Implementing SAM: Practical Strategies
Getting Started with SAM
1. Build Rapid Prototyping Capabilities:
- Invest in modern authoring tools that support quick iteration
- Train your team on rapid design and development techniques
- Create template libraries and reusable components
- Establish streamlined review and approval processes
2. Secure Stakeholder Commitment:
- Educate leadership on SAM’s benefits and requirements
- Set clear expectations about continuous involvement
- Establish regular feedback session schedules
- Demonstrate SAM’s value through pilot projects
3. Start with Pilot Projects:
- Choose a project well-suited to SAM (eLearning, short timeline, flexible requirements)
- Keep the scope manageable for your first SAM project
- Document lessons learned
- Use success to build support for broader adoption
Planning an Effective Savvy Start
Preparation Before the Session:
- Identify and invite all key stakeholders
- Gather background materials (existing content, learner profiles, etc.)
- Prepare sample prototypes or design ideas to stimulate discussion
- Set clear agenda and objectives
- Secure appropriate workspace and materials
During the Savvy Start:
- Establish shared understanding of the problem or opportunity
- Define success criteria collaboratively
- Brainstorm multiple design approaches
- Create rough prototypes of promising ideas
- Build consensus on direction
- Define roles, responsibilities, and next steps
After the Savvy Start:
- Distribute session documentation
- Begin first design iteration immediately
- Maintain momentum with quick follow-ups
- Reference Savvy Start decisions throughout the project
Managing Iterative Cycles
Keep Iterations Short: Aim for 1-2 week cycles rather than month-long iterations. Short cycles maintain momentum, provide frequent feedback opportunities, and allow rapid course correction.
Define Clear Iteration Goals: Each iteration should have specific objectives. What will be designed, prototyped, or refined? What feedback is needed? What decisions must be made?
Manage Scope Creep: SAM’s flexibility can lead to scope expansion. Use the Savvy Start agreements as your north star. New ideas should be evaluated against original goals and constraints.
Balance Speed with Quality: SAM emphasizes speed, but not at the expense of instructional effectiveness. Quick doesn’t mean careless. Each iteration should maintain standards appropriate to its stage (alpha can be rough; gold must be polished).
Facilitating Effective Feedback
Make Prototypes Interactive: Clickable prototypes generate better feedback than static mockups. Stakeholders need to experience the learning, not just view slides.
Ask Specific Questions: Don’t just ask “What do you think?” Guide feedback with specific questions: “Does this scenario feel realistic?” “Is this explanation clear?” “Would this motivate your team?”
Separate Feedback Sessions: Different stakeholders provide different types of feedback. SMEs focus on content accuracy. Learner representatives focus on clarity and engagement. Decision-makers focus on alignment with goals.
Act on Feedback Quickly: Rapid turnaround between feedback and the next iteration maintains stakeholder engagement and enthusiasm. If stakeholders see their input incorporated immediately, they stay invested.
SAM vs. ADDIE: Understanding the Differences
Both the SAM (Successive Approximation Model) and ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) frameworks are foundational instructional design models, but they differ significantly in structure, flexibility, and speed of execution.
Structure: Linear vs. Iterative
ADDIE: The ADDIE model is a linear, systematic framework built around five phases—Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. It provides a structured approach that ensures instructional quality and consistency, making it ideal for well-defined, stable projects with clear requirements.
SAM: The instructional design model SAM takes an iterative and cyclical approach to instructional design. Instead of following a strict sequence, SAM emphasizes continuous feedback, rapid prototyping, and early testing.
Designers create quick, low-fidelity prototypes that are refined repeatedly based on stakeholder and learner input. Structure: SAM is iterative and cyclical, while ADDIE is linear and sequential.
Feedback Integration
ADDIE: Feedback: ADDIE collects it mainly at the end, during the Evaluation phase. While formative evaluation can occur throughout ADDIE, the model’s linear structure often means substantial feedback comes after significant work is complete.
SAM: Feedback: SAM incorporates feedback throughout the process, at every iteration. Stakeholders and users provide input on working prototypes continuously, allowing immediate course corrections.
Flexibility and Adaptability
ADDIE: Flexibility: ADDIE follows a structured, less flexible path. Once a phase is “complete,” returning to it can feel like regression and requires justification. Changes late in the process are expensive and disruptive.
SAM: Flexibility: SAM adapts easily to changing requirements. Its high adaptability allows teams to address challenges early, avoid costly rework, and deliver training materials that evolve alongside organizational needs.
