But in the eLearning space there is considerable debate over various instructional design processes.

Which one works best for what project?

Is SAM the answer for your team or are you still going strong with ADDIE model? Have you tried one of the other instructional design models — ARCS, or PIE, or Dick and Carey maybe?

Irrespective of whatever instructional design process steps or model a team may follow, certain elements are absolutely necessary to ensure that all stakeholders consider the project to be successful and well-accomplished.

Evolution of Instructional Design Processes

For the longest time, ADDIE (Analyze, Design, Development, Implement, Evaluate) was the go-to process for instructional designers and L&D professionals. Ever since the ADDIE model was conceived for the military, it has been a constant presence in eLearning projects and the instructional design process for decades.

SAM, or Successive Approximation Model, on the other hand has been pitched forward as the answer to a number of pain points that appear in the elements of instructional design of the ADDIE model, such as:

Shorter iterations of development, which help ensure that teams are not chasing unproductive goals in an endless cycle before they can recalibrate.

of development, which help ensure that teams are not chasing unproductive goals in an endless cycle before they can recalibrate. Small cycles of design and development mean budget and time constraints can be better accommodated.

can be better accommodated. Collaboration is easier and more focused in these iterations, and feedback is exchanged more quickly, and addressed faster.

Making Development More Agile

In most cases, ADDIE is represented as the waterfall like approach, while SAM is the agile alternative, more suited to today’s lean resource circumstances and smaller teams. Many teams have adopted more agile techniques and are moving away, from rigid non-iterative processes.

But then, there are also arguments that the ADDIE model often gets a bad rep when in fact, the principles can be ported into an iterative environment for smaller teams and fewer resources, without letting go of the efficacy of the system. The diagram below shows ADDIE adapted into a quicker and leaner approach.

It is not that these methodologies are polar opposites or born out of completely different schools of thought. ADDIE and SAM share many similarities such as the kick-off step.

One of the things that many people appreciate in ADDIE is the ‘A’ in the picture, i.e. Analyze. Starting off without a clear understanding of the goals and expected results from the project, will most certainly lead to issues later on. An emphasis on understanding the audience, their environment, learning constraints and background helps get more context beforehand.

The same concept is reflected in SAM. The savvy start and information gather phase is comprised of brainstorming, sketching and making low-level prototypes of the possible solutions and discussing the pros and cons with stakeholders.

But it’s not just SAM and ADDIE that are in the frame for instructional design processes. There’s also LLAMA (Lot Like Agile Management Approach)and SCRUM.

Adding agility to the ADDIE model — what LLAMA is envisioned as. source: Torrance Learning

However, learning projects are evolving to be more dynamic and fluid, and the processes to support them will need to be equally dynamic and robust in nature. That means not getting tied into one rigid kind of methodology. A flexible approach that takes the best out of different approaches is what seems like a wise move.

Irrespective of what kind of project, client or constraints you are working with, certain principles ensure that the instructional design process is always moving in the right direction.

The Essential Elements for Any Process

Learner-focused Approach

The primary focus of any instructional design method is to serve the learner. One, if not the most, important metric for success of a project is how learners perceive the course.

Empathy for the user is something many agile software development processes advocate, and for good reason. The thought behind this, of course, being that without understanding what the learner expects and aims to achieve, any iteration or development cycle is bound to come up short.

Design thinking, which is now increasingly being incorporated into learning development, advocates making user research the first and foremost task in design and development. The merits of this approach can also be seen in the technology and techniques that are being used for serving eLearning content. Narratives and gamification are just two examples of techniques that put learner engagement on top and construct the course around the learner rather than the curriculum.

This article from the Association for Talent Development (ATD) gives one such example of using design thinking in corporate training:

Say, for example, that your L&D course was targeting sales staff for better performance on their quotas. In a learner-focused approach, the instructional designer would first analyze why the sales staff was unable to meet their goals; what challenges hampered them.

They would then formulate a plan to deliver the required training so that this gap in goals and current performance can be bridged. The appropriate format and delivery method would then be identified before developing the course. Post-delivery, feedback would be collected from stakeholders and subsequent iterations would be setup based on this feedback.

Stakeholder Validation — Prototyping

Often the biggest trouble for instructional designers is getting everyone to see the same picture, especially at the beginning of the project when solutions are not yet concrete. Getting clients, SMEs and internal stakeholders to get behind the same vision and getting buy-in from them can be cumbersome no matter what approach you’re using.

Creating low-level prototypes to demonstrate and validate ideas gets people to the table. This is an idea even the SAM’s savvy start touches on. Typically, a savvy start brainstorming and information gathering session can last for 2–3 days. But this kind of time commitment from all stakeholders is not always possible. Often, people are collaborating remotely and this becomes a challenge.

In such cases, a one-day session followed by building prototypes of the solutions explored is good practice. These prototypes can be evaluated in follow up meetings, whether face-to-face or remote, and further ideas explored. Especially when working with SMEs, this approach can have great dividends.

It is important to remember that a prototype is not just a storyboard for the course. While the storyboard would lay out a rough blueprint for the course, including media, text, navigation details etc, a prototype is effective for testing out specific concepts or ideas without implementing all of the functionality.

SmartBuilder has a great example of prototypes that are more learner-centric while storyboards are more content-centric.