FACULTY PERSPECTIVE:

• Choice: The faculty culture continues to value choice. We want to maintain an individuality of presentation and be able to choose among many instructional materials as we help students learn more and increasingly complex materials. This requires institutions to consider offering a variety of options for faculty to develop a web presence. The ideal solution might ultimately be based upon a per-student-user pricing system so that the institution can consider offering several solutions to faculty. Faculty are concerned with few features, beyond what they can do with their courses, that may be offered by a LMS. One that is very important, however, is how the system facilitates the batch enrollment of students into their courses.
• Simplicity and integration, and a minimal investment of time in learning: While many "early adopters" invested time and their own, often personal, resources in learning a variety of tools in the past to supplement their learning environment, most faculty do not have the resources to apply to this approach. They prefer a simpler and more integrated approach. The fewer systems they have to access to communicate with and provide information to students, the more likely they will find the time to invest in the learning and development of their online learning environment. Many faculty members are interested in pursuing tools that can really help their students, but they prefer those that allow them to do things in a similar manner to what they already know. This makes the system easier to use, quicker to adopt, and the product(s) more intuitively understandable. For example, in the last few years, the ability to attach files in their original format has improved quick access to and learning of online learning solutions. Otherwise, faculty will not have the time to invest in learning the system or adapting previously built course materials.
• Minimal investment of time in "production": An important consideration in a choice of an LMS is that it requires a minimal investment of time in "production," and a step-wise addition of skill. More demands than ever are placed upon the faculty member. While we are very interested in administrative tools that help our students stay connected and help us build student-to-student relationships, the time we have to build such systems is more constrained. Immediate results (even during a training workshop) are very important. And, the more similar the processes for using other aspects of the system, the more likely faculty will more quickly adopt all of the features of the product. We also have to be able to change the contents of the system regularly. A system that allows for quick replacement of content and participants will be preferred.
• Extensibility: Instructional designers, LMS administrators and faculty all agree that an LMS should offer basic functionality (communication, announcements, a place to exchange files, assessment, a logical interface/navigation, gradebook mechanism) to begin, but that as the faculty gain a comfort level they are anxious to add functionality. So, extensibility is a key factor in the choice of an LMS. Some disciplines (e.g., foreign languages, math, and engineering) are quick to request extended functions. The LMS needs to tender commonly requested options.
• Reliability: The LMS must be reliable. Faculty have zero-tolerance for downtime and sluggish responsiveness.

As with many software applications, there is the choice of build versus buy. What is your view regarding these two options?

ADMINISTRATIVE PERSPECTIVE:

• Features vs. Resources: While one may get just the features desired by building an LMS application, most institutions don't have the resources to do so and maintain it in perpetuity.
• Collaborative approaches: OKI, as an example of a collaborative approach, offers a framework for sharing components, but it is difficult for many institutions to be a full partner in such development activities.
• Experience: An institution LMS will become mission critical, if it isn't already. Developing and maintaining such a system is best left to full-time professionals.
• Leverage: As a general principle, for applications that are common to many institutions, buying spreads the cost and the overhead of evolving and maintaining the application across many users. Admittedly, commercial software includes vendor markup, but higher education is famous for ignoring the many hidden costs inherent in internal development.

FACULTY PERSPECTIVE:

• Buy! Faculty recognize that building an LMS requires resources (highly paid programmers, designers, and some specialized software) that are better devoted to technical training, attention to course quality, and instructional design support. However, one expressed caveat is that the LMS developer must be involved in an active feedback process with faculty and students (not just administrators) in an attempt to improve the product's functionality. The feedback to a private LMS developer will be broader and will ultimately serve faculty and students better. Buying an LMS also helps the institution avoid a parochial design and use of the LMS.
• But, perhaps more than one . . . Faculty members prefer choices however and some option to build their own approach (websites and independent tools) may be very effective for some faculty, particularly in math and the sciences. Resources need to be used to buy access to one or more LMSs but the institution must also attempt to support faculty members seeking an independent route. While the website approach is lower cost, the support must be of very high quality.