SAM excels in fast-moving or uncertain projects, where requirements may change during development.
Timeline and Speed
ADDIE: Typically takes longer from concept to delivery due to sequential phases. Full analysis must complete before design begins, design before development, etc. Projects commonly span 6-12 months or longer.
SAM: Significantly faster due to concurrent activities and rapid iteration. Design and development happen simultaneously. Many projects complete in 2-4 months.
Stakeholder Involvement
ADDIE: Stakeholders primarily involved in Analysis phase and final Evaluation. May review deliverables at phase gates but often aren’t deeply engaged during development.
SAM: Continuous, intensive stakeholder involvement throughout. Regular prototype reviews, feedback sessions, and collaborative design activities keep stakeholders engaged from start to finish.
Risk Management
ADDIE: Risks discovered late in the process when they’re expensive to address. The comprehensive upfront analysis attempts to identify risks early, but changes in requirements or misunderstandings may not surface until implementation.
SAM: Risks identified and addressed early through rapid prototyping and testing. Quick validation cycles reveal problems when they’re still inexpensive to fix.
Documentation
ADDIE: Produces comprehensive documentation at each phase: detailed analysis reports, design documents, development specifications, implementation plans, and evaluation reports.
SAM: Lighter documentation focused on working prototypes and essential project information. Prioritizes tangible deliverables over exhaustive documentation.
When Each Model Excels
Choose ADDIE when:
- Requirements are stable and well-defined
- Comprehensive documentation is required
- Stakeholders prefer formal phase gates
- The project timeline allows for sequential phases
- The content domain is established and unlikely to change
- Regulatory requirements demand extensive documentation
Choose SAM when:
- Speed is critical
- Requirements may evolve during development
- Stakeholders can actively participate throughout
- Innovation and creativity are priorities
- The organization embraces agile methodologies
- eLearning is the primary delivery method
SAM vs. Other Agile Approaches
SAM vs. Rapid Prototyping
Rapid prototyping has gained traction within Instructional Design as a response to the limiting factors of ADDIE. Specifically, the Successive Approximation Model (SAM) developed by Michael Allen was developed as a response to the boxed-in nature of the ADDIE process.
While “rapid prototyping” describes a technique, SAM is a complete methodology that incorporates rapid prototyping within a structured framework. SAM adds the Preparation Phase (Savvy Start) and formal iterative cycles that rapid prototyping alone doesn’t provide.
SAM vs. Agile Scrum
Both draw from agile principles, but SAM is specifically designed for instructional design while Scrum comes from software development.
Similarities:
- Iterative development
- Regular feedback cycles
- Cross-functional collaboration
- Adaptability to change
- Working products over documentation
Differences:
- SAM has distinct phases (Preparation, Iterative Design, Iterative Development)
- SAM’s Savvy Start has no direct Scrum equivalent
- SAM is less prescriptive about team roles and ceremonies
- SAM focuses specifically on learning outcomes and instructional effectiveness
SAM vs. Lean Startup (for Learning Products)
Lean Startup principles (Build-Measure-Learn) align philosophically with SAM but focus on product-market fit for commercial products. SAM applies similar principles specifically to instructional products, emphasizing learning effectiveness over market validation.
Tools and Resources for SAM Implementation
Essential Reading
“Leaving ADDIE for SAM” by Michael Allen and Richard Sites The definitive guide to the instructional design model SAM, written by its creator. Provides detailed methodology, case studies, and practical guidance.
“Michael Allen’s Guide to e-Learning” by Michael Allen Broader context for Allen’s approach to creating effective learning experiences, of which SAM is a key component.
Online Resources
Allen Interactions Website: The company founded by SAM’s creator offers resources, webinars, and consulting on SAM implementation.
Learning Solutions Magazine: Regular articles on agile instructional design and SAM applications.
eLearning Industry: Articles, case studies, and discussions about SAM and other instructional design models.
Templates and Tools
Savvy Start Agenda Templates: Structured agendas for conducting effective kickoff sessions.
Prototype Review Forms: Templates for gathering structured feedback on iterations.
Project Planning Tools: Tools for managing SAM’s iterative cycles, such as:
- Trello (Kanban boards for managing iterations)
- Asana (Project management with SAM workflow templates)
- Miro (Digital whiteboard for Savvy Start sessions)
- Figma (Collaborative prototyping and design)
Communities and Professional Development
Association for Talent Development (ATD): Professional association offering resources and networking for instructional designers.
eLearning Guild: Community of practice focused on eLearning design and development.
