12/29/24, 8:04 PM History of the ADDIE Model

Home Site Map About Leadership Training Learning History Knowledge Performance Java Etc. News Blog
Search

<

Note: This site is moving to KnowledgeJump.com. Please

reset your bookmark.

ADDIE Model
ADDIE (Analysis, Design,
Development, Implement, and
Evaluate) is a model of the ISD
family (Instructional System Design).
It has evolved several times over the
years to become iterative, dynamic,
and user friendly. ISD includes other
models, such as the Dick and Carey (2004) and Kemp (Gustafson,
Branch, 1997) models.

While the concept of ISD has been around since the early 1950s,
ADDIE first appeared in 1975. It was created by the Center for
Educational Technology at Florida State University for the U.S.
Army and then quickly adapted by all the U.S. Armed Forces
(Branson, Rayner, Cox, Furman, King, Hannum, 1975; Watson,
1981). The five phases were based somewhat on a previous ISD
model developed by the U.S. Air Force (1970) called the Five Step
Approach. It also has a lot in common with Bela Banathy's model.

As defense machinery was becoming more and

more sophisticated, the educational background of
entry level soldiers was becoming lower and lower.
The potential solution to this problem was in the
form of a 'systems approach' to training. The system
selected for use by the U.S. Army was Instructional

www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html 1/9
12/29/24, 8:04 PM History of the ADDIE Model
Systems Development (ISD), developed in 1975 by
Florida State University. ISD is a comprehensive
five-phase process encompassing the entire
training/educational environment. Although ISD is a
systematic step-by-step approach, it has the
flexibility to be used with both individualized and
traditional instruction. - Russell Watson, 1981 (Note:
Watson used the term Instructional Systems
Development, while the term Instructional Systems
Design is mostly used today.)

The ADDIE or ISD model consisted of 19 steps that were

considered essential to the development of educational and
training programs (Hannum, 2005). The steps were grouped into
five phases (Analysis, Design, Development, Implement, and
Evaluate) to facilitate communication of the ISD model to others.
The steps, listed under their respective phases, are shown below:

Click to open a larger chart

The military, having a large number of instructional designers and

being a leader in training and learning, was a great influence to
corporate and educational activities adapting ISD or ADDIE.

Revised ADDIE Model

Six years later, Dr. Russell Watson (1981), Chief, Staff and
Faculty Training Division of the Fort Huachuca, Arizona, presented
a paper to International Congress for Individualized Instruction. In
it, he discusses the ADDIE model as developed by Florida State
University. His presentation contained a slightly revised model:

Click to open a larger chart

www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html 2/9
12/29/24, 8:04 PM History of the ADDIE Model
Watson's model was based on the one developed by Florida State
University in that the five phases are the same, but the steps
within each phase have been slightly modified (Branson, Rayner,
Cox, Furman, King, Hannum, 1975).

This site uses a version that differs from the above two versions in
that the steps have been changed to more accurately reflect the
needs of today's organization. You can learn about it here.

ADDIE Model
A model is a simplified abstract view of a complex reality or
concept. Silvern defines a model as a “graphic analog
representing a real-life situation either as it is or as it should be”
(AECT, 1977). This makes ADDIE a model. While it has been
pictured in several ways, the model below shows one popular way
(U.S. Army, 2011, p62):

ADDIE has often been called a process model; however, this is

only true if you blindly follow it (DeSimone, Werner, Harris, 2002).
A much better way to use ADDIE is to think of it as a guide for
gaining direct intuitive insight into a problem, for an example see,
ADDIE and the 5 Rules of Zen.

ID (Instruction Design) models differ from ISD models in that ISD

models have a broad scope and typically divide the instruction
design process into five phases (van Merriënboer, 1997). Note
that some ISD models, such as the Dick and Carey ISD model,
may not use the same terms, but have the same concepts:

Analysis

Design (some models combine it with Development)

Development or Production

Implementation or Delivery

Evaluation

ID models are less broadly focused in nature, thus they normally

go into much more detail, especially in the design portion. ID
models are normally employed in conjunction with ISD models as
explained in the section, Extending ADDIE.

The Dynamics of ADDIE

When the ADDIE model first appeared in 1975, it was mostly a
linear or waterfall model. For example, in October 1981, Russell

www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html 3/9
12/29/24, 8:04 PM History of the ADDIE Model
Watson presented a paper and wrote:

The five phases of ISD are analysis, design,

development, implementation, and evaluation and
control. The first four are sequential in nature, but
the evaluation and control phase is a continuous
process that is conducted in conjunction with all of
the others.

