Is Instructional Design dead in the presence of Ai? That's the hot topic these days. The reality is that Instructional Design died about 10 years ago. It had nothing to do with technology. 🤔 When you check history, even the original ADDIE implementation for the military was not fully adopted. Each military service went their own way and made their own version of it. 🤡 Then we need to add to that an industry that is hollow and not saying much but unopposed blanket declarations of "impact". 🤒 It's an industry where "research inspired" seems okay to steal ideas and make them your own. 👩🎨 To each, their own my friends, but to me ID today is just multimedia design (html, video, digital print, vr) with non-related fancy learning terms. AND newsflash job seekers, that's what you are being hired for. Now let's get back to regular programming. I passed by a major LnD conference this AM, it was way less people than the previous year. #LearningAndDevelopment #InstructionalDesign #eLearning #TrainingAndDevelopment
I remember taking your Elearning Launch classes when I was starting out. They were super helpful. That was less than 10 years ago. What changed Alex?
When I look at instructional design/learning design/developer roles, most jobs want applicants to have some or all of the following: LMS platform experience eLearning authoring tools (Articulate/Captivate/Camtasia) Project management tools (Jira/Asana) Microsoft Office (PowerPoint, Excel, Word) AI-powered content tools Structured documentation workflows Data-informed evaluation It's like they want that one person to have it all, just like the tech fields screened for data analytics, data science, etc., 5-7 years ago.
I actually think this is less ID is dead and more ID as we knew it has changed. The printing industry is a good analogy. When desktop publishing arrived, it didn’t kill communication, it removed the gatekeepers. Now we’re seeing something similar in L&D. SMEs can generate LMS ready content as easily as building a PowerPoint. AI can handle visuals, video, structure, even draft TNA’s and lesson plans in minutes. That doesn’t remove the need for thinking it removes the production bottleneck. In my world (operational training), we’re already using AI-driven digital TTXs, adaptive pathways, and professional discussion style assessments instead of static modules. The key is in designing the AI system, guardrails, and the performance data behind it. I’m genuinely interested to see which parts of L&D evolve, and which try to defend the old model.
I share a similar perspective. Thx for putting this out there. I think these are the types of conversations our field should be having. The way we consume information, get answers and learn has changed drastically recently. In 2026, we don’t consume, comprehensive content dumps on a topic; we get specific answers to specific problems we’re looking to solve. And the rate of change isn’t slowing down, it’s speeding up. Training/ID/LXD needs to reflect that. One way to do that is to create highly-polished content that gets straight to the point and provides answers. So I am aligned with your comment about ID’s mostly just creating or curating content. I think it accurately reflects the current state of how people learn every day. The other integral piece to our work in corporate roles is consulting on whether a gap can be filled with a training or non-training intervention and making right-sized recommendations.
I don’t think ID is dead. I think content-centric ID is dying. For years, instructional design drifted into asset production. Courses, modules, multimedia with learning language layered on top. AI just exposed how fragile that value proposition was. But designing for performance, behavior, decision quality, and workflow integration? That’s not dead. That’s more necessary than ever. If the job is building content, the role shrinks. If the job is shaping capability and systems, it evolves. The field isn’t disappearing. It’s being forced to grow up.
ID is evolving into both content design, program management and project management with AI to help manage efficiencies. In my experiences interviewing the ability to explain how I'd use AI as part of my development process or part of scoping/deployment has been what is successful. IDs now should be strong yes developing the content but also designing programs that don't just drive learning but also drive company KPIs. I think it's a hard pivot if certain roles don't foster what is becoming the “new standard” for IDs. Great dialogue.
Alex Salas bringing some heat today, again. 😄 Some instructional design died with the corporate consolidation of roles. Try as some might, it's really hard for the team of ones out there to do all the roles they are asked to do. And multimedia design is definitely a driver. I get annoyed at the software tools that have pushed this forward as well, though I know they are just trying to sell licenses. Interesting observation on the major LnD conference, though I didn't like that one as much the one time I attended it. I also wonder if big conferences are still a significant draw. Give me a small, targeted conference any day. And so much content is available online now that I wonder how many people just prefer that (though you don't get the same type of networking).