There has been a lot of buzz in the e-learning market around defining what learning management systems and learning content management systems are and are not. In 2001, META Group predicted that learning content management systems as a market segment were temporal and transitory because most enterprise learning vendors will include learning content management capabilities. Now, in 2003, this theory has been validated by the market conation of so-called stand-alone vendors. However, the term “LCMS” still lingers as part of learning content management modules that are part of an enterprise LMS framework. (See Figure 1.)
As of June 2003, more than half of the companies in the stand-alone LCMS market segment have gone out of business (e.g., Avaltus, Knowledge Mechanics) or downsized tremendously (e.g., WBT). More strategic LCMS players, such as OutStart and Hyperwave, have successfully repositioned themselves as learning platform vendors combining content functionality with basic LMS functionality (e.g., learner management, measurement and administration capabilities). Most leading LMS vendors (e.g., Docent, Click2learn and Intellinex) are selling LCMS modules, with the exception of Plateau, which is actively developing partnerships with vendors that can supply this capability, in order to remain competitive. META Group believes that over the next few years, enterprise-learning vendors will provide connectors for exchanging learning content with traditional document managers (e.g., Documentum, Interwoven and Vignette). Eventually, by 2006/2007, organizations will employ a federated enterprise content management strategy geared toward an indexable virtual repository for all of their content.
LMS and LCMS History
Learning management systems were originally developed in the early to mid-1990s to handle the administrative functions of online training, and they included management of all aspects of training outside of the virtual classroom. Typically, they were client/server systems focused on delivering, scheduling, assessing and testing skill levels, as well as managing and administering courseware. Now they have fully evolved into Web-based systems, managing both online and off-line courses, supporting a global enterprise system and being integrated into other enterprise-level systems (e.g., CRM, ERP and HRMS, or human resource management system, applications). The term “learning content management system” (LCMS) was coined by a consortium of six software vendors in an attempt to differentiate themselves from standard LMS vendors. Ironically, three of these six vendors, Knowledge Mechanics, Avaltus and Peer3, are now defunct.
LCMSs defined themselves by providing the authoring, management and storage of training content as learning objects, enabling reuse and repurposing and allowing for multi-channel delivery (e.g., mobile and Web), metadata tagging, multiple and discrete taxonomies, search capabilities and content conversion and assembly. LCMSs struggled due to their extreme focus on providing value mostly to content authors developing a rigid learning environment for formal learning instead of focusing on the main problem – quickly acquiring and sharing knowledge within the extended enterprise. This requires an emphasis on speed as well as quality and an understanding that informal learning is arguably more important to an organization than formal learning. The final blow to the stand-alone LCMS marketing strategy, however, came in 2002 as the looming recession forced LMS and LCMS vendors to conate and create suite solutions spanning learning content management systems, course development and skills management. This led LMS providers to build and offer modular LCMS tools, enabling customers to mix and match LCMS functionality with their organizations’ existing e-learning needs.
META Group believes that certain market demands will continue to dictate the need for content authoring and repository tools and former LCMS vendors will compete with authoring and publishing platforms (e.g., Macromedia e-Learning Suite, Triantis Lectora and x.hlp) or change their business models, building on their LMS capabilities to compete in the enterprise LMS suite market. LCMS authoring tools are especially desirable for companies that are developing large quantities of informal training designed for reuse. Indeed, learning management systems with LCMS modules have been used by companies such as Microsoft, Cendant and Lucent for employee and partner product training. (See Figure 2 for an outline of decision criteria to be examined when choosing an LCMS module.)
Figure 2: Choosing an LCMS Module
Organizations that hope to build a case for purchasing an LCMS module need to make sure that the basic assumptions upon which these systems are sold hold true. Here are some examples of the assumptions:
- The organization has enough dynamic training content that must be continually refreshed, reused and spread across an extended enterprise. In addition, the organization must have constituents diverse enough that they require multi-channel learning in multiple locations.
- If traditional courses are going to be produced, the learning objects need to be designed based on agreed-upon standards. Each organization will need to develop its own standard. (Currently, there is no agreed-upon standard for the size, characteristics or components in learning objects.) The standard must be enforced with internal developers and communicated when work is outsourced.
- The LCMS module must be able to incorporate content created with popular desktop authoring tools (e.g., PowerPoint, Word and HTML editors).
- The LCMS module must be easy enough for all developers to use, or the system will not have the critical mass needed to build a rich library of objects.
- The cost of the LCMS module will require many organizations with fragmented training divisions to join together to afford these systems and to cost-justify the purchase.
Where Do ECM Vendors Fit Into This?
Market forces are dictating that LMSs that are managing and assembling the content need the capability to track, label and put together these learning objects. Looking forward, open architecture and e-learning standards compliance for these systems will be imperative so that LMS systems can connect and exchange information with traditional enterprise content and document management systems. Currently, enterprise content management systems (ECM) are inadequate for handling dedicated learning content, because without customization, dynamically generated content is recognized as a document and not as a reusable learning object. In order to move into the LMS market, ECM vendors must support established learning standards, such as AICC and SCORM, as well as instructional course design, workflow and processes.
