Does Apple use NLP

by Greg Alexander B.SC. (Psychology and Computer Science)., Grad.Cert.N.L.P.

Michael Lopp, a senior engineering manager at Apple, recently described Apple's design processes - answering how Apple can 'get' design when so many others fail. Apple's processes remind me of several processes and patterns I've learnt through my study of NLP, processes I use regularly when working with change in individuals.

Let me start by being very clear - I don't know if someone in Apple actually studied NLP - indeed, most patterns taught in NLP weren't 'created' anyway, they were discovered by modeling what high performers already do, to find the keys to replicating their success and teach others this "new" way of doing something effective. NLP is not the only way to learn something very effective.

A Business Week article in March summarised Michael's presentation, which he gave at the 2008 South by Southwest conference in the US.

It's a short article which I recommend to anyone interested in Apple products or NLP.

Let's take a look at what Michael says about Apple's design processes and how they relate to NLP.

1) Pixel Perfect Mockups

When Apple is working on a product they make a "pixel perfect mockup" of the product. While this is more difficult, it makes it far easier to know what something will really be like and to avoid making mistakes.

It doesn't take NLP training to know that many people have a vague idea of what they want, and a vague idea can lead to vague (and ill-conceived) solutions. Still - many people don't take the time to set a clear goal. This enables us both to check that what we're moving towards is actually what we want and to identify the steps to get there, to "try on" a solution.

NLP training sessions teach language patterns to find distorted & generalised language and thought patterns, including details which have been left out. This makes it far easier to find or choose a solution. In addition to this, to create well-formed outcomes we learn to experience a goal state clearly (clearly visualising it, with sound and feelings) - so we know what we're moving towards. We can then check longer term effects for ourselves and others of having the goal.

2) 10 to 3 to 1

Apple produces 10 ideas, which are narrowed down to 3, and then to 1. These are genuine ideas - each one is a real alternative that may fulfil the original, vaguer, goal - Apple designers don't have a couple of "real" ideas and then surround them by ones which are not going to work, just to make 1 idea look better. The original 10 ideas are designed without restriction and all are genuine - later they whittle that down to 3 more likely options, and finally to one strong decision.

In the 6-step reframe pattern, once we identify an intent we work with a creative state to find a half-dozen or more ways of achieving it. From there we explore these more fully to identify 3 choices which are each achievable and for which we have no objections, and may modify some ideas to make them work even better. We do not then narrow it down to 1 - we keep each of these 3 alternatives as possibilities available to us in the future (so when the context arises, we can choose 1 of these 3 options).

3) Paired Design

Apple has 2 meetings every week which work together and are designed to cleanly separate the creative and practical aspects of design. "One in which to brainstorm, to forget about constraints and think freely" - the other is a production meeting, to work out how the crazy ideas might actually work. These 2 meetings are repeated every week throughout the entire design process.

This reminds me of the "Disney Creativity Strategy". As I noted earlier, NLP discovers patterns by modeling that which works brilliantly, and then explicitly teaching those patterns. The Disney process refers to a strategy used by Walt Disney for planning projects in his film making business - it involves a multi-step pattern for thinking, and in Disney's case literally used three specific rooms which were each designed to encourage different states of mind in the creative design process. The three states were "The Dreamer", "The Realist", and "The Critic" - essentially come up with the dreams in one room, create plans to realise the dream in the next room, and finally in the critic room pick flaws in the plans and identify all the problems and issues. This process is then repeated, refining every time towards a dream with a working plan.

Apple uses two distinct states, and seems to combine the realist and the critic roles (though perhaps Steve Jobs himself plays the role of critic?). Engineers brainstorm freely and creatively in one room, then design and plan in the other, and repeat. This clean separation of states is critical to many NLP patterns and enables a greater ability to explore alternatives and to make better decisions.

4) Pony Meeting

This refers to the vague wishes of management ("I want a pony!"). Apple's engineer said that the problem with this is that management often thinks they know what they want, but it's general and they may also be misguided. The trick was to present the best ideas generated from the above methods and see what might fit management's dreams (their ponies).

From an NLP perspective - this is missing something important in the pattern. And that is that the management's original "pony" wish needs to be connected to the creative process (used above), to guide the products desired. Perhaps we can consider the pony to be the original "dream" used in paired design (#3), but I think exploring the management intent is critical here. Many NLP patterns create new behaviours and ideas from a higher intent, and once the idea is refined and made quite specific, it can then be compared to the original intent and evaluated to see how well it fits. I'd guess this is closer to what actually happens, even if the management's higher intent isn't always explicit

I've been a user of Apple products for many years and have always admired (well, usually admired....) how well they produce products that meet a sometimes unrecognised need. I found the design process summarised in Business Week very interesting from that and my NLP perspective - it explains much of how a working product emerges. The thing that it does not explain is how the Apple team seems able to envisage several steps ahead to where technology may one day take us, and make the leap forward. I have a few ideas, some from NLP, but perhaps we'll learn more from Apple some day.

Greg Alexander