Business Writing Paper w/ Case Study
Dr Jesus
CASESTUDY-1.pdf
Teaching Case
Information systems acquisition decisions: learning management system of SolBridge Tahir Hameed1, Bobby Swar2 1SolBridge International School of Business, Uam-ro 128, Samsung-dong, Dong-gu, Daejeon 34613, South Korea; 2Concordia University of Edmonton, Edmonton AB T5B 4E4, Canada
Correspondence: T Hameed, SolBridge International School of Business, Uam-ro 128, Samsung-dong, Dong-gu, Daejeon 34613, South Korea. Tel: +82.42.630.8562; E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract SolBridge, a young business school in South Korea, acquired an open-source learning management system (LMS) in early years of its operation. It switched to an on-premises proprietary LMS a few years later. However, before renewal of its annual license SolBridge was caught in a typical dilemma of information systems acquisition (IS acquisition), i.e., keeping the costs lowest while maximizing user and organizational benefits. The decision was made more complex by newly available cloud-hosting options. SolBridge CIO analyzed the total cost of ownership (TCO) and benefits of several options before recommending one of them to school management. This case provides senior undergraduate or graduate students with an opportunity to assume the role of SolBridge CIO and analyze TCO for its next LMS. Not only will they realize the managerial challenges involved in selection and acquisition of enterprise information systems but they will also learn about the economic feasibility of on-premises and cloud- hosting options. It also becomes visible to them that organizations grapple with unceasing technological and organizational changes. Therefore, flexibility and scalability emerge as key elements of modern IT infrastructure. Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases (2016) 6, 121–133. doi:10.1057/s41266-016-0006-y; published online 14 November 2016
Keywords: information systems acquisition; learning management systems; open source; proprietary; on-premises; cloud-hosting; total cost of ownership
The warm indoor sports hall at SolBridge International School of Business (SolBridge) was bustling with students cheering for their teams. It was a freezing cold evening of December 2012 in South Korea. Dean of SolBridge, Dr. Mun took aside Chief Information Officer (CIO) Dr. Hayat, to talk about something not related at all to sports. ‘‘We would like to get an assessment and a recommendation for renewal of our soon expiring institutional license of the campus-wide learning management system (LMS).’’ In the wake of
changing circumstances, the management sought to know whether the school’s LMS was still suitable for SolBridge needs and was still good value for the stakeholders. Dr. Mun said, ‘‘Personally speaking, I think the current system fulfills our needs. However, irrespective of the special pricing offered, due to high per student costs we are forced to reconsider its utilization. We should decide in a few weeks if our annual institutional license should be renewed or not. I would like you to look into it and recommend if we should renew our license or not. In case it’s a ‘‘NO’’ then what could our other options be?’’ Dr. Hayat said, ‘‘I will need some time to work out the costs and benefits of the current and alternate systems. I will get back to you in two weeks. Would that be fine?’’ ‘‘Sure! Thank you. Let’s meet again after the end of fall semester,’’ the dean said walking back to the sports hall.
The case is written for teaching and class discussion purposes and does not endorse any business decisions. Although the case is real, names of the persons and others have been changed for anonymity.
Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases (2016) 6, 121–133 ª 2016 Association for Information Technology Trust www.palgrave.com/journals
For the exclusive use of S. INGRAM, 2019.
This document is authorized for use only by SHAUN INGRAM in MBC 634 April 2019 taught by FREDERICK VONA, Syracuse University from Mar 2019 to Jul 2019.
SolBridge International School of Business
S olBridge International School of Business was founded in 2007 in South Korea with a mission to educate managers and thought-leaders well versed in business
in Asia (SolBridge website, 2014). Woosong Educational Foundation, its founder, also looks after other educational establishments including Woosong University, a private institution established in 1954 in Daejeon. Daejeon is a well-known Korean metropolitan for its scientific research and hi-tech start-ups.
SolBridge follows a US business school model, offering Bachelors (BBA) and master degrees in business administra- tion (MBA) in three specializations, namely marketing, finance, and management. SolBridge is well recognized in Korea for its high diversity. Around 70% of its one thousand students1 are foreigners from thirty-eight countries and its faculty constitutes of about thirty faculty members, most of them also foreigners (SolBridge faculty webpage, 2015).
All classes at SolBridge are taught in English and students are expected to be active in class discussions. Teacher– student ratios are very conducive to learning. A typical class size for the MBA is around 25, while for BBA classes it is around 40 students. SolBridge got AACSB accreditation in 2014.
IT infrastructure of SolBridge SolBridge uses advanced information and communication technologies (ICTs) for provision of student services and data processing. High-speed networks, well-equipped computer labs, and several information systems help students, faculty members, and staff to search for needed information, communicate with each other, manage student learning, prepare academic records, and provide support for decision- making at different levels.
Two particular information systems are predominately used at SolBridge by students and faculty. The first is the Academics Information System (AIS) managed by the Aca- demic Affairs Department for online management of admis- sions, student records, course enrollments, calendar of events, attendance, leave of absence, evaluation of faculty members, monitoring student progress, viewing grades, etc. The usage levels are highest for staff members, then students, and then faculty members, in that order. Additionally,
students and faculty members interact with staff members for resolution and recording of various academic and adminis- trative issues into AIS.
