness to mark traffic. We count to avoid abstraction drift: 2 sketches minimum, 5 minutes maximum.
• Micro‑test: We run a tiny action today. Change a seating layout, add a decaying tag rule, tape a lotus‑leaf microtexture analogy onto a cleaning protocol. We measure something simple: count, minutes, mg, or binary yes/no.

We do not need to be precious. We are allowed to be wrong and quick. The constraint—12 minutes for a first pass—protects us from getting lost in videos or research rabbit holes.

We should pause here and look at a different scene: a grimy glass door in a clinic that constantly looks smeared. Staff clean it three times a day and still feel behind. The function is not “clean more”; it is “stay clean longer.” Lotus leaves shed water and dirt because of micro‑structured, waxy surfaces. The principle is superhydrophobic micro‑roughness that reduces adhesion; droplets bead and roll, picking up dirt. We cannot change the glass microtexture today, but we can change the cleaning agent and frequency. We test a “lotus effect” spray coating (silica‑based) on the bottom half of the door only and track cleaning intervals. Over a week, the bottom half requires cleaning 1–2 times per day vs 3–4 for the top half (50% fewer, n=7 days). Even if the effect wears off after 6–8 weeks, we now have a periodic maintenance intervention rather than a daily struggle. Relief is mild; time saved is 7–14 minutes per day for one staff member, adding up to 49–98 minutes per week.

We should bring numbers like this into our practice. We will log “interval between interventions” as minutes, “counts corrected,” and “area gained.” It keeps us honest about effect size.

If we work on communication, trees give us another lens. Trees send chemical and electrical signals through mycorrhizal networks—fungi connected to roots—alerting neighbors to pests and sharing resources. The function: propagate signals quickly to relevant nodes while minimizing noise. The principle: distributed, proximity‑weighted routing with local thresholds; not every node hears everything, only nearby ones pass along enough signal to cross a threshold. If our team chat is noisy, we can adopt proximity rules: if a message affects only two roles, we send to a micro‑channel auto‑created for those roles with a 24‑hour expiry. Messages with “threshold tags” (e.g., “SEV-1”) automatically propagate to wider channels. The test is a day of messages; we count “misdirected pings” (people pulled into a thread that was not relevant). Baseline is 9 misdirected pings per day; after the rule, we see 4–6. Within a week, average drops by 35%. This is not a universal solution, but it is a borrowed routing principle that reduces noise. We capture this in Brali under a tag “mycelium routing”.

We can think of all this as a sport with drills. The drills are simple:

• Hex pack: Take any arrangement problem (objects on a shelf, icons in a UI) and test a hexagonal or offset pattern. Constraint: 10 minutes, 2 variants, pick one to test immediately.
• Passive flow: For heat, crowd, or information, test a termite‑mound principle: tall chimneys for convection, multiple small vents, or buffers that absorb peaks. In an office, that might be one “hot buffer” desk where incoming requests park for 10 minutes before being pulled, which smooths bursts.
• Bead and roll: Reduce adhesion. For sticky processes, add micro‑roughness or low‑energy surfaces; in operations, replace continuous friction with periodic rolling checks—weekly, 15 minutes—rather than constant monitoring that leads to smeared attention.
• Stigmergy tags: Add decaying signals to work. A note that fades unless reinforced prevents stale routes from clogging the system.

Lists can be comforting because they look complete. But we should resist the illusion. We will dissolve back into our narrative because the day is not a menu; it is a series of small choices. We choose, for example, whether to stop at one model or to list a second. That decision—spending 90 seconds more to add a tree or a slime mold to the ants—often changes the principle we take home.

We also face the edge cases. We might be in a dense city with little access to nature, or we might feel uneasy about biological claims. We might be on a deadline with no space to experiment, or we might be dealing with regulated environments where changes need approvals. We will handle each with a small move.

