Eduforge: eduforge - Overcoming Objections

TUTORIAL 5

OVERCOMING OBJECTIONS TO THE ADOPTION OF OPEN SOURCE LEARNING CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

To improve the tutorial, please add comments at the end of this page. To obtain additional information, please write to Tony Bailetti at bailetti@sce.carleton.ca.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thanks to Sinead Averill (Ireland), Glen McInnis (Canada), and Brent Simpson (New Zealand). They contributed ideas and made insightful comments on previous versions of this tutorial.

ACRONYMS

FOSS = free open source software

IT = information technology

LCMS = learning content management system

OBJECTIVES

Upon completion of this tutorial, you will know about:

the reasons why the open source software model is different from the proprietary software model
the four roles that individuals who make decisions about LCMS adoption can assume
what each role wants
what the objections to an open source LCMS may be, and
what you need to do to overcome these objections

TARGET AUDIENCE

This tutorial may benefit technical and non-technical individuals involved in a decision pertaining to the adoption of an open source LCMS in an organization.

EXCLUDED

This tutorial does not describe how to manage organizational change. The purpose of this tutorial is solely to explain the human side of making open source adoption decisions in an organization.

RELEVANCE

Seemingly well-designed efforts to adopt an open source LCMS may fail if the human side of the decision is not well understood. The LCMS adoption decision is a result of a socio-political process anchored around discussions of economic, technical, and pedagogical issues.

Organizations do not decide to shift to open source, individuals do. Each participant in the decision process has roles and wants. Frequently, these roles and wants are not obvious.

Attention to the human factors will accelerate the pace in which organizations worldwide will adopt open source LCMS. Many individuals have had their heads wrapped up around the proprietary LCMS for a long time. Thus, it is difficult to get them to consider anything else. It takes time for individuals in an organization to adopt an open source LCMS. The decision making process they use is seldom clear.

REASONS WHY THE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE MODEL IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE MODEL

Open source software has become a viable alternative to the traditional proprietary software. It is important that individuals in an organization understand the reasons why these two models are different before any discussion of open source LCMS adoption takes place.

The open source model, when compared to the traditional software model,:

allows users to collaborate with a global community of developers
provides users access to the source code (i.e., language that the developers use) and the binary code (i.e., the 0s and 1s that computers understand)
provides users the right to copy, modify, alter and redistribute the software
allows users to access improvements made to the software by others

Open source software is:

economically compelling (provides rapid return on investment)
adaptable (user can modify and extend)
stable and reliable (fine-tuned by hundreds of developers worldwide)
flexible (adapts without breaking)

Open source software offers many potential benefits to instructors, students, administrators, content developers, program managers, and information technology staff.

PEOPLE ASSUME ROLES WHEN MAKING DECISIONS

A senior executive, an administrator, a member of the information technology staff, a subject matter expert, a course developer, a visitor, a student or any other member of the organization may initiate the open source adoption process. While senior managers or school administrators will make the final decision, many individuals will influence it. The involvement of many individuals in a decision about an LCMS creates a group dynamic that open source proponents must know about.

Examples of open source adoption decisions include decisions to:

install an open source LCMS in an organization with no LCMS experience
shift from an off-the shelf proprietary LCMS to an open source LCMS
shift from a custom proprietary LCMS to an open source LCMS

Each individual who participates in an organizational decision-making process assumes one or more roles in the process. Different individuals may assume the same role. Each role can be thought of as a form of behaviour into which individuals can be placed to help our understanding of group dynamics. The individuals who take on these roles can be thought of as the decision making center.

There are at least four roles encountered in every decision to adopt an open source learning management system:

Economic
Technical
User
Advocate

Regardless of how many individuals are involved in an open source adoption decision, and no matter what title they have in the organization, the same four roles are present every time. The individuals who occupy these roles may number far more than four. They are the key decision makers. Advocates of free open source LCMS cannot ignore the wants of these four roles. To �sell� an open source LCMS, open source advocates need to satisfy the wants of the individuals in these four roles.

Economic role

Individuals who occupy the economic role focus on the incremental benefits and costs of owning an open source LCMS vs owning a proprietary LCMS and the economic impact that the open source migration will have on the organization. The ultimate objective of the individuals in the economic role is to obtain value for money.

While there may be various individuals in the economic role, only one has the authority to allocate the funds required for the open source migration. This individual also has veto power. The more money that is required to implement the open source migration, the higher up in the organization the ultimate decision maker will be.

