Introduction: Rethinking Instructional Design for the Modern Era
In today’s fast-paced business environment, waiting months to develop training programs is no longer viable. Markets shift, technologies evolve, and learner expectations change rapidly. The Instructional Design model SAM (Successive Approximation Model) emerged as a revolutionary response to these challenges, offering an agile, iterative approach that creates better learning experiences faster.
Developed by Dr. Michael Allen and introduced in his 2012 book “Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An Agile Model for Developing the Best Learning Experiences,” the Instructional Design model SAM emphasizes rapid prototyping, continuous collaboration, and iterative refinement over the traditional linear, waterfall approach of models like ADDIE.
What Is the SAM Instructional Design Model?
Das Instructional Design model SAM, which stands for Successive Approximation Model, is an agile Instructional Design framework that uses iterative development and rapid prototyping instead of linear processes. SAM serves as a rapid design and development model that uses shortened agile steps to create holistic and flexible projects.
Core Principles of SAM
Successive Approximation: The first draft or prototype is the “approximation” of the final solution. Each iteration brings the solution successively closer to the ideal outcome. Rather than attempting perfection in one effort, SAM makes progress in small, quick steps.
Rapid Prototyping: SAM Instructional Design has tight timelines and quick turnarounds, focusing on progress over perfection, which is a fundamental premise of rapid E-Learning development. Functional prototypes are created quickly so stakeholders can interact with tangible products rather than abstract concepts.
Iterative Development: The process is fluid by definition, moving through repeated cycles of design, prototype, review, and refine. You can repeat and revisit parts of the process based on feedback and new insights.
Collaborative Approach: Subject matter experts (SMEs) and other stakeholders give feedback on the prototypes. Then, learning experience designers, visual designers, programmers, and eventually animators and quality assurance specialists improve the prototypes based on feedback.
Agile Methodology: Drawing from principles in The Agile Manifesto, SAM prioritizes individuals and interactions over processes and tools, working solutions over comprehensive documentation, customer collaboration over contract negotiation, and responding to change over following a plan.
SAM’s Philosophy: Fail Fast, Learn Quickly
Traditional Instructional Design teams invest significant time coming up with one carefully curated solution. SAM uses intermediate deadlines as incentives and inspiration, with a philosophy to fail fast while early-testing alternative solutions.
While this sounds risky, if you get comfortable with the characteristics of the process and focus on continuous improvement, innovation happens. By testing multiple approaches early when changes are inexpensive, SAM teams discover what works through experimentation rather than extensive upfront planning.
The History and Evolution of SAM
Origins: A Response to ADDIE’s Limitations
The concept of Instructional Systems Design (ISD), rooted in cognitivism, has been around since the 1950s and was first developed as a way to systemically organize instructional material. The ADDIE-Modell became the dominant framework in the 1970s, providing structure to Instructional Design projects.
However, ADDIE was often criticized as being rigid and too linear in nature. An issue often raised with ADDIE is that the process is slow to evaluate training effectiveness and projects can take an excessive amount of time to reach their intended audience due to the waterfall nature of execution.
Michael Allen and the Birth of SAM
Dr. Michael Allen, founder and CEO of Allen Interactions, developed SAM as a direct alternative to ADDIE. With a Ph.D. in educational psychology from The Ohio State University and over 45 years of experience in teaching, developing, and marketing interactive learning systems, Allen was actually an advocate of ADDIE for many years before recognizing the need for a more agile approach.
SAM was formally introduced in 2012 with the publication of “Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An Agile Model for Developing the Best Learning Experiences,” co-authored with Richard Sites. The model represents not something entirely new, but rather a refinement of approaches Allen and his team had been testing and revising since the late 1970s.
The Two Versions: SAM1 and SAM2
Das Instructional Design model SAM exists in two forms: SAM1 (Basic SAM) and SAM2 (Extended SAM). Understanding both versions helps designers choose the appropriate approach for their project needs.