The second is a Learning Management System (LMS) that offers essential services for online interactions between faculty members and students, for example, sharing course material, handing-over and collection of assignments, man- agement of online quizzes, intra-student communications, monitoring of students’ engagement levels, and online grading. Several other features like discussion forums, wikis, and web links to library databases are also provided via LMS. Teaching methods and assessments remain the direct responsibility of faculty members. Therefore, they can choose the extent to which they want to use LMS in their courses. On the other hand, students are also free to use the LMS services and materials shared by the teachers. However, some of them are not regular LMS users.
Learning management systems: technology and market An LMS is defined as ‘‘a software application or web-based technology used to plan, implement, and assess a specific learning process’’ (Alias and Zainuddin, 2005). They are also referred to as e-learning systems, course management systems, content management systems, and learning content management systems. Generally speaking, LMSs support content-sharing and online interactions between learners and instructors.
LMSs are classified as Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) with two major market segments. First come educa- tional LMSs which are used by universities and schools. Their main objective is to facilitate instructor creation and delivery of in-class or online courses by sharing content, assignments, online quizzes, wikis, online forums, and discussions based on defined user roles (Forbes online, 2014a, b). Learner’s online participation can also be monitored (Sullivan, 2008). See Figure 1 for a list of typical LMS features.
A second and rapidly emerging market are corporate LMSs which are increasingly used by businesses for creating, sharing, accumulating, and retaining organizational knowl- edge. As managers realized organizational learning could enhance the competitiveness of businesses by adding distinct capabilities, corporate LMSs have also seen a lot of traction for training and work standardization.
• Course Management, e.g. lists of courses, registration, credit information and syllabus, pre-requisites
• Teaching Materials, i.e. courseware • Self-assessment quizzes • Lessons tools: Authoring for contents (structured XML or HTML) and quizzing/testing
(e.g. Java Script generators) or alternatively ability to import standard IMS or SCORM packages developed with an external tool (e.g. Dreamweaver).
• Asynchronous Communication: email, forums • Synchronous Communication: chat, whiteboard, teleconferencing, • Student tools: Home page, self-tests, bookmarks, progress tracking ... • Student Management Tools: progress tracking, on-line grading (assessment) … • Learner feedback: course evaluation surveys, test evaluation surveys etc. • Access control, restricted access to classes.
Figure 1 List of typical features of an LMS. Source: EdutechWiki by University of Geneva.
SolBridge LMS acquisition T Hameed and B Swar
122
For the exclusive use of S. INGRAM, 2019.
This document is authorized for use only by SHAUN INGRAM in MBC 634 April 2019 taught by FREDERICK VONA, Syracuse University from Mar 2019 to Jul 2019.
A common LMS deployment consists of four types of components (See Figure 2):
• software applications and services, • hardware consisting of server computers and data storage,
• network connections to internet and other organizational systems, and
• user interfaces for instructors, participants, and administrators.
Figure 2 Generic architecture of an educational LMS deployment. Source: Authors.
Figure 3 Global market positions of leading LMSs. Source: Delta Initiative website, 2012. [Online blog article] state of the higher education lms market agraphical review. Accessed December, 2014.
SolBridge LMS acquisition T Hameed and B Swar
123
For the exclusive use of S. INGRAM, 2019.
This document is authorized for use only by SHAUN INGRAM in MBC 634 April 2019 taught by FREDERICK VONA, Syracuse University from Mar 2019 to Jul 2019.
The LMS market has increased substantially since the mid- 1990s into one of the most promising global IT systems markets. It is expected to grow from $2.55 billion in 2013 to $7.83 billion in 2018, at a CAGR of 25.2% (Marketsandmar- kets website, 2014). The Educational LMSs segment, serving different tiers of educational sector from universities to elementary and K-12 schools, is smaller than the corporate LMSs but growing. According to one estimate, 92 percent of the educational institutions in US support a single LMS for the entire campus and around 55 percent of all classes make some use of that system (Means et al., 2013).
Like other software, LMSs can be proprietary, i.e., commercial systems with closed architectures and a fee for their usage. Alternatively, they could be open source, systems offering downloadable and modifiable software that can be used free of charge. In the education sector, most prominent proprietary LMSs include Blackboard (or Blackboard Learn) and Desire2Learn, while Moodle, Sakai, and Canvas are the leading open-source LMSs. In some instances, universities have developed their own systems commonly known as homegrown LMSs, such as UoPhoenix and MITx. Figure 3 shows the shifting global market positions of leading LMSs with their costs.
Comparing proprietary and open-source educational LMSs Blackboard Learn (BBL) remained the global market leader of the proprietary educational LMS market in 2011 with 51% market share. Desire2Learn and Pearson’s eCollege also hold significant market positions in this category. The revenue model of proprietary LMS comprises of annual license fees, both for on-premises and cloud-hosted deployments. The price is based on the number of users which are typically in the thousands for any university. Average cost per student per year ranges between US$20 to US$100 for different types of institutions (Seeking Alpha website, 2014) (See Table 1).
BBL is a proprietary LMS offered by BlackBoard Inc. since 1997 (Wikipeda, 2014). It had been widely adopted in US universities and was considered superior in performance due to its integrated design, low maintenance requirements, and specialized customer service. A pilot test of Blackboard and Moodle at a US university demonstrated faculty and student preferences for BBL over Moodle (California State University Channel Islands website, 2014).
