CHAPTER 2

Instructional Systems Design

Never before have so many people been tasked with creating instructional activities,
materials, and programs for learners in schools, businesses, and organizations. Many
have little formal training in instructional design, if any (Carliner and Driscoll, 2009).
They are guided by their intuition, their observations of what they have seen others do,
and their experiences as a learner. Of those who have received instruction on instructional
design, an instructional systems design (ISD) model most likely guides their work. ISD
models frequently divide the process into phases, such as analysis, design, development,
implementation, and evaluation. It is from this logical, commonsense series of phases that
the “ADDIE” name is derived.

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
What is it? The definition of instructional design “can revolve around numerous
perspectives: process, discipline, science, and reality” (Crawford, 2004, p. 414). Piskurich
defines instructional design as “simply a process for helping you create effective training
in an efficient manner” and helping “you ask the right questions, make the right decisions,
and produce a product that is as useful and useable as your situation requires and
allows” (2000, p. 1).
These general and perhaps indeterminate definitions reflect the fact that instructional
design is basically multidimensional decision making. It’s a process historically viewed

11
Leaving ADDIE for SAM

much like that of a building architect. The expected outcome from an instructional designer
is a blueprint to guide the development of learning experiences. The designer is expected
to produce specifications of a product that can be developed within time and cost budgets,
and the product should achieve defined goals while meeting a variety of constraints and
preferences. Although the delivered blueprint needs to be very clear, understandable, and as
simple as possible, the design task can be very complex due to the number of considerations.
There are many questions to be answered, such as:
• Who is to be taught what and what are the learners’ current capabilities?
• What types of skills are to be learned?
• What delivery platforms are available?
• Are other learning experiences needed and available?
• What are the coordination opportunities and restrictions?
• Who will do the development and what are their capabilities?
• Are representative learners available for trial runs?
• Who is available to assist with content information gathering, synthesis, and
organization?
• Are media resources available and sufficient?
• Will licensed materials be needed and are they affordable?
• Is there a hard deadline for delivery of the instructional product?
• What approvals are necessary?
• Who will review and approve?
• What is the availability of people who must review and approve?
• How is learning success defined and how will it be measured?
• How is project success defined and how will it be measured?

Identifying the variables that will impact decisions and collecting accurate data are two
important steps to avoid going off in wrong directions. It is the awareness of this importance
that places analysis as the first step in ISD and as critical input to design. Because there are
many variables that define instructional needs, many tasks to assess each of those variables,
and potential problems if a variable is overlooked or inaccurately measured, ISD has
become more structured and formalized over the years. As Gustafson and Branch state, it
is “a system of procedures for developing educational and training programs in a consistent
and reliable fashion” (2001, p. 17).
There is, indeed, comfort and security in having a defined set of steps, checklists, and
criteria. Were I asked to do a totally unfamiliar job, such as replace an automobile engine,
I’d really want such a system of procedures.

12
 Chapter 2 | Instructional Systems Design

FAMILIARITY BEGETS CREDIBILITY

The high level view of the ADDIE model of ISD, its five sequential phases of analysis, design,
development, implementation, and evaluation, makes tremendous sense as a system of
procedures. It has been widely used in various adaptations. Indeed, the ADDIE acronym
has become so ubiquitous in the training industry that Bichelmeyer (2005) didn’t even
consider defining it until the final draft of her article about its role in the industry.

A D D I E
Analysis Design Development Implementation Evaluation

In actuality however, when people refer to ADDIE, about all we know is that they
divide tasks into analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation phases.
Beyond that, one knows fairly little because of the wide variances in application. Reports
and conference papers on how ADDIE has been modified and adapted are voluminous.
It seems nearly all organizations find modification desirable if not mandatory, and even
then, designers and developers regularly report much deviation from their own formalized
adaptations, indicating it’s not what we actually do. Iteration, in particular, is seen not as an
option but a necessity; yet the basic ADDIE model is not iterative.
Faith in ADDIE has been strong, perhaps from tradition as much as any other reason, but
ADDIE is far from the most up to date, effective, reliable, and proven process for building
quality learning. The foundational notions of ADDIE are quite old now and address problems
and opportunities that have changed dramatically and significantly over the years, and
there are perhaps hundreds of thousands of developed courses that would suggest the
process does not ensure many measures of quality. Widespread use, a memorable acronym,
a defined process with the appeal and appearance of manageability, together with many
sources of information and training on the process, are commendable attributes envied by
all marketeers. Unfortunately, reliable product quality is not foremost among its credits.
Indeed, the ADDIE model is not without considerable criticism. The model has been
criticized for being “too systematic, that is, too linear, too inflexible, too constraining, and even
too time consuming to implement” (Kruse, 2009). Other criticisms range from the model’s
inability to take “advantage of digital technologies” to the model not providing an accurate
representation of the “way instructional designers do their work” (Bichelmeyer, 2005, p. 4).