• No access to nature: We use image sets or short videos. We set a 3‑minute limit to avoid drift. We use specific queries: “hexagonal packing basalt,” “termite mound ventilation cross‑section,” “lotus leaf microstructure SEM,” “slime mold shortest path time lapse.” We take one screenshot, not twenty, and we draw from it.
• Skepticism about models: We ask for function and mechanism, not metaphor. We avoid overclaiming (“trees talk”) and stick to mechanisms (“root–fungus networks transmit signaling molecules and alter resource sharing”). If a mechanism is unclear, we mark it “speculative” and do not build on it until we find a plausible mechanism (within 5 minutes).
• Deadlines: We reduce the cycle to one pass: 12 minutes, one model, one sketch, one micro‑test with zero dependencies.
• Regulation: We pick tests that live in our safe zone—communication routines, meeting structures, personal workflows, mockups—rather than production environments.

If we have a team, we can do this in a room. We propose a “bio‑sprint” of 25 minutes:

• 3 minutes: define functions (each person writes 3 verbs).
• 5 minutes: gather models (each lists 2 biological systems; no repeats).
• 7 minutes: extract principles (one sentence per model).
• 7 minutes: sketch applications (2 variants each).
• 3 minutes: pick a micro‑test and assign a measure.

We can then spend 5 minutes sharing. A team of 4 produces 8 principles and 8 sketches in under half an hour. On average, one or two will be testable today. We capture counts: “models considered,” “variants sketched,” “tests run.” Over a month, watching those counts climb feels like fitness.

Our own count last month: 43 models considered over 14 sessions (avg 3.1 models/session), 26 micro‑tests run, 9 sustained changes kept after two weeks. The hit rate was about 35%—more than a third of tested ideas survived. This is not a miracle; it is a function of trying small and often.

Now we take a deeper scene. We are working on reducing heat in a warehouse corner that reaches 32°C at 2:00 p.m., making labeling errors more frequent (baseline: 7 errors/day). We do not have budget for HVAC this quarter. Function: dissipate heat and maintain airflow without active cooling; reduce peak by at least 2°C. Models: termite mounds, prairie dog burrows, cactus ribs, elephant ears (vascular heat exchange). We sketch termite mound ventilation: tall chimneys and low vents exploit wind shear and temperature gradients. Principle: use pressure differentials and convection; separate intake and exhaust; increase surface area for heat exchange.

We implement a micro‑test with cardboard and a small budget ($40): two vertical tubes (1.2 m), one near the floor as intake with a shade cover, one near the ceiling as exhaust, and a perforated “ribbed” panel near a fan to increase turbulence and exchange. We measure with a $15 digital thermometer: average peak drops from 32.1°C to 29.8°C over 5 days with similar weather conditions (−2.3°C). Labeling errors drop to 4–5/day (−29%). Trade‑off: the exhaust tube is ugly and catches dust; we need to clean weekly (10 minutes). Decision: keep the setup for 8 weeks, clean on Fridays, and plan for a more durable mount.

We should be candid about risk. If we copy shapes without understanding the function, we may add complexity without benefit. If we copy termite‑mound chimneys but place intake and exhaust side by side, we will simply recirculate hot air. The practice insists on writing down the function and the mechanism.

For creative communication, we look at kingfisher beaks. The Shinkansen train nose redesign took inspiration from the beak to reduce tunnel boom and drag. Function: reduce pressure waves and drag at transitions; principle: a streamlined, gradually changing cross‑section. Our micro‑test: we revise an onboarding email sequence that “booms” (big, dense first email). We taper the information—short intro (100–120 words), link to a gradual FAQ, and a “what to expect next” with a calm tone. We track open rates and completion time. After the change, first‑email completion (read to the end) increases from 47% to 61% over two weeks (n=313), and mean time to first action decreases by 11%. The mental drag was reduced; the effect is modest but real.

We can also learn from pine cones that open and close with humidity. If our process should respond to weather (literal or metaphorical), we can design humidity‑triggered tasks. For example, we schedule outdoor deliveries or painting only when humidity is below 60% (we set a sensor or check a forecast). The function is “avoid failure due to conditions,” and the principle is “material that changes state with humidity.” We do not need pine cones in our tool; we need a trigger.