ECM vendors (e.g., Documentum, Interwoven and OpenText), as well as traditional content tool vendors will make acquisitions and enter the enterprise learning market and compete with recent entrants moving in from the HR side of training (e.g., Oracle, SAP and PeopleSoft) as well as established best-of-breed providers, forcing companies to make choices dependent on their vision of learning as a part of knowledge management, enterprise human resources or business process management strategies.
How Learning Content Management Fits Into a Learning Management Strategy
In the May 2003 issue of Chief Learning Officer magazine (The Enterprise LMS Market: Where Are We Now?), I mentioned that that many organizations follow a specific maturity process as they become proficient in blended learning strategies and tie this to an integrated knowledge management infrastructure. (See Figure 3.) The decision around learning content management follows a similar continuum.
Figure 3: E-Learning Maturity Model
|
Maturity Level |
Strategic Inflection Point |
Technology |
Critical Behaviors |
|
1. Organic |
Learning is at the individual level for skill attainment and professional development. |
ILT, CBT, CD-ROM |
Ad-hoc, reactionary response to individual staff demands. |
|
2. Initiative-Driven |
Learning becomes more systemic, with repeatable methods and practices around specific business strategies (e.g., CRM, HIPAA) funded through strategic initiative. |
Synchronous and asynchronous delivery platforms, virtual classrooms |
Learning is targeted at process outcomes. Objective is business-unit excellence. |
|
3. Enterprise-Based |
Disparate learning strategies are conated and centralized within the organization, enabling consistent life-cycle learning management. |
LMS, LCMS |
The organization can establish consistent learning goals and objectives between business units. Reuse of IT investments via shared infrastructure. |
|
4. Competency-Based |
Learning becomes part of broader, enterprise-wide workforce management framework. |
Integration is complete (bi-directional) between learning and HRMS platforms learning generates workforce analytics for scorecards and benchmarking. |
Learning becomes massively customized to meet end-user roles, performance needs and individual/teamwork models. |
|
5. Knowledge-Management-Based |
Learning strategies intersect internal knowledge management efforts they are externalized to partners and customers. |
Integration with portals, enterprise content management and collaboration tools interfaces to payment systems for monetizing learning applications. |
Human capital management and knowledge management strategies are unified, and learning becomes a key element to enhance workplace performance and innovation. |
Once a self-assesement is done, a vendor must be identified and evaluated
In Level 1 (Organic), training programs have not been coordinated between business units, and there is an absence of management sponsorship. Training utilizes primarily static, generic content (e.g., CBT, searchable archives), and responses to an individual’s training needs are reactionary. At this level, content is generic and requires little tracking aside from library-like check-in and check-out functionality.
In Level 2 (Initiative-Focused), organizations are deploying training systems and processes in support of specific business initiatives, focusing on the migration from instructor-led training (ILT) to Web-based learning. Technology supporting the initiative-focused level includes learning-delivery systems, LCMSs and possibly the introduction of an LMS. It is at this level that an LCMS may be a viable option for companies that are developing a lot of informal training that needs to be changed and augmented during its life cycle. Indeed, LCMS modules have been used by companies for their authoring and repository capabilities however, as other content sources are brought in and the company’s desire to integrate tracking capabilities heightens, an enterprise LMS is required.
During the Enterprise-Based (Level 3) and Competency-Based (Level 4) levels, C-level executives and HR begin to take more ownership of training projects, aligning them with other independent learning initiatives and enabling consistent enterprise-wide education, leveraging common infrastructure, common licensing, etc. These levels include the formal introduction of a common LMS backbone, which becomes a stovepipe to employee tracking in HRM systems for cost savings as well as employee skills and competency management. In Level 3, there is little focus on learning content management outside of an enterprise LMS’ ability to create and publish content.
At Level 4, the LMS vendor will often add an LCMS module (either internally or via a third-party partnership) in order to enable testing, assessment and prescriptive learning to perform skill and gap analysis. Often in Level 4, an LMS that has been purchased at the Initiative-Focused and Enterprise-Based levels should be re-evaluated and possibly replaced with more mature platforms that are better aligned with organizational needs and objectives. At this phase, content management is a more important feature for selection of an enterprise-learning-systems vendor due to training content volume, volatility of change, the number of authors, the need for publishing/approval flows, dynamic assembly, etc.
At Level 5 (Knowledge-Management-Based), the focus is on the knowledge worker. In this phase, learning becomes part of an enterprise knowledge management framework, integrated with content management, search, portal and collaboration frameworks. At this point, managed learning systems will no longer be treated as stand-alone endeavors they will be absorbed into an enterprise’s knowledge worker infrastructure and will be integrated into corresponding workforce management solutions.
Conclusion
While the LCMS continues to evaporate, learning content management remains crucial to a successful, scalable enterprise learning strategy. Companies with mature e-learning strategies should choose enterprise-level learning management systems that incorporate learning content management capabilities, particularly if they develop large amounts of content, have strong internal processes and teach material that is stable enough to benefit from re-use.
Jennifer Vollmer is a lead analyst for learning management for the META Group. For more information, visit www.metagroup.com. E-mail Jennifer at jvollmer@clomedia.com.
