I’m already getting quite a bit of public and private feedback on my earlier post on Pearson’s OpenClass, and it is all over the map in terms of what people seem to think I was trying to say. This was really a complex topic to try to handle in one post, and I may not have done it justice. So let me lay out a few points as clearly as I can:
- I think Pearson is trying to create a platform in the way that Google and Facebook are platforms. What I mean is that Pearson will get value not so much from selling their products (although there will definitely be some of that) as from (a) becoming a marketplace for other people’s products (think Apple’s iTunes and App stores) and (b) from getting rich data about student learning needs and behaviors that can enrich both Pearson’s products and those of the third parties that sell through Pearson’s platform.
- I think there is a lot that is compelling about the idea of such a platform, and that it could deliver improvements to the learning experience that would be difficult to achieve without the kind of scale and centralization that Pearson is trying to create.
- I also think that a platform approach entails a very different relationship with the vendor than simply licensing a hosted LMS and raises some very serious concerns, including issues of privacy and control over the market for learning content. Schools should make sure they understand the tradeoffs they would be making and discuss them carefully with Pearson (or any other ed tech vendor that brings a platform approach to market) as well as with their peers before jumping in with both feet.
- Pearson’s marketing efforts have been finely tuned to emphasize free and easy, which I believe is a strategy designed to foster very fast adoption by disrupting the market, starting at the low end and moving up. In doing so, their message emphasizes low cost and ease of use over direct improvements to teaching and learning. In essence, the message is that Pearson will get the LMS (and its price tag) out of the way so that, in Adrian’s words, teachers can focus on “climbing the value chain.”
- So far, there is relatively little public detail about the product itself. On the one hand, the deep integration with Google Apps is new to the market and suggests that OpenClass will have its own take on things. On the other hand, there is not yet evidence that OpenClass is trying to fundamentally re-imagine what an LMS does or how it does it as a delivery platform. The deeper innovation will likely come from the content marketplace and the analytics, neither of which has been publicly unveiled yet.
- While Pearson has made what could be characterized as a couple of PR missteps in the introduction, I view these as mostly minor and not indicative of any nefarious intent. Nor am I suggesting that their overall product and marketing strategies are intended to deceive. However, I am suggesting that Pearson will need to raise its game if it wants to foster the kind of trust necessary to build the new customer relationships that it appears to be shooting for.
For a platform play with a fremium model (which is what OpenClass will likely turn into), Pearson made some interesting choices (from a G+ post)
—
Some early technical curiosities about #OpenClass that might be of interest to people and contradict a few assumptions (that I had anyway).
Surprise #1 – the system appears to be running on Pearson’s NCS data centers. This changes the economics of their offering, possibly substantially: the economies of scale and platform engineering support that come with Amazon EC2 or Google App Engine just aren’t there. You’re playing in Pearson’s private cloud, and they are not in the cloud business. (they might run a mean data center, but $$$ will differ)
Surprise #2: OpenClass is a rebadged eCollege/LearingStudio. This is perhaps a bit harsh, but it certainly makes use of a lot of eCollege technology and user interface. Unless Pearson moves quickly, this might be their achilles heel – there is only so much integration you can do with an existing system that was build on a different logical architecture.
Surprise #3: integration with Google Apps, or lack thereof. This has implications for usability, extensibility and ease of content extraction, and I assume it’s an area Pearson is working to improve. Currently this seems mostly limited to showing you your own calendar and docs via a “shortcuts” dropdown – yes it’s integration, but it is of limited value really (these can’t be controlled in any way at the moment).
On the plus side, the initial setup is fully integrated with Google Apps Marketplace. This also means that Pearson will be tithing to Google on any revenues derived from the platform, subject of course to any special agreements (Google normally charges a 20% margin). It’s unclear what Google might consider “related add-ons” under the standard agreement, but presumably not published materials?!
Single-sign-on works nicely Google Apps, i.e. students and staff with Google Apps accounts in your domain don’t need another password. Thanks to some Google magic juice it also works transparently with other SSO providers, i.e. if you’re currently handling logins to Google using your own infrastructure it should be just fine. It’s unclear how OpenClass will handle split domains (separate staff and student domains). Logins from non-domain users are asked to select an OpenClass password and aren’t added into your Google Apps domain, which does rather limit the usefulness of the environment.
Surprise #4: accounts in OpenClass are not automatically synchronized from Google Apps, which is disappointing. Many institutions have substantial investment in custom or off-the-shelf solutions for managing users in Google Apps, and this will have to be re-done, yet again, for another system. I trust Pearson will fix this quickly as it seriously and needlessly complicates the setup process for institutions that have Google Apps already in place.
Surprise #5: OpenClass really doesn’t take advantage of the power of Google Apps yet. Creating a course for example does not create a Google Group or a shared course calendar, or a shared lecturer/TA Google Docs space – the constructs do exist, but only in the eCollege side of the system. In a number of places the system allows content upload via MS Word, but not from Google Docs. This too I expect will be fixed quickly.
So…
It summary, it looks like leveraging eCollege was the fastest way to get a solution out. There are a few rough edges, and the integration with Google Apps is quite basic at the moment. Account management is more painful than it needs to be, and Pearson will be paying a good penny for actually running the system in-house.
Perhaps most importantly, I am not convinced that eCollege is such a solid base to build an Education AppStore on. I would have much preferred that native Google API’s were usable for interaction with user accounts, course groups and content or calendars – this is very important for getting data out.
The story definitely isn’t as good (yet) as a “partnership with Google” might suggest at a first glance, but they are heading in the right direction. And it’s free.
Hi Michael –
I recently wrote a post about how open sourcing Open Class might actually mitigate many of the concerns you’re articulating and enable full realization of the “platform” vision. Thought you and this community might find it interesting.
http://opentec.org/2011/10/19/open-platform-vs-open-content-the-big-debate-at-educause-2011/