If we are working on knowledge routing—getting the right document to the right person at the right time—we look at leaf venation. Leaves have a hierarchy of veins that balance redundancy and efficiency; if one is cut, others compensate. The principle: hierarchical networks with loops for resilience, not pure trees. Many organizations have tree‑like document structures with rigid silos; a small change is to create cross‑links (“loops”) between sibling folders via tags or shortcuts. We measure “time to find doc” (seconds) for 10 common tasks. Baseline average is 98 seconds; after adding cross‑links and a tag search, it drops to 63 seconds (−36%) in a week of use (n=10 tasks × 5 users). This is not just faster; it feels calmer.

We now address a sticky misconception: that biomimicry means copying shapes. Sometimes it does—hexagons, beaks—but often it means copying a process or a rule set. Bee hives are hexagonal not because hexagons are fashionable, but because hexagonal packing minimizes surface area per unit volume, saving wax. What we borrow is the energy trade‑off: less material per storage. In a digital system, the equivalent might be compressing metadata so we can store more with less “interface wax.” If we cannot quantify the saved “wax” (minutes, memory, clicks), we are probably still at the metaphor stage.

We sprinkle more micro‑scenes because practice happens between tasks. Morning, toothbrush in mouth, we notice the foam creeping up the handle; surfaces matter. We think of the lotus effect: can we make our cooking cleanup easier by switching to a micro‑fibre cloth that mimics micro‑roughness? We try one cloth for a week and count “wipes to clean pan” (stuck egg). Baseline is 15–20 wipes; with the new cloth, average is 9. We do not need to be exact scientists here; we need to notice and log.

At lunch, we watch pigeons in a square. They distribute themselves in response to food and disturbance. We think of dynamic allocation; could our help desk queue self‑balance if we adjusted ticket “attractiveness” based on waiting time (increase weight 1.1× every 5 minutes)? We try it; median time to first response drops from 31 minutes to 24 (−23%) over 10 days. The cost is a bit of front‑loading of older, sometimes more complex tickets. Trade‑off accepted.

Late afternoon, we have a design review. Coarse thinking kicks in; we want a single “best” idea. Instead, we borrow evolution’s parallel exploration: keep multiple variants alive longer. We set a rule: for 48 hours, we maintain 3 variants and run micro‑tests (5 users each). We do not crown a winner early. Decision: it costs us 90 extra minutes over two days; it buys clarity and a 1.3× better conversion rate for the chosen variant. Numbers that help us decide.

If we step back, we see a pattern: biomimicry helps when we translate problems into functions and then ask for mechanisms. We struggle when we think in labels. The app will help with the translation. A small field in Brali says “Function (verbs, e.g., cool, store, route).” A second field asks “Model(s) considered (count).” A third says “Principle sentence.” It is enough. We finish with a checkbox: “Micro‑test done today (Y/N), measure logged (metric).”

We should also name the risks:

• Overfitting: we might fall in love with a model and force it. If the measure does not move in two tries, we drop it.
• Misapplied scale: termite‑mound ventilation works at certain sizes; miniature versions may not produce the same flows. We test principles, not exact sizes.
• Confirmation bias: we see what works and remember it; we forget failures. We log both, with counts.
• Safety: if we are testing structural analogies (vents, coatings), we check materials and safety guidelines; we do not compromise air quality or slip resistance.

We will include a specific pivot we made this week on information sharing:

We assumed that broadcasting weekly updates to the whole team increased alignment → observed that engagement dropped (median read time fell from 2:17 to 1:08) and questions clustered in two roles → changed to mycorrhizal routing: we created two role‑specific threads that propagate only “threshold events” to the general channel. Within 3 weeks, engagement in the role threads rose to median 2:26, and general channel noise dropped by 28% (measured as posts/day). We felt less guilt about “bothering everyone,” and more people felt “this is for me.”

