Changing the Narrative: How Open Source Software Addresses Change in Higher Education IT
I recently read two articles about change.
The first article was a recent EDUCAUSE Review publication, "Surviving an Edtech Provider's Acquisition: Advice for Higher Education IT Professionals," by Ellen Wagner, Founder and Managing Partner at North Coast EduVisory LLC, who accurately stated,
Change is a constant in the ever-evolving higher education IT landscape. The commercial technology sector serving higher education stakeholders is characterized by rapid innovation, fierce competition, and frequent corporate restructuring. As educational technology companies launch, merge, undergo acquisitions, or pivot in new directions, the tools and platforms that institutions rely on can shift unexpectedly. For higher education IT professionals, staying ahead of these changes is crucial—not only to ensure the continuity of the educational services offered by their institutions but also to protect their own roles and relevance in an increasingly dynamic ecosystem.
The second article was Alex Ballesté's Blog post, "Two Decades of Sakai at UdL: Reflections, Challenges, and the Road Ahead," which highlighted,
Since September 13, 2004, the University of Lleida (UdL) has maintained a strong relationship with the Sakai [LMS]...the platform has been a key tool in meeting the university's educational needs. One of Sakai's greatest strengths is its community-driven model, which allows users to directly influence its development. No other platform offers this level of participation.
Change before you have to…
Back in 2005, the State University of New York set out to identify and deploy a new e-learning platform for the SUNY Learning Network (SLN). SLN delivered online courses across their 64-campus system via a highly customized platform built on Lotus Notes/Domino. Despite the legacy technology, SLN was successful and celebrated due to the expertise and devotion of dedicated instructional designers, faculty, and researchers focused on pedagogy. Comparable teaching and learning spaces, edtech tools and features, and online engagement (i.e., usability) were limited across platforms in those days. But to be fair, back then, the "Learning Management System" (LMS) had not yet emerged as an enterprise "solution." And to be clear, what made SLN so valuable was less about the technology platform and more about the support community (the people of SLN).
SLN began through internal campus initiatives and visionary work by local innovators, who tinkered together with technology to achieve their teaching and learning goals. This is how e-learning systems began: WebCt at the University of British Columbia (1995), Prometheus at George Washington University (1998), Desire2Learn at the University of Waterloo (1999), Angel at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (2000), Moodle at Curtin University (2001), Sakai through collaborations between Michigan University, Indiana University, and others (2005). Heck, I even developed one at UCLA in 1999, "Integrated Internet Courseware." As interest in online learning grew on campuses, so did interest among entrepreneurs and investors. Soon, institutional efforts became entrepreneurial, and companies emerged, e.g., Blackboard (whose roots are also in higher ed at Cornell University), to meet the growing demands of schools moving online.
The primary concern for SUNY in its 2005 evaluation of technology options for the future was this emergent market and the providers that supported it. SLN, as a customized platform, was not sustainable--even IBM, who owned Lotus at the time, would not offer support due to the level of customization SUNY had undertaken. With such a rich field of LMS options to choose from in 2005, surely there were existing options that provided the pedagogical opportunities of the current LMS platform, the stability expected from a commercial product, and the dedicated support of a trusted, contracted service provider.
Thus, a system-wide review was undertaken to identify the next platform for SLN, and:
After considerable research, SLN has identified the best solution to be a component strategy, as no single-platform LMS solution exists today to meet our needs. This powerful component strategy would integrate several carefully chosen Open Source projects, each with strong technical compatibility, resulting in a whole far greater than the sum of its parts.
However, in line with open source misconceptions of the time, harkening back to the “build vs. buy” IT paradigm, combined with SUNY’s recent history of developing and supporting a customized Lotus Notes/Domino platform, senior system administrators rejected the open source model based on Sakai with integrated services and Angel was selected.
For those readers familiar with LMS implementations and migrations, you know what's next: systems integration (e.g., SIS with the LMS), course shell creation, content migration, faculty/staff/help desk training, etc., etc., etc., and all the associated time and costs. To be fair, the same amount of work would have been required as well, even if the recommendation for an open source approach was accepted. However, the goal is that this only has to happen once because, yes, the organization has done all the work to identify and implement the best option now and for the future of the program and institutions.
