ADDIE vs SAM vs Design Thinking: Choosing the Right Instructional Design Model

ADDIE, SAM, Design Thinking, Agile—the instructional design field offers multiple methodologies. Understanding when to use each approach is a hallmark of an experienced designer.

No single model is universally superior. Each emerged to address different needs and contexts. The key is understanding the strengths, limitations, and ideal applications of each framework. Experienced designers draw from multiple approaches, adapting their process to project requirements rather than forcing projects to fit rigid methodologies.

ADDIE: The Classic Framework

Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation remains the most widely recognized ID model. ADDIE works excellently for:

ADDIE's linear approach provides structure and ensures nothing is overlooked. However, its sequential nature can feel slow in fast-paced environments requiring rapid iterations.

Each ADDIE phase has specific deliverables: Analysis produces needs assessments and learner profiles. Design creates blueprints and storyboards. Development builds the actual content. Implementation deploys training. Evaluation measures effectiveness and informs improvements. This documentation trail provides accountability and ensures stakeholder alignment.

The criticism that ADDIE is inflexible misses the point—ADDIE was never intended to be purely sequential. Modern ADDIE implementations incorporate iterative cycles within and between phases. Think of it as a framework providing checkpoints rather than rigid gates. Many organizations have successfully adapted ADDIE to be more agile while maintaining its structural benefits.

SAM: Successive Approximation Model

Developed by Allen Interactions, SAM emphasizes iterative design through rapid prototyping:

SAM excels when:

SAM recognizes that stakeholders often don't know what they want until they see it. By creating functional prototypes early, you generate concrete discussions about learning experiences rather than abstract concepts. This accelerates decision-making and reduces the risk of building something that doesn't meet needs.

The Savvy Start workshop—SAM's preparation phase—brings stakeholders together for collaborative brainstorming. This intensive session builds shared understanding and generates creative solutions that might never emerge through traditional requirements gathering. The energy and alignment created in these sessions dramatically improves project outcomes.

Design Thinking

Borrowed from product design, this human-centered approach focuses on empathy and experimentation:

Design Thinking shines when:

Design Thinking's emphasis on empathy transforms how you approach projects. Rather than accepting stated requirements at face value, you investigate the underlying needs and pain points. Shadow learners in their work environment. Conduct in-depth interviews. Observe actual performance challenges. This deep understanding often reveals that the real problem differs significantly from the initial request.

The ideation phase encourages wild, creative thinking before filtering for practicality. This generates breakthrough solutions that incremental thinking never reaches. Tools like brainstorming, mind mapping, and rapid sketching help teams move beyond conventional approaches to discover innovative learning experiences.

Agile in Instructional Design

Adapted from software development, Agile emphasizes flexibility, collaboration, and incremental delivery:

Agile works well for:

Agile instructional design requires mindset shifts. Embrace change rather than fighting it. Value working content over comprehensive documentation. Prioritize collaboration over negotiation. These principles can feel uncomfortable initially, especially in organizations accustomed to detailed up-front planning.

Sprint retrospectives—where teams reflect on what worked and what didn't—drive continuous improvement in both process and product. Daily stand-ups maintain momentum and quickly surface blockers. User stories keep focus on learner needs rather than content coverage. These practices, borrowed from software development, translate remarkably well to instructional design when adapted thoughtfully.

Action Mapping

Cathy Moore's Action Mapping deserves mention as a powerful planning tool that works within any methodology. Action Mapping starts with business goals, identifies necessary behaviors, determines practice activities, and only then decides what information to provide. This ruthless focus on action prevents information dumps and ensures training drives measurable results.

Action Mapping particularly excels at challenging unnecessary training requests. Often, the real solution isn't a course but a job aid, process improvement, or environmental change. By focusing on measurable business goals first, Action Mapping helps you propose the right solution even when clients request the wrong one.

Choosing Your Approach

The best instructional designers don't rigidly follow one model. Instead, they adapt their approach based on:

Many projects benefit from hybrid approaches: ADDIE's Analysis phase combined with SAM's iterative development, or Design Thinking for initial exploration followed by Agile delivery.

Consider starting projects with Design Thinking's empathy work to deeply understand needs, then using Action Mapping to focus on measurable goals, followed by SAM or Agile for development, while maintaining ADDIE's evaluation rigor. This hybrid approach leverages each model's strengths while avoiding their limitations.

Communicating Your Approach

Stakeholder understanding matters as much as your actual process. Some organizations have strong preferences or mandates for specific models. Learn to speak their language while adapting your actual practice appropriately. If they require ADDIE documentation, provide it—while using iterative techniques behind the scenes.

Document your methodology choice and rationale in project plans. This transparency builds trust and sets appropriate expectations about timeline, deliverables, and stakeholder involvement. If you're proposing a methodology your organization hasn't used before, start with a pilot project to demonstrate value before wider adoption.

Your methodology should serve the project, not the reverse. Master multiple approaches and develop the judgment to know which fits each unique situation.

The hallmark of design maturity is moving beyond methodology dogma to pragmatic eclecticism—choosing and combining approaches based on context rather than preference. Build your toolkit, understand each model deeply, and develop the wisdom to deploy them strategically.