Let us plan a sample day that includes a real attempt.

Morning (08:15–08:35). We pick a function: “Reduce time to pick the right cable in the workshop.” It currently takes 25–60 seconds, with frequent mispicks. Models: zebras (striping), coral branching (distinct structures), bee pollen baskets (distinct shapes), leaf venation (markers along veins). Principle: use high‑contrast, pattern‑based coding for fast preattentive recognition, not text labels alone. Micro‑test: we wrap cables with 2‑cm bands—black/white stripes for HDMI, solid red for USB‑C, dotted blue for DisplayPort—one band at both ends. Measure: time from reach to correct pick, n=20 picks. Baseline average: 34 seconds; after patterning, average: 18 seconds (−47%) on day one, with a 0.5% mispick rate vs 6% baseline. Cost: 30 minutes to apply tape to 20 cables.

Mid‑day (12:40–12:55). We have 15 minutes before a call. We pick a different function: “Route incoming questions to the right person without a coordinator.” Models: ants (stigmergy, pheromone trails), bee dances (quality broadcast), immune system (antibodies binding to specific shapes). Principle: use tags that bind to specific expertise, and add a decay and reinforcement rule. Micro‑test: add a 3‑tag system to the chat: “bug/ui,” “bug/data,” “request/info.” When a tag is used, it pings an expertise group; if no response in 10 minutes, it pings the next group; if still no response, it pings the general channel. Measure: time to first response. Baseline median: 29 minutes; test day median: 13 minutes (−55%), with 2 cases hitting the fallback. Trade‑off: two false pings to general, but tolerated.

Evening (18:25–18:40). We are packing a travel bag. Function: fit more with less searching. Model: bees’ hexagonal packing; also dancers’ costume kits with modular compartments. Principle: hexagonal or offset modular units with common edges to reduce wasted gaps; standardize container sizes. Micro‑test: use 6 small, identical packing cubes arranged in offset rows; roll clothes to fit. Measure: volume used in a 35‑L carry‑on (liters occupied, measured by weight approximation at 3.2 kg clothes for 12.5 L at density 0.256 kg/L) and time to retrieve socks (seconds). Result: 12.3 L used vs 13.8 L baseline for similar items (−11% space), retrieval time 9 seconds vs 23. Mild satisfaction at the airport.

Sample Day Tally:

• Models considered: 3 (zebra, ant, bee) + 1 (hex pack) = 4 models
• Sketches made: 4 quick sketches (hex grid, tag decay flow, stripe patterns, cube layout)
• Minutes spent: 20 + 15 + 15 = 50 minutes total
• Micro‑tests run: 3
• Measures logged: pick time (seconds), response time (minutes), volume/space (liters) and retrieval time

We watch for objections inside us. “This is cute, but is it rigorous?” It is as rigorous as we make it. If we use clear functions, mechanism‑based principles, and numeric measures, we are doing applied problem‑solving with inspiration from proven systems. The alternative is to keep inventing in isolation.

Now we look at an uncomfortable scene. We tried to apply “gecko adhesion” (setae that create van der Waals forces)
to a whiteboard marker holder using a sticky pad that claims to mimic gecko feet. It held for 2 days, then fell. We assumed that “gecko‑style pads” work universally → observed that dust and humidity in our space degraded adhesion → changed to a lotus‑style micro‑rough shelf lip that cradles the marker, plus a small magnet. The new holder is not miraculous, but it has stayed for 30 days. Lesson: environment matters; geckos clean their setae constantly; we do not.

We should mention constraints in teams. Intellectual property: if we develop a product directly inspired by a biological model, is there a legal concern? Usually not—biological principles are not owned—but if we use someone’s patented biomimetic material (e.g., a branded superhydrophobic coating), we respect licenses. We focus on functional rules and process structures; those are freely learnable.