13
Leaving ADDIE for SAM

PROCESS SELECTION
There is more to the relationship between effective design and process than just efficiency.
Processes can affect quality, creativity, and accuracy just as much as they do efficiency
and timeliness. When we select a process, we are also selecting the type of product we
want. For example, does the process promote experimentation with ideas and media or
look to theoretical analysis for guidance? Experimentation with learner involvement early
in the process can generate ideas before costly development work is undertaken. Does
the process emphasize making the learning experience engaging and enduring through
practice, or does the process emphasize content coverage and thoroughness? Addressing
the learning experience to make it a meaningful and memorable one can determine what
content does and doesn’t belong, whereas emphasis
When we select a process,
on content thoroughness almost inevitably leads to
we are also selecting the
boring, burdensome, and ineffective presentations
type of product we want.
for passive absorption by the learner.
Definition and sequence of tasks or events delineate a process. The five-stage ADDIE
process offers a linear approach—completing one stage before moving on to the next
(Crawford, 2004; Molenda, Reiguluth, and Nelson, 2003), although common adaptations
loosen the linearity of the prerequisite chain in various ways. Changes make a big difference,
of course, and a changed process must be renamed and considered a different process. Not
having done so has led to much of the confusion about what ADDIE is and isn’t. It isn’t
helpful to suggest a named process is anything we’re doing today. Processes need a crisp
definition in order to be understood, evaluated, selected, and applied.

WHAT WAS ADDIE ORIGINALLY?

To further complicate the usefulness of adapted ADDIE models, there is no clear agreement
on what the base model is. Molenda states when authors proffer adaptations and narrative
descriptions based on the ADDIE model they “are essentially creating and disseminating
their own models as there does not appear to be an original, authoritative version of the
ADDIE model to be revealed and interpreted” (2003, p. 36).
While the origins of this model are unclear, the underlying process has its origins in
the U.S. armed forces (Molenda, 2003). The intent was to develop a system for the design
of instruction that would be more “effective, efficient, and relevant than less rigorous
approaches to planning instruction” (Gustafson and Branch, 2002). Figure 2-1 is a diagram
of the early systems model that served as the predecessor to current ISD models and
eventually ADDIE.

14
 Chapter 2 | Instructional Systems Design

Figure 2-1. Early Version of ADDIE: Five Phases of ISD

Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V
Implementation Evaluation and
Analysis Design Development Control
Implement
Develop Specify Learning Conduct Internal
Analyze Job Instructional
Objectives Events/Activities Evaluation
Management Plan

Specify Instructional Conduct External

Select Task
Develop Tests Management Plan Conduct Instruction Evaluation
Functions and Delivery System

Construct Job Describe Entry Review/Select

Performance Revise System
Behavior Existing Materials
Measures

Determine
Analyze Existing Sequence and Develop Instruction
Courses Structure

Select Instructional Validate Instruction

Setting

Source: 2011, Clark, D.; adapted from Branson, Rayner, Cox, Furman, King, Hannum, 1975.
Figure courtesy of Donald Clark.

Graphic representation of a model with so many major steps is quite helpful to gain a
quick, overview notion. Reading through the uniform size boxes, however, one immediately
recognizes that the magnitude of each step is not represented by the size of the box. That
is, the varying levels of time and effort needed to complete steps are not represented. Nor
is the complex relationship among the steps. Indeed, were one to connect steps that have
relationships to each other, the diagram would be so encumbered with lines that it would
be impossible to read.
In what we understand to be the foundational notion of ADDIE, dependency
relationships are implied by the sequence. That is, specifying learning events (Step 1,
Phase III) is dependent on developing objectives (Step 1, Phase II), but determining
sequence and structure (Step 4, Phase II) is not dependent on reviewing existing materials
(Step 3, Phase III). Practicalities, however, might suggest otherwise.

15
Leaving ADDIE for SAM

This model is classified today as a waterfall process—that is, all steps in one phase are
completed in sequence before moving on to the next phase. The waterfall concept, so called
because water does not flow backward or uphill, is illustrated in Figure 2-2.

Figure 2-2. ADDIE as a Waterfall Process

What we know today, from many years of experience, is that there is a vital experimental
and exploratory exercise that needs to be undertaken in the process of instructional
design. Although we have much research on human learning, brain function, perception,
and communication of information to guide us, the undertaking of instructional product
design is very complex. There are too many variances in each project to make success with
them as simple as applying our knowledge. We need to use our knowledge to formulate
our best guess, our first “approximation” of an ideal design, and then find ways to evaluate
it. We need to take quicker, smaller steps so that we can receive the additional guidance of
evaluation before we have spent all our project’s time and resources on only one guess.

Evaluation to catch mistakes toward

the end of the process, as with ADDIE,
is better than not correcting them at
all. But there are risks. Continuous
evaluation and correction as early as
possible returns valuable rewards.

Waiting to make corrections toward

the end of the process invites trouble.

