Present is Prologue

Tag: Canvas

Blackboard Learn Ultra in 2018: Is it ready and does it matter?
One of our longest-running series of posts is on the prospects and status of Blackboard’s Learn Ultra, the user experience redesign and move to the cloud of the world’s second-most-used (behind Moodle) and highest-revenue-producing academic LMS. It is fashionable to claim the LMS is dead or passé, yet this product category remains the centerpiece of educational technology at colleges, universities, and K-12 districts. To understand Learn Ultra is to understand much of the overall LMS market.

Looking at the timeline of e-Literate coverage, the broad story emerges:
- 2012: Blackboard acquires Moodlerooms, and one benefit was the see of a cloud-based platform strategy.
- 2014: Blackboard prematurely announced Learn Ultra (new user experience) and Learn SaaS (move to the cloud).
- 2015: Learn Ultra is already a year late (more realistically, the BbWorld14 announcement was wildly unrealistic), but the University of Phoenix selects Learn Ultra as its next-generation learning platform.
- 2016: Blackboard switches CEOs, admits that Learn Ultra is still not ready, and struggles with a major messaging problem around the transition.
- 2017: No coverage – maybe we got tired of lack of not having customers to talk to.
- 2018: Blackboard makes Learn Ultra the core of its message at its users conference BbWorld18.
(Note: It might be easier to view this as a full page timeline instead of the embed within this post.)

What we have been asked multiple times, by institutions, by investors, by other ed tech companies: is Learn Ultra ready, and does it matter? The unsurprising answer to both questions is a qualified and somewhat confusing it depends. To describe a little further, Learn Ultra’s Base Navigation is ready, but the Course View is not ready for meaningful adoption; furthermore, Learn Ultra is important to Blackboard’s future, but we think SaaS is more important to its present.

Is It Ready?

To ask this question requires an understanding of terminology, as we first described in this post. Blackboard1 is pushing the metric that there are 61 or 62 Learn Ultra customers “in production” or “using Ultra”, yet we have found very few that use, or even plan to use, Learn Ultra as their primary, institution-wide LMS. What gives? What became quite clear at this year’s BbWorld 18 users conference is that when Blackboard says in production, what they mean is that the LMS administrator has enabled the Ultra navigation, which uses the new Ultra user experience framework as the landing page / dashboard with activity feed that users see before entering a specific course. The company calls this Base Navigation, but at this point every course can be configured to be in the Original Experience or the Ultra Experience. Thus, enabling the possibility of running a course in Ultra counts as in production (note that Blackboard now lists 91 clients on Ultra).

Once a school has enabled Learn Ultra Base Navigation, they could choose to move exclusively to Ultra (e.g. the University of Phoenix, Northwest Florida State College, and a few others), or they could choose to keep all courses in Original (e.g. Northeastern State University), or they could choose to have some courses in Ultra and some in Original (used by the majority of schools investigating Ultra). This last mode is known as Dual Course mode, and even Blackboard executives seemed surprised to find out that the vast majority of schools putting Ultra in production are in fact running in Dual Course. For many of these schools, there are no definitive plans to move exclusively to Ultra.

Upon re-reading this description, I believe that I should give more credit than just describing a landing page and base navigation. The cross-course functionality is and has been a long-term goal of Ultra, as we described as early as 2016.

Creating a brand for a set of design goals is inherently fraught. Let’s look at two examples of how it makes communication of Blackboard’s strategy tricky for them. First, there’s mobile. Blackboard came out last year with a mobile app called Bb Student. It provides students with that activity stream view across courses and, of course, it’s mobile-first. (In fact, it’s mobile-only at the moment.) Furthermore, the company has made the product available for both traditional 9.x customers (which at this point is pretty much everybody) and their SaaS customers. People inside the company feel like they should be getting more credit for delivering on two major design goals (mobile first and stream-based activity views) as well as for delivering it to customers on the 9.x platform (which was more significant of a technical achievement than is immediately obvious).

This is not a matter of Blackboard moving the goal posts, per se, and it is probably more accurate to say that Ultra cross-course functionality enabled by Base Navigation is ready and showing some benefits.

The challenge is that this move is not sufficient to make a material change in Blackboard’s company prospects. At best, Learn Ultra Base Navigation without usage of Course View will slightly slow down the rate of customers defecting for another LMS. For Learn Ultra to matter and to make Learn newly competitive, they need customers to also use Course View as the primary choice at their institution, and that usage by-and-large is not ready outside of a handful of schools.As an example from BbWorld18, Belmont University presented their experience moving to Learn SaaS (the important issue in the present, and a predecessor for adopting Ultra) and to “the Ultra Experience”. But after we asked a question about faculty adoption of the Ultra Course Experience, the administrator clarified that there are no courses running Ultra – all they have done is enable the Ultra base navigation, and they do not expect to do any course migrations for at least another year. This full adoption of Learn Ultra might become important in the future, but it is not driving decisions today.

Does It Matter?

Given that we’ve been asking for three entire years whether Learn Ultra is ready, one obvious follow-up question is whether it matters any longer. I do think the question matters as Blackboard is pinning their corporate turnaround on Learn Ultra as the core piece, and this message was heavily promoted at BbWorld 18.

This messaging makes some sense in that we consider it unlikely that Blackboard can gain significant numbers of new clients (those moving from another LMS to Blackboard Learn, beyond a dozen or fewer schools) without Learn Ultra. Learn Original Experience has too much baggage and is too dated to compete with Canvas or Brightspace by D2L, at least in North America. The company’s new Learn LMS clients are largely the University of Phoenix and ANGEL contract conversions.

To be fair, the exceptions include several schools in North Dakota (migrating from Moodle) as well as Northwest Florida State College (migrating from D2L). But even with NW Florida State, they based their decision on Learn Ultra.