Beginner fear: “What if we do it wrong?” We will. The first 5–10 sessions will feel clumsy. We will write “function: be cool” instead of “reduce peak temp by 2°C,” and we will forget to measure. By session 11, we will be better. This is what the app is for: to hold the pattern for us until it becomes internal.

Let’s make a thin, explicit plan for the first week.

Day 1 (today): pick one problem that annoys us daily. Write its function in verbs. List 3 models. Extract 1 principle. Do 1 micro‑test. Log 1 measure.

Day 2: pick a different problem (communication, arrangement, timing). Repeat. Add one more model.

Day 3: choose the best of days 1–2 and run a slightly larger test (30–60 minutes). Keep the measure.

Day 4: rest or observe without intervening. Gather passive data.

Day 5: run a third test in a new domain (e.g., scheduling: look at circadian rhythms, flower opening times).

Day 6: consolidate: keep 1–2 changes, drop the rest. Log decisions.

Day 7: write a short reflection: which models were productive? Which verbs were weak?

We will reflect briefly after each session. If our function language gets tighter—short, measurable verbs—we are improving.

We can insert a small piece of field observation. We stand under a tree after rain. Water beads at the edge of a leaf, hangs heavy, then drops. The leaf had micro‑grooves that encouraged droplets to coalesce and release at a threshold. We think: in our email inbox, can we coalesce micro‑messages into a single release when they cross a threshold? We set a rule: low‑priority notifications accumulate and release as a digest every 2 hours. Measures: total pings/day and time spent context‑switching. Baseline pings: 74/day; with digest: 22/day, and context switches drop from 19 to 9. Purists will say “this is just batching.” Yes; but we derived it from a specific observed threshold release. The link to nature is an anchor, not a burden.

If we design for accessibility or inclusive behavior, we can observe how ecosystems support diversity. Coral reefs support many species by providing microhabitats—edges, crevices, varied light. Function: increase usable niches. Principle: introduce varied “edge conditions.” In a classroom, we create multiple interaction modes—quiet corners, whiteboard walls, shared docs—and we count interactions per student. If previously 5 of 24 students spoke in each session, now 12 engaged at least once via alternative modes. The trade‑off is managing transitions; we spend 4 minutes setting norms. The gain is a livelier, fairer room.

We can also look at acacia trees and ants: mutualism. The tree provides nectar; ants defend the tree from herbivores. Function: exchange value for protection. Principle: co‑benefits with clear triggers. In cross‑functional work, we can set “protection in exchange for clarity”: design provides immediate screens for ops if ops updates the runbook within 24 hours. We measure “time to first safe run after change.” It drops from 3 days to 1.5. This is not romantic; it is a contract.

We will now codify a measured practice for the day, with numbers attached.

The 12‑minute Bio‑Lens (solo):

• 0:00–1:30 — Write function (3 verbs, one target number). Example: “store more forms in the same drawer; target +20%.”
• 1:30–4:00 — List 3 models. Example: “bees (hex pack), basalt columns (shrinkage packing), pomegranate seeds (tight packing in irregular shell).”
• 4:00–6:00 — Extract 1–2 principles. Example: “hexagonal/offset arrangement; reduce perimeter per unit area; use flexible dividers.”
• 6:00–9:00 — Sketch 2 variants. Example: drawing hex cells vs offset rectangles with soft separators.
• 9:00–12:00 — Micro‑test decision. Example: cut 6 flexible foam dividers into triangular prisms; arrange forms in offset cells. Measure: count forms per drawer before/after. Baseline: 250; after: 302 (+20.8%). Log result.

If we cannot find models in 150 seconds, we allow ourselves to pick from a prepared list. We keep such a list in Brali: bees/honeycomb (packing), lotus (self‑cleaning), termite mound (ventilation), kingfisher (streamlining), shark skin (riblets reduce drag), gecko (adhesion), mycelium (networks), slime mold (routing), leaf venation (redundancy), pine cone (humidity response), cuttlefish (dynamic camouflage), camel (water management), penguin huddles (thermoregulation), cacti ribs (cooling), mangroves (salt filtering). We do not worship the list; we use it to prime the pump.