Moodle led the open-source category in 2011 with a 19% market share of the educational LMS market (Enrollment Builders website, 2014). Open-source or free and open- source software (FOSS) are software developed by loosely
Table 1 Total and per user cost estimates of Blackboard for defense and collegiate customers
University Students Total cost per year Cost per student
Naval War College 2000 $201,091.88 $100.55 CSU Channel Islands 4000 $81,742.00 $20.44 Uniformed Services Health Sciences University 8000 $312,239.17 $39.03 SUNY Delhi 3400 $82,100.00 $24.15 Marine Corps Institute 2000 $128,589.75 $64.29 University of Arkansas continuing education 2000 $77,400.00 $38.70
Source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/290299-blackboard-a-tale-of-2-companies.
Figure 4 Open-source business model of Moodle. Source: Slotte and Petteri, 2011.
SolBridge LMS acquisition T Hameed and B Swar
124
For the exclusive use of S. INGRAM, 2019.
This document is authorized for use only by SHAUN INGRAM in MBC 634 April 2019 taught by FREDERICK VONA, Syracuse University from Mar 2019 to Jul 2019.
Table 2 Comparison of features of Blackboard and Moodle LMSs
Features/services Blackboard learn (BBL) Moodle
Announcements To post timely information, BBL utilizes announcement tool in the courses
The news forum in Moodle can be utilized to announce but there is no separate tool
Assessments (test, quiz, survey)
Online exams, tests, quizzes, and surveys can be conducted. Most tests and quizzes provided by the publishers can easily be imported
The quiz activity module in Moodle allows to build quizzes and the survey module provides the feature of survey. Many tests and quizzes provided by the publishers can be imported
Assignments Assignment tool helps to create coursework and manage grades and feedback for each student separately. Students can directly attach assignments and receive the feedback online
The assignment module in Moodle allows instructors to collect work from student and provide feedback online
Calendar To indicate important course-related events, BBL employs Calendar tool
The online calendar tool is available in Moodle
Course email Emails from BB can be sent to students enrolled in the course as individual or to groups of users
Email feature in Moodle is possible for individuals and groups
Community engagements
BBL supports the community engagements through organizations
Community engagements activities is possible only in form of courses
Content management
Variety of contents can be created through course menu
Content management is possible through Moodle
Cross-listing (multi-section management)
Can easily merge enrollments of two or more courses into one central master course allowing instructors to manage the content, course, and communications tasks from one location
Moodle feature called meta-course allows to create cross-listing of courses
Discussions Forum for discussions inside the course is well supported by BBL
The forum module in Moodle can be used to exchange ideas by posting comments
Grade center The grade center tool helps to communicate and share assessment data directly with students
Grading is possible through gradebook module in Moodle
Groups Groups inside a course can be created in BBL to foster collaborative work like team projects
Instructors can organize students into groups within the course or within particular activities
Journals Journal tool offers students to submit journal entries in response to the topics assigned and instructors can privately give feedback
Journal module is not directly available but can be installed as a separate plugins from other contributors
Mobile learning Blackboard mobile learn application is available making it easier to access information anytime, anywhere from a variety of mobile devices
Moodle do support mobile platform through the application called Moodle mobile
Notifications Any new activity inside BB is notified to the related users of BBL through emails
Notifications features can be enabled in Moodle
Plagiarism detection
BBL has built in tool called SafeAssign that check for plagiarism of submissions by students
Moodle does not come with plagiarism detection by default but plagiarism plugin can be installed
Student activity report (tracking)
Instructors can create student activity report of their courses to get more insight into how students are interacting with their courses so ‘‘at risk’’ students are easily identified
Student activity report can be generated through Moodle
Standard content alignment
Standard set of goals for different courses can be created through Goals tool. The goals can be used in assessing course and student performance
So far setting of standard goals for different courses is not possible in Moodle
Tabs and modules Different Tabs and Modules can be created to provide information and resources. Currently SolBridge Library, Important Announcements, and Academic Policies tabs have been created
Different tabs and modules can be created in Moodle
Virtual learning environment (distance learning)
BBL collaborate, a built in web conferencing real- time virtual classroom environment tool for distance learning and collaboration is possible
So far running online lectures is not possible in Moodle
Source: Authors from multiple internet sources.
SolBridge LMS acquisition T Hameed and B Swar
125
For the exclusive use of S. INGRAM, 2019.
This document is authorized for use only by SHAUN INGRAM in MBC 634 April 2019 taught by FREDERICK VONA, Syracuse University from Mar 2019 to Jul 2019.
SolBridge LMS acquisition T Hameed and B Swar
126
For the exclusive use of S. INGRAM, 2019.
This document is authorized for use only by SHAUN INGRAM in MBC 634 April 2019 taught by FREDERICK VONA, Syracuse University from Mar 2019 to Jul 2019.
organized communities of programmers who make such software freely available. Their source code can also be modified by individuals and organizations to suit their needs, hence the name open-source. Common examples are UNIX operating system and the Mozilla Firefox browser. Moodle is an open-source LMS developed and maintained by Moodle Trust through a community of volunteer programmers and organizations (Moodle website, 2015). Moodle provides complete software package and its source code free of charge on their website, which covermost typical functions of an LMS (See Figure 4 for Moodle open-source business model). Users can also download other plugins for additional services from Moodle website, for example, Turnitin which is a plagiarism check service. Some of the plugins require separate subscrip- tions. See Table 2 for a comparison of default and additional services of Blackboard and Moodle LMSs. Moodle partners or independent vendors also provide hosting services for a fee to organizations not capable of running LMS on their premises. Over the years, Moodle has become a robust open-source platform (Beatty and Ulasewicz, 2006; Cahir et al., 2014).
