But briefly:

Outside of the military/police and similar, anything like rigorous application of ADDIE is almost wholly absent in the UK/Europe. ISD/ADDIE was and is a North American phenomenon. The really interesting questions are around why, in what ways, the implications etc.

I’ve heard many times that expert ADDIE/ISD users treat it loosely, which is fine. Where we need to get to, in training new professionals is a point where we get people to the truth – that ADDIE is an interesting concept and a means of design support – very early on in their development. This is absolutely not the case in the military and similar, where hundreds (probably thousands) are still taught ADDIE/ISD as an immovable and inflexible truth.

Why are we so engaged in still talking about it? Because I think we (instructional/learning design, learning technology etc.) have a sense of insecurity about what we do. We used to have a process (ADDIE), and….eeeek….now we don’t.

We do have alternatives. We don’t have another huge, comprehensive methodology, but then we wouldn’t these days because life isn’t like that any more. What we have is a messy, evolving, confusing mass of heuristics and half-digested processes, which kind of reflects the reality of day to day design.

Clark (and Cammy):

I couldn’t agree more that the biggest problem with ADDIE lies in the implementation. That also holds true for poor implementation of iterative, rapid development processes. Experience (and the natural learning that comes with it) and deeper knowledge of the why and how of any process are the best guards against inflexible implementation. I like your research example. Maybe part of the reason new learning designers reject it so quickly is that they haven’t yet learned that it’s OK to use it as a guide and not the crutch you mention. That said, early ADDIE does have a lot of assumptions build into it about the “best ways” to design learning that deserve to be rejected. The newer iterative models are a bit more focused on the process and less on the one right path to instructional godliness.

Didem and Claude (DesignLearning):

Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.

Neil:

I agree that some of the problems with ADDIE implementation come from it being used by “developers” and not “designers”, but e-learning production is truly a multidisciplinary team sport, and the process (any process) will only work if everyone understand the whole, as well as their unique part. It’s up to Project leaders and lead instructional designers to help everyone on the team understand the why’s and what’s of the process.

Richard:

I think the “waterfall” label emerged from software design process. They were the first to struggle with bulky and slow process. I agree that ADDIE is best thought of as a guide. In fact I’m not sure if ANYONE actually uses it in it’s original form. In that way I think it truly is dead. But it lives on as a loose framework for people to layer on the steps (and underlying learning and methodological philosophies) that work for them.

Julie:

Nice to hear from a Savvy veteran. I think you’re saying that the rapid prototyping and iterative development processes now widely in use are primarily to move a project along quickly and effectively and are mostly neutral when it comes to guidelines for the design of learning experiences (instructional design). If so, I agree wholeheartedly. Necessary but not sufficient for quality learning outcomes. A rapid prototyping process (even Savvy!) could be used to efficiently produce a lousy learning program. This is why I don’t really see ADDIE as synonymous with Instructional Design. The design of effective learning experiences is truly a unique skill within the process.

As an aside, when looked at the blog links in your comment, I noticed you posted last year on ADDIE using the LOVE/HATE schism too. An entertaining coincidence! I liked your Venn models, especially because they separate design from process.

I suppose it’s an interesting question — how much does process impact outcome? It’s kind of like asking if the medium is message. Is the process the outcome? Or at least fundamental to the outcome?

I worked for Michael Allen, and used his iterative SAVVY process for years (and believe in it). The elements aren’t different from ADDIE though — you still do all the same things, but not in the same order or with the same emphasis.

So while I believe that rapid prototyping is a better way to get to good design (more efficient, faster), it’s still mostly just the vehicle. It’s not really the point — it’s only a smallish part of the picture. Basically, ADDIE (or any process) is a necessary but not sufficient part of good Instructional Design.

Tried to think about it visually – images here: http://bit.ly/Ahltr

I have always presented it as a guideline. Much the way Laura Ingalls Wilder describes what her Pa did in the Long Winter out on the prairie. He strung a clothesline from the back door of the house out to the barn. He held on to that clothesline so that he could get safely to the barn and back in the blinding whiteness of the blizzard. ADDIE is a guideline that reminds of the strategies and techniques that will get us home – namely the improvement in performance that we seek, and the related business outcome that we seek.

I especially like your words here: ADDIE is not about instructional design, “in fact it should be viewed more as a project management process for learning projects.” I believe this actually has been taught even from the behaviorists like Mager – Keep in mind Mager’s early charts for performance analysis.