SAM1: Basic SAM for Simple Projects
SAM1 provides a streamlined approach suitable for straightforward training needs or rapid development scenarios.
The SAM1 Cycle:
Evaluate: SAM1 disregards a separate preparation phase. Instead, ideas are evaluated and assessed before moving on to designing the program. Quick assessment of needs and requirements launches the cycle.
Design: Incorporate new design approaches into existing course material or create initial design concepts. Multiple design options are explored through rapid brainstorming.
Develop: Complete and implement the prototype while getting feedback for the next evaluation stage. Working prototypes are created quickly for testing.
Return to Evaluate: Instructional designers cycle through each process until a successful program is reached. Each iteration refines the solution based on evaluation feedback.
When to Use SAM1:
- Simple, straightforward training needs
- Very tight timelines
- Small-scale projects
- Updates to existing materials
- Projects with limited stakeholder involvement
SAM1 allows for very rapid production of training programs where feedback is quickly obtained during the prototyping and testing of different ideas.
SAM2: Extended SAM for Complex Projects
In comparison, the more extensive SAM2 contains a dedicated preparation process and a series of repeating steps broken down into two iterative phases. SAM2 is generally considered the main application of the model and provides a more comprehensive framework for substantial projects.
The SAM2 Structure:
- Preparation Phase
- Iterative Design Phase
- Iterative Development Phase
We’ll explore each phase in detail in the following sections.
Phase 1: Preparation Phase
The Preparation Phase begins with information gathering—collecting background information such as what style of training works best for the organization, who needs to acquire which skills, and what are the constraints and opportunities.
This phase is intended to be a very quick phase, as all design proposals will be double-checked as the process moves forward. The preparation phase is critical to define the learning objectives, understand the audience, and determine the scope of the project.
Key Activities in the Preparation Phase
Rapid Background Information Gathering:
- Identify target audience and their characteristics
- Understand existing knowledge and skill levels
- Determine organizational constraints (budget, timeline, technology)
- Identify available resources and stakeholders
- Establish high-level project goals
The Savvy Start: This phase begins with the Savvy Start, an initial collaborative brainstorming session to establish the project foundation. The session is typically one to two days long and determines how success will be defined and measured. It works for consensus on the overall approach.
Savvy Start Participants: In the book “Leaving ADDIE for SAM,” Richard Sites and Michael Allen listed the desired attendees together with the key contributions they can make for project success:
- Project sponsors and decision-makers
- Subject matter experts
- Learner representatives
- Instructional designers
- Developers and technical experts
- Key stakeholders who will use or be affected by the training
A large team can make the meeting difficult to manage, but not having key stakeholders represented can make the whole project difficult to manage.
Savvy Start Outcomes:
- Shared understanding of the problem
- Consensus on success criteria
- Agreement on general approach
- Identification of content priorities
- Establishment of roles and responsibilities
- Creation of initial design ideas and prototypes
- Timeline and budget framework
Rapid Prototyping Begins: Unlike traditional approaches that produce detailed analysis documents, the Savvy Start often concludes with rough prototypes or design sketches. In the Savvy Start, we see rapid prototypes evolve in front of our eyes, witnessing months of what would’ve been wasted time and resources with ADDIE melt away.
Outputs from the Preparation Phase
- Project charter or brief
- High-level learning objectives
- Stakeholder alignment and buy-in
- Initial prototype concepts
- Project timeline and budget framework
- Risk assessment and mitigation strategies
The preparation phase should be completed quickly—typically 1-5 days depending on project scope—to maintain SAM’s agile momentum while ensuring the foundation is solid.
Phase 2: Iterative Design Phase
Throughout the Savvy Start and Iterative Design Phase, your team will be rotating through design, prototype, and review to make sure all stakeholders can contribute and will enthusiastically support the design direction.