He included this diagram with his paper:

However, it was NOT strictly linear in nature (waterfall) since

evaluations were performed throughtout its lifecycle, thus the
designers had to iterate to correct any flaws found in the
evaluations.

By 1984, the model evolved into a more dynamic nature for the
other phases of the model. This was lead by the U.S. Armed
Forces. For example, one U.S. Army (1984) training manual
reads,

As the model shows, all parts are interrelated.

Changes, which occur during one-step of the model,
may affect the other four steps. In the ISD process,
nothing is done in isolation, nor is all done in a
linear fashion; activities of various phases may be
accomplished concurrently.

The manual (U.S. Army, 1984) contains the following model that
shows its evolving dynamic nature:

www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html 4/9
12/29/24, 8:04 PM History of the ADDIE Model

The U.S. Army is perhaps one of the most disciplined and

structured organizations in the world; however, even they could
not design training in a strictly linear manner, thus they evolved
ADDIE into a more dynamic nature. Since the original ADDIE
model was designed in a university, they took a summative
approach in order to evaluate the validity of the learning and
training concepts that were used in the learning process.

However, Instructional Designers who work in most organizations

are far more concerned with actually producing an effective
learning process to meet the needs of the business, thus they
take a more formative approach in order to refine goals and
evolve strategies (agile design) during the entire ISD process.

In addition, Merriënboer wrote in 1997 (p3):

The phases may be listed in a linear order, but in

fact are highly interrelated and typically not
performed in a linear but in an iterative and cyclic
fashion.

In addition to evolving to a more dynamic structure, the last phase

was changed from “Evaluation and Control” to simply “Evaluation”
(Hannum, 2005). Thus, the model becomes ADDIE and not
ADDIEC.

The Army's newest training manual calls it the “The Non-Linear

ADDIE Model” and describes the phases as not sequential
(TRADOC Regulation 350-70, 2011, pp61-62).

While the Air Force writes,

“The updated ISD model has been designed to

represent simplicity and flexibility so that
instructional system developers with varying levels
of expertise can understand the model and use it to
develop effective, efficient instructional systems.
This model depicts the flexibility that instructional
developers have to enter or reenter the various
stages of the process as necessary” (AF Manual 36-
2234, 1993).

ADDIE The Acronym

While the ADDIE model has been around since 1975, it was
generally known as SAT (System Approach to Training) or ISD
(Instructional System Design). The earliest reference that I have
been able to locate that uses the acronym of “ADDIE” is a paper

www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html 5/9
12/29/24, 8:04 PM History of the ADDIE Model
by Michael Schlegel (1995), in A Handbook of Instructional and
Training Program Design.

Schlegel writes:

This generic Design Model of Analyze, Design,

Development, Implementation, and Evaluation
(ADDIE) is utilized, and detailed job aids are
provided in the form of rating sheets and checklists..

Other early uses include:

1998: Using ADDIE to Design a Web-Based Training

Interface

1999: Student Models of Instructional Design

For more information, see ADDIE the Acronym.

Extending ADDIE
The broad scope and heuristic method of ISD has often been
criticized because it tells learning designers what to do, but not
how to do it. Yet it is this broad and sketchy nature of ISD that
gives it such great versatility. Merriënboer (1997, p3) notes that
other ID and learning models can be used in conjunction with ISD.

Thus, ISD becomes a plug and play model — you add other
components to it on an as needed basis. For example, the ISD
model below has Action Mapping, 4C/ID, and Prototyping plugged
into it for designing a robust learning environment for training
complex skills:

ADDIE Shortcomings
While ADDIE strives to identify adequate on-the-job performance
so that the learners can adequately learn to perform a certain job
or task (Branson, Rayner, Cox, Furman, Hannum, 1975), it was
never meant to determine if training is the correct answer to a
problem. Thus, the first step when presented with a performance
problem is to use a performance analysis tool.

One such tool is the “Performance Analysis Quadrant” (PAQ) for

identifying the root causes of such problems. By discovering the
answer to two questions, “Does the employee have adequate job
knowledge?” and “does the employee have the proper attitude
(desire) to perform the job?” and assigning a numerical rating
between 1 and 10 for each answer, will place the employee in 1 of
4 performance quadrants:

www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html 6/9
12/29/24, 8:04 PM History of the ADDIE Model

Quadrant A (Motivation): If the employee has sufficient job

knowledge but has an improper attitude, this may be classed
as a motivational problem. The consequences (reward and
punishment) of the person's behavior will have to be
adjusted. This is not always bad as the employee just might
not realize the consequence of his or her actions.