Based on interviews with clients arranged by Blackboard, and based on our own connections at BbWorld, what we consistently heard during dozens of interviews and from listening to panel discussions was that Learn Ultra Course View makes sense primarily for programs or schools that have not been on Blackboard Learn before. Bb Learn clients seem to have too many expectations of needing the same functionality they had before, pushing Ultra to be largely feature-compatible with Original and thus losing some of its simplicity in the process. When the Illinois Institute of Technology migrated from Learn self-hosting to SaaS, which enabled them to explore Ultra, they chose one program and a handful of faculty that were willing to jump into Learn Ultra, but for almost all others they are sticking with the Original Course View for the time being. The soonest they would expect moving primarily to Learn Ultra at the Course View would bet 3-5 years from now. You can hear the same dynamic in a recent Rod’s Pulse Podcast (shared under CC-BY-NC-SA license and also available at Inside Higher Ed), with Rod Murray interviewing Rob McCunney about their school (University of the Sciences) and its migration to SaaS and Ultra. It is a fascinating first-hand description of their experiences. Please note that they use use the terms Traditional and Original interchangeably.

R Murray: We turned on the SaaS in January, but we really kept the Original Experience until July. In mid-July we flipped the switch to turn on the Ultra Experience. Now again for those of you are not as familiar with the way Blackboard works, that wasn’t changing the course format. They were still traditional courses, but you know all those tabs and modules disappeared, and we ended up with a new base navigation in Blackboard, which they called the Ultra Experience. So that was a major change, and we do have some summer sessions, but we felt this was the least painful way to turn it on. We didn’t want to wait till August just before our fall students came back.

In terms of turning on the Ultra Experience, what were some of the major issues that you saw, that you were concerned with?

R McCunney: Besides the fact that we lost the tabs and modules, so we kind of rolled out OneCampus as Rod said, I think one of the major things that that I noticed wasn’t really even on the admin side, it was just getting people used to something that was completely different as soon as they logged in to that institution page. Where’s my stuff, where is my modules? It just looks completely different than what they’re used to, and there’s some stuff missing, and we replaced it. We put stuff in other areas, and we communicated that, but that was probably the biggest hurdle. Just what is this, what is this Blackboard Ultra that you’re changing me to? And at that point, in July we only changed basically the institution page. Your average user, once they get into their course they didn’t notice anything different, but that initial freak out of here I don’t know where my form is. We told them a dozen times where it is, but it’s somewhere else. That was probably one of the major hurdles, and I didn’t anticipate that as being a big as an issue as it was. I thought there was going to be more nuts and bolts issues, which there were very few of those for the most part.

R Murray: Right now of course we don’t have that many students here in the summer, so the real test will be in another week or so when students come back and really start. We all start kicking the tires, even on the traditional courses within the Ultra Experience.

[snip]

R Murray: The next big change that we have to live through has to do with converting courses to the Ultra course view. Now here at our university we certainly didn’t do it en masse, we went to play with it for at least this term and maybe next. But there are some courses that we decided made a lot of sense to convert to the Ultra course view. Those schools that those courses that are brand new, especially online courses that are brand new, it made sense to develop them directly in the [Ultra] course view.

Schools are trying out the Ultra Experience in terms of the landing page and cross-course functionality, but by-and-large they are very cautious jumping into the Ultra Course View where most of the functionality resides.

Based on this situation, we believe that the migration to Learn SaaS might be a better indicator – at least in the short run – than Ultra adoption of whether a school plans to stick with Blackboard. When a school moves to Learn SaaS, they all tend to sign contract extensions for 1 – 3 years or at least internally plan no LMS migrations for more than 1 – 3 years. And the migration to Learn SaaS does not suffer from the vague terminology issues – a school either uses Learn deployed on SaaS (through AWS) or they don’t.

383 clients on Learn SaaS as of BbWorld 18 is good progress and easy to understand. This issue is what likely matters more to Blackboard clients today and for the next few years, but in the long run the company needs Learn Ultra to be accepted – including at the course level – in order to become more competitive and pick up new clients.

In the end, Learn Ultra is partially ready and does matter, more so in the future, but the Learn SaaS migration matters much more today. This answer is a real improvement over the situation a year ago and even from the beginning of this year, but it is still a far cry from a simple yes and yes answer that Blackboard would like to have.

Update: Fixed name of Rob McCunney
September 12, 2018
Response to MoodleNews: Some considerations for critical reading of market sizing claims

There is an interesting post at MoodleNews titled “Open Source LMS Alive And Well: Moodle Breaks World Higher Ed Records, Tops North America, Grows Everywhere” looking at some of our recent LMS market data, focusing primarily on what the data reveal about open source systems such as Moodle, Sakai, Claroline, and Chamilo.

We welcome the usage of our data posted at e-Literate for these purposes, ((That’s why the blog is available for use under a Creative Commons Attribution license.)) but there are some misunderstandings evident in the MoodleNews post that we see too often in critical readings of market sizing reports. Unfortunately the misreadings can cloud otherwise valuable analytical reporting.

The latest e-Literate report on “active LMS” shows Moodle as the incontrovertible LMS leader in global Higher Ed for primary and secondary systems, including North America.

Incontrovertible seems quite strong, and we at e-Literate try to be very careful in our language and we rarely use words like incontrovertible or unequivocal. ((For the record, in the 14 year history of e-Literate, the former has been used one time and the latter five times.)) The reason is that for most people reading the data is a translation exercise. There is a need to understand the level of confidence the reader should have and what the limits of the claims are.

It is useful that MoodleNews called out the global nature of data and measure of primary and secondary systems.

Assuming it uses data provided by self-reporting service LISTedTECH from the last month, it shows dominance in every region, unsurmountable everywhere but the US, and healthy growth rates. The report mentions the “LMS long tail” as well as “the Big Four” (Moodle, Blackboard, Instructure Canvas and D2L Brightspace) but by their own accounting a more accurate distinction would be “the big one.”

The data set used from our partners LISTedTECH is not a self-reporting service. Read this post for more information on the multiple channels of data collection used.

But unsurmountable comes out of the blue. The whole point of doing reports like we do is that we don’t know for certain what the future trends will be, and we gather the data to reduce uncertainty. A while back, many would have said that Blackboard has an insurmountable dominance in North America, but we have seen major changes that would have made those claims invalid.

I can see the argument for describing Moodle as “the big one” as an alternate description to “the Big Four”.

LISTedTECH sample (apparently totaling 12,879 active LMS) lists 1,419 active Moodle sites in Higher Ed for North America, self-acknowledged as their most complete dataset. It appears that the advantages in Canada compensate for Instructure Canvas’ growth in the US. In July, it had listed 1,000 sites only for Higher Ed in the US.

