connecting business and technology
DI Insights
Written by Phil Hill   
Thursday, 16 February 2012 15:34

Today I had a guest post at WCET's blog. WCET is a great organization that "accelerates the adoption of effective practices and policies, advancing excellence in technology-enhanced teaching and learning in higher education". They have been leaders in sharing best practices for online education, including taking a leading role on explaining State Authorization regulations as well as others. You can read the full post here.

The topic of the post is how the changing LMS / Learning Platform market is, or should be, changing institutional decision-making.

We have seen a great deal of change in the higher education Learning Management System (LMS) market over the past year, as has been described in several blog posts. One of the biggest changes to the market that I’ve noticed is that we seem to be moving from an enterprise LMS market, with full-featured monolithic systems, into a learning platform market, with many cloud-based platforms that don’t attempt to have all the features in one system.

As Ritchie Boyd has described, the WCET LMS Common Interest Group (CIG) is recasting itself this year as "the 'Beyond the LMS' Common Interest Group. The idea is to not ignore the LMS, but rather to acknowledge that there is so much more going on in the broader academic technology ecosystems and their impact on our campuses, and that much of this activity often includes or is enveloped by the formal LMS."

In last year’s WCET-sponsored Managing Online Education survey, 47% of respondents indicated they are reviewing their LMS strategy and 27% are planning to change LMS within 2 years. A key question arises, however, about how institutions should adapt their technology decision-making processes based on these market changes. It’s all well and good for the market to change and provide more choices and new approaches, but how should schools decide which system(s) best fit their specific academic and administrative needs? The emergence of new, often free, cloud-based learning platforms may require changes to our decision-making.

The article goes on to describe how traditional RFP processes can bias an institution towards legacy enterprise LMS solutions.

The traditional route of institutional decision-making is based on an extended Request For Proposal (RFP) process that typically takes 4 – 12 months. These RFP processes are subtly built on the same assumptions as the traditional enterprise LMS systems – focusing heavily on evaluation of a complete set of features delivered today, often at the expense of understanding the longer-term road maps of the different learning platform providers.

If an institution follows a traditional RFP process without adaptations for today’s market, then there are several risks inherent in the approach.

In the comments, Ritchie also had a great point helping to clarify how institutions might default to standard RFP processes.

As the primary author of one of those thick RFP’s bound to a 4-12 month process, I note that, in the absence of a deliberate, and frankly somewhat cultural introspection about the role of technologies in teaching and learning within the institution, the enterprise approach has a way of becoming the default path. And institutions should be wary of that – if you find, even when required by law, that the easy or obvious solution is to simply go forward with a features-based RFP, you probably haven’t had that serious discussion with stakeholders about the evolving role of the LMS and other personal learning tools in your school. What better indicator of the changing market than the fact that some vendors won’t even respond to an institution-wide RFP!

It is also convenient, though flawed, to look at this as simply an IT challenge. When it comes to these tools, an institution’s strategic needs have to be defined far beyond just their IT strategy, and be closely bound to the drivers of the broader academic affairs enterprise.

There's more to the article that might be worth reading, including a call to not abandon RFPs, but to augment with strategic evaluations. I encourage you to both check out the full post and to spend some time checking out WCET if you are not already a member.


Share/Save/Bookmark
 
Written by Phil Hill   
Thursday, 09 February 2012 10:42

This article was originally posted at e-Literate

One of the trends that I’ve been tracking in the LMS market is a move away from the monolithic, all-things-to-everyone enterprise LMS solution. There are several different approaches challenging this model, but the general theme is that the ed tech market needs more flexible, targeted approaches to directly support teaching and learning needs.

The news today is that LoudCloud Systems is officially announcing their LMS solution’s entry into the general higher education and K-12 markets as described in a Campus Technology article. In this announcement, LoudCloud promises what they describe as the “first fully adaptive and configurable Learning Management Systems for Higher Education and K12″. While I cannot judge yet how successful this vendor will be with their strategy, I think the announcement is significant for the LMS market for two reasons.

  • LoudCloud appears to be providing the first disaggregated LMS on the commercial market; and
  • The system has an integrated analytics engine that supports personalized content delivery.

Share/Save/Bookmark
Read more...
 
Written by Phil Hill   
Friday, 03 February 2012 09:28

This article was originally posted at e-Literate

Along with others, I have written several times over the past 12 months herehere, here and here about the significant changes occurring in the educational LMS market. In my opinion, when we look back on market changes, 2011 will stand out as the year when the LMS market passed the point of no return and changed forever. What we are now seeing are some real signs of what the future market will look like, and the actual definition of the market is changing. We are going from an enterprise LMS market to a learning platform market.

What I mean by ‘enterprise LMS’ is the legacy model of the LMS as a smaller, academically-facing version of the ERP. This model was based on monolithic, full-featured software systems that could be hosted on-site or by a managed hosting provider. A ‘learning platform’, by contrast, does not contain all the features in itself and is based on cloud computing – multi-tenant, software as a service (SaaS).

The 2011 EDUCAUSE event captured the zeitgeist of the changes, as it seemed most of the buzz at the conference centered on new LMS solutions and paradigm changes.Instructure made their debut at the conference, Pearson’s OpenClass was announced, Blackboard announced a new move in open content focused on CourseSites, and Cengage demonstrated their MindTap platform. Rather than slowing since EDUCAUSE, we have seen several additional announcements in the past three months.

Share/Save/Bookmark
Read more...
 
Written by Jim Ritchey   
Wednesday, 01 February 2012 09:16

One of the topics that was hard to miss at EDUCAUSE this past year was the number of changes to the LMS market with the introduction of market disrupters.  What was absent was any indication of significant change with the major ERP vendors. Yes, there was the news about the Datatel and SGHE merger, but it will be awhile before we see product changes due to the merger.  I reviewed the timeline in Datatel+SGHE Merger Update.

Will there be a disruptive ERP vendor bringing a whole new solution to market similar to what is happening in the LMS market? Probably not, but that does not mean there is not change occurring today.  The vendors continue to move forward with the same models and implementing product enhancements or incremental improvements.  I find it interesting to hear people ask for the vendors to provide a SaaS version of their products as if this is the change that will impact the market.  To date, it seems the vendors either give us a marketing message that states they have a SaaS solution or they let us know that their customer’s are not really asking for SaaS.  

Share/Save/Bookmark
Read more...
 
Written by Patricia Bruhn   
Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:25

The Academy Award nominations were announced this week and, being a big movie fan, I was excited to see which of my favorites had made the cut. Most of them were there - although how anyone could choose a winner between the nostalgia of “Midnight in Paris”, the exuberance of “The Artist” and the existential depth of “The Tree of Life” makes me glad I don’t have a vote.  Seeing that “Moneyball” was on the list made me revisit the enthusiasm I felt when I read a book that was actually entertaining about a subject – analytics – that causes many people to glaze over.

“Moneyball” for those who are unfamiliar with it, tells the story of how the general manager of the Oakland Athletics, Billy Beane, managed to pile up wins with an operating budget much less than that of his competitors.  How did he do it?  In a sport with more than a century of traditional thought, he utilized business intelligence based upon algorithms built on baseball statistics, called sabermetrics.   In short, Billy Beane and his organization were able to select better players for his team based upon the strategy he set (“win the last game of the year”) and discovery that a player’s on base percentage (OBP) and slugging percentage were better predictors of wins than any other statistic.  He found value in undervalued players and turned conventional baseball wisdom on its head.

Share/Save/Bookmark
Read more...
 
<< Start < prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 next > End >>

Page 1 of 6
Untitled Document

Strategic Planning

Banner