Individual Reflective reportTask: Communication Strategies Group 4Nature-inspired communication strategies designs have significantly aided the improvement and advancement of many technologies. Some examples of such occurrences are:Natural computing – This is a whole field relating to nature inspired computer processes creating optimisation algorithms to problem solve and improve efficiencies. An example of this is mimicking the behaviour of flocking birds and how they avoid obstacles, which can be used to produce an algorithm that alleviates congestion within wireless sensor networks and much more.Swarm intelligence computing is a subgroup within natural computing. This involves drawing inspiration from bees, ants, fish, birds, behaviours to ease networking traffic. By observing honeybee communication systems, it was revealed that such a system could be mimicked to aid internet traffic with bees able to cope and adjust between an abundance of nectar income and scarcity seamlessly.Internet servers are needed to access websites. Designated servers are responsible with supplying the computing power for clientele to access such websites. An increase in access demand can occasionally become apparent e.g ticket sales, product demand etc, and the server or servers can become unable to cope, while other available server resources sit idly or less active due to them being assigned to other less busy website traffics.Bee systems inspired the idea of a virtual dance floor for a network of servers from how they communicate within the hive. Bees manage their unpredictability on honey demand and allocate their resources highly efficiently through a system of dances. Scout bees locate and identify the quality of nectar initially and then return to the hive to communicate this to forager bees through different animations of dance. The foragers are positioned behind the scout bee where they learn the dance moves displayed by the scout and then dispatch to gather the source. On return they replicate the dance to further communicate to other foragers until the dancing intensity tapers off (which is parallel to the source depletion) or a new scout returns with a more appealing dance relating to a differing source. With the returning bees constantly updating information to others.When a server receives a user request to access a website it produces and internal advertisement to the network of servers across the “virtual dance floor” to invite any available ones, with the length of the advert relating to the intensity of demand.This technology was able to improve website traffic efficiencies up to 45% and is commonly adopted now across large groupings of servers.Swarm intelligence algorithms adopted from animals and insects has not just aided with computer processing but with evacuation processes also, with behaviours being scrutinised for optimum pathways and knowledge around the matter. Bees again have been used to identify the best possible fire escape routes from inside buildings using miniature replicas of these structures. Their chosen pathway is used to identify the appropriate emergency signage placement inside many buildings today. With swarm intelligence of bees and other species known for their effectiveness and accuracy in finding the optimum pathways of escape. These ideas were on consultation not chosen for the final presentation with ones selected deemed to be more interesting and believed would be better received from the audienceI researched and contributed the problems and barriers the technology faces for all the finalised ideas presented, which gave me an understanding of each individual topic separately. I felt that this was where I gained a good knowledge of all topics with me having to understand the processes and steps of how each one works before I could identify and understand afflicting barriers and problems they face.Dolphin echolocation sonar: barriers of the technology is that marine mammals behaviour can be effected and influenced negatively for miles from source and has resulted in deafness as well in extreme cases mortality.Deploying the technology above the surface out of marine environments due to its sensitivity to noise its less effective than electromagnetic radars when attempting to penetrate the surface for trapped miners of mineral deposits for example. (Southall, 2017)ACO algorithm: A barrier is the Theoretical analysis which is difficult due to computational complexity of the algorithm with another limitation being that it struggles to work out the problems of scattering and optimisation. (Selvi, et al., 2010)Bio-sensors: progression made in regards to bio-electronic sensors is that a wide range of different chemical substances and mixtures can now be detected with receptors available from a number of different speciesSome of the barriers it faces are the durability of the receptive elements with exposure of the cell tissues to natural environments for extended periods causing issues with their lifespans.The main barrier though towards its commercialisation is due to the design stage with the science being there and able to deliver the results but the size of the signal transducers which is the machinery the receptors send the data to being substantial and not portableAnother issue is the accuracy when repeating samples but these are able to be overcome with more time taken in preparation but that times quite significant. (Dung TT, et al., 2018) (Wasilewski, et al., 2017)The nature inspired algorithms used to optimise communication strategies are commonly adopted in computation now. A challenge the topic faces is the communication between subject specialists of biology/zoology and engineering. With engineers, not commonly approaching biologist and zoologists for potential solutions or opinions to the problems they encounter. Experts across both fields are seemingly scarce, most probably due to the complexities and