Selecting a Learning Management System (LMS)
Note: This entry is in response to a class assignment for my HRE472 course. Scenario: You are Director of Educational Technology at Chronicle Corporation. Your organization has assigned you to develop a strategic plan to implement e-learning. You must consider many factors to make your decision. Decide what Learning Management System to purchase for your organization.
Today, there are over 140 learning management system (LMS) companies (Bersin & Associates, 2008) and choosing one can often be a daunting task. At times the old adage “If they build it, will they come”, comes to mind. The first part of choosing a LMS is making sure one has an understanding of what an LMS is. Simply stated, a learning management system is a web-based software that launches educational content, manages course registration, tracks course completion status, maintains transcripts and produces reports (Johnson, Pollex, & Wood, 2008).
Selecting an appropriate LMS for an organization starts with identifying the learning strategies and requirements (Alvarado, 2004). It’s important for an organization to have a clear set of prioritized requirements before they can effectively choose the right LMS. Understanding the full scope of what an LMS can do for the organization and knowing what the organization needs will greatly assist in the selection process. Unfortunately, the shoe does not always fit with every LMS and organization. Basing one’s LMS decision on that of another organization’s success is ill advised. It’s important to note that some LMS will be a better fit for large enterprise companies, while other LMS companies will focus their attention on smaller organizations (i.e. 500 users). While a more robust LMS might seem like the right option because of its capabilities it might be the wrong investment if it does not fit the needs of the organization.
Another key step in choosing the appropriate LMS is evaluating the one’s company and the potential vendor to ensure the capabilities meet the organization’s requirements. It can be beneficial for an organization to prioritize the LMS requirements as high, medium, and low (aka “nice to have”). By having a prioritized list, it will be easier to narrow the selection and make sure an LMS can handle the organization’s requirements. After a learning strategy has been put in place and a list of priorities has been created, one can begin the research process.
Today, there are multiple tools and websites to assist in the research and comparison of LMS companies. A free site that reviews products is edu tools. Another resource is Brandon Hall, they provide in-depth profiles of over 50 LMS and comparisons for a mere $995. No matter what way one chooses to research different LMS vendors, in the end they will be able to compile their own comparison list from which they can dissect and decide upon.
The next step in selecting a LMS includes preparing a request for proposal (Alvarado, 2004). From here the organization will review the proposals and narrow their options, and then schedule meetings and demos with the vendors. It’s vital to schedule meetings and demos to get a full understanding of what each vendor has to offer. It might also be beneficial to invite additional staff to participate in these meetings to get further feedback. During these meetings one might find this to be a good opportunity to make sure any part of the functionality or implementation that are not clearly understood answered (Alvarado, 2004). From here, an organization should be able to make a suitable decision and choose the best LMS vendor for their organization.
Lastly, additional areas to focus on when selecting an LMS might include, looking at the LMS skills assessment, content access, enrollment and tracking, learning evaluation, marketing and communication, and content development (Alvarado, 2004).
Case Study
Currently, a non-profit association, is in the process of switching learning management systems (LMS). After careful consideration, evaluation of the current system, and research they have been able to come up with a detailed checklist of requirements for the LMS. The functionalities and features have been broken down into three different categories: required, optional, and not required. Notes have also been included to further elaborate on specific needs that might assist potential vendors. This list was originally downloaded from the Geo Learning website (free download) and customized to fit the needs and requirements of the association.
Additional considerations have also been noted to help narrow potential vendor options. The current LMS that the association uses has raised their prices and decreased their support services, making it difficult for the association to properly assist their online students and manage the current system. Key elements have been distinguished in the search for a new LMS vendor. These elements include the financial stability of the vendor; with the increase of LMS vendors in this very competitive market, it’s important to assess the stability of the vendor. Mergers and acquisitions are more common than ever and keeping up with the business aspect of an LMS company is important (Alvarado, 2004).
Also, customer service and support will be assessed in the LMS selection. Learning management systems generally fall into three distinct categories: proprietary hosted systems, proprietary installed systems, and open-source solutions. A hosted system is one that is maintained by the LMS provider, which acts as an application service provider (ASP) (Alvarado, 2004). The LMS provider generally grants permission to the organization (often allowing for limited customization) and are the support staff when problems arise. On the other side, there are installed solutions. These systems are implemented and maintained by the organization (typically the IT department). Support staff is also maintained by the organization and customizations are more flexible unlike the hosted solutions. Lastly, there is the option to use an open-source solution such as Moodle or Sakai Project. Contrary to popular belief, open-source products do not mean free, rather the open-source community shares the software and code freely. An open-source solution allows for greater flexibility, however depending on the organization’s requirements they might require additional third party vendors to supply all of the organization’s needs. Support and service will also need to be maintained by the organization.
Lastly, the association has made note of the importance of vendor pricing structures. Depending on the user needs, an LMS can become a very pricy learning solution. In a study done by Richard Nantel (2007), the average costs amongst a study of 52 LMS profiles shows:
| Users/Seats | Average Cost |
| 500 users | $48,803 |
| 10,000 users | $254,656 |
| 25,000 users | $472,841 |
| 100,000 users | $1,250,610 |
The association has also taken into consideration to costs of implementation and maintenance costs into their projected budget for a new LMS. With a set pricing structure in mind, the association has been able to narrow their LMS options down considerably.