16
 Chapter 2 | Instructional Systems Design

LEARNING TO ADAPT
In an effort to address the limitations of the linear waterfall approach of the early ADDIE
models, some have proposed an ADDIE model that is iterative or cyclical. Figure 2-3 is a
diagram of a modification of the ADDIE model, modified to support iteration and provide
greater flexibility.

Figure 2-3. A Modification of ADDIE

This diagram is one of many modified ADDIE models. Others differ in the arrangement
of the model phases, use and placement of double-headed arrows, and so on. These
modifications, while desirable in many instances, muddle the definition of ADDIE. Although
any process that contains analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation
could be called an ADDIE process, what process wouldn’t involve these tasks? Nearly all do,
need to, and should, but the specific sequences, criteria, and interdependencies are critical
to the definition of a process. It is meaningless to call a process ADDIE if very different
processes are called by the same name. Unfortunately, we’re in such a state today, and it’s
unclear what people are really saying when they report use of ADDIE.

THE BEST MODEL

While there would be advantages to having a global, standard, highly effective ISD model,
the best model today is the model that works well for an organization—one that assures
each project will be completed within its constraints and will achieve desired performance
outcomes to the fullest extent possible. Adaptation of models should be continuous as
needs evolve and new best practices are recognized. But what might the foundation model
be? Where should a team start?

17
Leaving ADDIE for SAM

Ideally, the numerous “new” versions of the ADDIE model could be seen as helpful
efforts to move us closer to an effective model for creating engaging and effective learning.
Unfortunately, it seems that many adaptations have been made because of challenges faced
in implementing ADDIE (of which there are many) rather than to reach out directly for an
improved process for quality learning design and development.
Adaptation of a familiar design approach is an understandable response by professionals
in our field who need a realistic representation of their endeavors—a way to organize
and communicate about what is happening. The more specific a model, the narrower its
applicability. The more general a model, the more vague its clarity and utility.
“It appears that even instructional design models with some amount of utility must
often be modified or adapted (even radically) by designers to render them applicable in
context” (Yanchar, South, Williams, Wilson, 2007, pg. 1). The need to match the process
to the environment in which the instruction is being developed demonstrates the inherent
weakness of traditional design models for present-day design and development activities.
Suggesting that modified ADDIE processes allow teams to convey design options,
evaluate approaches, and share ideas among the five phases of the model is too often just
a theoretical notion and diversion from real and important process issues. Altering the
sequence or connections of the five components of the ADDIE model may be a pointless
task. Merrill asserts that the struggle for people offering adaptations of the ADDIE model
components may derive from “the fact [that] their detailed implementation in various
incarnations of ISD do not represent the most efficient or effective method for designing
instruction” (2002, p. 39).
Experience in the complex work of instructional product development quite naturally
gives rise to defined subtasks and procedures that become comfortable and routine. There
is often a desire to “fix” the process while simultaneously clinging to the familiar aspects
of it, whether they are truly productive or not. Focus turns to solving problems with the
management of the process rather than to defining and sequencing tasks essential to
creating great learning experiences. Spoken signs of clinging to the familiar at the sacrifice
of producing great learning products include:
• I have a form for subject matter experts to fill out, so I have on record what learners need
to know. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. I’m not a subject matter expert.
• I organize information into chunks readable in 15 minutes or less. I count the chunks,
multiply by our average development time, and get the project timetable.
• Since people always want to make changes, I give them three “change for free” cards. Once
they’ve used them up, no more changes. Don’t even bring it up.

18
 Chapter 2 | Instructional Systems Design

• Our modules never cover more than three objectives, and our quizzes always fit on a
single page. It helps our designers to have defined spaces to write for.
• We figure each new project will require about three new templates in addition to our
standard collection. After producing so many courses, we now have a fixed price for
engineering new templates. So it’s pretty easy to determine project costs now.

While the basic concepts of the ADDIE model are essential to any effective design
process, the approaches designers use are “far more varied and selective” and the processes
are “much more heterogeneous and diverse than these ADDIE models suggest” (Visscher-
Voerman and Gustafson, 2004, p. 70, 72) . Simply, these ADDIE models do not “address the
complexity associated with instructional design” (Crawford, 2004, p. 418).
It seems then that it may be time to leave ADDIE behind. We’ve dragged it along with us
for so many years in an adherence to the roots of ISD. We know its strengths and weaknesses,
but we’ve adapted it and have the comfort of familiarity. Still, the results are not all they
could be.
We want to stress once again, if the process you use meets your requirements and
produces the quality product you want, you have the right process for you. We have seen
ADDIE serve some organizations well. Typically, however, ADDIE appears to fall short.
While ADDIE must be appreciated for what it’s done in the past, let it no longer be the
source of the boring and outdated instructional products it so often leads to. Let it no longer
dictate a process that’s simply too slow, laborious, and ineffectual. It’s time to move on.
Surely we can get comfortable with a new process once again.

19