LinkedIn Groups:
- Instructional Design & eLearning Professionals
- Agile Instructional Design
- SAM (Successive Approximation Model) Community
Rapid Authoring Tools Supporting SAM
- Articulate Rise 360 – https://articulate.com/360/rise
- Adobe Captivate – https://www.adobe.com/products/captivate.html
- Lectora Online – https://www.trivantis.com/products/lectora-online/
- Gomo Learning – https://www.gomolearning.com/
- iSpring Suite – https://www.ispringsolutions.com/
Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
Skipping or Rushing the Savvy Start
The Mistake: Teams eager to start designing skip the Savvy Start or conduct it superficially, missing the opportunity to build shared understanding and alignment.
Why It’s Problematic: Without a proper Savvy Start, teams lack consensus on goals, stakeholders have misaligned expectations, and design decisions lack foundation. This leads to confusion and rework later.
How to Avoid: Treat the Savvy Start as non-negotiable. Invest 1-2 days depending on project complexity. Ensure all key stakeholders attend. Don’t move to iterative design until you have clear direction and buy-in.
Creating Too-Polished Early Prototypes
The Mistake: Designers spend excessive time making early prototypes visually polished, defeating SAM’s rapid iteration purpose.
Why It’s Problematic: Over-polishing early prototypes wastes time, creates attachment to specific designs, and makes stakeholders hesitant to suggest major changes since it “looks done.”
How to Avoid: Keep early prototypes deliberately rough—wireframes, sketches, or minimal functionality. Polish comes later. Focus on testing concepts and interactions, not visual design.
Iterating Without Clear Purpose
The Mistake: Teams cycle through iterations without clear goals for each cycle, making changes randomly rather than strategically.
Why It’s Problematic: Aimless iteration wastes time and resources without bringing the solution closer to the ideal. Teams become frustrated and stakeholders lose confidence.
How to Avoid: Define specific objectives for each iteration. What will be tested? What decisions need to be made? What feedback is required? Measure progress against these goals.
Collecting but Not Acting on Feedback
The Mistake: Teams gather extensive feedback but don’t incorporate it into subsequent iterations, or they incorporate everything without prioritization.
Why It’s Problematic: Stakeholders become disengaged when their input is ignored. Incorporating all feedback without prioritization creates scope creep and loss of focus.
How to Avoid: Review all feedback, prioritize using must/should/nice-to-have categories, and communicate decisions clearly. Explain why certain feedback wasn’t incorporated if necessary.
Inadequate Alpha Testing
The Mistake: Teams skip directly from design proof to beta or gold, missing the alpha testing stage where major issues should be identified.
Why It’s Problematic: Problems discovered late are expensive to fix. Beta testing should refine, not reveal major flaws.
How to Avoid: Always create an alpha version with complete functionality even if rough around edges. Test thoroughly with stakeholders and representative users before advancing to beta.
Forgetting to Define “Gold”
The Mistake: Teams iterate indefinitely without clear criteria for what constitutes the finished product.
Why It’s Problematic: Without defined completion criteria, projects drag on as stakeholders continuously request “just one more change.” Timelines and budgets explode.
How to Avoid: During the Savvy Start, define what “gold” means. What quality standards must be met? What functionality must be present? What level of stakeholder approval is required? Document these criteria and reference them when deciding whether the gold version is truly complete.
Key Takeaways
✅ The instructional design model SAM (Successive Approximation Model) emphasizes rapid prototyping, iterative development, and continuous collaboration
✅ SAM exists in two versions: SAM1 for simple projects and SAM2 with dedicated Preparation, Iterative Design, and Iterative Development phases
✅ The Savvy Start collaborative session launches SAM2 projects, building shared understanding and initial prototypes
✅ SAM delivers projects 50-70% faster than traditional approaches while producing higher-quality, more user-friendly learning experiences
✅ SAM requires rapid authoring tools, stakeholder availability, and organizational comfort with agile methodologies
✅ Research shows learners rate SAM-developed training as more impactful and user-friendly compared to traditional eLearning
✅ SAM works best for eLearning, projects with tight timelines, and situations where requirements may evolve during development
✅ The model’s agile principles—fail fast, iterate continuously, collaborate intensively—align with modern product development approaches
References and Resources
- TechSmith (2024). “Understanding the SAM Model for Instructional Design”
- eLearning Art (2024). “What is the SAM Model in Instructional Design?”
- Instructional Design Central. “SAM: Successive Approximation Model Overview”
- Learning Solutions Magazine. Regular articles on agile instructional design and SAM applications.
