Agree that all of the applications are requiring more implementation time and effort than is ideal. However, generally is does not require a Java programmer to implement Blackboard or WebCT. Having worked with a couple hundred institutions in implementing and managing course management systems I can assure you that. The primary need for integration is with the student information system and that is becoming more plug and play.
Clearly applications like Blackboard and WebCT which have been deployed at thousands of instiutions which have been counting on 24x7 access for 4-5 years now are more shrink-wrapped and tested than Sakai which has been deployed at perhaps a dozen or so Institutions. Moodle, on the other hand, you could argue has been more widely deployed certainly than Sakai and may be rivaling the commercial products. Also, Moodle strikes me as an open source app that is much more oriented toward installation and use by knowledgable end-users - guys like me who don't program anymore but can install a database and something like pHpBB.
In higher ed open source, the two very different directions that a Moodle and a Sakai come from are very interesting. Moodle is more like what we all think of as open source - go to the web site, download it, install it, get updates, etc. Sakai and others that I refer to as "grant funded" initiatives are more closed in that an institution or vendor has to pay $10000 to the Sakai foundation to participate, get access, etc. This model has been called "community source". Some think this is the right model for a community like higher ed with special needs. I have no opinion. Let's wait and see what comes out of it.
I write more on the background for higher ed open source in the online report at:
Clarification is needed on the much bandied about quote, "It's not quite ready for prime time," First, is says "not quite" as opposed to "not". Second, those words are not in my report anywhere. Third, the reporter at Inside Higher Ed probably shouldn't have even had quotes around that because he is actually attributing it simultaneously to both me and Kenneth Green, founding director of the Campus Computing Project, which studies the role of technology in higher education (who according to the article "calls the mindset regarding open source "affirmative ambivalence." Chief information officers are confident the software will be a part of the future but are still taking a wait-and-see approach"). I don't recall saying anything about "prime time" in my conversations with the reporter. He decided to lump me into the attribution for that phrase that may have come from Casey Green - I have no way to know.
In the Inside Higher Ed article it says, "Rob Abel, founder of the Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness and chief executive of IMS Global Learning Consortium, shared Green's view. "There's a lot of considering, but commitment isn't very high," he said." I do remember saying that (or something close to it). Again, this is referring to the higher ed specific applications which the data from the surveys clearly indicated that there are very high percentages of schools considering/evaluating them but relatively few are adopting as their primary application at this point. I stand by that point because the data clearly indicates it.
As mentioned in some of my other comments on this site it is very early days and lack of adoption now does not mean there is any conclusion. The main reason for doing the study was to identify what are the obstacles so that they could be addressed. My personal perspective is that higher ed can benefit greatly from the investments in both the commercial and open source products and I'd like to see that happen - more innovation, adoption, and learning.
To get involved in A-HEC or even support it, you can make an individual donation at:
Yes, there definitely is and at least one of the sponsors, Unicon is providing such services. The data from the study indicates that about 40% of all institutions feel they have the resources to implement open source. 60% feel that they do not or probably don't. Of the 56% of the market that is or has considered open source applications like Sakai, 40% of that group indicate they would like help with services.
One of the challenges for this in higher ed is that the elite universities have plenty of their own resources and are not as likely to contract, especially on any sustainable basis. The mid-market needs the services, and they will pay for them, but they have to be convinced that open source apps are better than the alternatives and that they are in fact here to stay.
Note that the study found that only 10% of of the hed market has rejected open source at this point. That means that there is a lot of potential for growth in the product adoption as well as services. However, at this point the service opportunity around the higher applications is pretty small so the study assessment is as given next:
Excerpt from the study:
Market for Open Source Services
While impossible to gauge for sure the current market for services in conjunction with open source applications appears to be too fragmented and non-recurring to represent a significant opportunity. About 25% of the market is seeking some outside help with open source but this is distributed among some ten initiatives. uPortal, Sakai, SCT Luminis Platform, and Moodle are those most in need of external services with implementation, product support, and customization the most needed services. The ongoing services of end-user support and hosting were the least sought after.
I don't remember using the term 'physical' in the interview. The type of labor referred to is programmers. If you knew anything about what is going on in higher education open source and what goes on in the majority of higher education institutions' IT shops you'd know (or for that matter bothered to read the executive summary):
1. There's no problem with stuff like Linux or Apache. That's easy. We're talking about new open source applications like Sakai, etc. that require programmers to install, integrate, and customize.
2. The large majority of institutions don't have those resources. The elite schools do - that's 300 out of about 4300 in the U.S.
3. The study was not negative on open source. Nor was it funded in any way by Microsoft or a consortium of product companies. It was funded by a combination of my personal donated work and a few dollars from Sun, Unicon, and SCT - all supporters of open source. Folks have referenced the relationship with IMS. IMS is just a receiver of the work. IMS was not a sponsor nor did IMS members have any involvement.
