© copyright 2006 ims/glc all rights reserved. page 1 the state of open source in higher...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
The State of OpenSource in Higher
Education:Time for aReality Check?
June 2006
– Rob Abel– CEO, IMS Global Learning Consortium– office: +1.407.792.4164– mobile: +1.407.687.7255– skype: rob_abel– [email protected]– http://www.imsglobal.org/
Page 2© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
“It is not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but
the ones who are most responsive to change”
- Charles Darwin
Page 3© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Who Will Win?
Traditional CommercialApplications
Traditional CommercialApplications
Open Source ApplicationsOpen Source Applications
Community Source ApplicationsCommunity Source Applications
HigherEducationEnterpriseSoftwareApplications
HigherEducationEnterpriseSoftwareApplications
Page 4© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Collaborative Research*
• Online Learning• Open Source• Digital Content• Vendor Satisfaction
*Join IMS LILF to subscribe
Page 5© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Agenda• Overall Purpose: Discussion about the progress of community source from a business perspective
• Results of industry survey through a market leadership lens
• Summary thoughts• Call to action for the IMS Global Learning Consortium
*Note: There will be discussion topics throughout the presentation- active participation is expected
Page 6© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Survey Results Agenda• Survey background• Issue #1- What level of penetration of open source applications constitutes success?
• Issue #2- Do the open source initiatives have what it takes to succeed as application products in the higher education market?
• Issue #3- What is the level of expectation regarding open source and is this good or bad?
Page 7© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Survey Background
• Conducted Fall and early Winter 2005-6• Respondents were CIOs or others claiming
responsibility for evaluating open source products
• Sought to target all levels of engagement in open source (including none)
• Took a broad view - including open source-enabled products - Luminis, Academus
• Sought to target all types of institutions• U.S. focused, but did not exclude outside
U.S.• 195 completed surveys, 30 partially
completed• 15 minutes average time to completion
Page 8© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Survey Sponsors
• Sun Microsystems• Sungard SCT• Unicon• Alliance for Higher Education Competitiveness
Page 9© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Survey is Reopened
• A rolling open survey with periodic report outs
• Participants receive the report• We will notify you when its been 12
months since your last completion• Click on link under “participate” at:
http://www.a-hec.org/open_source_state.html
Page 10© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Survey Branching• Distinguished between infrastructure and
application• Looked at five levels of interest: not seriously
considered yet, implemented, chosen, considered or considering, rejected.
Page 11© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Survey Results Agenda• Survey background• Issue #1- What level of penetration of open source applications constitutes success?
• Issue #2- Do the open source initiatives have what it takes to succeed as application products in the higher education market?
• Issue #3- What is the level of expectation regarding open source and is this good or bad?
Page 12© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Discussion Topic
• Issue #1- What level of penetration of open source applications constitutes success?
• How will community source know when it has succeeded?
• What are the successes so far?• What is the proof?
