ADDIE vs SAM

Personally, I think it's all generally the same.

ADDIE isn't a linear process. I've always seen it as the core considerations in course design. You do some analysis, design and develop (test your ideas and iterate) and then build a final product that is implemented and evaluated for its effectiveness. 

I agree, Tom. It seems that the websites that promote the SAM system try to pass off the ADDIE method as linear.  When managing ADDIE, there are of course many factors within the project team that may or may not lead to effective training products.  No design is perfect, hence the ADDIE systems approach, but it is effective and efficient in the right hands.    I've not used SAM and wonder if there are any of its champions in this crowd?

Hi Jack,

That's a great question! My take is that there are pros and cons to both.

ADDIE is often easier for organizations used to waterfall project management and the steps are pretty straightforward, even if you're new to project management techniques. If you follow the model strictly it's linear, which can make it too ridged for some situations and can cause serious issues if something changes with the project requirements. But there's no reason you can't do a modified version with some iterations built-in that can help solve for that.

SAM works well for groups used to Agile project management techniques, and the iteration integrated into it helps you pivot quickly if the situation calls for it and potentially find ideas you wouldn't have without experimentation. But it's also possible to get trapped in those iterations if you're not careful and delays from SMEs and other stakeholders can still snag the process just like with ADDIE.

It's often a matter of which approach works best for you, the project, and the other people and teams you're working with. WHat might be helpful is digging into these articles, as they go into even more depth about what works well with each approach:

• An Introduction to the ADDIE Model for Instructional Designers
  
• What's the PADDIE Model of Instructional Design?
• An Introduction to SAM for Instructional Designers

Thanks Bianca,  I'll have a read though the SAM reference to see if it sheds any new light on the model ref cost of iterations due to a partial (but quick) solution.  Managing client expectations would be key to the SAM system I'd imagine. 

Hey Jack. I think the cost of iterations is likely hard to make a general estimate for. If a client is fully on board with SAM and you all followed the recommended number of iterations in each section of the process, there's enough structure in it (in particular, with SAM 2) that you could set up a Gantt chart and actually map out the time for each step, making it easier to estimate the costs. But that's in an ideal situation where you don't hit anything that delays the project. Of course, that's a risk with ADDIE as well.

I think there are two big factors that can make SAM less time and cost-intensive. First, putting some parameters around how long you spend in each step or how many iterative loops is your maximum number helps a lot. Just because there are iterations involved doesn't mean it's unlimited iterations. And you do need to be careful about not continuing to iterate just for tiny improvements that don't matter much in the long run. Second, some of this is just going to take practice to fine-tune. Chances are your first time using any project management technique is going to take a bit longer and be a bit bumpier the first time through, but will be substantially faster once you and your stakeholders/clients have gone through it a few times.

If you want to really dig into the structure of how both SAM1 and SAM2 work, this article from Allen Interactions is a great deep dive.

Thanks Bianca for the interesting SAM article.   

It reveals a lot of the ADDIE concepts embedded in the SAM system, especially the "Work Backwards" step, which is key to any effective training program.  Performance oriented / Scenario Based Training must always be designed that way.  The missing cog in the SAM wheel is Cognitive Task Analysis, which is a victim of their "minimize up-front analysis, I believe.  Exploring scenarios properly will always tease out the critical cognitive skills, knowledge and attitudes. We should always take time for this process with the SME. 

I would also suggest that ADDIE does not dictate a written storyboard format, as suggested in the article.  A rapid prototyping graphic storyboard (.ppt, etc) and a solid assessment plan can be an effective & efficient means of client buy-in and approval, especially for higher levels of learning. 

In the end, I'd suggest that the use of gap analysis and evaluation feedback is certainly common to both models and can be used to prioritize the effort allocated to developing various training objectives and solutions.  

From the Allen article:

" It seems we are ever less patient and want our training developed faster and often by persons with less knowledge about instructional design and human learning."   I think that says it all regardless of the model used.