People in the economic role will need to be satisfied that the investment in the migration to open source is worthwhile and that the open source software model is a viable alternative to the traditional proprietary software model. To convince individuals in the economic role to shift to an open source LCMS, proponents of the shift should make a compelling case identifying the:

return on the investment of adopting an open source LCMS
fit between the organization�s objectives and the objectives of the community developing the open source LCMS
benefits of eliminating the organization�s lock in to the supplier of the proprietary LCMS

The use of an open source LCMS eliminates payments for software upgrades. This reduces the cost of owning the LCMS. Operating a free open source LCMS is not free. That the software is free does not mean that the cost of owning it is free. The organization that owns the open source LCMS must pay to install, maintain, support, and evolve it. The organization that decides to shift to an open source LCMS must pay to migrate course functions and data files, retrain staff, upgrade support, etc. Individuals in the economic role will want to compare the cost to own the open source LCMS and compare it with the cost of operating the proprietary LCMS.

People in the economic role wil be interested to learn that the licensing costs of the proprietary LCMS increases with the number of users. The greater the number of users, the greater the cost savings from using the open source LCMS (Wong and Sayo, 2004, pp. 11-12)

A free open source LCMS provides the organization complete ownership and control of software assets for modification, extension and deployment. This means that it is easier for the organization to modify and extend the code to increase the fit between the LCMS�s functionality and the organization�s objectives. However, the economic buyer will also require assurances that the mission of the community developing the open source software fits the organizations� mission.

The use of a proprietary LCMS leads to supplier lock-in for three reasons. An organization that uses a proprietary LCMS is locked into the supplier�s pricing policy. The price of a campus license has been known to increase dramatically from one contract to the next. Regardless of how attractive the price of a contract seems, it will need to be renewed. The price next time may be significantly higher than today�s price. The organization using a proprietary LCMS has little power to fight price increases from the supplier.

The second reason for the supplier lock in has to do with the number of courses developed using the proprietary platform. The greater the number of courses designed using a proprietary platform, the more difficult it is for an organization to switch to another supplier. The reason for this is the amount of time and effort that it will take to move the course material from the proprietary platform so it can be used properly in another platform. The more an organization uses a proprietary platform, the more expensive it is to switch out of it and the worse the lock in to the LCMS supplier becomes.

The third reason for lock in has to do with the fact that the organization must use the pedagogical models supported by the supplier of the proprietary LCMS. Implementing a different model is expensive and time consuming. An open source LCMS is highly customizable. It is easier to modify it and extend it to support a variety of pedagogical models.

Technical role

People who occupy the technical role will continually ask whether or not the proposed open source LCMS meets the specifications in their areas of expertise. Their focus is the LCMS itself. They filter the open source LCMS based on technicalities. Their job is to ensure that a new solution meets technical requirements. What they want to know is if the proposed FOSS system will work to meet clearly defined requirements.

A person does not need a technical background to occupy a technical role in the open source migration decision. Technical or non-technical individuals may occupy the technical role. For example, the organization�s lawyer or accountant may occupy the technical role.

People in the technical role cannot give final approval to the open source migration. They provide recommendations that influence the ultimate decisions.

Reactions to the open source LCMS of the individuals in the technical role tend to be objective. They make judgments based on quantifiable and measurable aspects of the open source LCMS. This means that open source advocates need hard, accurate data when dealing with these individuals.

People in the technical role can sometimes provide negative assessments about new things. They can be difficult to convince and sometimes their objections may seem petty. Open source advocates need to be aware that individuals in the technical role throw objections because that is their job. These individuals serve a very useful purpose. They reduce the likelihood that the organization buys into a solution that will not work properly later on.

Individuals in the technical role need to be satisfied that the proposed open source LCMS meets specifications. To convince individuals in the technical role to shift to an open source LCMS, proponents of the shift should provide:

a detailed plan for the migration of the content, course functionality, and custom code
evidence that the LCMS can interoperate with organizational systems
evidence that the functionality and performance of the open source is as good, or better, than the comparable proprietary LCMS
a list of standards with which the open source system is compliant, particularly open standards
estimates of changes in the system administrator's productivity
evidence that the open source system has been thoroughly tested and that it is reliable, stable and secure
details of the internal and external technical support available for the open source LCMS
plan to manage the evolution of the open source code
details of how the open source system will handle security and support remote and mobile users

User role

Individuals in the user role are the individuals who will use the LCMS or supervise its use. They make judgments about how the LCMS affects what four groups do: students, instructors, developers of content, and managers of course production projects and programs.

