My Instructional Design Process: Why I Don't Choose Between ADDIE and SAM

One of the questions I get asked most about from someone learning design is some version of: "Walk me through your design process."

It's a fair question. And the honest answer is that I don't follow one framework rigidly. I use a hybrid - ADDIE as the backbone, SAM's iterative thinking layered on top - and I've shaped it into something agile enough to work on a two-week microlearning build or even for a longer program like onboarding.

Here's how I do it:

It Starts With Needs Analysis — Every Time

Before anything gets built, I need to understand what the learner actually needs to know and be able to do. Not what the stakeholder wants to say, or what the SME thinks is interesting. But, what behavior or performance gap are we closing?

That question drives everything. It shapes the objectives, the content selection, and eventually the assessment strategy. Skip it and you end up building a very polished solution to the wrong problem.

Storyboard: Alignment Before Investment

Once I have a solid foundation from the analysis phase, I move into design, and the first major deliverable is the storyboard.

Depending on the project, this is the script, a visual layout of what will appear on each slide, or a combination of both.

It's not the course. It's the blueprint. And that distinction matters, because this is the cheapest possible moment to catch misalignment between what stakeholders expect and what I'm building.

All reviewers (SMEs, stakeholders, project leads, team members) see the storyboard and provide feedback.

I capture everything, address it, and get alignment before a single interaction is built. This is where content debates should happen. Not in Alpha. Not in Beta.

Alpha: First Look at the Real Thing

Alpha is the first working draft of the actual course. For eLearning, this typically includes voiceover text, rough animations, placeholder or sample images, and a functional shell of the interactions - enough that reviewers can see how the course will work without significant development time being invested.

The goal isn't polish. The goal is directional alignment. Does the flow make sense? Are the interactions doing what we intended? Is the tone right?

Reviewers give feedback. I capture and address it. For smaller projects, Alpha may be the final review before Gold. For larger builds, we move to Beta.

Beta: The 80% Mark

Beta is where the course starts looking like the real thing. Real voiceover. Real animations. Real engagement activities. Closed captions and alt text start coming in here as accessibility work begins in earnest.

At this stage the course is roughly 80% complete, and that last 20% is intentionally left for Beta feedback. Reviewers do a full pass on content and functionality. This is the last opportunity for meaningful content changes.

After Beta, any scope additions affect timeline, budget, and WBS. I'm explicit about that going in.

Gold Development: Finishing and Hardening

Gold is where Beta feedback gets implemented and the full accessibility pass happens. This includes tab order, screen reader testing, contrast checks, final closed captions, alt text review. Everything gets locked down.

When Gold development is complete, it goes out for one final review. This pass is focused on three things only:

• functionality

• LMS compliance

• and accessibility.

Content is closed.

Any final feedback gets addressed, files are tested in the LMS environment, and then we roll out. Obviously, any tweaks required after roll out are addressed during maintenance.

Why This Works

The reason I built my process this way is simple: I've seen what happens when review happens only at the end. You get a course that's 90% complete and a stakeholder who's seeing it for the first time deciding they want a different approach. At that point you're not iterating - you're rebuilding.

Storyboard, Alpha, Beta, and Gold aren't bureaucratic checkpoints. They're early warning systems. Each one is designed to surface the right kind of problem at the moment when it's cheapest to fix it.

That's the whole point of blending ADDIE and SAM. The structure of ADDIE keeps the process organized. The iterative thinking of SAM keeps the work honest. What's your design process? Comment below!