In my recent article 'UKeU - Peeling the Onion - Layer 2', I highlighted how, despite the obvious tensions between the former UKeU Chairman/Chief Executive and the HEFCE leadership, both sides seemed to be asserting some continued, but as yet unrealized, value in the UKeU platform. Not according to an earlier OBHE (subscription service) news item! First, just a little reminder. Here's a couple of extracts from my previous article.
“We were advised, and we are advised now, that the technology platform is an advance on previous platforms but, as we know, in the end, only 900 rather than 5,000-6,000 students registered to use it, and I would say that this is a failure of marketing and selling.” (Sir Howard Newby, HOC Education and Skills Committee 23 June 2004.
“By far the most valuable element was the specification for the software platform.” (Sir Anthony Cleaver).
“… one part of our inheritance that was very good was the specification of the product (the UKeU platform) … I very rapidly formed the view, and it is one that I still hold, that there was nothing available anywhere which was comparable to this. In particular, the underlying philosophy, importantly was 'learner-centric' ” (Sir Anthony Cleaver)
But how does this match with the OBHE article What's the difference? Indelta and UKeU/Sun Microsystems LMS fall while Blackboard boasts early IPO success and makes the important points that:
- The LMS market (Ed: at least as we currently know it) is shrinking; but even so, nothing is predictable.
- Even recognition for innovative excellence of an LMS by the academic community is no guarantee of commercial success, e.g. the failure of the University of Southern Queensland's Indelta Pty. Ltd. Continued investment is required to succeed in the commercial arena.
- There is little to distinguish current LMSs, and new contenders failed to convince the market of their distinctiveness.
- The open source plus support model now offers the greatest challenge to the established players like Blackboard and WebCT.
- Both Blackboard and WebCT have never declared an annual profit.
But even the mighty Blackboard can't afford to get complacent:
“The real test of Blackboard's health remains in the hands of a select few investors, and the company's ability to generate confidence through strong financial results in the coming year. ”
But back to the UKeU platform … The OBHE states:
“Placed on the auction block in April 2004 the (UKEU) LMS has remained unsaleable, attracting no acceptable bids by the closing date of June 11th, 2004.”
Rather worryingly, the OBHE claims that Sun Microsystems was a 'strategic partner' and the contract from UKeU for development of the platform was for GBP 20 million. I'm not sure how this matches with the following statement of public record by John Beaumont, the former Chief Executive of UKeU:
“By the end of April 2004 … we spent 9.2 million on the platform, we also had 2.4 million of operating cost … we had a fixed price contract with Sun Microsystems for the full version of 9.5 million. We had at that time paid 5.5 million for it … the fact that we were able to get a fixed price contract for specified functionality I think was a fair result … ”
And as regards the 'strategic partnership', in the public record Sir Anthony Cleaver the UKeU's former Chairman has stated:
“I think the reality was that we were employing Sun Microsystems.”
So who's right? I acknowledge that the OBHE article was published in advance of Education and Skills Committee session with John Beaumont and Sir Anthony Cleaver, but the implication of the OBHE article is that GBP 20 million was handed over when John Beaumont has clearly stated it was GBP 9.5 million (to which we need to add UKeU overheads). Let's not quibble about a few million, however, it's still a lot of money for a platform that no one appears to want to buy.
The OBHE article indicates that one potential buyer decided that:
“… after performance analysis, the company chose not to place an offer given what it saw as the product's limited capabilities compared to leading commercial rivals. ”
Again, rather confusingly, the OBHE refers to the UKeU/Sun Microsystems platform as LearnTone and indicates this had been an earlier name of the UKeU platform. Now from what I understand there was indeed an earlier candidate platform put forward by Sun Microsystems called LearnTone, but the development work that actually took place for UKeU was not LearnTone. Another point of confusion which perhaps only Sun Microsystems can clarify? So what was being judged by the potential buyer, LearnTone or the UKeU platform?
