Proposed Strategy for Establishing a Stable,
Sustainable Learning Management System at
Makerere University
Introduction
During the week of 6th October, the SAIDE-CET planning team of the PHEA Educational
Technology Initiative visited Makerere University to initiate the first phase of planning to
establish an Integrated Education Technology Strategy for the Institution. During this visit
and the various workshops and meetings held, it became apparent that there is an urgent
imperative to set up a stable, sustainable Learning Management System (LMS) platform for
the Institution. This is essential because:
1) Blackboard, the LMS currently most widely used within the Institution requires a licence
renewal by 14th November, 2008, failing which much of its functionality will be disabled.
In addition, the Institution is using a very old version of Blackboard, and is likely to need
considering an upgrade in the licence to a newer version of the software.
2) Kewl.NextGen, an Open Source Software (OSS) platform, which was installed as a longterm alternative to Blackboard, has been a subject of some controversy and has
established a reputation on Campus as a software platform that is both difficult to use and
not stable, a reputation that was confirmed by several evaluations undertaken within the
Department for Information and Communication Technology Support (DICTS).
3) The third available LMS – the Tufts University Sciences Knowledgebase (TUSK) – is
accessible for use only within the College of Public Health. Extending further access to
this platform has additional licensing and hardware implications, as the terms of use
demand that separate installations be undertaken on new servers should the use of TUSK
be extended.
It seems that each of the above platforms was established during a funded project, but without
clarity having been secured on the long-term sustainability of each after the project had
concluded. Consequently, there is a need to review decisions taken, in order to ensure that the
following is achieved:
• The Institution takes a decision on which of the above LMSs will be used as its e-learning
platform of choice for the future. Best practice at universities suggests that there is strong
merit in agreeing to support a single LMS, in order to consolidate investments and
minimize recurrent costs, as well as to ensure that students and academics are presented a
consistent experience across platforms.
• Once a decision is taken, a clear plan is executed to review existing online courses and
content, determine which are currently up-to-date and operational, and migrate the
content onto a new stable platform so that academics and students do not lose any data
that they have generated to date.
• A clear strategy for sustaining the chosen LMS using core institutional funds is approved
in order to break the current cycle of dependence on donor funding to set up and run
LMSs. This strategy will need to make provision predominantly for necessary technical
expertise to keep the platform operational and user support services designed to scale up
as e-learning demand grows, as well as provision for any licensing fees that might need to
be paid.
This document presents a brief analysis of strategic options and recommends a process to
achieve the above.
A Strategic Approach to Selecting a Single LMS Platform for
Makerere University
Given the introduction above, there is clear a high degree of urgency about finalizing a choice
for the future of LMSs. This is particularly important, given that there is a need to pay a
US$10,000 licence fee for Blackboard by 14th November, 2008 should the Institution wish to
continue using that platform. While this choice clearly must be taken through consultation
and approved by the relevant decision-making structures, it could be possible to accelerate
the process by narrowing options based on the current situation. Given this, the following
observations are offered in an effort to narrow the analysis required:
1) There are effectively two high-level choices: to retain a proprietary LMS or to migrate to
an OSS platform. It should be stressed that both options carry costs and strategic strengths
and weaknesses. Both options require ongoing availability of technical support capacity
and user support in the Institution. Importantly, it is essential to note that OSS is not free
of cost as some people have been led to believe. All software deployments carry initial
and recurrent costs that need to be carefully analysed. Consequently, the final choice
should be underpinned by carefully analysis of functionality, Total Cost of Ownership,
and cost-benefit, not by ideological preferences. Part of this analysis needs to include
strategic decisions by the Institution regarding what programming and technical support
skills it believes it is best placed to retain internally, as there is little point in choosing a
software platform that requires programming skills that cannot be sustained – at least in
part – internally.
2) The decision-making process should focus primarily on securing a stable, easy-to-use
LMS rather than attempting to grow the technological skills and/or reputation of the
Institution. An LMS is a core IT system, but there has been a tendency in higher
education in recent years to allow it to become equivalent to an IT research project, used
to develop IT proficiency and take the Institution in new technological directions. In an
environment where strong emphasis is placed on the importance of e-learning, this is
highly problematic.
3) On the proprietary side, it seems clear that there is no need to look further than the current
Blackboard platform. Particularly since WebCT was bought by Blackboard, there is no
meaningful commercial alternative that is likely to provide significantly better
functionality or cost-benefit than Blackboard. Consequently, it is proposed that the
decision-making process should not consider proprietary LMSs other than Blackboard.
4) Notwithstanding the above, it is apparent that Makerere University is using a very old
version of Blackboard. While this has worked successfully in the past, it poses two
problems:
a) The Institution’s primary e-learning platform reflects none of the developments in IT
and the Internet that have been integrated into LMSs since that time, most notably
those around Web 2.0 technologies;
b) The longer software is retained without being upgraded, the more likely there will
emerge conflicts with operating systems, incompatibilities with other software
applications, and declining support available for old versions of software.
