3.2 Ruth sabean interview - part 2 - ucla selects open source  (Page 3/5)

The future of open source software in higher education and of moodle

KU: Whenever we select critical organization-level software we are thinking about medium- to long-term viability of the technology, organizational costs, lock-in, and other factors that we hope will position us well. With this in mind, where do you see open-source learning-management systems generally and Moodle specifically in five years?

RS: Our choice was focused on selecting the best launching platform for developing a robust environment to support teaching, learning, and collaboration. From what we could directly evaluate and what we could learn from others, Moodle’s progress over the past five years indicated that it will remain a stable and responsive technology platform that tracks (and in some cases) leads this application space. For example, new tools appear rapidly; standards are implemented; accessibility, pedagogy, and end-user experience drives design; and it has a global vision and commitment to global education. Our expectation and our intention with a dual focus on interoperability is not that the Sakais and Moodles will merge, but rather that the functionality we need will be best met by combining the best of breed across this application space.

KU: What about other proprietary systems?

RS: It is encouraging to see the engagement of proprietary solutions with initiatives focused on the development and (true) implementation of standards, open API definitions, and an architecture that enables a mix and match of tools.

Experience sharing

KU: During my last five positions (prior to my current role at Penn State), I was involved with an LMS selection process. I know that there are many institutions considering evaluation processes right now. Do you have any advice for other institutions and colleagues that are contemplating a new LMS?

RS: Think beyond LMS/CMS—think about the faculty experience and the student experience. Understand your faculty-driven usage requirements and your long-term architecture. Be brutally honest about your own culture, funding, expertise, and processes. Focus on the significant differences, particularly those that will be difficult for you to influence, compensate for, or fix. Be prepared to invest fully in making your decision successful.

KU: What were one or two of the big lessons that you and your team learned during the process?

RS: Ask your faculty to drive the process with usage requirements, then ask your IT experts to describe the implementation of those requirements. Bring in some colleagues from peer institutions to help by asking tough questions and providing a different viewpoint. Give your faculty the information they need to make a sound decision. Make your decision a successful one.

Concluding remarks

RS: I t’s an old saw, but is once again evident in our experience—the process has been at least as important as the decisions. By the time we reached a decision, we had a community that had built some level of common understanding of why this mattered and what we could achieve together. There are many people I could name as pivotal to the work, beginning with the faculty on the FCET, the participants (and for the staff, their supervisors!) in all of the workgroups and subgroups, the institutions who spent time helping us with the assessment by freely sharing information, and our executive sponsors who continue to advocate for institutional support. We have a long road ahead of us and already another fine group shepherding the process of implementing UCLA’s first CCLE. To stay tuned, visit (External Link) .