But then, just two years after the Angel migration was completed, Blackboard bought Angel.
So, in 2012, SUNY migrated to Blackboard Learn (redo implementation, integration, and migration plus time and costs),
Then, after the contract for Blackboard expired, SUNY signed with Desire2Learn in September 2021 (redo implementation, integration, and migration plus time and costs… see the pattern yet?).
That's four e-learning platforms in fourteen years--and all the implementation and migration woes each change incurs. Meanwhile, over those same fourteen years, and indeed continuing today, the University of Lleida has run only one LMS:
- No forced changes through mergers, acquisitions, buy-outs, bankruptcies,
- No repeated re-architecting infrastructure, system implementations, and software integrations,
- No continual educational content and course migrations,
- No training and retraining, etc. of faculty, staff, and students.
But I’m not picking on SUNY, and definitely not the people who worked at SLN. Indeed, this is a pretty common story (after all, Wagner wrote a whole article to address this in higher education IT). Since 2002, UNC Charlotte has gone through WebCT followed by Blackboard Vista, then Moodle, and now Canvas.
As Wagner stated, "...commercial technology...characterized by rapid innovation, fierce competition, and frequent corporate restructuring...educational technology companies launch, merge, undergo acquisitions, or pivot...platforms that institutions rely on can shift unexpectedly."
I don’t know where UdL invested their IT talent, faculty development, time, and money, but it wasn’t in re-implementations, re-integrations, and re-migrations. I hope it was on support services, program development, student success, and technical enhancements. From the outside, UdL seems to have avoided many of the serious issues Wagner highlights.
Changing the change.
Proprietary software and the business model it requires are inherently less stable for end-users than open source software. As Wagner outlines, this is due to the unpredictable nature of the commercial software business. Mergers and acquisitions often result in discontinued products, forced migrations, or shifts in development priorities that leave users stranded with outdated or unsupported software. Additionally, proprietary vendors frequently impose forced upgrades, requiring users to adopt new versions that may be costly, introduce unnecessary changes, or remove key features. End-of-life policies further exacerbate instability, as businesses may discontinue support for older software versions, forcing users to upgrade or face security vulnerabilities and compatibility issues. And, of course, there are examples like the above, where institutions have to navigate a sale of one company to another.
In contrast, as Ballesté reports, their open source platform, Sakai, has “provided UdL with a solid and effective virtual learning environment over the years.” Open source software—maintained by a distributed community—offers long-term stability, as users can continue to use it without worrying over market volatility or vendor disruptions, even continuing hosting and development independently if necessary. This independence from corporate interests–that may not align with campus initiatives–means open source projects are less likely to be abruptly abandoned or drastically altered in ways that harm institutions or programs.
Building on Wagner's advice for "building a 'future-safe' IT infrastructure," an open source approach would be best "to safeguard against fallout resulting from education technology company mergers and acquisitions," allowing "higher education IT professionals to develop a multifaceted approach that combines awareness [e.g., through transparency into the project, code, and community], relationship building [through direct collaboration and co-creation], and strategic planning [participation in governance and decision-making]."
The following key strategies can help IT professionals build a more resilient IT infrastructure through open source software and communities:
1. Resilience Against Vendor-Driven Changes
Problem: Corporate mergers, acquisitions, and pivots in the proprietary edtech sector can disrupt services and force institutions to adapt quickly.
Solution: Open source software minimizes reliance on commercial vendors, eliminating the risk of sudden discontinuations or unfavorable contract renegotiations. Institutions retain complete control over the software lifecycle and can choose to self-host, partner with a managed service provider, or collaboratively maintain the project through a community-driven approach.
2. Cost-effectiveness and Budget Predictability
Problem: Proprietary tools often come with high licensing fees and unexpected costs (adding features, providing integrations, etc.) after acquisition-driven changes.
Solution: Open source software is available with no licensing costs, allowing institutions to allocate budgets toward implementation, customization, and support rather than recurring fees. Moreover, OSS ensures predictability by decoupling technology planning from vendor pricing strategies.