Open-source systems are fairly attractive due to their apparent zero initial acquisition costs. Many educational institutions considered or have switched to open-source systems from proprietary systems (Anonymous, 2011). How- ever, the zero cost argumentmight not be fully true as noted in a study commissioned by the University of Florida in 2009, ‘‘Successful use of an open source system requires significant infrastructure and also a new culture among its providers and users. Although there are no license fees an open source system is not ‘free.’ The costs normally allocated for license fees and other costs associatedwith a proprietary systemmust be used to support additional staff devoted to programming and devel- opment of new tools. A commitment to [open source] requires a commitment to developing infrastructure that will make it successful at UF.’’ (University of Florida website, 2014)
Emerging trends and their impact on LMS market Over the last decade, rapid changes have continuously altered the demand and supply pressures on educational software and IT services. At first, changes in the global economy have led to a growing need for higher, professional and continuing education. While organizations try to develop and benefit from knowledge competencies, both formal and professional education markets are expanding.
A second major trend is maturation of the performance of the open-source initiatives for education to the point of being competitive with their proprietary counterparts. A detailed discussion on Moodle and Blackboard is included in the previous section.
Third is the advent of new platform technologies such as cloud computing and mobile technologies (Figure 5). Cloud- hosting options have emerged as effective alternatives for managing costs and risks of enterprise IT with their own cost implications across the system’s lifecycle (Bibi et al., 2012). The pay-as-you-go business models for Software as a Service (SaaS) and Platform as a Service (PaaS) have led organizations to deal with software services in non-traditional ways. For instance, for course delivery purposes, a subscription to cloud-hosted LMS
services (e.g., Blackboard’s Coursesites website, 2014; Canvas’s Instructure website, 2014) means no hardware purchases, development, or maintenance. They could be outsourced fully or partially without any on-premises equipment and resources. Additionally, using mobile devices and apps, students can now access and interactwith learning resources fromanywhere, using anydevice, at any timewhich alters their learning behaviors a lot.
The cloud and mobile technologies have also enabled new e-learning models such as massive online open courses (MOOCs). Online courses from the world-leading institu- tions could now be delivered to thousands of students across the globe free of charge.
The use of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technologies in education have led to new types of content and serious games that offer higher levels of engagement and learning.
Moreover, internet giants like Microsoft and Google are also consolidating their internet services for search, office productivity, communication, collaboration, and social media with educational content to create Education Portals (e.g. Google Classroom and Microsoft Education) which could substitute traditional LMSs in the future.
All these trends have intensified competition in the LMS market (Forbes online, 2014) due to new proprietary LMS entrants, new open LMS entrants, traditional book publishers looking into digital books and content platforms, and substitution of traditional teaching methods with new ones (e.g. blended learning, simulations, serious games, etc.).
However, for the demand side, these trends imply addition of cost-effective and flexible business models for LMS services that can be leveraged with little on-premises resources. Therefore, organizations increasingly consider both traditional and emerging options when selecting, acquiring, or upgrading their LMSs. Based upon two key dimensions, i.e., openness of the LMS architecture/content and hosting of IT infrastructure, four broad options for LMS acquisition can be drawn (Figure 6). They should be similar for other enterprise IT systems.
(1) On-premises proprietary LMS without extra plugins pro- prietary software is licensed from the LMS vendor by paying an annual license fee. It is then installed on servers hosted on the premises. Most of the development and maintenance can be done by the vendor’s experts but some in-house technical and administrative expertise is required for subsequent operation of the LMS. Network and data security is the responsibility of the subscribing organization in this case also. Most additional services are provided or subscribed as part of the main license by the vendor. Standardized digital content could be purchased separately from content publishers and linked with the proprietary LMS. Modification, further distribution, or reverse engineering is prohibited.
(2) On-premises open-source LMS with extra plugins an open- source (or homegrown) LMS software is installed on servers hosted on the premises. Most of the development and maintenance is performed using in-house technical and administrative expertise which can also be out- sourced to a consultant. Networks and data should be secured using firewalls and digital security certificates which are the subscribing organization’s responsibility.
Figure 5 Technology trends for educational information systems. Source: http://www.campuscomputing.net.
b
SolBridge LMS acquisition T Hameed and B Swar
127
For the exclusive use of S. INGRAM, 2019.
This document is authorized for use only by SHAUN INGRAM in MBC 634 April 2019 taught by FREDERICK VONA, Syracuse University from Mar 2019 to Jul 2019.
Additional services not offered by open-source systems could be subscribed from LMS (platform) partners on per user or per instructor bases. Such services could be linked with LMS core services through installation of plugins or special software. Standardized digital content and e-books can also be purchased from content publishers and linked with the courses in LMSs.