The first sentence is a good example of characterizing the data in a useful way, as it gives the reader a sense of the data set while also clarifying usage in a specific global region.

Unfortunately the article then jumps into some confusing claims based on misreading the data descriptions. The June 2017 post captured percentage of primary systems at degree-granting institutions for each of four global regions with North America = US and Canada combined, the July 2018 post captured primary LMS in … US colleges and universities, and the August 2018 post captured total counts of both primary and secondary system usage in six global regions. We chose this latter method for the August post due to the frequency of long tail and open source LMS systems being used as secondary systems (i.e. some other LMS is the campus standard, or primary system). There is little basis for concluding that Moodle’s advantages in Canada compensate for Instructure Canvas’ growth in the US.

The larger point here is that there are lots of ways to slice and dice data that end up with similar-lookinggraphs that represent different things – it’s important to read the legends and surrounding text carefully. To give a sense on the issue of primary vs. secondary systems for North America, consider the difference shown below. ((Graphic shown as clarification, not present in articles referenced by MoodleNews.))

With MoodleNews’ natural focus on Moodle, it would be accurate to note that Moodle is used quite frequently as a secondary system.

For comparison, official stats at moodle.net set the total figure at 11,490 as of writing. 9,776 for the US, the biggest Moodle nation; 1,714 for Canada. Moodle does not offer discriminated site data for Higher Ed only.

This is a helpful comparison and description with a different data set.

Unfortunately, I need to be careful with further quotations. MoodleNews does not use a creative commons license and clearly limits usage based on the site’s terms of use. So the remainder of this post will have to be limited to short descriptions.

There is a useful section looking at Moodle’s shares in six different global regions. The main caution I would add comes from our November 2017 post describing the data.

Market share information provided in percentages and trends are more reliable than absolute counts outside of North America. When we do provide absolute numbers, we advise caution for readers or subscribers to not over-interpret the absolute numbers, at least without us providing additional details to keep the data in context.

But in this case, MoodleNews also included the percentages for each region, which is helpful.

The next four paragraphs all focus on market trends (year over year comparisons) that cannot be supported by the data (see above).

At the end of the MoodleNews post, there is some valuable commentary about other (non-Moodle) open source LMS system and the origins and deployments across various regions.

Given these clarifications, I would also add the the MoodleNews title has some serious flaws.

All-in-all, it’s good to see valuable discussions spawned from our CC-BY licensed posts. But readers should be cautios when trying to understand market sizing data and make comparisons and trends analysis carefully.

Update 8/26: Please see comment from Martin Dougiamas clarifying that MoodleNews “is not associated or affiliated with the Moodle organisation in any way”.

August 23, 2018
D2L Fusion 2018: Product improvements and potential signs of addressing challenges

This year’s D2L Fusion conference in Houston carved out a space somewhere between the carnival atmosphere of InstructureCon in Keystone and the subdued feel of BbWorld in Orlando (note: we plan another post on each of these conferences to share more details of our observations). This was the perfect note to hit for where D2L is in its evolution as an educational technology company. A number of things seem to be falling in place for D2L ((Disclosure: Blackboard, Instructure, D2L, and Schoology are subscribers to our LMS Market Analysis service. Blackboard, Instructure, D2L, and Pearson are sponsoring participants in our Empirical Educator Project.)) with its LMS product, but we will have to see if the recently expanded management team will be able to address the ongoing challenges that D2L faces with customer experience and expectations.

Like Blackboard and Instructure, D2L is in the middle of a transition partially driven by financial considerations. In D2L’s case, the issue is that the two rounds of $165 million aggregate funding in 2012 / 13 lead to expectations of larger market gains. In August of 2017 we shared that “D2L is on a roll, racking up significant client wins in higher education, and the company shows real signs of change in its ability to truly listen to and empathize with customers.” Two months ago we described D2L’s concerted effort to move customers to the cloud and some promising improvements surfacing in the new Daylight user experience. Despite these improvements, however, D2L has lost some marquee customers such as the University of Wisconsin system to offset some of the wins, and the company has remained steady or made slight gains in North America, European and Latin American LMS market share.

At D2L Fusion, our goal was to get a better read on how actual customers and prospects are reacting to the cloud deployment move and streamlined user experience that we have observed. A second goal we had was to get a better sense of whether D2L will be able to improve its customer service and delivery on promises made to customers.

Reactions to Cloud and User Experience

From customers we spoke to at D2L Fusion, the value of the move to the cloud as well as user experience improvements have provided breakthroughs. On the cloud front, D2L now has upwards of 98% of their customer base either hosted through Amazon Web Services (AWS) or in the company’s data centers. According to a company spokesperson, 55% of what they describe as cloud implementations are hosted by AWS, the remainder by D2L in their leased data centers. All new implementations moving forward will be hosted by AWS and by fall 2019 D2L estimates that nearly all implementations will be on the AWS infrastructure. This will be a significant achievement for a legacy on-premises software provider to make this transition. From our June post:

D2L has long worked on managed hosting options, but in late 2013 the company introduced Continuous Delivery where software releases are pushed to customers incrementally, such that customers would jointly run the latest versions of Brightspace, their LMS. This move is important, as one primary benefit of cloud deployment is to remove the explosion of software configurations and versions that make it expensive and difficult to diagnose and fix bugs and to release new features.

Three years later in 2016 D2L announced their move to AWS for cloud deployment.

At Fusion 2018 we saw a continuation of this strategy, and we heard largely positive reception from customers and prospects, and we are not hearing the grumblings from customers as was evident in late 2016 / early 2017. We should also note that this move to the cloud is more aggressive than that being made by Blackboard and Learn SaaS, but more on that in a future post.

As for the new user experience and recent changes in product design, it’s useful to first establish context for what’s been happening internally at D2L. About three years ago D2L brought in a new chief operating officer, Cheryl Ainoa, and a new VP of Product, David Koehn. One of their goals was to turn the product development process on its head and, drum roll, put the users first. This means engaging with users, listening to users, understanding their problems and viewing them as partners in the effort to deliver better software. It also means solving the small things that annoy users on a daily basis and shifting away from feature releases as the key metric of progress. For companies that have been engaged in agile methodology and iterative development, this likely sounds basic. For D2L, it was a fundamental cultural shift in how development is done. At this year’s Fusion, we are seeing concrete signs that change has taken root both with the company and with customers.

