LMS market overview

L21: LMS landscape
October 2012
Market share summary (2011 data)
Market share
All others ( eCollege, OpenClass,
LoudCloud, etc.)
Notable newcomers (since 2011)
New MOOC platforms (CourseEra)
Common core functionalities
• All of the major LMSs offer similar core
file and content sharing
multi-media content tools, web 2.0 mashups
testing and survey tools
grading tools
collaboration tools such as discussion boards, blogs
and wikis
• Details and implementation will vary and need to
be examined once functional requirements are
Some differentiating factors
Open-source vs. proprietary software
Externally vs. locally hosted
Cloud-based vs. individual instances
“Look and feel” and user experience
Community of practice
Maturity and product stability
• US company; founded in 1997 at Cornell
• Went public in 2004; private buyout by an
investment group in 2011
• Acquired many competitors: WebCT,
ANGEL, Elluminate, Wimba
• Proprietary software, java-based
• Very good standards compliance
• Modular architecture and marketing
approach: Bb Learn, Bb Analytics, Bb
Collaborate, Bb Mobile
• Also has service offerings: hosting,
consulting, support
• Currently dominates the marketplace;
large community of practice
• Recently acquired two main hosting
providers for Moodle and created a
branch providing services for LMS opensource customers
• New CEO coming in December 2012
• Open-source product; code created and
unified by Moodle Pty, Ltd., an Australian
company supported by fees from Moodle
hosting partners
• PHP-based
• Major hosting partner (Moodle Rooms)
acquired by Blackboard in March 2012.
• Built on a learner-centric
• Good standards compliance
• Large user community/community of practice
• Some well-known large installations exist (UK’s
Open University)
• Many European clients
• US adoption as been especially strong for smaller
colleges and community colleges
• Allows for a relatively easy “out of the box” open
source solution
• Canadian company, privately held
• Proprietary software, relatively standards-compliant
• In the licensed software arena, main competitor to
• Microsoft.NET code base
• Main clients include several state university systems
and community college consortia: Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Montana, Colorado, Kentucky,
• Not much market share outside North America
• Recently received an $80 million infusion of new
venture capital
• Has a growing client base
• Open-source product
• Consortium-based; consortium
members are higher ed institutions,
weighted towards North America
• Java-based
• Many major clients are institutions
with considerable programming
resources; recent trend is towards
hosted deployments
• Recently spun off an “open academic
environment” (OAE) concept which
tries to move beyond the monolithic
• Some major OAE backers (UC Berkley,
U Michigan, U Indiana) have withdrawn
their support for the project in
September 2012, leading to a major
scaling down of the OAE project
Newcomer to the LMS world
Founded in 2008 by two BYU graduates
Privately-held start-up company, Instructure
Code based in Ruby on Rails; available under an
open-source license – though Instructure does not
support community contributions to the code
• Cloud-based SAS service: i.e. no individual
institutional control of/responsibility for upgrades
or changes
• Particular strengths: integration of web 2.0 tools,
notably Facebook and Google apps for education
• Clean and modern look and feel
• Growing adoption: Brown University, U of
Washington system
LMS marketshare –a parting view

similar documents