A Comparative Study of

Rapid Prototyping and Instructional Systems Development

in Instructional Design

 

Jessica Sanchez

Jason Ford

Fredrick Kaplan

Luis Vazquez

University of Texas- Brownsville

Rapid prototyping and the instructional systems development are two differing methodologies which have been gradually merged to produce a more intuitive development of instructional design. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate both complementary and compensatory relationship between rapid prototyping and the traditional system’s approach as well as discussing the role rapid prototyping plays in the systematic design of instruction. Key points that will be discussed include the history and evolution of rapid prototyping into a popular and effective instructional design model; advantages and disadvantages of both models; and finally, how the two can be implemented in ways that both complement and compensate each other.

 Rapid prototyping began as a process for manufacturing models and prototype parts to test the design and illustrate features in order to help reduce project risk and cost. Due to the development of powerful and modular software applications, different disciplines, such as instructional design have been able to use rapid prototyping as a methodology; thereby, the onset in the development of highly evolved media applications has allowed for rapid prototyping to be applied to instructional design. Since then, other models of rapid prototyping have also evolved (see Figure 1). Rapid prototyping shares a complementary and compensatory relationship with the system’s approach and plays a role in the systematic design of instruction. Also, further study on rapid prototyping’s advantages and disadvantages allows the conceptualization of how RP fits in relation to the systematic approach to ID.  

 

 

 

Trip and Bichelmeyer (1990) mention that the instructional designer, as a problem solver, cannot assume all possible solutions to problems that are lacking in information, which is a common occurrence in the field. Because of this, the design becomes what they state as “a reflection-in-action” (p. 34)(left to the designer’s interpretation); where designers are asked to take “indeterminate ideas” (p.34) and make them concrete. Therefore Trip and Bichelmeyer (1990) state, "design begins as a conjecture, and after utilization, a modification job which involves finding as well as solving problems. Given this conceptualization of the design process, it follows that any design methodology which acknowledges the complexity of the situation may be more efficient because it anticipates and short-circuits the kinds of problems designers typically encounter" (p. 34). It is from this idea that Trip and Bichelmeyer developed the rapid prototyping instructional design model.

Similar to the software design model, the rapid prototyping instructional design model is the creation of the model system as a means to develop the complete system itself. So what role do rapid prototyping models play in the systematic design of instruction? Though many models have emerged from that of Trip and Bichelmeyer (1990); rapid prototyping models generally conform to ADDIE’s ID cluster of phases: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation (Jones & Richey, 2000). In Figure 2, Piskurich (2000) provides a list of techniques used in rapid prototyping within each phase of the ADDIE. Those techniques involving prototype construction and implementation tend to combine design and development activities. They also have a tendency to emphasize pre-design analysis and design and development while de-emphasizing summative evaluation in favor of formative evaluation throughout the process. These models also differ in that RP runs parallel processing of the various design and development tasks. Because of this, RP methods encourage iterative design based on structured early feedback.

 

The main reason for using the RP model is that it reduces cycle time production. This is presumed because RP ensures that required revisions to the product and process occur early in the cycle. Much of the design activities are run in parallel and increased use of computer-based design and development tools facilitate prototype construction. RP models create a different paradigm in the role that clients/users play in the overall process.

 

In the systematic approach to ID, clients do not see the product until it is nearly completed. Thus, changes to the product occur late in the process that can lead to high costs in development and time, perhaps even terminating that product and beginning again. In RP, client involvement is crucial because revisions done to the prototype are made early on and throughout the process, thereby allowing for feasible changes. The ability for the client to see the product in its nearly deliverable format (which RP provides in the early stages) allows clients to better visualize what they want and they can request changes (Jones & Richey, 2000). As far as evaluation and feedback are concerned, they occur throughout the process as client and designer collaborate.

 

 

Jones and Richey (2000) present a revised model (see Figure 3) to help illustrate a more comprehensive model showing client involvement, designer tasks, and concurrent processing of each task. As you can see from the diagram, there is overlap between the phases showing concurrent processing as well as within bracketing tasks and connector arrows. Evaluation and feedback surrounds the whole model to demonstrate that they are applied throughout the entire project due to client involvement.

The advantages of RP and ISD should not be considered mutually-exclusive.  Researchers have noted that each methodology has its own set of advantages. What should drive the decision in choosing which one to utilize are the particular needs and/or the constraints of the specific project. The following represents the common advantages of each design system.