This phase is where the Instructional Design model SAM truly shines. The iterative design phase involves cycles of rapid prototyping, gathering feedback, and refining the design. The focus is on developing an initial prototype as quickly as possible and then continuously improving it through feedback loops.
The Design Cycle: Design → Prototype → Review
Design: As the project moves into the iterative design phase, the team generally becomes smaller and is narrowed down to Subject Matter Experts and project designers/developers. The team develops multiple design concepts, exploring different approaches to achieving learning objectives.
For a start, you need to break down the learning content into parts. For instance, if your program is about inclusivity in the workplace, you want to create small courses that address different parts of the topic to make it easily understandable by the learners.
Prototype: Then, it’s time for the design and distribution of lesson prototypes. Instead of JPEGs or static mockups, teams deliver working models that clients can interact with and see how they function. These prototypes can be rough but must be functional enough to provide meaningful feedback.
Modern rapid authoring tools make this phase significantly easier than traditional development platforms. Tools like HowToo feature visual storyboarding tools, pre-built interactions and fast creation that support SAM’s quick prototyping approach.
Review: During this phase, you’ll receive feedback from learners and stakeholders who have received the prototype. The insights will be your guide to improving and upgrading the modules, constantly aiming for excellence.
A key concept within SAM is that it is easier to assess a product than an idea. With rapid prototyping, organizations can see the program in action, give meaningful feedback, and perform extensive testing. During lengthy analysis typical in other Instructional Design models, teams can only discuss the hypothetical impact of an idea still under development.
Project Planning Within Iterative Design
The project planning phase should always take place after the Savvy Start and consist of setting project timelines, budgets (time and money), and the assigning of tasks that need to be completed.
Project Planning Components:
- Detailed timeline with milestones
- Resource allocation and assignments
- Content development schedules
- Review and feedback cycles
- Technical requirements and specifications
- Quality assurance processes
Certain team members may be responsible for scriptwriting and designing the instructional plan, while others are responsible for the actual development of the training collateral.
Additional Design
Once project planning is complete, the team can move forward with additional designing. This is when project design decisions are made and the instructional components become more polished and tangible.
The additional design phase will use the initial design decisions made within the Savvy Start and further iterate until they have an agreed-upon design proof—a prototype that represents the final direction with enough detail that development can proceed confidently.
Multiple Iterations
There may be many more iterative sessions beyond the Savvy Start depending on how many skills are to be learned and the complexity of them. It’s unlikely all such sessions can or should command attendance by the full initial group, but the Savvy Start will have set the tone, revealed expectations and biases, and established who is really in charge.
Each iteration cycle typically takes days to a few weeks, allowing rapid progress while maintaining quality. Teams cycle through Design → Prototype → Review repeatedly until stakeholders approve a design proof for full development.
Outputs from the Iterative Design Phase
- Approved design proof or functional prototype
- Detailed content outlines
- Interaction specifications
- Visual design direction
- Assessment approaches
- Technical architecture decisions
- Final project plan and timeline
Phase 3: Iterative Development Phase
In the Iterative Development Phase, we work through development, implementation, and evaluation together, creating the complete learning solution through continued iteration and refinement.
Now you can finally start bringing your prototypes to life, turning them into engaging and effective modules that will help you reach your goals. You don’t just refine everything; you add elements, fix errors, expand modules, and make sure they head toward perfection.
Alpha, Beta, and Gold Versions
SAM development progresses through three distinct versions, each representing increasing completeness and polish:
Alpha Version: The first complete version of the solution, which is fully functional. The alpha represents the first full implementation of the approved design proof, with all content and functionality present even if not fully polished.
Key Characteristics:
- Complete content coverage
- All interactions functional
- May contain errors or rough edges
- Focus on functionality over polish
- Used for comprehensive stakeholder review
Beta Version: Version modified by correcting errors and omissions in the alpha version. Based on alpha testing feedback, the beta refines content, fixes technical issues, and improves user experience.