Some goofball that apparently can't read or check facts (Zonk) saw the Inside Higher Ed article which had the study as one input but actually was the perspective of many different people who they contacted - specifically looking for people that weere not as positive as I was in the study. From that relatively balanced article came a totally off base posting and a bunch of conspiracy theory about Microsoft etc. That's pretty funny. The study was not negative. It simply points out where we are and where we need to go.
So, get your facts straight before you criticize others work.
Enjoyed discussing this with you! Whoever you actually are. -Rob Abel
Hi All- I've read the comments with extreme interest and wanted to share a bit more on the report.
First, this study is only about higher education - nothing to do with schools, K-12, etc.
Second, it broke open source into two categories:infrastructure area (Linux, Apache, etc.) and higher ed specific applications (course management systems, finance systems, etc.). I seen many comments that it is negative but the report itself is not negative at all. I think that is the impression from the Inside Higher Ed article that interviewed many other sources. But, the overall message is not negative. In the infrastructure area (Linux, Apache, etc.) open source is doing very well in higher ed. The application area (course management systems, finance systems, etc.) is where there is no tremendous interest but not a lot of fruit yet. That doesn't mean there won't be - long way to go.
Third, the study was funded by Sun Microsystems, Unicon, and SCT. While commercial companies all three have been leaders in promoting and implementing open source in higher education.
Fourth, the study was conducted from day 1 under the auspices that only those who participated in the research and the sponsors would receive the full report. That's how we attract support and involvement. If we made it all available for free no one would see why they should pay or participate (I know because I've tried it that way).
Fifth, IMS has had no involvement - other than me. We're making the A-HEC research a benefit of IMS membership starting with this and in the future.
Sixth, IMS is not just commercial vendors - far from it. Members include open University, Stanford, Michigan, Indiana, MIT, etc.
Seventh, I wrote the report and the sponsors helped make minor editorial comments. So, it is my work and I don't perceive myself as biased but then does anybody? Finally, those that have actually read the report from the higher ed open source community have so far commented that it is on target. I think if anything it is very hopeful about the future but giving statistically valid accounting of the current situtation.
If at some point in the future this research track becomes well enough subsidized that I can afford to open it up to the whole world I will. That may happen under the IMS umbrella. I certainly hope so. You won't find Gartner, Eduventures, or even Educause providing as much open info on teir web sites as A-HEC has published - and we are much less funded.
Lastly, A-HEC is a very legitimate honest organization that has had numerous volunteers from the higher education community participate and benefit from sharing of best practices. I personally donated a year of my time getting A-HEC going because I believe in it. It would be nice if folks would get involved and understand what we do before criticizing. Especially when this whole thread started on an ewrroneous premise that the report was negative!
Hi All- I've read the comments with extreme interest and wanted to share a bit more on the report.
First, this study is only about higher education - nothing to do with schools, K-12, etc. Secoond, it broke open source into two categories:infrastructure area (Linux, Apache, etc.) and higher ed specific applications (course management systems, finance systems, etc.). I seen many comments that it is negative but the report itself is not negative at all. I think that is the impression from the Inside Higher Ed article that interviewed many other sources. But, the overall message is not negative. In the infrastructure area (Linux, Apache, etc.) open source is doing very well in higher ed. The application area (course management systems, finance systems, etc.) is where there is no tremendous interest but not a lot of fruit yet. That doesn't mean there won't be - long way to go.
Second, the study was funded by Sun Microsystems, Unicon, and SCT. While commercial companies all three have been leaders in promoting and implementing open source in higher education. Third, the study was conducted from day 1 under the auspices that only those who participated in the research and the sponsors would receive the full report. That's how we attract support and involvement. If we made it all available for free no one would see why they should pay or participate (I know because I've tried it that way). Fourth, IMS has had no involvement - other than me. We're making the A-HEC research a benefit of IMS membership starting with this and in the future. Fifth, IMS is not just commercial vendors - far from it. Members include open University, Stanford, Michigan, Indiana, MIT, etc. Sixth, I wrote the report and the sponsors helped make minor editorial comments. So, it is my work and I don't perceive myself as biased but then does anybody?
Finally, those that have actually read the report from the higher ed open source community have so far commented that it is on target. I think if anything it is very hopeful about the future but giving statistically valid accounting of the current situtation.
If at some point in the future this research track becomes well enough subsidized that I can afford to open it up to the whole world I will. That may happen under the IMS umbrella. I certainly hope so. You won't find Gartner, Eduventures, or even Educause providing as much open info on teir web sites as A-HEC has published - and we are much less funded.