depth to both subjects.Personal ObservationsEstablishing group dynamics were initially hampered with contact difficult to arrange due to 3 members of the group being unaware that the assignment was even launched due to their absence of every lecture.There was 3 members of the group including myself who took responsibility attempting to orchestrate proceedings with the other 2 taking a supporting role with us operating in a democratic manner which was fair. I did however feel I was limited in getting my suggested ideas to be implemented due to other members in the group being well acquainted from their previous years at university and having the tendency to agree more strongly with one another.The cohesion was also an issue within the group with there being no connection or solidarity ever established over the work. There was never any strong conflict between myself and the others but this was down to them not having any drive towards the assignment. The limiting factor I thought was the attitude towards the assignment with me feeling the others saw the assessment as trivial and not therefore a priority in comparison to other modules at the time regarding their own degrees. This resulted in a lack of motivation, communication and effort from certain group members. This view was clear from my personal observation made during meetings, with members being unable/unwilling to meet even in the set designated group meetings scheduled in their timetables. As we neared the deadline urgency induced more appropriate effort regarding the formatting and the presenting of the slides. But the content of what they was about never received such attention.Overall the group dynamics I would say were poor with leadership being hard to establish due to the lack of contact, consequently hindering communication significantly, particularly in the researching stage of the assignment. My contribution became trying to motivate and give guidance on what was required whenever I could with trying to instil knowledge around the topic where possible to help them understand their own work to a greater depth.The group could of done better and been more effective if the commitment was there from the off. With aiming for top marks according to the rubric kept in mind from the start a good way of achieving the this. A thorough assessment and discussion of what the assignment was asking for would have been of beneficial also. The main improvement that I believed would of significantly aided our work was the initial researching of the examples around the topic. The examples were identified with very minimal effort from basic sources. Deeper investigation was only done by myself from scientific peer reviewed sources revealing that the majority of examples were dated technology and had been around for years with much better tech now available in the specific areas. Researching newer technology that were currently being tested I felt would have been of more interest and better suited for the presentation and received by the audience.Peer reviewThe other presentations I thought were good with our own having room for improvement to match up to the best ones with visuals and enthusiasm being the main difference between ours and theirs. Preparation and practice was evident with smoothness between the transition of speakers being good and many coming across as professional. The delivery of many of the presenters seemed slightly robotic most likely down to a pre-scripted approach to what was said like our own, with only a handful of people displaying a natural style, seemingly due to them having a much fuller understanding and knowledge on the topic they were presenting alongside natural confidence.The ideas from each topic area were all interesting I thought with me being enlightened to 90% of their existence. I particularly found the production of spider webbing to create defensive armour very interesting and believe it will likely become a common entity in defensive equipment in the future.The presentations that I preferred the most in my opinion were the once who had an element of humour or ones with out of the box ideas which held my attention throughout. The lizard feet shoes was a particular highlight that stuck in my mind.Starting the task sooner would have definitely benefited my group allowing the time to needed to gain a real deeper understanding of the topic and the identified examples. which would have resulted in more unprecedented ideas being pursued and found. This is what I thought was the big difference between our presentation and the best ones.  Group Name: Water G8Category/scoring criteriaTotal Points  (1-10)Content– did I learn anything new/interesting/a stated purpose of presentation/supporting evidence of statementsVery interesting and enlightening, promising water conservation ideas.Delivery of presentation– confident/eye contact/use of notes/body language/appearance/enthusiasmVery good delivery, no notes.Organisation– time spent on slides/logical sequenceWell organised and sequenced.Audience engagement Good.Equal contribution of membersYes.Preparation – did the group seem preparedVery well practiced.Critical thinking – what depth and breadth was the elements of the topic discussedGood breadth and depth of water conservation solutions and barriers.Visual – were the slides aesthetic/relevant to what was being saidConsistent format and bright, was good.Post questioning – how well were questions answeredWell answered.Referencing Overall Points (0-100)71 Group Name: Movement G1Category/scoring criteriaTotal Points  (1-10)Content– did I learn anything new/interesting/a stated purpose of presentation/supporting evidence of statementsWas very interesting about car shape based on fish for improvement movement.Delivery of presentation– confident/eye contact/use of notes/body language/appearance/enthusiasmUse of notes, some members better than other.Organisation– time spent