What are the key differences between the ADDIE and SAM models of training design and facilitation?

ADDIE's not a rigid robot, it's a bendy pretzel of flexibility. Loop back, jump ahead, even do the robot – whatever makes your training rock! So ditch the training dark ages, embrace the ADDIE light! Remember, with great training power comes great responsibility... and possibly a standing ovation. Now go forth, brave trainers, and unleash your knowledge superpowers! P.S. The kazoo. Don't forget the kazoo. Trust me.

The key differences between the ADDIE and SAM models lie in their approach and structure. ADDIE is a linear, step-by-step process (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) that emphasizes thorough planning before development. In contrast, SAM (Successive Approximation Model) is iterative and agile, focusing on rapid prototyping and frequent collaboration with stakeholders throughout the process. While ADDIE offers a structured, methodical approach, SAM allows for more flexibility and quick adjustments during the design and facilitation phases.

Using the SAM model can also be especially beneficial for courses, trainings, or other learning experiences that already exist, but may need updates based on prior learner and stakeholder feedback, or changes to policy or information. The repeating stages of SAM allow for making changes and getting feedback throughout the process, as opposed to waiting until the end for final evaluation, like what is typically seen with ADDIE. Though maintaining constant collaboration and communication can sometimes be a feat, it can be made easier and more intentional by planning carefully and choosing the right subject matter experts, stakeholders, and learners who will support in the process, which is needed regardless of the design model that is used.

The Addie method is a “waterfall approach”; thus Addie model follows a linear process. An instructional designer follows the five-step Addie method to construct a training program, eLearning course, or learning materials. The model begins with a wide analysis. After that, we design, develop, implement, and evaluate the learning program. The Successive Approximation Model (SAM) unlike Addie’s five large sequential steps, the Successive Approximation Model (SAM) is a more cyclical approach involving three iterations on the familiar instructional design phases of evaluation/analysis, design, and development.

Tired of training plans that go off the rails faster than a toddler with a megaphone? Say hello to the SAM model, your new best friend for crafting training programs that actually, you know, train people. Think of it like baking the perfect cake. You wouldn't just chuck flour and eggs in the oven and pray for a fluffy masterpiece, right? No, you measure, mix, test, tweak, adjust, cry over burnt edges, then repeat. That's SAM in a nutshell.

Imagine two training models locked in a professional wrestling match: ADDIE, the structured veteran in tights and elbow pads, versus SAM, the agile newcomer in a headband and knee pads. ADDIE throws heavy planning punches, demanding a detailed analysis before any action. SAM counters with rapid prototyping kicks, adapting and testing on the fly. The crowd roars! In the ADDIE corner, we have a champion of thoroughness. Every step, from analyzing needs to evaluating results, is a meticulously planned round. But critics call it a slow dance with deadlines, prone to analysis paralysis. SAM, on the other hand, is the Michael Jordan of training. It leaps from design to development, tweaking and testing like a champion on the go.

I have found it is important to place flexibility within constraints. I.e. when meeting with a client be up front about the process and deliverables explaining when there will be space for review and feedback and when the deadlines are. I tend to follow the double diamond framework of discover, define, develop, deliver. I find Miro is a very helpful tool to roughly work out the flow of a learning plan. And I think it is very important to continually evaluate and iterate on the learning product post implementation.

Implementing SAM in the early phases of the ADDIE process can help L & D programs maintain creativity and participant engagement. Moving fast in the Analyze, Design, and Deliver phase to test with a Beta group helps designers to question the assumptions of the initial design. This can allow space to dial deep on creative and impactful design solutions that lead learners to the learning outcomes of the program with space for eureka and surprise along the way. Especially when the training's objectives, structure, and target audience are clear, applying SAM early inspires more radically creative and interesting (and therefore memorable/sticky) opportunities to implement learning solutions and reach the desired participant outcomes.

Both ADDIE and SAM are great models to use. I personally prefer to use ADDIE most of times as its structured and linear. I like to prepare, have all the information and then get into development and successive evaluations. SAM works great when I have to get some prototype on the table and then keep on evolving it.

Combining elements of the ADDIE and SAM models could make for a relevant and engaging course that speaks to the learners' needs. For example, since knowing your audience, their learning needs, and determining the intended learning outcomes is important, you might benefit from using ADDIE's analysis and design phases. From there, you can then combine that with the SAM model's development and implementation phases, which allow for prototyping, feedback and evaluation throughout the remainder of the process. These phases can help work out some of the kinks as you go by collaborating with the right parties to get regular feedback and make changes to avoid implementing a final product that wasn't worth the extensive time or monetary investment.

I used the ADDIE system to design an entire curriculum andnused SAM to develop the actual courses within. It helped with analyzing the flow to ensure the end result vision of the end user with keeping in mind time constraints in developing the courses.