Building models to describe the ISD process has been under attack for some time. More recent discussion can be found in the April 2000 (Gordon & Zemke) issue of Training with an additional commentary by Zemke and Rossett in the February 2002 issue.

I still believe there is value in building development models if they help to outline a process that can be used successfully in a particular context. Just as there are no "universal" design theories that work for every subject in every context (cf. Reigeluth 1999), ISD process models have to be looked at within their intended environment and with an eye on intended needs and outcomes.

I see a few problems with the way ISD models are viewed:

1) If a person is an organizational consultant, then having an articulated design process might be overkill to solve a single training problem. If, however, a person is in a production house or development department, the need to create efficiency in the development process is essential and models can be valuable.

2) Models should be used as a guide to understand design and development efforts and not as rigid, step-by-step processes. I have met designers who want to follow each step of ADDIE, even if a quick design is all that is needed. In cases where a large design and development effort is required, however, having a road map for efficiency and effectiveness can guide the team and keep them on the same page.

3) And finally, design is an iterative process but that does not necessarily mean that the project does not have a beginning and end! (iteration occurs within some timeframe to reach a goal)

So, I have created one model of a user-centered development process to create "reusable learning objects" (a term I don't like but we can get into that another time). I hope to post a couple of drafts up to the site soon to invite ridicule.

I know this is a new blog and there might not be anyone reading this but, if there is anyone reading, do you think ISD Models hold any real value? If so, under what conditions?