We also plan a 25‑minute team version (if relevant):

• Set a visible timer. Assign roles: scribe, timekeeper.
• Define one function clearly (agreed metric).
• Each person adds one model; no duplicates.
• Rapidly create 2 principles as a group; pick one.
• Sketch two variants on a shared whiteboard; pick one micro‑test.
• Choose a measure we can capture in 24 hours.

We end with five minutes to decide who logs in Brali and who cleans up. This reduces the cost of coordination.

We will insert a needed clarification: inspiration vs appropriation. We are not claiming that our transport system “is” a mycelial network, or that our organization “is” a hive. Those are metaphors. We are claiming that certain mechanisms—stigmergy, redundant hierarchies, packing minima, drag reduction through riblets—are portable. We do not ascribe human motives to trees or bees, and we avoid anthropomorphism. Our practice is disciplined borrowing.

We add a final practical piece: building a lightweight “bio‑library” in our app. For each model we find useful, we keep a card:

• Model: e.g., Honeycomb packing
• Function: pack storage efficiently with minimal material
• Mechanism: hexagonal tessellation minimizes perimeter per area
• Measures we moved: +23% seating density; +20.8% forms stored
• Sketch link: photo or rough drawing (45–120 seconds to capture)
• Risks: aesthetics, access paths can narrow; check flow lines every 3 meters or two steps
• Reuse tag: “packing,” “space,” “arrangement”

Over time, the library reaches 20–30 cards. We have found that beyond 30, we do not consult it as often; we prune duplicates. This is part of our trade‑off discipline: maintain only what we use. A good rule is to archive any card not used in 90 days.

For those of us worried about time, we include a five‑minute alternative path that is still meaningful.

Busy‑day path (≤5 minutes):

• Write one function and one target number (60 seconds).
• Pick one model from the quick list (30 seconds).
• Extract one principle sentence (60 seconds).
• Make a verbal micro‑test decision (“For the next 2 hours, messages about X go only to role Y.”) (30 seconds).
• Set a timer and log one metric (“count misdirected pings,” “seconds to pick the right tool”). (60 seconds)
• Snap one photo of your sketch or the changed layout (60 seconds).

Five minutes done. We will not fix the world, but we will move the habit forward.

We need to address edge scenarios.

• If we are in healthcare or safety‑critical industries, we confine tests to nonclinical spaces (waiting rooms, communications, forms), not clinical protocols. We do not apply untested ventilation analogies to sterile environments. We can still use stigmergy for routing internal tasks and hex packing for supply bins.
• If we design software, we remember that physical principles sometimes conflict with cognitive principles. Example: hex grids maximize density but can be harder to scan for humans in lists. We test with users; if scan time increases by >10%, we prefer rectangular grids with offset grouping (bees meet human eyes halfway).
• If we work in education, we avoid using biological examples as moral stories (e.g., bees being “hard‑working”). We keep to mechanisms to reduce bias.

We avoid scope creep. It is tempting to make a big “biomimicry initiative.” Resist. Keep it at the habit and the card level. We will notice, like a quiet garden, that small consistent changes accumulate.

Now—because we promised early that every section moves us toward action—we pick the problem in front of us and run it through the lens as we read. Maybe it is “too many tabs open.” Function: hold access to resources without high switching cost. Models: squirrels caching nuts (distributed, redundant caches), hippocampus memory (spatial indexing), leaf venation (hierarchy with loops). Principle: reduce open tabs to 1–2 “trunk” docs with backlinks (loops) and place “caches” in consistent locations. Micro‑test: close tabs beyond 10, pin 2 trunks, and create a “tab cache” doc with links, accessible via one hotkey. Measure: time to find a link (seconds) and total tabs open at end of day. Baseline: 42 tabs; test: 12; find time: 6 seconds vs 20. Relief is mild but repeatable.

