Clark Quinn discussed the Great ADDIE Debate and summarized the alternatives to exclusively using ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation):

The obvious question came up about what would be used in place of ADDIE.  I believe that ADDIE as a checklist would be a nice accompaniment to both a more encompassing  and a more learning-centric approach.  For the former, I showed the HPT model as a representation of a design approach considering courses as part of a larger picture.  For the latter, I suggested that a focus on learning experience design would be appropriate.

Using an HPT-like approach first, to ensure that a course is the right solution, is necessary.  Then, I’d focus on working backwards from the needed change (Michael Allen talked about using sketches as lightweight prototypes at the conference, and first drawing the last activity the user engaged in) thinking about creating a learning experience that develops the learner’s capability.  Finally, I’d be inclined to use ADDIE as a checklist to ensure all the important components are considered, once I’d drafted an initial design (or several).  ADDIE certainly may be useful in taking that design forward, through development, implementation and evaluation.

I think of HPT (human performance technology) as an enabler to get to first base in instructional systems design (ISD). Without the proper analysis of the organizational needs, constraints and performance factors, a “learning” project may be doomed from the onset, because too often, training is a solution looking for a problem.

Here are some images from past presentations that support Clark’s post and may be helpful.

6 Responses to “HPT and ISD”

  1. meri walker

    I’m always learning from you, Harold. Loved the post you linked to here from Clark’s blog back in 2009. Experience design is a kind of artistry that’s supported by the bones of the HPT and ISD models, but ADDIE leaves out the crucial emotional aspects of learners engagement. And in a Web2.0, information – flooded, constantly changing work space, it’s ludicrous to leave out the learner’s emotional engagement. “Hard fun” as Clark called it, generates multi-layered meaning construction – as unique to the learner as their brains and bodies are. I’m in the midst of running a prototype right now that is verifying my hypothesis that learning experience design delivers a learning “space” far richer than anything I’ve ever created using ADDIE. The “Madhatters Tea Party” coaching groups are constructed around a learn-by-doing framework with weekly “fishbowls” in which both content and process will be shared and examined. It’s an intense experience for me as the Coach – but it seems to be doing the trick for the participants. Virtual Tea Parties begin Monday, April 19, so I’ll see more then…

    I’m stimulated daily by your inquiry, Harold. Thanks for sharing so much!

  2. John R. Turner

    I agree with you in that HPT can be used “as an enabler to get to first base in instructional systems design (ISD).” Unfortunately, I believe there is a gap between HPT and ISD. HPT focuses on the front-end analysis and ISD focuses on instructional design. This is evident from Leigh & Traceys’ (2010) article titled ‘A Review and New Framework for Instructional Design Practice Variation Research’ where they identified that “needs assessments are conducted infrequently” (p. 36) within the field of instructional design. I believe that ISD and HPT need to join forces to re-emphsize the importance of the analysis phase in ISD – the HPT component of ISD.
    Thanks for the information you are posting. I have found it be insightful and informative.

    Leigh, H. N. & Tracey, M. W. (2010). A review and new framework for instructional design practice variation research. Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 33-46.

  3. katherine

    Looking to move our learning programs to the 70 20 10 model. Do you know of a needs/gap analysis that supports this appoach? Thanks so much.


Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)