3. Avoidance of Vendor Lock-In
Problem: Vendor lock-in restricts flexibility and increases dependency on specific providers for maintenance, support, and upgrades.
Solution: Open source solutions promote data portability and open standards, giving institutions control over their data and infrastructure. The ability to switch providers or self-manage ensures freedom from vendor-imposed constraints.
4. Greater Security and Transparency
Problem: Proprietary systems may obscure vulnerabilities, leaving institutions reliant on vendors for security assurances.
Solution: The transparent nature of OSS allows the community to identify and address vulnerabilities quickly. Many open source projects have robust governance models to ensure rigorous code review and timely updates.
5. Customizability to Meet Unique Needs
Problem: Proprietary platforms often limit customization or charge premium fees for feature development.
Solution: OSS is inherently flexible, enabling institutions to tailor solutions to their unique requirements. This is especially valuable for higher education, where needs vary across departments, research programs, and administrative systems.
6. Collaborative Development and Community Support
Problem: Vendor support can be inconsistent, particularly after corporate transitions.
Solution: Open source projects thrive on active, collaborative communities that include developers, educators, and IT professionals. These communities share best practices, innovations, and updates, ensuring institutions are not alone in navigating technical challenges.
7. Alignment with Institutional Values
Problem: Proprietary solutions may prioritize profit over education-focused innovation.
Solution: Open source software embodies principles of peer-review, collaboration, and accessibility, aligning closely with the ethos of higher education institutions. “Edtech” developed by higher education for higher education, will inherently center these values. This alignment fosters trust and a shared commitment to advancing education.
8. Opportunities for Skill Development and Independence
Problem: Dependence on proprietary vendors can limit in-house IT expertise and innovation.
Solution: By adopting OSS, institutions can cultivate internal capabilities to manage, extend, and innovate on their platforms. This investment not only enhances operational resilience but also positions IT teams as strategic contributors to institutional goals.
9. Interoperability and Future-Proofing
Problem: Proprietary systems may create siloed data and compatibility challenges.
Solution: Open source solutions are typically built with interoperability in mind, enabling seamless integration with other tools and systems. This ensures flexibility for future changes in the IT ecosystem.
Conclusion: Be [do] the change you want to see [do].
Change in technology will happen--and it should. However, institutions should determine where, when, and how to invest in that change, not have their hands forced by the unexpected consequences of corporate or industry-centered maneuvering.
In a recent discussion I had with a campus considering whether to continue with the open source uPortal platform for student and campus access to services, I was told campus decision-makers were asking, “Why continue with uPortal when we’re already paying for Microsoft SharePoint?” I replied, “Why continue to pay for Sharepoint when you’re already running uPortal?”
Budgets inflated through licensing costs can be adjusted to provide staffing and support services. At another institution where I worked, SUNY Delhi, the campus migrated off of WebCT and adopted Moodle. Savings from licensing and dependencies on other proprietary software were redirected to fund support staff–help desk analysts and a dedicated instructional designer. I can’t think of a better change a campus could initiate than funding dedicated staff to support technology over proprietary licenses to support a vendor.
Open source software provides a "future-safe" foundation by fostering autonomy, adaptability, and innovation. By incorporating open source solutions into IT portfolios, institutions of higher education can change how they address the challenges of disruption, ensure long-term sustainability, and maintain alignment with their educational missions.
The shift toward open source is not just a technology decision—it's a commitment to empowering institutions, advancing education, supporting your community, and safeguarding the future of learning.
If you’ve read this article all the way down to this point (first, thank you), but now what? How do we affect one last change? How can those working on campuses introduce one last change? Who needs to be involved to drive one last change? …a change to adopt open source software?
We’re looking for open source success stories to share. Do you have a long-serving open source system or platform on your campus? Has that service been up and running for years, quietly providing core infrastructure while other systems have come and gone? How has open source enabled new initiatives, broadened capacity, or reduced costs? Tell us about it! We want to share the value of open source and the success of our community. Contact me at ed@apereo.org to share your accomplishments.
Image Credit: The oldest known continuously operating light bulb. Image Credit: Screen capture from Livermore’s Centennial Light Bulb Cam.