One of the projects I have been following for a long time is Bedework, which I think is now in position to kill the learning management system (LMS). By this, I do not mean to imply that Bedework has superior teaching and learning tools, in fact, as an enterpirse calendar, it clearly does not even compete in the online education market: it’s functionality will not usurp those of the LMS. Rather, more specifically, I suppose my point is that Bedework will kill the idea of the “System” in the “Learning Management System.”
Currently when one assesses an LMS, the set of tools within the system is considered paramount in the selection process. Tied to feature analysis might be other related functionality issues, such as the pace of development of the embedded tool set native to the system, the roadmap for deploying new tools/features within the system, and/or integration between the system and other enterprise applications.
But consider what would happen to the “Learning Management System,” specifically the “System” if Bedework was integrated. What if Moodle and Sakai both deployed either Bedework in their native distributions or provided interfaces for Bedework integration. To the end users, it would appear that both Sakai and Moodle had just released an updated version with enterprise calendaring: ideal for comparing course schedules with campus schedules, integrating personal events with course or campus events, etc. But, what does this mean architecturally and even more interestingly, organizationally for each project, Bedework, Moodle and Sakai?
For Moodle and Sakai what does the system in learning management system mean now? How do all three projects manage development? What other services might be included in this model stretching the system until it pops: discussion forums, gradebooks, wikis, blogs etc?
Once two campuses or Moodle and Sakai themselves embed the same tool, the LMS is dead…
