Your post recognizes a key consideration – namely that learning is for the learners not the assessors. The techniques used to provide learning that fits the needs of learners rather than our expectations of what those needs should are involves all sorts of design approaches.

For example, constructing a content management system / discovery portal involves design in terms of User Interface, taxonomy and content structure and metadata. Many would argue that a CMS and the knowledge within it falls outsides the bounds of elearning, I however disagree.

Barb, you say that as an instructional designer, “what I heard you say is that you equate ISD with ONE type of learning process or style.” Well, no, I questioned whether the same instructional design approach would be valid for cognitive learning, emotional learning, physical learning, disciplined listening, and wine tasting. I am skeptical that the same design approach fits both learning to speak French and learning to rollerblade unless you water ADDIE and HPT down beyond recoginiton.”

The Big Question was “how much an instructional designer and instructional design are needed?” I don’t think instructional design in and of itself can answer that question.

Every project presents it’s own unique complexities and on that basis the more experienced you are at managing or developing the skill transfer process, then the more common sense and intuition you have to pull from.

Having said that, many highly talented trainers or tutors can look at the sequencing of knowledge and in an instant know what should be changed to make the learning interaction hum. And that skill is priceless. People at that level don’t need an instructional designer and the market knows it.

However, after the debacle of eLearning 1.0, I believe that eLearning 2.0 brings tracked, measured and audited elearning into clear focus. It is imperative that elearning or distance learning technologies offer assessment and authentication processes of skills being transferred, if the true value of the emerging technology is to be achieved.

With that standard in mind, and in protection of your client’s objectives/learning outcomes, it makes common sense to have an instructional designer on the team or work with a contractor, especially if it is a large multi-course, multi team project, if only to protect yourself. However, the reality is that not all instructional designers are highly creative and capable of engaging the learner’s willingness to learn.

A fairly cost-effective way you could consider working with an instructional designer but still retaining the creative approach is for you to create the flow charts for the content, identifying the outcome required at each step. You contract the ID to identify the sequenced learning steps to be achieved at each junction. You can then build the content creatively, using that as a roadmap moving forward. After the content has been completed, contract the ID to check that you worked according to the roadmap.

Overall, I do think it is due time that elearning projects become 100% accountable for the delivery of skills that should transfer into increased business performance.