(3) Cloud-hosted open-source LMS with or without extra plugins typically, a partner organization of the open- source organization or an independent organization provides hosting services for an independent instance of LMS on demand basis. All hardware, software, and professional services including configuration and main- tenance services are provided by the host organization. System administration can be done by the system-owner organization themselves through remote dashboards or can also be sent out to the host. Different revenue models allow per user monthly, per user annual, and annual institutional subscriptions. Services bundles can also be purchased separately depending upon the expected number of service requests generated by the organization. Additional services could be subscribed on per user or per instructor basis from other LMS partner organiza- tions; however, they are linked to the LMS by the hosting organization. Additional fees could apply. Network and data security is the responsibility of the hosting organi- zation and is typically covered within the initial contract.
(4) Cloud-hosted proprietary LMS without extra plugins all major features remain the same as above except that cloud-hosting is offered by the proprietary LMS vendor themselves and there are no or very few authorized partners. They run separate dedicated instances of all services for the subscribing organization.
Current dilemma of SolBridge LMS acquisition decision In 2009, Dr. Steve, then CIO of SolBridge, set up an on- premises instance of Moodle LMS using in-house expertise. A primary and backup server were installed to provide fail-safe services for online management of course materials, quizzes, assignments, grading, messaging, and sharing of academic and industry databases. Dr. Steve and his assistants admin- istered the on-premises open-source system that catered well to the learning needs of the fledgling school.
However, the management allocated some funds for improving the school’s IT infrastructure in 2011. Therefore, the school decided to deploy another market-leading LMS based on the recommendations of Dean Mun and Dr. Steve. BBL was installed at University IT Center for campus-wide services not limiting it just to SolBridge. In contrast to CIO’s independent decision for first deployment of Moodle for SolBridge only, the decision to acquire BBL was made by university management in consultation with the CIO. However, a systematic comparison was not carried out due to BBL’s apparent benefits from its integrated features. Moreover, SolBridge could get special promotional pricing in addition to commitment for deployment support, training, and complementary services for linking BBL with other university systems.
BBL on-premises implementation required an annual institutional license installed on primary and backup servers, one each for SolBridge and other university departments. The number of SolBridge student and faculty member users was around eight hundred. They were provided an English user interface (UI) because most of them were foreigners. However, other university departments comprised more than 6000 users got a Korean UI. Additional hard disk space was included due to large volumes of anticipated data.
Openness of LMS So!ware and
Content Op!on I:
On-Premises Proprietary
(Licensed Ins"tu"onal LMS: Blackboard Learn,
Desire2Learn etc.)
Closed/ Proprietary
Open
Op!on II: On-Premises Open-Source
(Homegrown or Open Source LMS: Moodle, Sakai,
UoPhoenix, Instructure, etc.)
Op!on III: Cloud-Hosted Open-Source
(Moodle, MOOCs e.g. edX, Coursera)
Op!on IV: Cloud-Hosted Proprietary
(Ins"tu"onal LMS / Digital Courseware
Blackboard Learn)
Management of IT Infrastructure
On-Premises (Local Server)
Cloud-Hosted/ Online (Remote Servers)
Figure 6 Common acquisition options for learning management systems. Source: Authors.
SolBridge LMS acquisition T Hameed and B Swar
128
For the exclusive use of S. INGRAM, 2019.
This document is authorized for use only by SHAUN INGRAM in MBC 634 April 2019 taught by FREDERICK VONA, Syracuse University from Mar 2019 to Jul 2019.
However, by the end of 2012, only 2 years past its implementation, low adoption rates of BBL at the university had raised the cost per student than anticipated. It was somewhat bothering for the management. Although Sol- Bridge’s adoption rate – around 70% of a thousand active users – was much higher than other university departments, it did not fare well with the overall total cost of ownership (TCO)2 per student. SolBridge was much smaller than other departments in terms of student population. TCO per user declines sharply as the number of students increases (Bower, 2010). Moreover, if many of the system features remain under-utilized, that could also contribute to higher TCO per feature and perception of lower system impact. Lastly, cloud- hosting models had also brought down the IT infrastructure costs, hence creating perceptions of higher TCO per user for on-premises implementations.
While Dean Mun and university management discussed upgrading BBL’s annual license, they also considered lower rates of BBL adoption, reduced IT infrastructure funds, newly available cloud-hosting option, and performance improve- ments in the newer versions of existing systems. Clearly, the above factors raised a dilemma as to whether or not to renew the current LMS’s license. The renewal of the institutional license of BBL was due in the middle of 2013 and a smooth transition would require more than a semester. As the new year approached, Dean Mun felt delaying a decision could affect the possibility of a smooth transition. In case of non- renewal of BBL license, the school should switch to alternative viable option which should be operational in summer 2013 to allow a few months of training at the least. Little or no user training could undermine the adoption of new system and quality of student learning. Nevertheless, any decisions should be made wisely evaluating each available option based on its features, costs, and benefits. Therefore, Dean Jun asked Dr. Hayat to assess the current system and any alternatives, particularly Moodle, over the next few weeks. He left Dr. Hayat wondering how best to address the issue.
