George Siemens was not too impressed by a recent presentation from Blackboard:
The entire presentation was focused on two things: money, and implementation challenges. If I adhere to their assumptions, then they presented their case well. However, I’m at odds with their core statements of what it means to learn. In the end, it’s very likely that, in North America at least, there isn’t a large cost savings between open source and proprietary software. But as an educator, that’s not my concern. I’m concerned about the learners. And their learning. This wasn’t mentioned at all. I know administrators are cost and implementation focused, but I would hope that they also see the instructors and learners as stakeholders in the process. A bad solution, well-implemented, still sucks.Why not ask learners what they want? Or faculty? If Blackboard, D2L, and WebCT are genuinely interested in meeting learner needs, then engage us (as faculty and learners) in a legitimate discussion. Once you listen to what we need/want, rather than telling us what you’ll do for us, we can begin to partner.
I agree with George, other than his assumption that there "isn’t a large cost savings". Open source IS cheaper, when you look at licensing and when you look at total cost of ownership. Examples include detailed cost comparisons, such as this one for the Québec public school system.
However, George’s point about the vendors’ lack of focus on learning is the root of the problem. Having worked for an LCMS vendor, I learned that there is only one bottom line – sell more licenses. That is what brings in the money. Selling services is not what they are about. Therefore, until you separate the services from the technology you will have an ongoing conflict of interest. The vendor will try to sell you licenses, even if you do not need their system. It’s how they are measured by their investors.
I don’t think that any vendors are going to have legitimate discussions about learning with George or anyone else in the foreseeable future.