on slides/logical sequenceLogical sequence to presentation and timings spent on each slide.Audience engagement Good engagement at end of presentation.Equal contribution of membersYes, combination was equal.Preparation – did the group seem preparedGroup seemed fairly well prepared.Critical thinking – what depth and breadth was the elements of the topic discussedGood depth to what was solid particularly lizard feet climbing biomimicry idea.Visual – were the slides aesthetic/relevant to what was being saidNice colourful slides.Post questioning – how well were questions answeredQuestions answered very well.Referencing Good.Overall Points (0-100)69 Group Name: Dealing with waste G2Category/scoring criteriaTotal Points  (1-10)Content– did I learn anything new/interesting/a stated purpose of presentation/supporting evidence of statementsYes, very informative with good examples of plastic reduction and raw materials with biomimicry tech.Delivery of presentation– confident/eye contact/use of notes/body language/appearance/enthusiasmVery good delivery and confidence.Organisation– time spent on slides/logical sequenceExcellent timings.Audience engagement Adequate.Equal contribution of membersGood. Preparation – did the group seem preparedWell prepared and practised.Critical thinking – what depth and breadth was the elements of the topic discussedGood range of breadth and depth.Visual – were the slides aesthetic/relevant to what was being saidGood aesthetics and relevance to what was being said.Post questioning – how well were questions answeredSolid answers to questionings.Referencing GoodOverall Points (0-100)71Group Name: Energy G3Category/scoring criteriaTotal Points  (1-10)Content– did I learn anything new/interesting/a stated purpose of presentation/supporting evidence of statementsContent was good and informed common knowledge, deep on energy processes.Delivery of presentation– confident/eye contact/use of notes/body language/appearance/enthusiasmVery good delivery bodily language and confidence.Organisation– time spent on slides/logical sequenceAppropriate time spent on individual slides.Audience engagement Good engagement with videos.Equal contribution of membersYes.Preparation – did the group seem preparedWell-practised.Critical thinking – what depth and breadth was the elements of the topic discussedGood depth to what was said.Visual – were the slides aesthetic/relevant to what was being saidGood appearance to slide content.Post questioning – how well were questions answeredKnowledgeable answersReferencing GoodOverall Points (0-100)68 Group Name: Health and medicine 5Category/scoring criteriaTotal Points  (1-10)Content– did I learn anything new/interesting/a stated purpose of presentation/supporting evidence of statementsIntriguing content on cancer solutions from jellyfish in particular.Delivery of presentation– confident/eye contact/use of notes/body language/appearance/enthusiasmSolid deliverance, all round.Organisation– time spent on slides/logical sequenceWell organised.Audience engagement Ok.Equal contribution of membersYes.Preparation – did the group seem preparedWell practised.Critical thinking – what depth and breadth was the elements of the topic discussedGood critical thinking on researched topics.Visual – were the slides aesthetic/relevant to what was being saidNice aesthetically.Post questioning – how well were questions answeredN/AReferencing Good.Overall Points (0-100)69 Group Name: Shelters G6Category/scoring criteriaTotal Points  (1-10)Content– did I learn anything new/interesting/a stated purpose of presentation/supporting evidence of statementsInteresting and very informing, didn’t know anything previously.Delivery of presentation– confident/eye contact/use of notes/body language/appearance/enthusiasmGood.Organisation– time spent on slides/logical sequenceTime spent on slides were adequate and appropriate.Audience engagement Content was engaging.Equal contribution of membersYes spread of presenting was good.Preparation – did the group seem preparedWell practised.Critical thinking – what depth and breadth was the elements of the topic discussedGreat depth.Visual – were the slides aesthetic/relevant to what was being saidNice aesthetics and images.Post questioning – how well were questions answeredN/AReferencing Good.Overall Points (0-100)68  Group Name: Attack and defence G7Category/scoring criteriaTotal Points  (1-10)Content– did I learn anything new/interesting/a stated purpose of presentation/supporting evidence of statementsVery interesting particularly spider web from goats that stops bullets.Delivery of presentation– confident/eye contact/use of notes/body language/appearance/enthusiasmSolid delivery throughout.Organisation– time spent on slides/logical sequenceLogical sequence.Audience engagement Good.Equal contribution of membersYes.Preparation – did the group seem preparedWell prepared.Critical thinking – what depth and breadth was the elements of the topic discussedExcellent breadth and depth.Visual – were the slides aesthetic/relevant to what was being saidProfessional look, consistent.Post questioning – how well were questions answeredGood.Referencing Good.Overall Points (0-100)70ReferencesV.Selvi & , Dr.R.Umarani. (2010). Comparative Analysis of Ant Colony and Particle Swarm Optimization Techniques. International Journal of Computer Applications. 5. 10.5120/908-1286.Southall, Brandon L; Bowles, Ann E; Ellison, William T; Finneran, James J; Gentry, Roger L .Marine mammal hearing and the effect of noise .Aquatic Mammals; Moline Vol. 33, Iss. 4, (2007): 411-414.Dung TT, Oh Y, Choi SJ, Kim ID, Oh MK, Kim M. Applications and Advances in Bioelectronic Noses for Odour Sensing. Sensors (Basel). 2018;18(1):103. Published 2018 Jan 1. doi:10.3390/s1801010Wasilewski Thomas, Gebicki Jacek and Wojciech Kamysz. Bioelectronic nose: Current status and perspectives. Biosensors & Bio-elctronics. 2017. – Vol. 87. – pp. 480-494.