The following is a high-level comparison chart of two potential LMS vendors:
|
Product Name |
Education Director |
ANGEL Learning |
| Developer | Results Direct | Angel Learning |
| Administrative Features | ||
| Supports multiple, concurrent authors | Yes | Yes |
| Authentication & Authorization | Administrators can allow guest access to all courses, allow enrollment, rights, and course restriction | Administrators can allow guest access to all courses, allow enrollment, rights, and course restriction |
| Multiple language support | Yes | Yes |
| Multiple time-zones | Yes | Yes |
| Individual and batch registration options | Yes | Yes, using text tab delimited (.txt) files |
| Ability to copy course sections | Yes | Yes |
| Automatically stores performance data | Yes | Yes |
| Web-based reporting interface | Yes | Yes |
| Ability to export data | Yes, using text tab delimited (.txt) files and/or .csv files | Yes, using text tab delimited (.txt) files |
| AMS integration with DMG | Yes – Education Director specializes in integrating LMS with major association management systems | Customizable (not definite) |
| Collaboration/Communication Tools | ||
| Built-in email messaging | Standard functionality | Standard functionality |
| Built-in discussion tool | Spell checker, discussion threading, & multiple viewing options (i.e. day, topic, author, etc.) | Spell checker, can receive posts via e-mail (enable or disable this function), (i.e. day, topic, author, etc.) |
| File Exchange | Students can upload and download files, share content from their personal folders | Students can submit assignments using a drop box, share content from their personal folders |
| Chat functionality | Whiteboard capabilities, multiple chat rooms available, text, audio, and video functionality, | Limited number of attendees per room, unlimited simultaneous group discussions, system creates archive logs for all chat rooms, instructors may choose to moderate |
| Student Experience | ||
| Ability to print course materials | Yes | Yes |
| Customizable student navigation features | Yes | Yes |
| Access to a course glossary | Customizable | N/A |
| Calendar | Standard functionality | Standard functionality |
| Built-in student note-pad | Not included but can be customized. | Students can attach notes to any page, students can combine their notes with the course content to create a printable study guide |
| Search functionality within course | Yes | Yes |
| Progress reports | Yes | Yes |
| Instructor Features | ||
| Online grade books | When students submit assignments via the drop box grades are transferred to the grade book, grades can be manually entered, can add additional comments, can export grade book, can create a course grading scale that can employ percentages, letter grades, and/or pass/fail | Instructors can add grades offline, can customize columns, can export grade book, can create a course grading scale that can employ percentages, letter grades, and/or pass/fail |
| Course Management | Selective release capabilities | Selective release capabilities, can link discussions to specific dates or course events |
| Student Tracking | Can track frequency and duration of student access, can export reports to .csv files, track all student activity within the course | Can track frequency and duration of student access, can export reports to a .txt file, usage statistics |
| Assessment Tools and Features | ||
| Ability to create practice exercises, tests, and surveys | Yes | Yes |
| Testing Types | Multiple Choice
Multiple answer True/False Matching Fill-in-the-blank Short answer |
Multiple Choice
Multiple answer True/False Matching Ordering Calculated Fill-in-the-blank Short answer Survey questions Essay Questions can contain other media elements |
| Content Creation | ||
| Course templates | Yes | Yes |
| Use of multimedia elements | Yes | Yes |
| Platform, Hosting & Support | ||
| ADA Section 508 compliance (meets standards that allow people with disabilities to access information online) | Yes | Yes |
(ANGEL Learning & Results Direct, 2008)
In the end, the organization leans towards Results Direct – Education Director, in part because of their client portfolio and their specialization in association management systems (AMS). While the LMS might not be as robust as ANGEL, Education Director offers a better-packaged deal and less customization costs with integration into the current AMS.
References:
ANGEL Learning. (2008). ANGEL Learning Management Suite. Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://www.angellearning.com/products/lms/
Alvarado, P. (2004). Seven Steps to Selecting a Learning Management System. E-Learning Engineering. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://www.elearning-engineering.com/lms/
ASTD, The MASIE Center. (2001). E-Learning: “If We Build It, Will They Come?” – Executive Summary. Retrieved, November 14, 2008, from http://www.masieweb.com/dmdocuments/ASTD_Exec_Summ.pdf
Bersins & Associates. (2008). Selecting a Learning Management System. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://www.webcite.com.au/webcontent15.htm
EduTools. (2008). CMS: CMS Home. Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://www.edutools.info/static.jsp?pj=4&page=HOME
Geo Learning. (2008). Learning Management Checklist. Retrieved November 14, 2008, from http://www.geolearning.com/main/tools/lmschecklist.cfm
Johnson, C., Pollex, H., & Wood, A. (2008). Selecting a Learning Management System. Canadian Journal of Nursing Informatics, 3 (1), 28-26.
Nantel, R. (2007). LMS Pricing Trends (Installed Implementations). Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://brandon-hall.com/richardnantel/2007/03/28/lms-pricing-trends/
Results Direct. (2008). Education Director. Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://www.resultsdirect.com/WebSolutions/contentED.cfm?ItemNumber=629&navItemNumber=688
November 19th, 2008 at 3:12 am
Liz-
You’ve done an awesome job here! I especially like that you included the case study as a reference to ground your ideas and discuss actual decisions that the company will face. I noticed that you made a point to note that open source systems are not free of cost–great point. I came across that in my research of ILIAS as well, although it did still seem like they provided a cheaper solution. I thought about adding that there might be additional costs regardless of the open source software, but it didn’t seem to fit anywhere so I left it out. However, even though I didn’t use the word “free,” I can see how readers could get that impression.
I also liked that you noted that finding an LMS that suites the business should be the goal, as opposed to finding the one with the most features.
Great post!
AG