We also remember to let ourselves be surprised. Sometimes we pick a model and discover it does not match our function. We assumed coral branching would help us organize code modules → observed that branching by visual similarity created tight coupling → changed to mycelial “thin connective threads” with sparse strong links; errors dropped and merges simplified. We write the pivot down. It is our record of learning.

We include a small “what to do when stuck” guide.

When stuck:

• Reduce the function to one verb and one number. “Route in ≤2 minutes.” “Store +20%.”
• Use the prebuilt model list; pick one obvious and one odd model.
• Draw the wrong idea first; get it out of the way in 60 seconds.
• Force a micro‑test today, even if it is tiny. “Tape a paper vent to the mockup; count drafts.”
• If nothing moves, switch domains (from space to flow, from flow to signal).

After we try, we return and log. Logging is not bureaucracy; it is a way to build a sense of momentum. In Brali, the check‑in takes 90 seconds. We answer a daily prompt: “Which function did we work on? Which model? What did we measure?” and we log two numbers. That is all.

For completeness—and to anchor our memory—we add one more dense example with numbers and a clear mechanism.

Objective: Reduce email support backlog. Baseline: 173 tickets open; average age 4.7 days; SLA breach rate 18%.

Function: route and resolve faster without burning staff.

Models: ants (stigmergy), penguin huddles (thermoregulation through rotation), immune system (triage and escalation).

Principles:

• Stigmergy: tasks leave traces; decaying priority if not reinforced is bad here; we need accumulating urgency. So we invert: priority ↑ as age ↑ (1.15× per 12 hours), but “resolution pheromone” (knowledge) reduces recurrence.
• Rotation: staff rotate through “frontline” in short shifts (25 minutes), like penguins rotate to the cold edge; reduces individual burn.
• Immune triage: pattern‑match common issues; route to specialized “antibodies” (FAQ and macro updates).

Micro‑test:

• Add an “age multiplier” to priority.
• Schedule three 25‑minute frontline shifts per person per day with 5‑minute buffers.
• Update 3 macros to cover 40% of recurring issues.

Measures:

• Average time to first response (minutes).
• SLA breach rate (%).
• Tickets open (count).

Results over 14 days:

• Time to first response: 214 → 97 minutes (−55%).
• SLA breach: 18% → 9% (−50%).
• Open tickets: 173 → 109 (−37%).
• Staff reported subjective load as 6.8/10 → 5.5/10 (−19%), measured by a daily 0–10 scale.

Trade‑offs:

• Short shifts require discipline; 2 missed rotations in week 1.
• Age multiplier can cause older complex tickets to dominate; we added a cap at 3× and a “complexity tag” that schedules pair time.

We are not claiming this is solely because of ants and penguins; we are using their mechanisms to design a queue and rotation. We measure; we adjust.

Before we close, we integrate the Brali check‑ins explicitly. We think in sensations and behavior, not just outcomes. Did the room feel cooler? Did the board look less cluttered? Did we sketch?

Check‑in Block

• Daily (3 Qs):

  1. What function did we target today (verbs + number)?
  2. Which biological model(s) did we consult (count and names)?
  3. Did we run a micro‑test and log a measure? If yes, what moved (count/minutes/%); if no, why?

• Weekly (3 Qs):

  1. Across 7 days, how many sessions did we complete (count)?
  2. Which principle yielded the clearest benefit (name the principle and metric change)?
  3. What pivot did we make (We assumed X → observed Y → changed to Z)?

• Metrics:

  • Models considered (count/day and count/week)
  • Micro‑tests run (count/week) and time spent (minutes/day) Optional: Net improvement (% change) on one chosen recurring measure (e.g., time to first response)

We close with a reminder: this is not a special day. We can do this every day for 12 minutes. If we skip, we restart tomorrow. The point is not to become “nature poets”; it is to extend our repertoire with proven strategies.

At MetalHatsCats, we investigate and collect practical knowledge to help you. We share it for free, we educate, and we provide tools to apply it.

We will end with the precise Hack Card so you can start now.