According to Bechelmeyer, the criticisms of ADDIE are that it:

  • is ineffective and inefficient,
  • is costly,
  • doesn’t necessarily lead to best instructional solutions,
  • doesn’t take advantage of tools that allow for less linear approaches to design, and
  • doesn’t reflect how practitioners in the field actually do their work.

I have been reading a book, Dreaming in Code, by Scott Rosenberg. It chronicles the work of Mitch Kapor and a team of software developers trying to create an open source, personal information manager. The book examines the difficulties encountered in trying to write a major piece of software. Many have tried to make this process more efficient only to experience frustration. In one section, the author describes the “Waterfall Model” of software development which divides a project into discrete phases: definition of requirements, design, implementation, integration, testing, and deployment. Sounds a lot like ADDIE. The problem is that the waterfall method just didn’t work. Rosenberg says that it seemed logical but “in practice it almost invariably led to delay, confusion, and disaster.” The waterfall method had a bad reputation, and was pretty much abandoned by the late 80’s.

What was wrong with it? Real work often doesn’t follow the plan that efficiency experts lay out:

  • Creativity is often non-linear. Procedures that are rigid and linear stifle creativity, reducing the quality and innovativeness of the product. A rigid procedural approach may also drive away the most talented people.
  • A problem that was generated in Step 1 may not show up until Step 4 or 5. A good model must allow for looping back to previous steps, possibly even starting somewhere other than at “the beginning”. Often design and development are iterative processes. Neither ADDIE nor the Waterfall Model seem to allow for that.
  • Problems (bugs) are by their nature frequent and often unpredictable. They may be easy to fix or surprisingly difficult and time-consuming. And they don’t show up according to a planned schedule or procedure. They may pop up at the most inopportune times.

Another attempt to improve the process and predictability of software development was the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), which defined the qualities of a good software development company. The levels describe how the companies plan, schedule, track, and manage their process. This model drew its inspiration from W. Edwards Deming’s theories on manufacturing efficiency and quality. While this model provided a helpful approach, it is seen as overly bureaucratic and stifling. It could be argued that creative fields do not adapt well to the processes that are effective for manufacturing.

Currently software development models favor lighter, quicker, more responsive methods for software production. A description of the Agile Software Development Model states that they favor:

  • Individuals and interactions over processes and tools.
  • Working software over comprehensive documentation
  • Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
  • Responding to change over following a plan

This is a very different description than CMM, Waterfall, or ADDIE. It honors the talents of individuals as well as allowing for flexibility and creativity in the design process. The last item seems to say it all: this model values responsiveness over a rigid planning process.

I have compared models of software development to models of instructional design. Is this a fair comparison? I think it is. Software design requires determining initial specifications, developing a design, implementing the design, and testing it. Those same steps are necessary for instructional design. In addition, an instructional product must be attractive, it must follow good educational theory and practices, and it must take into account varying experience levels, abilities, and learning styles of students. These elements suggest that instructional design, like software design, is a complex process; making a good instructional product requires highly skilled, creative people working within a flexible process.

It seems to me that instructional design is in its infancy compared to software design. While ADDIE is a good starting point, this field could learn some lessons from the struggles of the software industry to create a good development model. While ADDIE’s elements seem appropriate, its implementation process doesn’t yet seem flexible enough to account for the way skilled, creative people really work.