For the purposes of his paper, Rob treats the TBT field as a whole, and I find I agree with much of what he says. There is a distinction, however, which I'd want to make (and it may be more apparent in the UK than elsewhere) between commercially-produced TBT, and TBT products which emerge from UK colleges & universities (primarily as a result of Government "initiatives"). I find the distinction marked and sharp, since I've spent a number of years in both camps--in industry producing technology-based teaching and training materials, and in Higher Education teaching software engineering, multimedia, and CAI.
While I found commercially-produced TBT generally to have strong ID components and to use a systems life cycle approach in both design and project management, I have found higher education originated TBT to be, by and large, quite uninformed by any considerations of the educational underpinning of their teaching products and to have been developed at level 1 of the Capability Maturity Model--chaos.
The substantial UK TBT initiative--over 70 million pounds in total invested so far, I understand, in TBT materials for higher education--has drawn these comments (among others) from the official evaluation report: "overwhelming naivete as regards the complexity of the educational task which projects faced," "research concerning the use of technology in higher education was simply ignored," projects failed "to acquaint themselves with relevant findings from educational research," there was "a widespread belief that the application of [computer] technology would inevitably lead to educational benefits."
Quite why the UK higher education TBT products should have these deficiencies is a puzzling question to which I have no answers as yet. Perhaps other forum members could jump in.