Thanks for your interest in this, Rob
Slashdot Mirror
Agree that all of the applications are requiring more implementation time and effort than is ideal. However, generally is does not require a Java programmer to implement Blackboard or WebCT. Having worked with a couple hundred institutions in implementing and managing course management systems I can assure you that. The primary need for integration is with the student information system and that is becoming more plug and play.
Clearly applications like Blackboard and WebCT which have been deployed at thousands of instiutions which have been counting on 24x7 access for 4-5 years now are more shrink-wrapped and tested than Sakai which has been deployed at perhaps a dozen or so Institutions. Moodle, on the other hand, you could argue has been more widely deployed certainly than Sakai and may be rivaling the commercial products. Also, Moodle strikes me as an open source app that is much more oriented toward installation and use by knowledgable end-users - guys like me who don't program anymore but can install a database and something like pHpBB.
In higher ed open source, the two very different directions that a Moodle and a Sakai come from are very interesting. Moodle is more like what we all think of as open source - go to the web site, download it, install it, get updates, etc. Sakai and others that I refer to as "grant funded" initiatives are more closed in that an institution or vendor has to pay $10000 to the Sakai foundation to participate, get access, etc. This model has been called "community source". Some think this is the right model for a community like higher ed with special needs. I have no opinion. Let's wait and see what comes out of it.
I write more on the background for higher ed open source in the online report at:
http://www.a-hec.org/research/in-depth_articles/op en_source0505/open_source0505_toc.html
Clarification is needed on the much bandied about quote, "It's not quite ready for prime time," First, is says "not quite" as opposed to "not". Second, those words are not in my report anywhere. Third, the reporter at Inside Higher Ed probably shouldn't have even had quotes around that because he is actually attributing it simultaneously to both me and Kenneth Green, founding director of the Campus Computing Project, which studies the role of technology in higher education (who according to the article "calls the mindset regarding open source "affirmative ambivalence." Chief information officers are confident the software will be a part of the future but are still taking a wait-and-see approach"). I don't recall saying anything about "prime time" in my conversations with the reporter. He decided to lump me into the attribution for that phrase that may have come from Casey Green - I have no way to know.
In the Inside Higher Ed article it says, "Rob Abel, founder of the Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness and chief executive of IMS Global Learning Consortium, shared Green's view. "There's a lot of considering, but commitment isn't very high," he said." I do remember saying that (or something close to it). Again, this is referring to the higher ed specific applications which the data from the surveys clearly indicated that there are very high percentages of schools considering/evaluating them but relatively few are adopting as their primary application at this point. I stand by that point because the data clearly indicates it.
As mentioned in some of my other comments on this site it is very early days and lack of adoption now does not mean there is any conclusion. The main reason for doing the study was to identify what are the obstacles so that they could be addressed. My personal perspective is that higher ed can benefit greatly from the investments in both the commercial and open source products and I'd like to see that happen - more innovation, adoption, and learning.
To get involved in A-HEC or even support it, you can make an individual donation at:
http://www.a-hec.org/sponsor.html
Yes, there definitely is and at least one of the sponsors, Unicon is providing such services. The data from the study indicates that about 40% of all institutions feel they have the resources to implement open source. 60% feel that they do not or probably don't. Of the 56% of the market that is or has considered open source applications like Sakai, 40% of that group indicate they would like help with services.
One of the challenges for this in higher ed is that the elite universities have plenty of their own resources and are not as likely to contract, especially on any sustainable basis. The mid-market needs the services, and they will pay for them, but they have to be convinced that open source apps are better than the alternatives and that they are in fact here to stay.
Note that the study found that only 10% of of the hed market has rejected open source at this point. That means that there is a lot of potential for growth in the product adoption as well as services. However, at this point the service opportunity around the higher applications is pretty small so the study assessment is as given next:
Excerpt from the study:
Market for Open Source Services
While impossible to gauge for sure the current market for services in conjunction with open source applications appears to be too fragmented and non-recurring to represent a significant opportunity. About 25% of the market is seeking some outside help with open source but this is distributed among some ten initiatives. uPortal, Sakai, SCT Luminis Platform, and Moodle are those most in need of external services with implementation, product support, and customization the most needed services. The ongoing services of end-user support and hosting were the least sought after.
Ha! Ha!
I don't remember using the term 'physical' in the interview. The type of labor referred to is programmers. If you knew anything about what is going on in higher education open source and what goes on in the majority of higher education institutions' IT shops you'd know (or for that matter bothered to read the executive summary):
1. There's no problem with stuff like Linux or Apache. That's easy. We're talking about new open source applications like Sakai, etc. that require programmers to install, integrate, and customize.
2. The large majority of institutions don't have those resources. The elite schools do - that's 300 out of about 4300 in the U.S.
3. The study was not negative on open source. Nor was it funded in any way by Microsoft or a consortium of product companies. It was funded by a combination of my personal donated work and a few dollars from Sun, Unicon, and SCT - all supporters of open source. Folks have referenced the relationship with IMS. IMS is just a receiver of the work. IMS was not a sponsor nor did IMS members have any involvement.