The way forward would be to conduct a detailed TCO analysis of the two requested acquisition options by Dean Mun, i.e., on-premises BBL without any extra plugins (Option I) or on-premises Moodle with additional plugins and services similar to BBL (Option II). However, Dr. Hayat was also considering newer options based on cloud-hosting (Options III and IV). In the case of cloud-hosting, independent IT consulting firms or hosting companies could provide Moodle system deployment in the cloud (Moodlecloud website, 2015), while an instance of BBL could be hosted by the parent company. Summing it all up, SolBridge had the following options for the new LMS acquisition:
• Option I: renew the annual license for on-premises proprietary LMS (upgraded BBL V9.1)
Hardware already installed and available Software already installed and configured Smooth and stable service operations at a given fixed cost.
• Option II: install an on-premises open-source LMS (new instance of Moodle v2.4)
• New hardware required • New software required which offers most common features only. Additional features would require
separate plugins and subscriptions with Moodle partners
• Installation, configuration, training, and maintenance services required for smooth operations.
• Option III: cloud-hosted open source (remote hosting of new instance of Moodle v2.4)
No hardware required No software required (subscription to SaaS or IaaS) Most of the additional features could also be subscribed to with BBL hosting partners Installation, configuration, training, and maintenance services required for smooth operations. These can be rented from the host.
• Option IV: cloud-hosted proprietary LMS (remote hosting of new instance of BBL V9.1)
No hardware required No software required (subscription to SaaS) Most of the additional features could also be subscribed with BBL hosting partners Installation, configuration, training, and maintenance services required for smooth operations. These can be rented from the host.
Clearly, there would be variations in costs as well as benefits for each option. For example, common LMS features would not include plagiarism detection, support for pub- lishers’ contents, multiple language support, and blended learning management. Whereas BBL offered these features, in case of open-source systems such services would need to be purchased separately in the form of plugins and subscrip- tions. Some faculty members had already expressed to Dr. Hayat that they would like to keep conducting online quizzes or check plagiarism online. They were able to do that with the proprietary system. He had also heard about manage- ment’s interest in institutional capability for online course delivery in the future.
Dr. Hayat began searching his document archives for a template to conduct TCO analysis (Table 3). He decided to calculate TCO for options I, II, and III only, each of them comprising initial capital costs and operational costs for the next 5 years. However, he would be required to collect the information from IT consultants, LMS users, and internet. He should put it together for each option, analyze, and compare before making any written recommendations, all in 2 weeks. He should also prepare a transition plan. Time was of the essence here.
Putting yourself into Dr. Hayat’s shoes, try to complete TCO analysis for the above LMS acquisition options I, II, and III for 5 years operations (use template in Table 3). Calculate TCO per user per year for each option and compare them. Being aware of the TCOs, features, and subjective benefits of each option, what would you recommend to the manage- ment team if you were Dr. Hayat? How would you justify your recommendations?
Notes 1 Current number of SolBridge students exceeds one thousand. At
the time of the TCO decision in this case, the student population
SolBridge LMS acquisition T Hameed and B Swar
129
For the exclusive use of S. INGRAM, 2019.
This document is authorized for use only by SHAUN INGRAM in MBC 634 April 2019 taught by FREDERICK VONA, Syracuse University from Mar 2019 to Jul 2019.
T a b le
3 T C O
C a lc u la tio
n T e m p la te
It em
s C at eg or y/ T yp e
Sp ec ifi ca ti on s/
R em
ar ks
U ni t
Q ua nt it y
R eq ui re d
P ri ce
P er
U ni t
U S$
In it ia l
C os t
Y ea r
1 20 14
Y ea r
2 20 15
Y ea r
3 20 16
Y ea r
4 20 17
Y ea r
5 20 18
C os ts
fo r
5 ye ar s
T ot al
Li fe cy cl e
C os t
H ar d w ar e (H
W )
M ai n se rv er
H ar d w ar e
X eo n p ro ce ss or
P er
U n it
B ac ku
p se rv er
H ar d w ar e
X eo n p ro ce ss or
P er
U n it
M on
it or
H ar d w ar e
C om
m on
Sp ec s
P er
U n it
A d d it io n al
h ar d d ri ve s
fo r m ai n
se rv er
H ar d w ar e
1 T B ea ch
P er
U n it
A d d it io n al
h ar d d ri ve s
fo r ba ck u p
se rv er
H ar d w ar e
1 T B ea ch
P er
U n it
Fl as h d ri ve s
fo r ba ck u p
m an ag em
en t
H ar d w ar e
2 T B ea ch
P er
U n it
A p p lic at io n se rv er
So ft w ar e
L ea rn in g
M an ag em
en t
Sy st em
P ac ka ge
or Su
bs cr ip ti on
(i f cl ou
d h os te d )
W eb
se rv er
So ft w ar e
P ac ka ge
or Su
bs cr ip ti on
(i f cl ou
d h os te d )
D at ab as e se rv er
So ft w ar e
P ac ka ge
or Su
bs cr ip ti on
(i f cl ou
d h os te d )
P la gi ar is m
se rv ic e
SW fe at u re /p lu gi n
P la gi ar is m
re p or t fo r m aj or
d at ab as es
A n n u al
lic en se
p er
te ac h er
A ss ig n m en ts
m an ag em
en t se rv ic e
SW fe at u re /p lu gi n
C re at e,
su bm
it ,
d el et e, &
gr ad e
as si gn m en ts
A n n u al
lic en se
p er
u se r
O n lin
e te st s/ su rv ey s
SW fe at u re /p lu gi n
C re at e,
su bm
it ,
an d co m p ile
su rv ey s
A n n u al
lic en se
p er
u se r
A n al yt ic s fo r st u d en t
p er fo rm
an ce
SW fe at u re /p lu gi n
St an d ar d
an al yt ic s an d
re p or ti n g
A n n u al
lic en se
p er
u se r
C u st om
iz ab le
re p or ts
SW fe at u re /p lu gi n
Su m m ar y
re p or ts
A n n u al
lic en se
p er
u se r
E m ai ls to
en ro lle d
st u d en ts
SW fe at u re /p lu gi n
E m ai l se rv ic e
A n n u al
lic en se
p er
u se r
SolBridge LMS acquisition T Hameed and B Swar
130
For the exclusive use of S. INGRAM, 2019.