Given the above, it is proposed that the decision-making process should incorporate
analysis of the cost of upgrading to a newer version of Blackboard. This is already
recommended in internal evaluations of the LMS platforms
5) On the OSS side, the experience with Kewl.NextGen appears not to have been successful.
Significant dissatisfaction has been expressed in meetings and evaluation documents
regarding this platform, both in term of its stability and its user interface. Importantly, the
people who initially took responsibility for the installation (funded through a separate
project) are no longer at the institution, while the project that supported them has
concluded. While Kewl.NextGen is a platform that contains several merits and has the
benefit of having tried to establish an African network of developers, it has also been
plagued by the above problems and remains with a very limited installation and user base.
As OSS platforms depend for their health on the size of the community of users and
developers, it is institutionally risky to select a platform that does not have widespread,
institutionally supported use. Given this, the reputational damage caused by the history of
Kewl.NextGen’s deployment to date, and the relatively small scale of current use
(estimated by Abigail Inapat as only 20 courses currently), it is proposed that
Kewl.NextGen not be considered as a viable long-term LMS for the Institution.
6) If Kewl.NextGen is not to be considered as a viable OSS alternative to Blackboard, it isa
necessary to identify a possible OSS platform that might constitute such an alternative.
Globally, there are two primary platforms that have emerged as preferences for higher
education institutions: a Java-based platform called Sakai and a PHP- platform called
Moodle. Both platforms have strong reputations and a wide and growing base of
installations and institutional users. It is proposed that these two platforms be considered
as potential alternatives to Blackboard. In comparing the two, there are three primary
issues to be considered:
a) Ease of sustainability. As both platforms have different technological architectures
and building blocks, consideration needs to be given to the viability of sustaining and
providing technical support for them within the University. Generally, Java is
acknowledged as being a harder technological platform to sustain, with Java
developers being more expensive to recruit and harder to retain given their greater
marketability. Ultimately, therefore ease of sustainability is a financial matter.
b) Functionality. The platforms take different approaches to how they present the LMS
environment, which will need to be weighed up. Given the history of e-learning at
Makerere and the fact that both platforms are widely and reliably used, analysis in this
area should focus primarily on ease of use (bearing in mind, though, that ease of use is
a somewhat subjective matter).
c) Integration with other software. It is increasingly acknowledged that LMSs cannot
operate as stand-alone software platforms, as there is a growing diversity of
functionality available in multiple platforms and a consequent requirement to be able
to integrate LMSs with other software platforms and their Application Programming
Interfaces (APIs).
7) Finally, the question remains regarding how to handle TUSK. As has been noted, it is
desirable to focus efforts on sustaining a single LMS. Given TUSK’s specialized focus
and its specific licensing restrictions, it would seem that it does not constitute a viable
institutional alternative for Makerere University. Nevertheless, there will be need – as
part of the above process – to decide whether to retain it for the College of Public Health
or to migrate the College onto a single institutional system. This should include
consideration of the likely sustainability of TUSK given its current installation base
Consequently, it is proposed that the review incorporate a brief analysis of the pros and
cons of retaining TUKS within the College of Public Health.
Taking the Process Forward
If the above proposals are considered valid, then the following steps will need to be
implemented to secure a single, stable, sustainable LMS for Makerere University:
Activity
1) Complete a comparative review of Blackboard, Sakai, and
Moodle, with a primary emphasis on:
a) Functionality
b) Total Cost of Ownership
c) Ease of maintenance
This analysis should include consultation with key players
within the Institution to facilitate creating ownership of the final
decision taken.
2) Linked to the above, undertake test installations of Sakai and
Moodle to test ease of installation and other potential
requirements. The results of this should feed into the final
review.
3) As a precaution, ensure that all data in Blackboard is exported
and fully backed up, in case licences restrictions prevent access
to data should the licence lapse
4) Based on the above review, present a recommendation to
proceed with a single LMS to the appropriate decision making
structure. The recommendation should be accompanied by a
detailed installation budget, as well as proposed annual
maintenance costs (including internal capacity requirements for
technical and user support)
5) Design introductory training programme for users of new
platform (also likely to be necessary for Blackboard as interface
will change)
6) Complete audit of all content/courses/users in current LMSs to
determine what needs to be migrated
7) Install the selected platform (upgrade if Blackboard)
8) Complete migration of all content/courses/users necessary in
terms of audit
9) Provide introductory, one-day training workshop to all active
academic users of LMSs (estimated by Abigail Inapat to be
approximately 400 users currently)
Deadline
Audit complete by 10th
November, 2008
31st October, 2008
10th November, 2008
15th November, 2008
15th December, 2008
15th December, 2008
15th January, 2009
15/01/2008 then
ongoing
31/03/2008 then
ongoing
It is proposed that support budget for the above steps be drawn from the remaining funds
available in the Carnegie Corporation e-learning grant, should this be acceptable to Carnegie.