 

 Instructional Systems Development

 

Used most frequently in both industry and the military, ISD provides a very set and established structure for keeping the designer and the instruction on task.  Objectives are determined up front from the instructional goal and the analysis of both the content and its learners (Dick and Carey, 2005; “What is,” 2003).  Because it is linear in nature--with each phase gaining momentum from the one preceding it--ISD is considered very conclusive in its final product (Jones 'et al., n.d.).

 

The ISD process also provides a detailed blueprint for the sets of skills and subskills needed for the learner to accomplish the tasks set forth in its goals and objectives (Dick & Carey, 2005; Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990). This, in turn, allows for a strict focus on, and accountability to, the final task during each phase of the process. Such accountability to each phase and its results are why the ISD approach is recommended for a novice designer. It teaches a beginning designer to remember the connection between, and the consequences of, each decision as it affects the final results (Jones 'et al., n.d.).

 

Through a formative evaluation phase built into the ISD, the designer can test the product at a given point to make sure it is progressing smoothly towards its goal. If there exists an error, the formative evaluation allows for the chance to correct it before reaching the client. Once the system is designed and implemented, a final summative evaluation phase examines its success as a whole, noting any changes that may need to be made for future uses. (Dick & Carey, 2005). Thus, the ISD method also has the advantage of portability. It breaks up learning content into cognitively edible portions which can be duplicated or modified as needed for use in other areas (“What is,” 2003).  It therefore serves as an editable template that can be reused and modified over and over again (Dick & Carey, 2005).

 

Rapid Prototyping

 

Noting that an ISD is very conclusive in its final product, rapid prototyping also yields results that prove just as efficient (Jones & Richey, 2000). Heavily and successfully used in the software and manufacturing sector, the main advantage to rapid prototyping is its ability to provide a high quality product in less time for less cost.  With the analysis phase running parallel with the design/development phase, the nonlinear structure of RP allows for greater flexibility in product development (Tripp &  Bichelmeyer, 2000). 

 

Having greater and constant collaboration and feedback with clients and end-users, the designer is able to make constant revisions to a prototype as it is being developed (Jones 'et al., 2000; Tripp and Bichelmeyer, 1990). This allows the designer to test out new ideas without having to be committed to them should they fail (Tripp and Bichelmeyer, 1990). Such flexibility and testing allows the designer to not only solve problems but discover new ones as users interact with the prototypes, thus leading to more accurate revisions up front and reducing the possibility of a costly change in the end (Tripp and Bichelmeyer, 1990). Rapid prototyping also allows clients to get a better idea of what will actually be required by its users since they can interact with a prototype (Tripp and Bichelmeyer, 1990).  This, in turn, reduces both time and cost, as fruitless endeavors are not pursued due to a lack of knowledge or understanding (Jones 'et al., n.d.).

 

Rapid prototyping is also considered to be more advantageous when confronting scenarios where there may be an uncertainty in end-users’ needs. The ability to test a prototype in the early phases of analysis can help clarify any complexities that may exist. Because rapid prototyping is more flexible and can be adapted to specific situations, it is sometimes preferable over more generic methods that do not seem to address a specific need or cause adequately. Rapid prototyping is also advantageous when there is a need for something new that has not been tried before. The ability to concurrently develop and analyze can help the designer acquire new knowledge along the way and test whether or not it may be a valid method before too much time or money is invested in it (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990).

 

Lastly, a noted advantage of RP is the high satisfaction expressed by clients and users in regards to customer service due to the constant communication with the designer. The concurrent collaboration and design phase of the process was acknowledged by both client and the designer in contributing to the reduced production time and higher quality represented in the final project. Such positive results with the clients have lead to a greater satisfaction rate of the RP process by the designer as well. (Jones & Richey, 2000).

 

Because rapid prototyping is much faster to implement than the ISD methodology, it can falsely lead the designer toward several pitfalls: Feature creep and scope creep.  These cases have been denoted by some of the foremost authorities on rapid prototyping (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990).    

 

Feature creep is the uncontrolled addition of features or functionality to a system in development without regard to cost or schedule (Fitcher, Aug 2003). Scope creep is the unexpected and uncontrolled growth of user expectations and requirements as a project progresses (Fitcher, Aug 2003).  

