First feedback and task 2 and 3

---

results of our collaboration

Members of the e-Learning-group of KFH [1] discussed about the need of a nationally hosted OSS LMS in a separate session and agree with the view of the project management. (In this group participated representatives of three working-groups).

Explanation of the conclusion:
Results of various surveys made in recent time are in accordance with the experiences made in the working groups. Most UAS use an OSS plattform and are not ready to change at the moment.
Our next step will be to examine services around content management systems as repositories, cms ... We discusse this in the third part of online session 2.

---

Output of the working groups until May 15th
A) repository
B) nationally hosted OSS LMS
------------------------------------------

Urs Gröhbiel sended a first feedback regarding the output of the working groups:

A) repository

"hot topics" (maininterest for a national service) so far appear to be "content management" and "integration"
As background for "content management" is useful to consult the scenario 1:
Local LMS and national content repository (Appendix in the briefing document).
scenario 1 [2] - In this scenario is on the focus the content repository and not the LMS.
So our focus for the task 2 will be "content management" and "integration".

-- Please read the feedback with the related documents and give your statements.

---

B) nationally hosted OSS LMS

_So far, no need has been identified for a nationally hosted OSS LMS for the period 2007-2011. (Please let us know if you don't agree with this view.)

Please Urs Gröhbiel,
This sentence need more explanations (because I expected, that we have to consider LMS as well) could you comment this statement more detailed below, thank you!

Comment Urs Gröhbiel:
Thank you for your enquiry.

As stated in the briefing of the working groups (Appendix A: Tool categories), the project management considers many different types of tool categories to be possible candidates for an OSS platform, including LMS.

Going through the documents produced by the working groups in the first round, we found no specific indicators for the need of the working groups of an LMS. Most of the requirements concerning functionalities stated in the document indicate a need for some kind of repository/content management system.

With the statement above we want to clarify if this is really the case for all of the working groups (as the tendency towards repository mainly comes from the two groups technology and organization). Your working group is free to define requirements that might be fulfilled by an LMS or any other tool category. If the group would confirm the tendency towards a need for a nationally hosted repository/CMS, we encourage you to focus on this type of tool in the second round.

Please don’t hesitate to contact Hansruedi Born or me, if you need further information.

---

<< http://www.edutech.ch/wiki/pmwiki.php/SWITCHelp/UsersWG