Quadrant B (Resource/Process/Environment): If the

employee has both job knowledge and a favorable attitude,
but performance is unsatisfactory, then the problem may be
out of control of the employee, such as a lack of resources or
time, the task needs process improvement, or the
workstation is not ergonomically designed.

Quadrant C (Selection): If the employee lacks both job

knowledge and a favorable attitude, then that person may be
improperly placed in the position. This may imply a problem
with employee selection or promotion, and suggests that a
transfer or discharge be considered.

Quadrant D (Training and or Coaching): If the employee

desires to perform, but lacks the requisite job knowledge or
skills, then some type of learning solution is required, such
as training, coaching, or informal learning.

Note: The four quadrants are based on Jones' (1993) description

of the four factors that affects job performance.

The ISD model shown below has a:

performance analysis plugged into the top, left corner,

ADDIE model (bottom, left),
ID model (center) to give it further design capabilities, and
the learning environment or solution (right side), which in turn, helps to
create the desired performance (top, right):

www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html 7/9
12/29/24, 8:04 PM History of the ADDIE Model

Other shortcomings have been leveled at ADDIE, but they seem to

be mostly baseless, for example:

1. ADDIE does not lead to the best instructional solutions,

nor does it provide solutions in a timely or efficient
manner. Reality — This is only true if you do not understand
it, use it blindly, or fail to plug in other ID models that best fit
the problem and solution.

2. ADDIE doesn't take advantage of digital technologies

that allow for less-linear approach, such as rapid
prototyping. Reality — As noted above, van Merriënboer,
U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Army point out that it is indeed
quite agile and interactive.

3. The ADDIE method is not really the way instructional

designers do their work. Reality — ADDIE came about as
the Vietnam War was ending, since then the U.S. Armed
Forces have been using it quite successfully in a VUCA
(volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity)
environment.

4. No original ADDIE model exists. Reality — As this site

shows, there is a real ADDIE model.

Next Steps
Next Chapter: ADDIE and the 5 Rules of Zen

Return to the History of Instructional System Design

Additional Resource: ISD Concept Map

References
AECT, (1977). Educational Technology: Definition and glossary of
Terms (Vol 1). Washington DD: Association for Educational
Communications and Technology. p168

Branson, R.K., Rayner, G.T., Cox, J.L., Furman, J.P., King, F.J.,
Hannum, W.H. (1975). Interservice procedures for instructional
systems development. (Vols. 1-5) TRADOC Pam 350-30,
NAVEDTRA 106A. Ft. Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command.

Branson, R.K., Rayner, G.T., Cox, J.L., Furman, J.P., King, F.J.,
Hannum, W.H. (1975). Interservice procedures for instructional
systems development: Executive summary and model. (Vols. 1-5)
TRADOC Pam 350-30, Ft. Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command.

DeSimone, R.L., Werner, J.M., Harris, D M. (2002). Human

Resource Development. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc.

www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html 8/9
12/29/24, 8:04 PM History of the ADDIE Model
Dick, W., and Carey, L. (2014). The Systematic Design of
Instruction. Pearson Education, 8th ed.

Gustafson, K., Branch, R.M. (1997). Instructional Design Models.

Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and
Technology.

Hannum, W.H. (2005). Instructional Systems Development: A thirty

year retrospective. Educational Technology, 45(4), 5-21.

Jones, B. (1993). The Four Domains Affecting Job Performance.

Moving from Theory to Practice: Integrating Human Factors into
an Organization, 1995. Mancuso, V. (ed). Seattle WA: Annual
Flight Safety Foundation Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.crm-devel.org/ftp/mancuso.pdf

Schlegel, M.J. (1995). A Handbook of Instructional and Training

Program Design. ERIC Document Reproduction Service
ED383281.

Department of the Air Force (1993). Instructional System

Development. AF Manual 36-2234.

Department of the Army (2011). Army Learning Policy and

Systems. TRADOC Regulation 350-70.

U.S. Air Force (1970). (Instructional System Development (ISD).

AFM 50-2. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Army Field Artillery School (1984). A System Approach To

Training. ST - 5K061FD92. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

U.S. Army (2011). Army Learning Policy and Systems. TRADOC

Reg. 350-70. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (1997). Training Complex Cognitive Skills:

A Four-Component Instructional Design Model for Technical
Training. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology
Publications.

Watson, R. (October 1981). Instructional System Development.

Paper presented to the International Congress for Individualized
Instruction. EDRS publication ED 209 239.
Notes
Updated September 6, 2015. Created July 13, 1995.

Find out more about me (copyright, APA formatting, etc).~ A Big Dog, Little Dog and Knowledge Jump Production ~ Email me at [email protected] ~ by Donald Clark

www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html 9/9