Daylight Experience is the name for D2L’s redesign of its streamlined user interface. When it was first announced in early 2017, we were somewhat skeptical as the initial changes were evident in different fonts and cleaner look-and-feel but not significant improvements in the workflow for faculty and students.

As time goes on and we see more advanced demos, our view is changing. The Daylight Experience does have some real improvements not just in look-and-feel but in fewer and more intuitive clicks to get the same job done. A major focus on the Emerald Release this summer (in time for D2L Fusion users conference) is more fully encouraging usage of the activity stream for higher ed clients (this feature was initially targeted at K-12 market but has been adapted for colleges and universities).

The product showcase slide that arguably got the most enthusiastic response from the crowd was the one that focused on the small changes that users had been clamoring after for years – things like “Due Dates in Manage Dates Tool”, “Fixed Headers in Grades”, “Learning Groups”.

These are not sexy, headline-making announcements, but they matter to users. D2L has long been viewed as a platform for people and institutions that like to have a lot of control over how to configure and run an LMS; however, the breadth and complexity of options often came at the expense of an intuitive user experience. While D2L has had a solid product for a sub-set of the market for years, they have had difficulty being viewed as ‘intuitive’ or ‘easy to use’, at least since the advent of Canvas and the resultant change in user expectations. The streamlined design afforded by the Daylight Experience, and the progressive disclosure of more advanced features, could change this situation if they’re able to get it in front of potential customers for a serious look.

Customer Experience and Expectations

On the second question regarding customer service and delivery on promises there are several reasons to be upbeat, but also reason for concern. Several new customers we spoke with, from Europe, Latin America and North America, all spoke about “partnership” as being a key reason for their choosing D2L over the competition. During lengthy procurement processes, these institutions got the sense that D2L was eager to engage and work with them to achieve their goals with broad service offerings as well as an eagerness to shape product development to suit these new clients.

That said, D2L has a mixed record on follow through. A number of sources we have spoken with over the past 6-12 months have discussed a pattern of the company over-promising and under-delivering when it comes to implement promised changes. For example, these sources have told us they went into the relationship with this same expectation of a partnership, of having a voice in product direction, only to find out they are having trouble getting D2L staff to respond in a timely manner. It is not clear yet on how prevalent these concerns are, but we do believe they will need to be addressed in order for D2L to make material changes in overall market share.

D2L has made two key hires in recent months, seemingly in recognition of potential market opportunities as well as persistent internal challenges. One targets growth, the other customer satisfaction. Puneet Arora, a former sales executive with several SaaS companies, has been brought in as chief revenue officer, and April Oman, a veteran customer success executive with a number of enterprise software companies, has been added as as Senior VP of Customer Experience. Arora is new to the education space but seems to be asking a lot of the right questions, and his task is to grow the user base in a meaningful way. Expect to see some changes in how D2L positions itself and who they try to sell to, shifting the balance away from administrators and towards faculty and student end users. Oman’s role is a new one and speaks to the need to develop a stronger relationships and partnerships with customers. This will be critical as D2L tries to establish themselves as much more than a software solution and as they attempt to improve customer experience.

Better Position but Needing Results

The center of gravity of D2L’s executive team is more diffuse than it used to be. Much of the longer-tenured leadership of D2L is based out of the Kitchener, Ontario home office: John Baker, CEO; Nick Oddson, CTO; Melissa Howatson, CFO; Jeremy Auger, SVP Strategy; and Ken Chapman, VP of Market Research. Ainoa, Koehn, Arora, and Oman (the new hires), however, are all in the Bay Area in California, and Tracy Strauss, SVP Marketing, is out of Los Angeles. There seems to be a deliberate approach to finding new ways of thinking from a broader field of expertise.

D2L appears to have largely revamped its approach to product development that is more responsive to customer needs, and is putting resources into building partnerships. Yet they have not made the market gains envisioned after winning the Blackboard patent wars and then raising two large rounds of financing. We still see a two-horse race for new implementations (LMS product switches) in higher education, largely shared between Canvas and D2L, but the second horse that is looking better than it used to still needs to make further adjustments and run faster.

August 13, 2018
What’s Important about the Blackboard Market Share News
My last post on Canvas’ US market share surpassing Blackboard’s predictably got a fair bit of attention, including some follow-up press elsewhere on the internet. There were a few comments to the press made by Blackboard executives and industry experts that merit some further examination.

But let me start by being crystal clear about one point: In and of itself, the fact that (by our count) Canvas now has two more primary systems than Blackboard Learn in the US market, is purely symbolic. It has historic significance for those of us who have been long-time watchers (or sufferers) in the LMS market. But if Blackboard’s number were ten higher or ten lower, it wouldn’t change the big picture.

The more important question is this: If the crossing of the lines is purely symbolic, then what is it symbolic of? What actually matters about this story to colleges and universities, and why?

Let’s see if we can separate the signal from the noise by working our way through a couple of well-sourced articles and the commentary that they contain.

First, there’s Lindsay McKenzie’s piece in Inside Higher Ed. She chased down a number of customer reactions. Some of these were the usual pile-on of “we hate these guys and we love those guys.” ((See the comments on my original post; LMS personal commentary tends to be just a few steps removed from primal scream therapy. I’m not judging; just observing.)) But she also got an interesting pricing anecdote, which is helpful given how opaque LMS pricing tends to be:

Now that Canvas is the “hot product,” Instructure has been trying to aggressively increase its fees, said [Emporia State University’s Rob] Gibson. A 5 percent increase per year for such services is not unusual, but Instructure has been asking for more. Gibson said his institution has had to push back against further increases.

Blackboard, on the other hand, was “desperate to keep us,” said Gibson. They offered a 50 percent discount to stop Emporia from making the switch. “I think they could see the writing on the wall,” he said.

Customers take note: Blackboard’s change in fortunes may affect the behavior of all the LMS vendors.

