Successive Approximation Model

(SAM)

Overview

The Successive Approximation Model (SAM) is an iterative, agile approach to instructional design that emphasizes flexibility and continuous improvement throughout the design and development process (Allen, 2012). Developed by Michael Allen, SAM was created as an alternative to more linear models like ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation), which can be time-consuming and less adaptive to changes (Allen & Sites, 2012).

SAM is designed to address the dynamic needs of instructional projects by incorporating rapid prototyping and constant feedback loops (Allen, 2012). The model operates in cycles, which are broken down into three key phases: Preparation, Iterative Design, and Iterative Development.

The SAM phases are briefly detailed below:

Preparation Phase

This initial phase involves understanding the project’s scope, defining objectives, and gathering necessary resources. The goal is to quickly gain insight into the problem at hand and identify any potential challenges or constraints. This phase also includes initial planning and determining the design team (Allen & Sites, 2012).

  • Needs assessment
  • Define learning objectives
  • Background information gathering
  • Stakeholder collaboration

Iterative Design Phase

In this phase, the focus is on rapid prototyping. Designers create early versions or "alpha" prototypes of the instructional material that can be quickly reviewed and tested. Feedback is gathered from stakeholders and users, and the prototype is refined in successive cycles. This allows for continuous improvement and alignment with learning objectives as the design progresses (Allen, 2012).

  • Savvy start - a meeting of the minds
  • Project planning - design team proceeds with detailed planning
  • Design elements - creating and refining elements to support L/O
  • Prototype development - small-scale version 
  • formative evaluation - evaluation, and testing of prototype 
  • Feedback analysis - feedback from learners and evaluators 

Iterative Development Phase

Once the design is solidified, the development of the final instructional product begins. This phase still incorporates iterations, but they are more focused on refining content, ensuring usability, and integrating feedback from the testing phase. The final product is tested thoroughly before implementation, with ongoing adjustments made as needed (Allen & Sites, 2012).

  • Design proof
  • Alpha stage - first working version of instruction materials
  • Beta stage - builds on the Alpha by incorporating feedback
  • Gold stage - materials are polished and refined to final state

Source: Created in Canva

Implications

Using the Successive Approximation Model (SAM) in developing instructional products for a large workforce has several key implications:

Enhanced flexibility and responsiveness. SAM’s iterative approach allows for greater flexibility in the design and development process. This is particularly beneficial when creating products for a large and diverse workforce, as it enables designers to quickly adapt to feedback and changes in organizational needs or learner requirements. The ongoing feedback loops in SAM ensure that the final product is more closely aligned with the actual needs of the workforce, leading to higher relevance and effectiveness of the training materials (Allen, 2012).

Improved stakeholder engagement. The iterative nature of SAM involves continuous collaboration with stakeholders, including subject matter experts (SMEs) and representatives from the target audience. This collaboration ensures that the training products are practical and applicable across various roles and departments within a large workforce. Involving stakeholders throughout the process helps in gaining buy-in and ensures that the content meets the diverse needs of the entire organization (Allen & Sites, 2012).

Scalability. SAM’s modular approach allows for the development of scalable training solutions. When dealing with a large workforce, it's crucial to create training that can be easily scaled across different regions, departments, and employee levels. The modular nature of SAM makes it easier to update and repurpose training materials as needed, without having to redesign entire programs, thereby saving time and resources (Allen & Sites, 2012).

Time and resource management. While SAM is designed to be efficient, the iterative cycles can sometimes extend timelines if not carefully managed. For large-scale workforce training, this can be a challenge, especially when there is a need for rapid deployment. Organizations must ensure that they allocate sufficient resources, including time and personnel, to handle the iterative development and continuous feedback cycles that SAM requires (Allen, 2012).

Quality assurance. The iterative testing and refinement process in SAM helps in maintaining high-quality standards across all training materials. This is crucial when training large workforces, as inconsistencies or errors in training can have widespread negative impacts. SAM’s built-in quality assurance steps help in identifying and addressing issues early, ensuring that the final product is both effective and error-free (Allen & Sites, 2012).

 

Strengths and Limitations

The strength of SAM in workforce education lies in its adaptability. Because the model encourages ongoing feedback and revision, it helps designers and stakeholders to identify and solve issues early in the process, reducing the risk of major setbacks later on (Allen, 2012). Additionally, the iterative nature of SAM ensures that the final instructional product is closely aligned with learner needs and organizational goals (Allen & Sites, 2012).

SAM is particularly effective in environments where requirements may evolve, or where initial project details are not fully defined. It offers a practical, adaptive framework that aligns well with the fast-paced nature of modern instructional design projects (Allen, 2012).

The drawback for using SAM is in its complexity. Instructional designers must have a firm understanding of the concept and phases of the model.  

 

Strengths
Flexibility: SAM allows for adjustments throughout the design process, making it highly adaptable to changes in project requirements or unforeseen challenges. I t also allows designers to focus on learner needs.
Continuous Improvement: The model’s iterative approach promotes regular feedback, ensuring the instructional design remains relevant and effective.
Efficiency: By focusing on rapid prototyping and successive refinement, SAM can lead to faster development cycles compared to more traditional models.
Stakeholder collaboration: SAM promotes collaboration among stakeholders
Limitations
Time Management: The iterative nature of SAM can sometimes lead to extended timelines if not managed carefully, as continuous revisions may extend the project duration.
Resource Intensity: The need for regular feedback and testing may require more resources, including time and personnel, which can be a constraint in some projects.
Potential for Scope Creek: If not carefully managed, the iterative nature of the model can extend the project scope beyond initial plans.
Complexity: The model requires more than a fundamental understanding of the concept and phases.

References

 

Allen, M. W. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An agile model for developing the best learning experiences. American Society for Training and Development.

Allen, M. W., & Sites, R. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM: The field guide to the agile, iterative development of instructional materials. American Society for Training and Development.