Some goofball that apparently can't read or check facts (Zonk) saw the Inside Higher Ed article which had the study as one input but actually was the perspective of many different people who they contacted - specifically looking for people that weere not as positive as I was in the study. From that relatively balanced article came a totally off base posting and a bunch of conspiracy theory about Microsoft etc. That's pretty funny. The study was not negative. It simply points out where we are and where we need to go.
So, get your facts straight before you criticize others work.
Enjoyed discussing this with you! Whoever you actually are. -Rob Abel
Hi All- I've read the comments with extreme interest and wanted to share a bit more on the report.
First, this study is only about higher education - nothing to do with schools, K-12, etc.
Second, it broke open source into two categories:infrastructure area (Linux, Apache, etc.) and higher ed specific applications (course management systems, finance systems, etc.). I seen many comments that it is negative but the report itself is not negative at all. I think that is the impression from the Inside Higher Ed article that interviewed many other sources. But, the overall message is not negative. In the infrastructure area (Linux, Apache, etc.) open source is doing very well in higher ed. The application area (course management systems, finance systems, etc.) is where there is no tremendous interest but not a lot of fruit yet. That doesn't mean there won't be - long way to go.
Third, the study was funded by Sun Microsystems, Unicon, and SCT. While commercial companies all three have been leaders in promoting and implementing open source in higher education.
Fourth, the study was conducted from day 1 under the auspices that only those who participated in the research and the sponsors would receive the full report. That's how we attract support and involvement. If we made it all available for free no one would see why they should pay or participate (I know because I've tried it that way).
Fifth, IMS has had no involvement - other than me. We're making the A-HEC research a benefit of IMS membership starting with this and in the future.
Sixth, IMS is not just commercial vendors - far from it. Members include open University, Stanford, Michigan, Indiana, MIT, etc.
Seventh, I wrote the report and the sponsors helped make minor editorial comments. So, it is my work and I don't perceive myself as biased but then does anybody? Finally, those that have actually read the report from the higher ed open source community have so far commented that it is on target. I think if anything it is very hopeful about the future but giving statistically valid accounting of the current situtation.
If at some point in the future this research track becomes well enough subsidized that I can afford to open it up to the whole world I will. That may happen under the IMS umbrella. I certainly hope so. You won't find Gartner, Eduventures, or even Educause providing as much open info on teir web sites as A-HEC has published - and we are much less funded.
Lastly, A-HEC is a very legitimate honest organization that has had numerous volunteers from the higher education community participate and benefit from sharing of best practices. I personally donated a year of my time getting A-HEC going because I believe in it. It would be nice if folks would get involved and understand what we do before criticizing. Especially when this whole thread started on an ewrroneous premise that the report was negative!
Thanks for your interest in this, Rob
Hi All- I've read the comments with extreme interest and wanted to share a bit more on the report. First, this study is only about higher education - nothing to do with schools, K-12, etc. Secoond, it broke open source into two categories:infrastructure area (Linux, Apache, etc.) and higher ed specific applications (course management systems, finance systems, etc.). I seen many comments that it is negative but the report itself is not negative at all. I think that is the impression from the Inside Higher Ed article that interviewed many other sources. But, the overall message is not negative. In the infrastructure area (Linux, Apache, etc.) open source is doing very well in higher ed. The application area (course management systems, finance systems, etc.) is where there is no tremendous interest but not a lot of fruit yet. That doesn't mean there won't be - long way to go. Second, the study was funded by Sun Microsystems, Unicon, and SCT. While commercial companies all three have been leaders in promoting and implementing open source in higher education. Third, the study was conducted from day 1 under the auspices that only those who participated in the research and the sponsors would receive the full report. That's how we attract support and involvement. If we made it all available for free no one would see why they should pay or participate (I know because I've tried it that way). Fourth, IMS has had no involvement - other than me. We're making the A-HEC research a benefit of IMS membership starting with this and in the future. Fifth, IMS is not just commercial vendors - far from it. Members include open University, Stanford, Michigan, Indiana, MIT, etc. Sixth, I wrote the report and the sponsors helped make minor editorial comments. So, it is my work and I don't perceive myself as biased but then does anybody? Finally, those that have actually read the report from the higher ed open source community have so far commented that it is on target. I think if anything it is very hopeful about the future but giving statistically valid accounting of the current situtation. If at some point in the future this research track becomes well enough subsidized that I can afford to open it up to the whole world I will. That may happen under the IMS umbrella. I certainly hope so. You won't find Gartner, Eduventures, or even Educause providing as much open info on teir web sites as A-HEC has published - and we are much less funded. Thanks for your interest in this, Rob