The article also has a quote from Lou Pugliese who, in addition to being a current senior innovation fellow at ASU and CEO from Blackboard’s early days, was CEO of Moodlerooms when Blackboard acquired it. In other words, he knows something about the LMS market. He raised an interesting question:

Pugliese said that the statement that Canvas is “now the primary LMS in more U.S. colleges and universities than Blackboard Learn” is misleading. “The real measurement metric should be akin to website traffic. Statistical data on number of unique users, not total ‘installations,’” he said.

For a long time, Blackboard has been at the top of the LMS food chain not only in raw market share but in terms of having a high percentage of the largest customers. In fact, at one point the company killed off Learn Basic precisely because the company calculated that small colleges were not profitable enough to justify continuing to sell the cheaper, no-frills version of Learn.

So, if we look at number of students served in the US market rather than the number of universities served, is the market share picture substantially different?

Nope. ((But the picture of Brightspace’s market share relative to Moodle’s does.))

Second lesson: Blackboard’s customer loss is no longer contained to smaller colleges. Both the IHE piece and the Bloomberg piece that I will be commenting on next mention that Cornell, which is the birthplace of Blackboard, has announced that they will be moving to Canvas. This is another example of a milestone with more symbolic than literal significance. Blackboard’s loss of Cornell may sting from an emotional perspective, but it’s probably not material to the company’s balance sheet in and of itself. On the other hand, the loss of schools like Cornell is material. As is the loss of schools like Pugliese’s current professional home, ASU.

Lastly from the IHE piece, there’s a substantial quote from Blackboard’s Chief Learning and Innovation Officer Phill Miller:

Phill Miller, chief learning and innovation officer at Blackboard, said that the data shared by Feldstein were “not consistent with our own,” which show that “Blackboard remains the dominant ed-tech company around the globe.” He added that Blackboard Learn is not the only service that the company offers — “we have thousands of Blackboard Collaborate, Moodle and Blackboard Ally clients,” he said.

Miller said that over the past year and a half, Blackboard has “taken a hard look as a company at what we need to do to better serve our clients.”

In response to customer feedback, Blackboard has been working to improve existing products and develop new ones. Though Miller notes that development of Ultra “took longer than we anticipated,” he says institutions are reacting positively to the changes.

“We’re in a much different and better place than we were a year ago,” said Miller. “We’re seeing that RFPs are slowing down, our renewal rate is strong and we’ve won in a number of competitive situations recently.”

There’s a lot to unpack here. Let me preface my comments by saying that I’ve known Phill for well over a decade and have a high opinion of his integrity. I feel the need to say this because his comment about our data not being consistent with Blackboard’s own comes across in the context of the article as a dodge that I don’t believe Phill would make in regular conversation. Our numbers likely do differ modestly from Blackboard’s. Counting installations is more complex and requires more methodological decisions than you might think, such as the date when you officially register a switchover. But I don’t believe our numbers are different by much, and I don’t believe anyone can credibly deny that Canvas has achieved rough parity with Blackboard Learn in US market share.

The comment about Blackboard having “taken a hard look…at what we need to do to better serve our clients” is the right thing for any executive at a company with declining market share to say, and I believe it is also true in this case. Blackboard has had a long reputation hangover from former CEO Michael Chasen, who was notorious for his disregard of customer satisfaction. For what it’s worth, Blackboard is not that company anymore. Emphasis added here because people still have strong feelings about the company’s behavior from that era and don’t always realize that there has been a complete turnover in company management since then. (Twice.)

Case in point: To his credit, Miller owned up to the delays in Ultra. This isn’t new, but it is ongoing, so Blackboard needs to continue to be up front about the problem until customers are satisfied that it has been fully resolved. The company may be struggling to bring Ultra up to a level that customers consider “feature-complete,” but they have made a consistent and visible effort to take responsibility for their results.

Miller’s point that Blackboard sells more than just Learn is a valid and important one, but has to be weighed in the context of the company’s short- and medium-term financial challenges. The real issue of concern is the potential behavior of their debt and equity owners. I’ll come back to the point about Blackboard’s total product portfolio in that conxt.

Miller’s last comment, about seeing RFPs slowing down and a strong customer renewal rate, is the most consequential. Given that the market has been chasing Instructure on reliable SaaS, usability, and high-quality customer service, there has been (and continues to be) an outstanding question of how long Blackboard’s customer base will remain patient as it tries to catch up on these fronts. To be honest we at e-Literate are somewhat skeptical of Blackboard’s ability to forecast. Jay Bhatt, the company’s previous CEO, did enormous damage to the company’s sales force, which is an essential component of any company’s sensory apparatus. If customers are getting nervous and thinking about bolting, the sales reps should pick that up early. But it’s not clear that Blackboard’s early warning system is working properly at the moment. When the e-Literate team is at BbWorld next week, we’ll be looking for clues about customer sentiment.

The second “Blackboard alert” article worth reading is the one by Katherine Doherty and Eliza Ronalds-Hannon at Bloomberg News. This one wasn’t a reaction to our piece but rather coincidental timing triggered by the same underlying concerns. I spoke with Doherty, whose beat includes companies with distressed debt.

The debt is the real existential issue. Without it, Blackboard would just be a company that continues to struggle with its flagship product but which would have enough runway to turn itself around over time, one way or another. In the Bloomberg article, Blackboard CEO Bill Ballhaus repeats Miller’s reminder that the company sells other products and services. And as we have pointed out repeatedly here on e-Literate, the international markets are an increasingly large percentage of Blackboard’s financial picture. The fundamentals of the company may not be great, but they’re not dire either. Given time, good leadership, and low debt, a company in this position should be able to right itself.

But because Blackboard has high debt, their situation potentially a lot more volatile. One major reason why the market share milestone matters is that it’s an apt metaphor for Blackboard’s financial waterline. At their current debt levels, the company can’t afford for their market share to continue to drop.

Contract losses have sent Blackboard’s revenue and earnings sliding, according to people with knowledge of the matter, making it harder to carry more than $1.3 billion of rated debt. With some of Blackboard’s bonds selling at deeply distressed levels, Ballhaus is crafting a comeback, and possible options include the sale of its payment processing division, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are private.

Even in this situation, the results for Blackboard Learn customers won’t necessarily be bad, or even noticeable—depending on how the finances are resolved. If Blackboard sells off Transact, gets a good price for it, pays down some debt, and otherwise sticks with the current management’s plan, that could buy them some time and some ability to survive further erosion of market share around Learn. If the company’s owner, Providence Equity, decides to take more drastic steps, then the potential impact on customers is unpredictable. And Providence’s calculations regarding how much drastic action is required must be at least partly driven by their assessment of how close Blackboard is to bottoming out in LMS market share loss.

