It has been interesting to watch the growing interest in Open-Source Course/Learning Management systems as an alternative to their commercial brethren.  It is also especially encouraging to see systems such as Moodle finally be given the respect it is due.  Having been a Moodle fan for some years now, I’s encouraged to see that on many school’s “List of Finalists,” Moodle is consistently one of the last ones standing.

While Moodle is certain an extremely capable system, especially when one considers its price (FREE), I’m constantly seeing evidence of individual schools and school districts being afflicted with the “Deer in the Headlight” syndrome for no other reason than its attractive price tag.

Let me explain…

I recently participated in a phone conversation with a representative of aa local school district that had narrowed their LMS choices to the Open-Source Moodle and an unnamed commercial offering.  Naturally the “FREE” aspect of Moodle provided it serious consideration; and justifiably so.

As many of us in the Educational Technology business know from experience, the word “FREE” is enough to aflict anyone with their hands on the checkbook with the aforementioned “Deer in the Headlight” syndrome.  The Superintendent, as a result, sent his LMS selection team back to the drawing board when they were fully expecting final approval of their commercial choice.

So, here’s the “skinny”…

Moodle is a great Learning Management System; no question. But one has to bring up the old “Total Cost Of Ownership” argument.

While the application is Open-Source (As in Beer), staff and faculty training, hardware, and technical support and management is not.  The money one might save on the application will have to be spent building the infrastructure.  While the hardware might represent a single initial investment, salaries and training do not.  If one has to hire the team to provide all necessary support and training services, some money is going to have to put out.  One must also consider that when budgeting for human resources, you are not budgeting a single investment, but one that will grow with each passing year.  Consider as well that currently benefits and other payroll obligations, at present, will cost an institution an additional 42% on top of regular salary.

Commercial alternatives allow an institution to pass the responsibilities for staff and faculty training, hardware, technical support etc., back to the provider.  While a contract for such a system may include an escalation clause for each year of the contract, the total cost will still be less than a “home-grown” solution.

No, I am not suggesting that one should never look at an Open-Source alternative when it comes to selection of an LMS.  If an institution already has the infrastructure and expertise through one means or another, than my answer is “Go for it!”  If you see critical capabilities in an Open-Source solution that you cannot get in its commercial alternative, they the former may be the answer for you.  But be careful!  Ask yourself if those “critical capabilities” are indeed just that, or are they something you currently do not have but think would be “cool” to have?

Moodle has its own niche; just like any of the 125 Open-Source LMS’s currently available as well as the commercial alternatives.  It is indeed a great system that I have helped to launch for other schools and organizations in the past.  For them, both Open-Source and commercial offerings were evaluated.  The Open-Source was indeed the best “fit” after much consideration of the issues mentioned previously.

The February, 2008 issue of Campus Technology had a very interesting article by John Moore (2008), entitled “It’s ‘Open’ Season” that highlighted Georgia Tech’s recent selection of the Open-Source Sakai LMS.  In that article, Moore quotes John Blakley of the Unicon company:

“In Blakley’s view, open source also contributes to TCO [Total Cost of Ownership] savings in that ‘users have control of their environment’ and are no longer at the mercy of a commercial software vendor”

While I do not question either Mr. Moore or Mr. Blakley’s expertise, I have a tough time coming up with a means or method of determining a dollar amount on “user control of their environment” or “mercy.”

Moore also cites that the collaborative nature of [Open-Source] offers the ability to add features and tools without incurring additional cost as those schools can “leverage” the work of others.  Interesting argument, but what is being said is that unless you have the aforementioned expertise to add your own features, you remain at the mercy of what contributors to the Open-Source project develop.

Moore goes on to say

“TCO is, without doubt, an attractive lure to OpenSource, but what Wheeler describes as as ’shared value creation’ may have value beyond measure, and may be a model that more universities and colleges will determine to adopt.”

I have to agree.  The “shared value creation” is essentially the development team one would have to hire.

So, to avoid yet another long-winded “pontification,” let’s cut to the chase…

Open-Source LMS’s are, most certainly, an attractive alternative to their commercial counterparts.  No argument here.  But in many of the schools that do not have the resources of the Georgia Techs’, UC-Berkleys’, and University of Michigans’ of the world, the folks running the Learning Management System are usually educators who, somewhere along the line, demonstrated a talent for Education Technology.  They were put in their positions in an effort to broaden the use of Educational Technology for their particular institution or agency and certainly not to become solely the manager of a Learning Management System.  They want to, need to, and must, focus their attentions on the adoption of Educational Technology and not become full-time “slaves” to a single element of the overall effort.  A perfect example of of how an organization has become a slave to a commercial LMS will have to wait for another posting.

Late Addition - 1 March, 2008
What I failed to mention that I think is important to this “discussion” is that while Georgia Tech opted out of a commercial CMS in favor of an OpenSource solution (Sakai), they hired the Unicon Company to handle/manage the migration.  While I don’t question their judgement in doing so, I find it important to the discussion of many peoples understanding of the word “FREE” when used in the context of OpenSource. - Tony