Page 13© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Estimated PenetrationAdoption of Open Source Infrastructure Software
57%
3%
10%
6%
24%
We have implemented opensource INFRASTRUCTUREsoftware
We have chosen open sourceINFRASTRUCTURE software, buthave not yet implemented
We are seriously consideringopen source INFRASTRUCTUREsoftware currently, but have notyet decided
We have seriously consideredopen source INFRASTRUCTUREsoftware but decided not toimplement
We have not yet given opensource INFRASTRUCTURE software serious consideration
60% definite, 10% in consideration6% rejected, 24% not considered yet
Page 14© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Estimated PenetrationAdoption of Open Source Application Software: All Institutions
34%
8%
16%
8%
34%
We have implemented open sourceAPPLICATION software
We have chosen open sourceAPPLICATION software, but have not yetimplemented
We are seriously considering open sourceAPPLICATION software currently, buthave not yet decided
We have seriously considered opensource APPLICATION software butdecided not to implement
We have not yet given open sourceAPPLICATION software seriousconsideration
42% definite, 16% in consideration8% rejected, 34% not considered yet
Page 15© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Estimated Penetration
Portal (15-24%), CMS (9-15%), Desktop office applications (6-12%), ePortfolio (2-4%)
Estimated Market Adoption of Select Open Source Application Software
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Kuali SakaiuPortal
LionShareMoodle
OSPI OKI
OpenOfficeSCT Luminis
Unicon Academus
Not Considered
Rejected
Considering
Chosen- not fully implemented
Implemented
Page 16© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Estimated PenetrationAdoption of Open Source Application Software by Operating
Budget: Six Levels
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
We haveimplemented open
sourceAPPLICATION
software
We have chosen open source
APPLICATIONsoftware, but have
not yetimplemented
We are seriouslyconsidering open
sourceAPPLICATION
software currently,but have not yet
decided
We have seriouslyconsidered open
sourceAPPLICATIONsoftware but
decided not toimplement
We have not yetgiven open source
APPLICATIONsoftware serious
consideration
< $20m
$20-50m
$50-100m
$100-200m
$200-500m
>$500m
Page 17© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Survey Results Agenda• Survey background• Issue #1- What level of penetration of open source applications constitutes success?
• Issue #2- Do the open source initiatives have what it takes to succeed as application products in the higher education market?
• Issue #3- What is the level of expectation regarding open source and is this good or bad?
Page 18© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Some Data Points
• Blackboard market cap: $788 million• eCollege market cap: $532 million (one of
Forbes 100 hot growth companies)• Estimated market value of Sungard Higher Ed:
$1.5 billion• Datatel, Oracle/Peoplesoft, Jenzabar: $$
• Discussion question: How does this compare to the resources of open source and community source initiatives?
• Discussion question: Do resources matter?
Page 19© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Discussion Topic• Issue #2- Do the open source initiatives have what it takes to succeed as application products in the higher education market?
• Why did Blackboard, WebCT, and eCollege succeed?
Page 20© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Priority of Open SourceInstitutional Priority of Open Source Applications
Compared to Other IT Initiatives
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Very low priority Low priority Average priority High priority Very high priority
Page 21© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Top IT Issues Today• Security and identity management• Funding IT• Administrative/ERP/information systems
• Disaster recovery/business continuity• Faculty development, support, and training
• Source: Educause• http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0622.pdf
Page 22© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
TCO ConclusionsExperience or Analysis of Total Cost of Ownership of Open Source Applications
26%
30%
27%
5%
2%
10%
Significantly lower (50% or less)cost than competing commercialapplications
Somewhat lower cost (51% to 80%)than competing commercialapplications
About the same cost (81% to 119%)as competing commercialapplications
Somewhat higher cost (120% to149%) than competing commercialapplications
Significantly higher (150% or more)cost than competing commercialapplications
Have no idea
56% TCO advantage7% TCO disadvantage
Page 23© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Outside InfluencersEncouragement of Open Source Applications from Outside IT
Strongly Disagree19%
Disagree33%
Maybe18%
Agree22%
Strongly Agree8%
30% outside IT influence
Page 24© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Influencers Outside IT:Those Respondents that Felt There Was Influence from Outside IT
4%8%
4%
24%
33%
27% The president
The provost or VP academic affairs
Chief financial officer or VPadministration
Deans or department leaders
Faculty leaders
Other
Who?
57% faculty or department leaders16% institutional leaders
Page 25© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Reasons for ConsideringDrivers for Considering Open Source Application Software
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
EnhancedFunctionality
IntegrationFramework
Customization Unique Needs ofHigher
Education
Platform forResearch
CommercialVendor Lock-In
Strongly Agree
Agree
Maybe
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
CustomizationLock-inUnique needs
Page 26© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Survey Results Agenda• Survey background• Issue #1- What level of penetration of open source applications constitutes success?
• Issue #2- Do the open source initiatives have what it takes to succeed as application products in the higher education market?
