Regardless of massive technological changes such as the Ai revolution we are currently undergoing or major up-skilling campaigns, instructional design’s mission in enterprise environments does not change. Businesses will need instructional designers to guide the foundational structure of training programs based on validated scientific research, and the appropriate business aesthetics.
Instructional Design (ID) is not technology-dependent, it can be practiced to develop effective instruction regardless of delivery methodology or training context. However, we need to be clear of what level of instructional design we are focusing on for this article. We are certainly focusing on the context of training and instruction which are the targeted function of instructional design that was developed specifically to train workers in shipyards during World War I, support the Training Within Industry (TWI) movement during World War II and train folks on job performance during the 60s and 70s. Therefore, it is important to bring this up because today’s ID work in the private sector is more about educational technology (EdTech) than anything else.
What is Instructional Design anyway?
Instructional Design has grown from a Systems Approach to Training (SAT) U.S. military complex and systematic arrangement of instructional techniques to also making interactive simulations and scenarios. You can find many definitions out there but they may be only truly representative of the work done by its first customer, the U.S. military. The definitions would usually mention “systematic” meaning more than just a course of study. It means thinking of all contact points a learner will have in a training expedition from the moment they find out they have training to complete. The other words that usually accompany the ID definition are: Analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. Each first letter of these words give us the acronym ADDIE and as you would guess, the acronym means different things to different people. However, the main difference between ID and just asking a supervisor to train folks is that the former will train by intention and the latter will be more “by absorption”.
Regardless of massive technological changes such as the Ai revolution we are currently undergoing or major up-skilling campaigns, instructional design’s mission in enterprise environments does not change.
Training by Intention
In 1916, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson calls for the establishment of the Emergency Fleet Corporation to train thousands of men in the shipyards. Vocational educator C.R. Allen who was also an MIT and Harvard graduate. The training methods labeled by Allen were “training by absorption” which is what most colleges often do even to this day. And obviously, the “absorption” part was the expectation out of just reading texts and being lectured. Training by Intention meant taking learners through a Herbartian Step sequence which prepared the learner, present the task to be performed, practice with feedback, and perform with supervision. The name of this sequence is credited to Johann Friedrich Herbart After the end of the war, Allen published the book The Instructor, The Man, and the Job in 1919 with all specific details of how to conduct training of green men using a modified version of Herbartian steps. The book also breaks down each function of a training department and how it should operate.
Why is Ai not replacing ID?
There are many reasons why Ai won’t replace ID and why business will have to still rely on the latter: Coordination. Based on my experience of over 15 years, instructional designers always fill in gaps most companies are not aware of. Who fills in quickly to support a marketing information campaign? Is not marketing, oh no, those folks are always too busy with the next conference right? What about whipping up an infograph to explain upcoming changes to certain departments? Not many people have the skills a good ID has to do this. Who’s going to document your processes? If you are lucky, you got this down and arranged for, but I have to tell you that I have only found three large enterprises that document their processes and one of them was the U.S. Navy. Chances are IDs will help you quickly document stuff because they run into processes all the time. Aside from that, who’s best to inform you of operational silos, rework, and redundancies? You guessed it! IDs talk to multiple teams and get to know folks in various areas of the company that are seldom connected. Therefore, it is not that AI could not do these things, of course it can but like all things, it requires way too much time and money right now for companies to care. That work is happening now in high-profit areas such as sales, marketing, and C-Suite projects.