So what are the take-aways for LMS customers?
- It is no longer the case the Blackboard is the big dog and Instructure is the underdog. And, as is suggested in the customer quote above about pricing, that may have consequences for the behaviors of all the vendors.
- Blackboard is in a financially precarious situation in the short term. They have a number of options for getting themselves out of this situation, some of which are more impactful on customers than others. This is worth watching closely.
- In the medium term, the fate of the company depends on them staunching the bleeding of market share, not because the loss of Learn customers is in danger of driving them out of business in and of itself, but because they need to buy time with their equity owners so that they can execute a turn-around strategy that will keep the company (relatively) intact. Ally may be a runaway hit in the market, but if its revenues aren’t growing faster than Learn revenues are shrinking, that will not go over well with equity investors.
- The current situation is real trial by fire for Blackboard’s executive leadership, including some new players. Phill Miller in particular may have been in senior management for quite a while, but with the departure of Katie Blot, he is now very much in the hot seat now. And he’s not the only one. In the same company blog post that announced Phill’s promotion, Ballhaus announced a new Chief Portfolio Officer, Chief Strategy Officer, and Teaching and Learning product line lead. This is a particularly challenging moment to be an executive at that company.
- All of this puts a lot of pressure on Blackboard to get customers migrated over to SaaS and convince the market that Ultra is ready for prime time now.
- Blackboard may be in a tight spot, but don’t conflate that with behavior of the previous management in the bad old days. Schadenfreude may feel good, but it doesn’t help when you’re making strategic decisions. Evaluate Blackboard based on what they do today, not on what they did 10 years ago.
Watch this space.
July 11, 2018
D2L Bets on The Cloud and Advances in User Experience
One of the arguments that we have made as part of our LMS Market Analysis service is that if you look beyond market share numbers, there has been a tectonic shift in the academic LMS market that started around 2012, moving from being Blackboard-centric to Canvas-centric. Meaning that the current market trends are largely driven by Canvas adoptions and market reactions to Canvas adoptions. This change has elevated the need for viable LMS solutions to have both a cloud-based deployment strategy as well as a more modern, intuitive user experience than what was acceptable just five years ago.

Blackboard’s move to Learn SaaS (deployment) and Learn Ultra (new user experience) is a prime example of this market dynamic, and it has tended to get the lion’s share of analysis, including here at e-Literate. We have described that D2L has joined Canvas in “an emerging two-horse race for new implementations”, but we could do a better job of describing why we believe they are gaining in the market. ((Disclosure: D2L, Blackboard, and Instructure are subscribers in our LMS Market Analysis service and sponsoring participants in our Empirical Educator Project.))

Short story – D2L has made fairly substantial bets on cloud deployment and a streamlined user experience, and the product design changes present the best explanation for the market gains.

Head in the Cloud

The data looking at new LMS implementations (changing from one system to another) in higher ed across the four global regions we cover in our market analysis shows a remarkable movement away from self hosting, or on-premises hosting, towards a combination of managed hosting by the LMS vendor or cloud hosting designed by the vendor but running on AWS, in particular. From 15% external hosting to 77% in just one decade. Within the external models, there is another major shift away from managed hosting and towards cloud hosting.

D2L has long worked on managed hosting options, but in late 2013 the company introduced Continuous Delivery where software releases are pushed to customers incrementally, such that customers would jointly run the latest versions of Brightspace, their LMS. This move is important, as one primary benefit of cloud deployment is to remove the explosion of software configurations and versions that make it expensive and difficult to diagnose and fix bugs and to release new features.

Three years later in 2016 D2L announced their move to AWS for cloud deployment.

While we heard grumblings from multiple clients during the transition – especially thru early 2017 – D2L clearly made some hard choices and and is aggressively moving to the cloud, not just as an option, but as their primary delivery model. According to David Koehn, VP of Product Management at D2L:
- All new Brightspace implementations are on AWS cloud;
- Virtually all current Brightspace implementations use Continuous Delivery; and
- Approximately 50% of current customers are already on the AWS version of cloud deployment; and
- By the end of 2018, a large majority of customers will be on cloud deployment.
Contrast this move to the cloud with Blackboard’s where they plan to continue offering self hosting, managed hosting, and their own AWS-based cloud hosting options at the customer’s choice, while they believe SaaS and Ultra will lead on new sales. The primary constraint being that to go to Learn Ultra experience, you must first be on Learn SaaS, the cloud hosting option. But the key point is that Blackboard has tended to view the cloud as one deployment option among others, and the numbers show it. According to a company blog post this week from CEO Bill Ballhaus:

As of today, more than 50 clients are running Ultra, with dozens more planning to start using the Ultra experience and courses in the second half of the year. Also, 361 clients around the globe have moved to SaaS deployment for Learn.

Our data show more than 2,000 higher ed customers on Learn, but if you add in K-12 and corporate customers, this roughly equates to just over 10% on or moving to Learn SaaS and 2% on Learn Ultra. These are generous numbers, but more on that in a separate post.

The point is that D2L is making a much more aggressive and focused bet on the cloud than is Blackboard, for better or worse. Canvas, of course, is designed natively for the cloud, and essentially 100% of their customers are on the AWS cloud.

Run to Daylight

David Koehn also pointed out that the real driver for the AWS cloud move by D2L is to enable a redesign of the user experience and to provide improved scalability and reliability. In other words, the cloud deployment is a means to the Daylight end.

Daylight is the name for D2L’s redesign of the user experience and its streamlined user interface. When it was first announced just over a year ago, I was somewhat skeptical as the initial changes were evident in different fonts and cleaner look-and-feel, but not significant improvements in the workflow for faculty and students.

As time goes on and I see more advanced demos, my view is changing. The Daylight Experience does have some real improvements not just in look-and-feel but in fewer and more intuitive clicks to get the same job done. A major focus on the release this summer (in time for D2L Fusion users conference) is more fully encouraging usage of the activity stream for higher ed clients (this feature was initially targeted at K-12 market but has been adapted for colleges and universities).