• Issue #3- What is the level of expectation regarding open source and is this good or bad?
Page 27© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Discussion Topic• Issue #3- What is the level of expectation regarding open source and is this good or bad?
• What are the most important expectations that have been created concerning community source?
• Are these being fulfilled?
Page 28© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Evaluation FactorsFactors in Considering Open Source Application Software:
All Respondents Who Have Considered
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Total cost of ownership
People skills/resources requiredLevel of information available
Product(s) maturityLevel of integration
Functionality differenceSecurity level provided
Attitude of the administrationAttitude of the faculty leadership
Commercial support
Very positive factor
Positive factor
Neutral factor
Negative factor
Very negative factor
Can't determine
Most positive:TCOIntegrationFunctionalitySecurity
Blockers:SkillsSupportMaturity
Page 29© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Skills IssuesAvailability of IT Resources to Support Open Source:
All Respondents
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Our institution has the breadth anddepth of IT resources to supportDEVELOPMENT of open source
products
Our institution has the breadth anddepth of IT resources to support
IMPLEMENTATION of open sourceproducts
Our institution has the breadth anddepth of IT resources to support
the USAGE of open source products
Strongly Agree
Agree
Maybe
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Don't Know
Page 30© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Commercial SupportMore Likely to Implement Open Source if Backed by Commercial Vendor: By
Operating Budget
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
Less Than $100M Greater Than $100M
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Page 31© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Perceived Maturity Impression of Select Open Source Applications: All Respondents
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
SakaiuPortal
OSPI OKI
Lionshare
KualiMoodle
OpenOfficeSCT Luminis
Unicon Academus
A viable, proven product that couldbe considered by an institution likeours now
A viable product that could beconsidered by an institution like oursin a year or two
A new initiative that is worthwatching but is not ready for primetime in the near future
An initiative I have heard of butdoes not seem relevant to aninstitution like ours
Never heard of it
Page 32© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Successes of Open SourceSuccess Achieved With Open Source Application Software:
All Respondents Who Have Implemented
41.54%33.85%
23.08%
38.46%
21.54%32.31%
15.38%21.54%
12.31%
36.92%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Total cost of ownership
User satisfaction
Support from the presidents officeResponsiveness to institutional needs
Meeting project schedulesEnhanced functionality
Collaboration with other institutions
Achieving an institution-wide infrastructure
Facilitation of IT research
Creating a platform for innovation
Very Successful
Somewhat Successful
Not Sure Yet
Somewhat Unsuccessful
Very Unsuccessful
Not A Goal
Most:TCOResponsivenessInnovationSatisfactionFunctionality
Page 33© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Considering Now . . . Estimated Market Adoption of Select Open Source Application Software
8.2%
28.1% 19.9%
3.1%
23.0%
11.7%9.7%
14.8%
8.7%
3.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Kuali SakaiuPortal
LionShareMoodle
OSPI OKI
OpenOfficeSCT Luminis
Unicon Academus
Not Considered
Rejected
Considering
Chosen- not fully implemented
Implemented
Page 34© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Future Expectations Three-Year Prediction of Pervasiveness of Open Source
Applications:
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
< $20m $20-50m $50-100m $100-200m $200-500m >$500m
Pervasive
Substantial
One or Two Products in Use
Occasional Consideration
None
Page 35© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Agenda• Overall Purpose: Discussion about the progress of community source from a business perspective
• Results of industry survey through a market leadership lens
• Summary thoughts • Call to action for the IMS Global Learning Consortium
*Note: There will be discussion topics throughout the presentation- active participation is expected
Page 36© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Summary Thoughts• Open source applications have clearly emerged as a factor in the higher education market
• It’s difficult to see how open source can rival the innovation of commercial products going forward given the focus on cost as the key value proposition (but it is possible)
• Commercial CMS’s created a strong pull from underserved users that drove an IT decision - can IT drive open source applications?
