Why Bother with Instructional Design?

Ya know, I get more push back from clients around the issue of spending up to 1/3 of their training development budget figuring out the who’s, what’s, why’s, and how’s of their need! 

Why?  Well, many times they have not a clue or they bring you some half-baked idea to act upon.  In such situations I work very hard to gain their agreement that “ready, shoot, aim” is far less effective – and much more expensive – than a more disciplined approach.

Now, up front I must confess a bias since my MS is in Communication and Instructional Systems; but the logic of analyzing, planning, structuring, testing, implementing, and evaluating seems to make sense doesn’t it?  Oh, that’s the ADDIE model except that ADDIE roles testing into development or implementing.  Anyway, no new thought there, right?

If you want to learn about ID, Google it and start churning through the 3,910,000 items that are returned in .09 seconds.  Or do ISD and review the 1,160,000 - .13 seconds by the way.  Or ADDIE’s 4,040,000 in .08 seconds.  The point is there are so many takes on IDS/ISD/ADDIE and the many, many others displayed here – some are kinda cute – that you may come away more confused than enlightened.

“So,” you ask, “where do you go when you want to brush up?”  I go to Big Dog because his approach fits my mental model and training.

Over the years, I’ve worked with some very successful “professional” trainers and training companies that approached ID using the wink, wink; nod, nod method – they used the words, but did not have a clue what they meant or implied.  I’ve also worked with those who executed each ID step without variation for every project. 

My observation of outcomes from these two extremes on the ID continuum is that the first approach works well when the outcomes are “feel good.”  Seldom were we asked to measure specific outcomes or achieve specific outcomes.  And if we were, achievement was more by accident than intention.  Results from the second approach were much more predictable and measurable.

So, here’s how I answer “Why Bother with Instructional Design?”  “Outcomes” drive approach!  If you have to achieve measurable outcomes, make the investment and execute a model.  If the outcome is “check the box”, don’t waste your time and resources.  Any approach will probably work.  A perfect example is harassment training.

To identify your approach, listen to your client’s expectations.  If they talk about the instructor having to maintain a 4 on a scale of 1 to 5, it’s probably “feel good.”  If they talk about reducing turnover or increasing sales or reducing shrinkage or rework, sharpen your saw.

Speaking of saws, good HPT Consultants, Trainers, and facilitators know and can execute a model – it’s in their vocabulary and their bones.  It bothers them when the client says no to its use.