Key Characteristics:
- Errors and issues from alpha corrected
- Content refined based on feedback
- Improved visual polish
- Enhanced usability
- Tested with representative learners
Gold Version: Version that doesn’t require any fix or enhancement—the final, deployment-ready solution. The gold version represents the culmination of all iterative refinement and is ready for full rollout.
Key Characteristics:
- All issues resolved
- Content finalized and polished
- Complete quality assurance passed
- Documentation complete
- Ready for implementation
Continuous Stakeholder Involvement
At each iteration, SMEs, other stakeholders, and key users can evaluate the solution. Their feedback is input for the next iteration and might originate quick corrections or improvements.
This is an approach to prevent going over budget or delivering after the deadline. By catching issues early and making adjustments throughout development rather than discovering major problems at the end, SAM maintains budget and schedule discipline while ensuring quality.
Collaborative Refinement
Here, once again, collaboration is key. You must share ideas and exchange opinions with experts, stakeholders, and even learners or other Instructional Designers because every person can bring unique attributes to the table and lead the program to success faster.
The collaborative nature of SAM development means:
- Regular feedback sessions with stakeholders
- Ongoing SME consultation
- User testing at alpha and beta stages
- Cross-functional team collaboration
- Transparent communication about progress and challenges
Outputs from the Iterative Development Phase
- Gold version ready for deployment
- All course materials and assets
- Facilitator or instructor guides (if applicable)
- Technical documentation
- Implementation plan
- Evaluation framework
- Maintenance and update procedures
Once the iterative development ends, it’s time for rollout—deploying the completed learning solution to the target audience.
Benefits of the SAM Instructional Design Model
If we were to choose the benefits that better represent the strength of SAM, they would include:
Speed and Efficiency
SAM Instructional Design has tight timelines and quick turnarounds. Compared to other Instructional Design models, SAM aims to reduce the time between the initial concept and the final program.
An effective shortcut within Instructional Design, SAM means design and development happen simultaneously through repetitive attempts at producing a successful end product. This can dramatically reduce the timescales when developing new training programs.
Where traditional approaches might take 6-12 months to develop comprehensive training, SAM projects often complete in 2-4 months while delivering superior results.
Early and Frequent Feedback
Das SAM model promotes regular interaction between designers, subject matter experts, and stakeholders. Early and frequent prototyping allows stakeholders to see and engage with the product during its development, rather than after it is completed.
This means that issues are identified and resolved earlier, minimizing the risk of costly rework later in the process. Instead of discovering that your carefully crafted solution misses the mark after months of development, SAM reveals misalignments within days or weeks when corrections are quick and inexpensive.
Flexibility and Adaptability
SAM’s most significant advantage is its ability to accommodate changes throughout the design process. Unlike traditional models like ADDIE, where making changes can be cumbersome, SAM allows instructional designers to continuously test and adjust their prototypes.
This iterative approach is particularly useful in modern learning environments, where new technologies and learner expectations can rapidly evolve. The ability to adapt in real-time helps ensure that the learning product remains relevant and engaging.
Whereas traditional approaches are straight lines, the Successive Approximation Model is fluid by definition. Therefore, it moves faster—like water!
Improved Stakeholder Buy-In
By involving stakeholders throughout the process and showing them working prototypes early, SAM builds consensus and enthusiasm. Stakeholders feel heard, see their input incorporated, and develop ownership of the solution.
The Savvy Start sets the tone, revealing expectations and biases early. This information proves invaluable throughout the project, helping designers navigate organizational dynamics and make decisions that will be supported.
Higher Quality Learning Experiences
Research shows that using SAM methods to develop E-Learning content produced a more impactful and user-friendly learning environment compared to traditional techniques. These results were based on the learner’s perspective using real-world examples of SAM for Instructional Design und E-Learning content development.
The results revealed that the final (Gold) version, based on SAM, was more impactful and user-friendly, compared to the traditional E-Learning environment, according to the learner’s perspective.