D2L has long played the Mutually Assured Destruction game of features, targeted at cumbersome procurement processes. D2L (along with Blackboard and Moodle) has a deep set of features which contrasts with Canvas and its streamlined set of features that rely on third-party integrations to solve some of the more specialized use cases. For D2L, it is important to maintain these features as a competitive differentiator with Canvas, and the design approach guiding them is Progressive Disclosure. This design technique relies on progressing from simple to complex, showing the user the information and options they need when they need it or request it and not before.

Consider adding a multiple choice quiz, where the desire is to make this process very simple, but to then have a page or area that exposes more and more options as requested by user or in context of the quiz setup.

As D2L further implements this design approach within the Daylight Experience, we are seeing a more modern and intuitive user experience for Brightspace customers, yet one that is showing real promise to also tap into deeper feature sets. And these changes are being used in production.

Again by way of contrast, Blackboard’s user experience redesign for Learn Ultra has had a bumpy ride, with multi-year delays of getting any customers to use in production. They took more of a big bang approach to releasing Learn Ultra, and when customers pushed back saying that Ultra wasn’t ready, this led to additional delays and eventually a change in the design team. D2L’s Daylight has proven to be a more iterative release of their new user experience.

What to Watch

This year it is becoming difficult to separate LMS products from company finances. Instructure is trying to balance Canvas and Bridge growth to satisfy public markets along with a new executive team. Blackboard is dealing with corporate debt challenges while needing to fully release Learn Ultra. As mentioned in this post, D2L is moving strongly to the cloud with a new user experience while managing expenses. Schoology is trying to grow higher ed market under the radar. Moodle HQ took investment for the first time. There are a lot of open questions on the future of the academic LMS market, and we expect much to be revealed at the big summer (and fall) events.

As for D2L Fusion, we plan to get a better read on how customers and prospects are reacting to the cloud deployment move and streamlined user experience. We are seeing real changes in the Brightspace design and deployment model, but do paying and prospective customers value these changes? Furthermore, will D2L be able to improve its customer service and delivery on promises made for new customers as well as it has improved its product design?

As for Blackboard, Learn Ultra now has D2L’s Brightspace as a major user experience to compete with as well as Canvas. There is a lot more changing in the LMS market than what is obvious on the surface.

Update: Clarified D2L numbers to be specifically for AWS cloud deployment. Also changed several instances of “cloud hosting” to be “cloud deployment” to make terminology more accurate.
June 8, 2018
Interview with CEO of Instructure on changes to executive team

Instructure is now a decade old as a company and faces a crucial test this year with recent changes to their executive management team and the need to scale both Canvas (academic LMS) and Bridge (corporate learning LMS). The long-time head of sales, Marc Maloy, and head of marketing, Misty Frost, left Instructure in the fall. The company eventually hired a new head of marketing, Bjorn Eriksson from the world of corporate HR, in January. After a months-long search, Instructure did not directly replace Marc with a new head of sales, but instead they hired a new president, Dan Goldsmith, who also has sales leaders reporting directly to him. With this move, Mitch Macfarlane, the long-time chief operating officer and former head of client services, will be leaving the company this summer. ((Disclosure: Instructure and D2L are subscribers to our LMS market analysis service and were sponsors at our recent Empirical Educator Project summit.))

We’ve written about previous executive changes for Instructure – when their two founders left the company and when their CTO departed after just one year – but in each case the company managed the transitions and came out stronger in the end. As we have shared in our LMS Market Analysis service and on e-Literate, the Canvas track record is remarkable in terms of not losing customers and gaining new customers from most other LMS providers.

But the executive changes over the past year come at a time when Instructure faces new challenges in product development and implementation support. At InstructureCon 2016, the company announced their next-generation quizzing platform, Quizzes.Next, stating that it would be “made available to you over the course of the next several months”. Last summer at InstructureCon 2017, Quizzes.Next entered a limited beta program, but the new set of tools is still not fully in production. To our knowledge, this might be the biggest product schedule miss in the company’s history, and it will be quite interesting to see what happens with this summer’s InstructureCon.

In addition, we have had several people contact us privately, even before the most recent management change, telling us about a new level of frustration in implementation projects and product upgrades. None of the tales were extreme, but they were unusual for Canvas clients and in general spoke to distractions from staff and lack of clear answers and updates.

The press release announcing the hiring of Dan Goldsmith included this description:

With more than 20 years of experience in software and services, Goldsmith’s career is marked by directing high-performing global teams and achieving outstanding penetration and growth in challenging markets. Goldsmith spent the last eight years as a senior executive at Veeva Systems, a cloud-based software company, where he started and ran Veeva’s international business, led the company’s strategy in new markets and products, and most recently was responsible for Veeva’s global engagement and growth in strategic accounts.

“It is an exciting time for Instructure. We are well positioned for success as we focus on the continued growth of Canvas, expansion of Bridge, and international execution,” said Josh Coates, CEO of Instructure. “Dan’s energy, creativity and proven track record in driving go-to-market strategies and rapidly scaling businesses make him a tremendous addition to Instructure at the perfect time to lead us through our next phase of growth.”

Goldsmith was one of the first 50 employees at Veeva. He helped lead the company through a successful IPO and a growth path to a $10 billion market cap. Prior to Veeva, he worked in various executive positions at top companies, including Accenture, PwC and IBM. During his years in management consulting, Goldsmith led initiatives in global markets and developed new offerings. Goldsmith will have an immediate impact on Instructure’s strategy. His initial focus will be on market growth, with the sales leaders reporting directly to him.

This was the setup for an interview that we had with Josh Coates, the CEO of Instructure, last week. Given our focus at e-Literate on education markets, we in particular wanted to ask about how the company is balancing the needs of Canvas and Bridge.

Coates came prepared for the interview, and up front he made the point that the “vast majority of company resources” are allocated to the academic markets and that this is their foundational business. After we pointed out that the majority of discussions on quarterly earnings calls focus on Bridge, Coates noted that Wall Street is overly focused on corporate learning markets and unfortunately takes Canvas’ academic market performance for granted. He does not do so, but some of the investor community seems to.