 

A resourceful instructional design team has to find a common ground between the use of rapid prototyping and how the use of this concept within the context of instructional design will both complement and compensate for ISD. One manner in which rapid prototyping serves to complement ISD is that it, “brings people with different skills together early in the design process,” (Bichelmeyer & Boling, 1998) which allows for a more robust design process. It is this diversity that is infused into the design process by virtue of the different strategies that a group of skilled instructional designers can provide that makes rapid prototyping a concept worth implementing.

 

According to Bichelmeyer and Boling (1998), “A survey of literature shows that many instructional designers and theorists recognize the potential value in rapid prototyping for ISD, and recognize that the inclusion of rapid prototyping in the ISD process requires fundamental changes to that process.” The aforementioned text indicates a growing trend towards acceptance of rapid prototyping as a viable tool for instructional design. One of the major benefits of incorporating rapid prototyping into the instructional design process is the reduction in the length of time needed to design and develop instruction (Jones & Richey, 2000). Due to this reduction in “cycle-time” duration, it can be inferred that rapid prototyping does in fact complement instructional design since it allows for designing and testing to occur in a parallel setting.

 

Although RP has been primarily associated with computer aided design and computer based learning, it can also be seen as a compensatory tool for existing instructional design models (Jones, Li, & Merrill, 2008). The instructional design process is made up of five concepts which make up the ADDIE model (Carey, Carey & Dick, 2005). To maximize the effectiveness of this model, the implementation of rapid prototyping allows for results to be provided early in the process, rather than towards the latter stages of development.

 

Another area where RP compensates the instructional design process is related to any changes that need to be made to the design, do not cause the process to start anew; instead it allows for modifications to be made during the course of the development and need not cause the process to be stalled or terminated (Jones, Li, & Merrill, 2008). A well designed prototype can encourage and motivate the design team by providing extended communication which can only serve to improve upon an existing design. The use of RP also allows for feedback to be provided based on the prototype. This allows for changes to the design of the instruction presented to be modified prior to the final draft being available, thus reducing time and increasing productivity (Jones & Richey, 2000).

 

The future of RP, as complementary and compensatory to instructional design, is bright and appears to be a practice that many instructional designers will utilize. To have the option of making changes to instructional materials or designs during the development of the learning context allows for a more fluid design to be implemented. In cases where there are many designers, RP becomes even more valuable because there is a large knowledge base available.Rapid prototyping is such a versatile process that it can be used by an individual designer or entire groups of design teams.  

This study is not meant to state that one model should be used over the other. If approached properly, implementing the two models allows the practitioner to take the benefits of both while eliminating their individual disadvantages. Figure 4 is the proposed model for combining the ISD with RP. As seen from the illustration, the main skeleton of the model is that of the ISD model the RP is shown around the gray area is spread through most of the process. In this model client involvement will be increased. During or at the ending stages of the instructional, learner and context analysis the client will be presented with a prototype shell of the layout. The purpose of this is to help clear up any fuzzy areas the client may have in the proposed project, therefore developing a more concrete idea and allowing for modifications. Further in the process the prototype is represented with requested revisions as well as added instructional materials to provide a more comprehensive viewing. To ensure that feature creep and scope creep does not occur, the project leader needs to play a critical role in making the client understand the time constraints & the efficacy of the project/product. Using the methodology of RP, formative evaluation and feedback is provided throughout.

The relationship between rapid prototyping and the systematic approach to instructional systems development is complementary because, alone, the systematic approach to ISD has a significant development time. The rapid prototyping model reduces this time and allows for development of a more concrete implementation due to client-designer collaboration. If a design defect is found, it can be caught and corrected in the early stages of development rather than at the final stages. Rapid prototyping also allows for greater variance of educational approaches than the systems design model. This benefit can be attributed to the fact that systematic instruction is designed to establish a singular, fundamental design prototype in which small modifications can be made to increase performance. In addition, rapid prototyping encourages parallel development of completely independent, dynamic, and creative approaches to instruction. The ISD model keeps the designers in focus because of it’s linear design as well as offering portability. The fact that RP, when compared to the standard ISD model, does show significant benefits does not exclude traditional ISD from its effective nature. Research shows that both models, though independent, seem to work best when used in conjunction in order to provide the best possible learning contexts.