This document is authorized for use only by SHAUN INGRAM in MBC 634 April 2019 taught by FREDERICK VONA, Syracuse University from Mar 2019 to Jul 2019.
T a b le
3 C o n tin
u e d
It em
s C at eg or y/ T yp e
Sp ec ifi ca ti on s/
R em
ar ks
U ni t
Q ua nt it y
R eq ui re d
P ri ce
P er
U ni t
U S$
In it ia l
C os t
Y ea r
1 20 14
Y ea r
2 20 15
Y ea r
3 20 16
Y ea r
4 20 17
Y ea r
5 20 18
C os ts
fo r
5 ye ar s
T ot al
Li fe cy cl e
C os t
O n lin
e cl as s w it h
au d io /v id eo /s cr ee n
SW fe at u re /p lu gi n
M u lt ip le
au d io /
vi d eo
fo rm
at s,
SD st re am
in g
A n n u al
lic en se
p er
te ac h er
C ro ss -l is ti n g of
co u rs es
SW fe at u re /p lu gi n
A d d /L in k
se ct io n s/ co u rs es
to on
e co u rs e
A n n u al
lic en se
p er
te ac h er
P u bl is h er /e xt er n al
co n te n t
SW fe at u re /p lu gi n
M u lt i- fo rm
at co n te n t an d
m ed ia
su p p or t
A n n u al
lic en se
p er
u se r
O n lin
e co m m u n it ie s/ fo ru m s
SW fe at u re /p lu gi n
A bi lit y to
cr ea te
or ga n iz at io n s
A n n u al
lic en se
p er
u se r
Si n gl e si gn -o n
(M ic ro so ft , ot h er s)
SW fe at u re /p lu gi n
Si gn -o n
A n n u al
lic en se
p er
u se r
M ob
ile ap p /
m es sa gi n g
M ob
ile ap p
A n d ro id , iO
S, M ic ro so ft , et c.
P er
d ow
n lo ad
Se cu ri ty
ce rt ifi ca te s
fo r se rv er s/ p lu gi n s
C on
fi gu ra bl e
so ft w ar e/ d oc
SS L D ig it al
ce rt ifi ca te s
P er
ce rt ifi ca te
p er
ye ar
N et w or ki n g
ca bl es /c on
n ec to rs
H ar d w ar e
15 /3 0 m
le n gt h s
P er
u n it
Sw it ch es
H ar d w ar e
8 p oi n ts , L A N ,
1z G H z W i- Fi
sw it ch es
P er
u n it
R ou
te r
H ar d w ar e
P er
u n it
E qu
ip m en t ra ck /
C ab in et
Fa ci lit ie s
3 sl ab s, d u st an d
te m p co n tr ol ,
lo ck
P er
u n it
In te rn et
co n n ec ti on
C om
m u n ic at io n s
H i ba n d w id th
in te rn et
1 G B /s
A n n u al
fe es
p er
co n n ec ti on
D om
ai n re n t
Se rv ic es
36 5 9
24 x7
A n n u al
fe es
C lo u d ad d l. d is k
sp ac e
Se rv ic es
36 5x 24 x7 ,
u n lim
it ed
sp ac e
in cl ou
d
A n n u al
fe es
p er
G B
W eb si te
d ev el op
m en t
Se rv ic es
P ro fe ss io n al
se rv ic es
P re -p u rc h as ed
an n u al
co n tr ac t
In st al la ti on
/s ys te m s
in te gr at io n
Se rv ic es
T u rn ke y
C u st om
er se rv ic es /
h el p d es k
Se rv ic es
25 h an n u al
co n tr ac t
P re -p u rc h as ed
an n u al
co n tr ac t-
25 H ou
rs
SolBridge LMS acquisition T Hameed and B Swar
131
For the exclusive use of S. INGRAM, 2019.
This document is authorized for use only by SHAUN INGRAM in MBC 634 April 2019 taught by FREDERICK VONA, Syracuse University from Mar 2019 to Jul 2019.
of SolBridge was around eight hundred, which will be the number used in the calculations.
2 TCO refers to the sum of the direct costs (initial costs/CAPEX) and the indirect costs (operating costs/OPEX) needed to maintain the agreed level of service throughout the anticipated lifecycle of a system (definition modified from http://lmunck. com). Therefore, it helps managers determine the full cost of a system which could be compared against the calculated returns (ROI) before an acquisition decision. Following article is rec- ommended for further reading: Doig, C. (2015), Calculating the total cost of ownership for enterprise software. CIO, Nov-2015.