Page 37© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Agenda• Overall Purpose: Discussion about the progress of community source from a business perspective
• Results of industry survey through a market leadership lens
• Summary thoughts• Call to action for the IMS Global Learning Consortium
*Note: There will be discussion topics throughout the presentation- active participation is expected
Page 38© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
IMS Global LearningConsortium
• In service to the community of organizations and individuals enhancing learning worldwide
• IMS/GLC is a global, nonprofit, member organization that provides leadership in shaping and growing the learning industry through community development of standards, promotion of innovation, and research into best practices
Page 39© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
IMS and the Global Tech Industry
Investing in
LearningInnovation
Page 41© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
IMS Open Source Objectives
• Separate truth from fiction• Address efficient return across commercial and grant funding through interoperability standards and projects
• Research and document best practices
• Explore the connection between open source and key learning industry challenges
Page 42© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
IMS Open Source Actions• Open source activities at annual conference June 19-22– Moodle, Sakai, Blackboard, Angel, Microsoft, IBM, Open University, etc.
• New working group on Integrated Learning Architectures partnering with UBC open source SOA group, among others
• This research - your involvement and support welcome . . .
Page 43© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Participate: Support IMS!• Join IMS! New Member Levels Available!
–http://www.imsglobal.org/joinims.html
• Annual Conference: June 19-22, Hosted by Indiana U:
–http://www.imsglobal.org/altilab2006/
Page 44© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Open Source Workshop• Special Workshop (Thursday, 22 June) Integrating Open
Source, Commercial, and In-House Solutions to Deliver Online Learning Solutions
• Workshop Themes: * How integration can happen. * How standards support an integrated approach. * Relevant IMS specifications. * Typical customer requirements. * Making fit for purpose choices. * Real user case studies.
• 10:00 - 10:10 Introduction * Joel Greenberg, Chair of EIN, Director of Strategic Development Learning & Teaching Solutions, The Open University
• 10:10 - 10:40 The Vendor View: * Microsoft - Chris Moffatt, Senior Program Manager, Education Products Group, Microsoft * Blackboard/WebCT - Chris Vento, Senior Vice President - Technology & Product Development, Blackboard * Angel Learning - Ray Henderson, Chief Products Officer, Angel Learning
• 10:40 - 11:00 The Open Source View: * Moodle - Martin Dougiamas, Moodle Founder and Lead Developer, Executive Director of Moodle Pty Ltd * Sakai - Charles Severance, Sakai Foundation Board Member, Chief Architect, University of Michigan
• 11:15 - 11:35 The User View: * The Open University - Jason Cole, Product Development Manager, Learning and Teaching Solutions, The Open University * The University of Wisconsin - Dirk Herr- Hoymann, eLearning System Architect, University of Wisconsin-Madison, DoIT
• 11:35 - 1:30 Developing User Guidelines Agreeing on on-going collaborative activities • 1:30 Workshop Closes
Page 45© Copyright 2006 IMS/GLCAll Rights Reserved.
Summit Panel• Wednesday, 21 June• Open Source: Win-Lose, Win-Win, or Lose-Lose for the
Learning Industry? New open source applications in the learning market have been explored with great interest as a potential way to provide the education industry with the customization, control, and stability. Hear about new research on the adoption of open source in higher education and join the debate on what business issues open source
addresses and whether it is a positive or negative influence on the learning industry. • Chris Vento, Senior Vice President Technology & Product Development,
Blackboard • Chris Moffatt, Senior Program Manager, Teaching & Learning Technologies
Team, Microsoft • Joel Greenberg, Ph.D., Director of Strategic Development Learning &
Teaching Solutions, The Open University • Mike King, Director, Market Development, IBM Education Industry • Brad Wheeler, Ph.D., Indiana University Chief Information Officer & Indiana
University-Bloomington Dean of IT, IU
• Moderator: Rob Abel, CEO, IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.