Why does SAM produce better learning experiences?
- Designs are tested with actual users, not just reviewed by stakeholders
- Multiple design alternatives are explored rather than committing to one approach upfront
- Continuous refinement addresses usability issues progressively
- Real-world testing reveals what actually works versus what designers think will work
- Learner feedback directly influences the final product
Cost-Effectiveness
While upfront prototyping might seem like extra work, SAM actually reduces overall costs:
- Errors caught early when fixes are inexpensive
- Less rework because of continuous validation
- Reduced scope creep through clear, agreed-upon prototypes
- Faster development reducing labor costs
- Higher success rates meaning less need for remediation or replacement
The popularity of SAM lies in its agile approach and, thus, its cost-effectiveness. Businesses and educational facilities often opt for E-Learning content developers who know how to create programs in a shorter span of time that are both effective and engaging.
Innovation and Creativity
SAM’s rapid prototyping approach encourages experimentation and creative solutions. Teams can try bold ideas knowing they’ll test them quickly and adjust if needed.
This fail-fast philosophy leads to innovation that more cautious, linear approaches might never attempt. What makes the model unique is its constant feedback loops that give Instructional Designers plenty of opportunities to fine-tune their creations and deliver a program that hits the mark.
Challenges and Limitations of SAM
While powerful, the Instructional Design model SAM isn’t perfect for every situation. Understanding its limitations helps you apply it appropriately.
Requires Rapid Authoring Tools
The process of quick prototyping and iterations is not suited to certain software platforms that have been traditionally used by instructional designers and developers, such as authoring tools like Articulate Storyline or Adobe Captivate.
These technologies are simply too time-consuming to create rough iterations with, and lack easy-to-use storyboarding tools. Instead, SAM is better suited to newer, rapid authoring tools such as HowToo that feature visual storyboarding tools, pre-built interactions and fast creation.
Organizations locked into traditional authoring platforms may struggle to implement SAM effectively without retooling.
Demands Stakeholder Availability
SAM requires tight deadlines and fast turnarounds to generate new course material or content and potentially overhaul the entire structure. This demands continuous stakeholder involvement throughout the process.
If key decision-makers or SMEs can’t commit time for regular feedback sessions, SAM’s collaborative approach breaks down. Organizations where stakeholders prefer to review finished products rather than participate in development may find SAM frustrating.
Can Feel Chaotic
Some clients may struggle with adopting new technologies, and may also struggle with SAM’s slightly chaotic and highly involved methodology. The iterative, evolving nature of SAM can feel uncomfortable for people accustomed to linear processes with clear phase gates.
Without strong project management and communication, SAM projects can feel disorganized or directionless, particularly in early iterations when multiple alternatives are being explored.
Less Suitable for Highly Regulated Content
In industries with strict compliance requirements or where every word must be legally reviewed, SAM’s rapid iteration can create challenges. The flexibility to change direction quickly conflicts with approval processes that require sign-offs at defined stages.
While SAM can work in regulated environments, it requires adaptation and may lose some of its speed advantages.
Requires Cultural Shift
Organizations deeply rooted in waterfall methodologies may struggle with SAM’s agile philosophy. The shift from “getting it right the first time” to “failing fast and iterating” represents a cultural change that not all organizations embrace easily.
Leadership must understand and support SAM’s approach, or teams may face resistance when projects don’t follow traditional patterns.