Individuals in the user role are primarily concerned on how the open source LCMS will affect what they do. They will ask questions concerning the open source LCMS�s ease of use, support, retraining needs, documentation, and reliability.

Reactions to the open source LCMS of the individuals in the user role tend to be subjective and personal. This means that open source advocates need to take subjectivity into account when dealing with these individuals. The reactions are personal because users have to live with the open source LCMS solution.

To get individuals in the user role on side, advocates of open source need to provide compelling answers to the following question: what will the open source LCMS do for me?

To convince students and instructors to shift to an open source LCMS, proponents of the shift should provide:

content on the open source LCMS that is relevant to students and instructors
opportunities and incentives to explore the open source LCMS and interact with members of the community that supports the open source LCMS
evidence that the open source LCMS is easy to use and has well-designed user interfaces
evidence that the open source LCMS adjusts to how instructors teach and how students learn, as well as to the users' languages and cultures
clear explanation of what will happen to the material instructors and students have on the old proprietary LCMS
assurances of appropriate help desk support (e.g., via e-mail and telephone) and retraining (e.g., via workshops, online tutorials)
good documentation
evidence that it is easy to register/deregister in the open source LCMS

To convince developers of content to shift to an open source LCMS, proponents of the shift should provide:

examples of excellent content supported by the open source LCMS
the templates and tools available for content authoring
training and good documentation

To convince managers of course projects and programs to shift to an open source LCMS, proponents of the shift should provide:

evidence that use of the free open source LCMS will decrease the time for introducing new courses and programs
clear explanation of the technology that will enable them to deliver their projects and programs

Advocate role

Two advocate roles may exist: the individuals championing the adoption of an open source LCMS and the individuals championing the old system (e.g., a proprietary LCMS or an off-line system).

Individuals in the role of championing the open source system:

explain the reasons why the open source software model is a viable alternative to the traditional proprietary model
clarify organizational objectives and the fit between these objectives and the open source LCMS
identify the individuals making the LCMS decision and the roles they fill (e.g., Marie is VP Academic and she is in the user role)
push for the resolution of organizational politics
effectively contribute to the adoption of the open source LCMS

To be effective, open source advocates must be credible with the individuals who make the decision to shift to an open source LCMS and they need to be fully committed to help the organization do the right thing.

Individuals championing the open source LCMS must avoid giving the perception that the champions of the old proprietary LCMS will lose something as a result of the adoption of open source software. The champions of the old system may be influential individuals who built the old system and worked very to make it work over a long period of time. It is important to bring the champions of the old proprietary system on side as soon as possible.

The open source advocates should avoid a "fight" with the advocates of the proprietary system as much as possible. Success of the open source LCMS requires all members of the organization to contribute. It is important that open source advocates:

give credit to the existing proprietary system for the problems it solved in the past and recognize the leadership provided by its champions
involve the champions of the former systems in the planning of the new open source LCMS as soon as possible
provide opportunities for the former champions of the old proprietary systems to be seen as a leaders for the new open source LCMS
ask for advice from the former champions of the old systems
to convince champions of the old systems of the benefits of adopting the new open source LCMS

Some times the advocates of the new open source LCMS are the same individuals who championed the installation of the old proprietary systems. When this is the case, the transition from proprietary to open source is is much smoother.

Many open source advocates will advance arguments that highlight the organization's responsibility towards the local community and the country's government. They will argue that adopting an open source LCMS:

reduces imports, increasing the government's capability to achieve social goals
generates employment in local software companies and increases their ability to innovate
reduces software piracy making the country more attractive for foreign investment

REFERENCES

Alexander, Ian and Suzanne Robertson (2004) Understanding Project Sociology by Modeling Stakeholders. IEEE Software. January-February, pp. 23-27.

Bonoma, Thomas V. (1982) Major Sales: Who Really Does the Buying? Harvard Business Review 60, no. 3, May-June, pp. 111-119.

Heiman, Stephen E., Diane Sanchez (1998) The New Strategic Selling. Warner Books: New York.

Wong, Kenneth and Phet Sayo (2004) Free/Open Source Software: A General Introduction. United Nations Development Programme, Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme. Accessed July 13, 2004.

Overcoming Objections