At this year's Association for Learning Technology conference (ALT-C 2004), held at the University of Exeter, there was the usual supporting vendor stands in the conference exhibition space, so in between sessions I took the opportunity to test VLE/LMS vendors' perspectives on a couple of pretty key issues. First, how possible and easy did they make it for licensees to extend/enrich their core product? Second, how well did their business models appear to be adapting to the emerging era of Web services. It's only my opinion but if you want to know more read on! To put this article into context Auricle readers may like to read the extended version of my ALT-C 2004 paper E-Learning Frameworks and Tools: Is it too late? - the Director's Cut.
So let's consider the concept of the product licensee or 3rd parties extending the vendor's core product.
Sure, some allow development and integration of supplementary 'blocks' or functional components and others will give access to a SDK and some APIs. Of course, first you've got to have bought into the eterprise class level of their products, i.e. you are well and truely locked in to their particular platforms. What was interesting here was the divergent views taken by the mainstream vendors, with one viewing their product's potential extensibility via 3rd party blocks as a business plus whereas a rival vendor viewed the blocks model as a sign of the lack of 'completeness' of their rival's product. An interesting divergence!
Let's consider this 'completeness' business case a little more because it will lead us nicely into a consideration of the potential impact of Web services upon current e-learning vendor's business models. To me, the 'completeness' model seems totally at odds with apparently what's going to be required of the next generation of e-learning tools and services. No system can be 'complete' for long and particuarly not one which swims in the dynamic world of teaching and learning. Nevertheless, the 'completeness' argument must be ever so seductive to the hard-pressed HEI executive member or Director of Information Services who just wants the solution.
'Completeness' of course could also mean that “we (the vendor) decide, after a process of consultation with you (the licensee), what we (the vendor) can afford to implement in this iteration of the product and no we don't want to make it easy for any old 3rd party to extend the product. But, of course, if you're also a major vendor of a complementary e-learning product in your own right, i.e. a trusted business partner we might consider it.”
So the classic business model at work here is to offer a 'package' of functionality and long-term support delivered via, and only via, the vendor's platform. Want only to use a one aspect of the system's functionality? Want to extend the functionality? Sure you can do that but you're still going to have to buy in to the full package and platform and have that long long long term relationship.
And who can blame the vendors? This is the tried and trusted business model of “get them on your platform and they will find it extremely difficult to get off again”.
What's really interesting is how like lambs to the slaughter we line up to be 'locked in' assisted in no small measure by an institution's systems people who view high levels of integration as their raison d'être and who view a VLE as just another system to be integrated.
We also seem to be slipping into a mindset which allows us to declare resounding e-learning success at a conference because we have 'n' hundreds/thousands of VLE vendor 'xyz' courses available via our institution's web site. Vendor xyz's marketing people must jump with joy at how their sales and marketing strategy is proving so cost effective due to these high profile, and perhaps unsuspecting, 'evangelists'.
But, as some of the speakers at the ALT-C conference pointed out, look carefully at these 'courses' and with some notable exceptions it's not unusual to find only a few announcement and perhaps some content uploaded. Hello! … here's some bad news … that's administration not e-learning. But here's the good news, particularly for those concerned with the bottom line … Simple content organisation/delivery and announcements does not require a recurring and expensive enterprise class licensing arrangement with a commercial vendor.
But what about that services model and how are the vendor's responding?
My impression is that the vendors I talked to were either playing their cards very close to their chest or they hadn't really considered the potential implications or opportunities of a Web services model. Read my paper and view the resources and you'll see that some of the other players in the e-learning marketplace, like IBM, are taking a very proactive approach to the design of services-based architectures.
Web services have got the potential to destablize current business models. Business models based on the complete 'package' or nothing are not going to be responsive to potential licensees who want to aggregate one or two aspects of a vendor's product into their own institution's portal, client or any indeed other service consuming container. As my paper suggests there are already some major commercial players working on, or offering, service-based e-learning solutions; so the current market penetration by VLE vendors is, arguably, going to be less stable than it has been.
One of the putative benefits of the services model is that the niche developer could create a 'best-of-breed' service, e.g. a discussion engine, which could replace a less satisfactory offering within a learning environment. Now let's assume that in five years time the e-learning services model has penetrated the marketplace. How are the big cats in the jungle going to attempt to make money? By offering 'packages' of services of course:) And what about that niche developer hoping to penetrate the marketplace with their 'best-of-breed' service? … Why they will have been bought out by the big cats … and so the world goes on.
Except!
There is that dratted 'stone in the shoe' called open source/open software. Suddenly individual developers, development teams, or communities of practice are producing service based solutions which they make available to their community at no or low cost. But that's surely killing the marketplace? So what to do?
Why there's always custom extensions or application profiles. Yes it may be a service and yes it will work via your portal but if you want feature 'xyz' then sorry you require … 🙂