Documentation May Be Lighter
SAM prioritizes working prototypes over comprehensive documentation. While this accelerates development, it can create challenges:
- Less detailed project archives for future reference
- Difficulty transferring knowledge if team members change
- Potential gaps in rationale documentation
- Challenges for organizations that require extensive documentation for compliance or institutional memory
Measuring SAM Success
Quantitative Metrics
Development Efficiency:
- Time from project kickoff to deployment
- Number of development hours per learning hour
- Cost per learning hour developed
- Number of iterations required to reach gold version
Quality Indicators:
- Completion rates
- Assessment pass rates
- Error/bug rates at each stage (alpha, beta, gold)
- Technical performance metrics (load times, compatibility)
Learning Effectiveness:
- Pre/post-assessment score improvements
- Knowledge retention at 30, 60, 90 days
- On-the-job behavior change
- Performance metric improvements linked to training
Business Impact:
- ROI calculations
- Time-to-competency for new hires
- Productivity improvements
- Quality improvements or error reductions
- Revenue or cost impacts
Qualitative Measures
Stakeholder Feedback:
- Satisfaction with SAM process
- Perceived quality of final product
- Willingness to use SAM again
- Suggestions for improvement
Learner Feedback:
- Engagement and satisfaction ratings
- Perceived relevance and applicability
- Preferences compared to other training
- Open-ended comments and suggestions
Team Experience:
- Designer satisfaction with process
- Perceived efficiency and effectiveness
- Skill development and growth
- Stress levels and work-life balance
Comparative Analysis
The most compelling SAM success metrics come from comparing similar projects:
Before/After Comparisons: Compare SAM projects to previous similar projects using traditional methods:
- Development timeline reduction
- Cost savings
- Quality improvements
- Learner outcome improvements
Control Group Studies: When possible, develop similar training using both SAM and traditional approaches, then compare results across all metrics.
Conclusion: SAM’s Place in Modern Instructional Design
Das Instructional Design model SAM represents a fundamental shift in how learning professionals approach their craft. By embracing agile principles—rapid prototyping, iterative refinement, continuous collaboration, and failing fast—SAM addresses the limitations of traditional linear models while delivering superior results faster.
Research confirms that using SAM methods to develop E-Learning content produces more impactful and user-friendly learning environments compared to traditional techniques, based on learner perspectives. This evidence, combined with SAM’s documented speed and cost advantages, explains its growing adoption across industries.
Yet SAM isn’t universally superior to all approaches. It requires organizational readiness, stakeholder availability, appropriate tools, and cultural acceptance of agile methodologies. Organizations must honestly assess whether SAM fits their context or whether traditional approaches, hybrid models, or other frameworks serve better.
For many instructional designers and organizations, particularly those developing E-Learning in fast-moving environments, the Instructional Design model SAM offers compelling advantages:
- Speed: Projects complete 50-70% faster than traditional approaches
- Quality: Continuous testing and refinement produce better learning experiences
- Flexibility: Easy adaptation to changing requirements and new insights
- Engagement: Stakeholder involvement throughout builds buy-in and ownership
- Innovation: Rapid experimentation encourages creative solutions
- Cost-effectiveness: Early problem identification prevents expensive late-stage corrections
Unter diesem Link is a further article discussing deeper insights of SAM Instructional Design model:
Implementing SAM: Practical Strategies,
SAM vs. ADDIE: Understanding the Differences,
SAM vs. Other Agile Approaches,
Tools and Resources for SAM Implementation,
Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them.
References and Resources
Foundational Books
- Allen, M. W., & Sites, R. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An Agile Model for Developing the Best Learning Experiences. ASTD Press. The definitive guide to SAM by its creator.
- Allen, M. W. (2016). Michael Allen’s Guide to e-Learning: Building Interactive, Fun, and Effective Learning Programs for Any Company (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Research and Academic Sources
- Subsequent Studies on SAM Effectiveness: Research showing SAM-developed E-Learning was more impactful and user-friendly from learner perspectives.
- Multiple case studies documented in learning journals and conference proceedings
- Agile Manifesto (2001). Foundational principles that influenced SAM’s development.
Industry Resources and Articles
- Allen Interactions Company Website. Resources, webinars, and case studies on SAM implementation.
- E-Learning Industry (2024). “SAM Model: A Beginner’s Guide to the Successive Approximation Model”
Deutsch (Sie) 
English