The primary selling points bringing Goldsmith to Instructure are that he helped Veeva grow into a $10 billion company, having joined as one of first ~40 employees, and that he specifically helped them grow international markets. According to Coates, Goldsmith spent his first three years opening up the Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) markets, and that yes, his international experience is a big reason for Instructure recruiting him.

We have noted at e-Literate that Canvas really began international expansion just 3-4 years ago. According to our current data, Canvas leads in higher ed adoptions in Europe and Australia / New Zealand, but interestingly, D2L is beating Canvas in Latin America higher ed adoptions despite Instructure having a bigger investment in its regional office in São Paulo. At some point Canvas’ market share growth rate in North America will have to flatten out and international markets will naturally increase in importance for company finances. While market wins in Europe and Australia / New Zealand are impressive, Instructure will need more aggressive growth in other markets, and clearly Goldsmith is being tapped as a catalyst to increase sales overseas.

We pointed out that Goldsmith had no education background and appears to be more closely aligned to corporate learning markets than higher ed or K-12 markets. Coates responded that Goldsmith has done quite well for himself at Veeva but is also passionate about education, as evidenced by his experience as the chair of the Montgomery School board of trustees. Coates acknowledged that this is not deep academic sector experience and that the company will need to give Goldsmith a big education on higher ed and K-12 markets. If we had a dollar for every time we heard of a rich dude who is passionate about education, well, we’d be rich dudes who are passionate about education. It is good to hear, however, the acknowledgement that the new executive brings rich software company scaling and international market growth experience but not domain knowledge of the academic markets for Canvas.

We asked for an update on Quizzes.Next – when it will be generally available (GA) and whether the schedule challenges are related to the executive changes. Josh Coates assured me that no executives are working on the code, but Jared Stein, VP of higher ed product strategy, answered more directly.

Quizzes.Next’s GA release is scheduled for Summer 2018. This is later than planned because we underestimated the complexity of building assessments entirely as a micro-service at the level of quality we set for ourselves and our users.

The executive management team over the years has played a big role in establishing the company culture that is a large part of Instructure’s success. Now that the three M’s (Marc, Misty and Mitch) are out, the question is not whether the culture will change, but how. Coates’ acknowledges this reality and trusts that Instructure’s internal rudder is strong enough to keep the company on course.

There are two company risks that stand out in trying to balance Canvas and Bridge. First is that complacency sets in not just with some in the investment community but with Instructure itself, and they begin to take their strong position in the academic market for granted. Second, and related, is that resources and talent end up flowing disproportionately to the corporate learning market given its increasing importance. These are risks to watch and not observations of actions, however, and Coates was emphatic that the academic market will always be the foundation of Instructure’s business. The corporate learning market is significantly larger than the academic market, however, and Coates estimated that in ten years or so, corporate will likely drive a larger portion of Instructure’s revenue.

It should be noted that growth in corporate does not have to come at the expense of the academic market. It actually has the potential to strengthen product offerings in higher ed and K-12 as Instructure gains deeper insights into teaching and learning more broadly. There is also the potential for convergence, or at least cross-pollination, in these markets as the profile and needs of learners evolve.

We’ll keep a close eye on academic LMS market trends in the coming months for signs of new developments. For the near term, at least, Instructure’s success is predicated on the continued success of Canvas in higher education and K-12 despite the quarterly investor calls skewing toward the corporate learning markets and new management hires with experience outside of the education sector.

May 22, 2018
Comparing the First Ten Years of Blackboard and Instructure in LMS Market
Last year Blackboard celebrated their 20th anniversary as a company, and this year Instructure celebrated their 10th. Yes, the company with Canvas, the “new” LMS solution, is a decade old. To gain historical perspective, it is interesting to compare each company’s first ten years in business in terms of primary financials – revenue and income – and performance in their core North American Higher Education market.

We can only go so far in comparing the companies on this basis, however, due to different circumstances.
- Most importantly, Blackboard helped create the LMS market and therefore had significant portion of its expansion in a greenfield situation, picking up clients who had not previously used an institution-wide LMS. Canvas entered the market well after saturation, with greater than 90% of institutions already having a standard LMS.
- Blackboard developed its product line pre-cloud, with on-premise hosting being the primary deployment model. Canvas was cloud-native, developed on top of AWS infrastructure.
- Blackboard’s growth was heavily based on corporate acquisition of competitors – Prometheus, WebCourse, WebCT in the first decade – while Instructure’s growth has been almost exclusively organic.
- Both companies sold in more than just the North American Higher Ed (NAHE) LMS market, even if that was the core. Blackboard acquired two companies in 2000 and launched a card-reader transaction business, and they played somewhat in the K-12 and corporate learning space. Instructure developed Bridge for corporate learning, Arc for video platform, and it has a heavy presence in the K-12 LMS market.
Interestingly, both companies went public in Year 7 (Blackboard in 2004, Instructure in 2015).

With that in mind, let’s compare revenue, operating income – both derived from public SEC filings and adjusted to 2018 dollars – and market share in their core NAHE market. The financial data comes from public filings, and data for 2018 for Instructure are estimates based on their outlook presented in the most recent quarterly earnings release. Market share data is based on our LMS Market Analysis service and associated financial analysis for premium subscribers.

Some notes:
- Blackboard raised ~$185 million in venture financing pre-IPO while Instructure raised ~$95 million (both in 2018 dollars). Part of this difference can be attributed to the much higher costs associated with pre-cloud enterprise software deployment models.
- Blackboard’s revenue was higher than Instructure’s at similar points, and their operating income was mostly positive after Year 6. Instructure has maintained a significant loss each year from operations. One way to explain this difference is that Blackboard’s used funds for corporate acquisitions, thus fueling growth, while Instructure invested funds into sales & marketing and organic growth. This is not the whole story, but it is a big difference between the two companies.
- In market share represented as a percentage, Blackboard’s growth was much faster, but this was in a period where the market was developing and not all schools had a standard LMS. When viewing this market share in raw numbers, we see that Instructure’s growth would have exceeded Blackboard’s were it not for the Year 9 WebCT acquisition.
- Blackboard was already showing organic market declines (in NAHE market share %) and slowdowns in raw numbers outside of the immediate WebCT acquisition of customers. Instructure’s organic growth shows no signs yet of slowing down, is less lumpy and more predictable.
April 18, 2018