References
Alias, N.A. and Zainuddin, A.M. (2005). Innovation for better teaching and learning: Adopting the learning management system. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology, 2(2), 27–40.
Anonymous, (2011). Learning Management System (LMS) Evaluation 2011–2012 by Butler University [www document] https://blogs.butler.edu/lms/, Accessed December, 2014
Beatty, B. and Ulasewicz, C. (2006). Faculty perspectives on moving from Blackboard to the Moodle learning management system. TechTrends, 50(4), 36–45.
Bibi, S., Katsaros, D. and Bozanis, P. (2012). Business application acquisition: on-premise or SaaS-based solutions? Software, IEEE, 29(3), 86–93.
Bower, E.K. (2010). Open source v commercial learning platforms: Total cost of ownership and total cost of effective use, It’s learning Inc.
Cahir, J., McNeill, M., Bosanquet, A. and Jacenyik-Trawöger, C. (2014). Walking out the door: casualisation and implementing Moodle. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(1), 5–14.
Means, T., Johnson, D. and Graff, R. (2013). Lessons Learned from a Course Management System Review at the University of Florida, IGI Global.
Sullivan, C. (2008). In a muddle over Moodle? Engineers Journal, 62(8), 494. http://moodle.org, Accessed December, 2015 http://seekingalpha.com/article/290299-blackboard-a-tale-of-2-companies, Accessed December, 2014
http://turnitin.com/en_us/support/integrations/moodle-direct Accessed December, 2015
http://www.csuci.edu/ats/lmsreview/process/, Accessed December, 2014 http://www.enrollmentbuilders.com/2013/03/24/learning-management-systems- an-overview/, Accessed December, 2014
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2014/08/28/the-red-hot-market-for- learning-technology-platforms/2/, Accessed December, 2014
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2014/08/28/the-red-hot-market-for- learning-technology-platforms/2/, Accessed December, 2014
http://www.instructure.com/, Accessed December, 2014 http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/learning-management- systems-market-1266.html, Accessed December, 2014
http://www.solbridge.ac.kr/, Accessed December, 2014 http://www.solbridge.ac.kr/story/page/index.jsp?code=solbridge0301, Accessed December, 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackboard_Inc. Accessed December, 2014 https://lss.at.ufl.edu/services/reports/cms/CMS%20Report-April-2009.pdf, Accessed December, 2014
https://www.coursesites.com/webapps/Bb-sites-course-creation-BBLEARN/ pages/index.html, Accessed December, 2014
https://moodlecloud.com/en/ (2015)
About the Authors
Dr. Tahir Hameed has been associated with SolBridge International School of Business in South Korea since 2012. He teaches courses related to information systems and technology management at the masters and bachelors levels. Prior to joining SolBridge, Dr. Hameed obtained his Ph.D. inTa
b le
3 C o n tin
u e d
It em
s C at eg or y/
T yp e
Sp ec ifi ca ti on s/
R em
ar ks
U ni t
Q ua nt it y
R eq ui re d
P ri ce
P er
U ni t U S$
In it ia l
C os t
Y ea r 1
20 14
Y ea r 2
20 15
Y ea r 3
20 16
Y ea r 4
20 17
Y ea r 5
20 18
C os ts fo r
5 ye ar s
T ot al
Li fe cy cl e
C os t
U p gr ad es
Se rv ic es
N ee d ba si s
P er
u p gr ad e
SW /w eb
d ev el op
er + sy s
ad m in
Se rv ic es
Fu ll ti m e
st af f m em
be r
A n n u al
co n tr ac t
Su b- to ta l p ro fe ss io n al
se rv ic es
co st s
G ra n d to ta l
S o u rc e : S o lB ri d g e d o cu
m e n ts .
SolBridge LMS acquisition T Hameed and B Swar
132
For the exclusive use of S. INGRAM, 2019.
This document is authorized for use only by SHAUN INGRAM in MBC 634 April 2019 taught by FREDERICK VONA, Syracuse University from Mar 2019 to Jul 2019.
Information Technology Management from the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), and obtained his Masters in Computer Science from Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). His research interests include the areas of technology standards, technology innovation, IT policy, information systems adoption, and organizational knowledge management. He has published extensively in prestigious journals such as Telecommunications Policy, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, World Development, and Journal of Knowledge Management. He has presented several papers at leading conferences. Dr. Hameed’s current research focus is in the areas of health informatics, knowledge management systems, educational information technology, and technology commercialization. He can be reached at [email protected].
Bobby Swar is an Assistant Professor at Mihalcheon School of Management, Concordia University of Edmonton, Canada. He received his Ph.D. in Information and Telecom- munication Technology Management from Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST). His research interests include the use of ICT in public sector, information security, social media, health informatics and IT outsourcing. He has published papers in journals like Information Systems Frontier, Social Science Computer Review, Innovation: Man- agement, Policy & Practice, Scientometrics, Information Devel- opment, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), and International Journal of Services Technology and Management. He can be reached at [email protected].
SolBridge LMS acquisition T Hameed and B Swar
133
For the exclusive use of S. INGRAM, 2019.
This document is authorized for use only by SHAUN INGRAM in MBC 634 April 2019 taught by FREDERICK VONA, Syracuse University from Mar 2019 to Jul 2019.
