Mmmmmmmmmmmm this discussion is getting interesting (and complicated....!)
Lots of questions come to mind.
i) Why can't aggregated content be either trackable (with tracking and
monitoring functionality (LMS?) or just displayed. Managed by the same
engine.
ii) Why haven't CMS vendors come out with interoperability standards as
well? It probably fair to say that many (most?) are still using proprietary
approaches.
iii) There is a lot of criticism of how the SCORM standards is stiffling
creativity, but this seems to be a side effect of taking a common standards
based approach, that hopefully enables Subject Matter Experts to drive and
manage the content, how can you get around that? SCORM 1.3 apparently (I
don't know the details) will start to address this issue.
iv) I share you're view on the developments going on in the ERP market.
Massive monoliths are getting bigger every day. Wouldn't it be nice to
truly have a modularised approach whereby companies don't have to tie
themselves into one vendor? We aren't really there yet.
v) Big question about how many companies are really implementing a
structure approach to content reuse (SCORM could potentially provide some
sort of framework..?) Deemed too complicated and difficult. I would argue
that Learning Content is a good place to kick off this type of thinking with
most organisations however as we know too often the links are not joined and
the technology available doesn't really help.
I'm off to study a bit more about 'standards'........
cheers
----- Original Message -----
From: "André Milton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David O'Dwyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 4:50 PM
Subject: RE: [cms-list] LCMS, LMS's & CMS's
> Hi David,
>
> Most of the service work we've had over the past few years has been in the
> eLearning space. In fact, mCubes was an "LCMS" before the term existed
and
> before LMSs made LCMSs practically useless. I've always tried to make our
> system a true CMS and not one that is specific to eLearning (or to the web
> for that matter). We've actually branded and packaged templates,
structures
> and code modules, and called it our eLearning edition. mCubes however is
> used for many types of productions including Extranets, Intranets,
Portals,
> CDROMs...
>
> An LMS is fundamentally a portal. An LCMS is typically a layman's CMS and
> is often integrated directly into someone's LMS. Companies in the
eLearning
> field want to seperate themselves from the rest (as they always have) and
> keep producing technologies that are never as good as the technologies we
> produce ('we' as in vendors on this list). Worst part is SCORM: An ugly
> mesh of 3 standards that has basically imposed so many restrictions on our
> courses that the retention rates (the eLearning measure of success) has
> considerably dropped. But EVERYONE must be SCORM compliant if they want
to
> find work in this space because every large entreprise now has a SCORM
> compliant LMS. Ever get that feeling back in school that your programming
> prof was a few years behind? I get that feeling all the time in this
field.
>
> I'm currently working with a German company's prototype LMS. Seems every
> ERP company is now building an LMS that integrates directly with their HR
> systems. Makes sense in theory. The only way to replace a currently
> adopted LMS is by upselling from an HR system. The end-client is huge.
> Rollout may include several thousand employees and the courseware may take
> us another 3 years to complete. mCubes will be used to create the content
> but after the meetings I've had over the last two months, we've had to
drop
> every bell and whistle we've wanted to add. And the client has too. I
have
> yet to see a single company use learning paths or impose any type of LMS
> driven content flow. To be quite honest, it would take us a few months to
> Beta build a fully SCORM compliant LMS with mCubes. We basically were an
> LMS/LCMS before SCORM came along. I can't understand why they sell for so
> much.
>
> So what's my point? Dunno... guess I'm just venting a bit. We in the CMS
> space should just engulf the eLearning technologies like a big amoeba.
> Anyone want to help me define a new eLearning standard? Hehe...
>
> a.
>
> André Milton
> www.mlore.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Behalf Of David O'Dwyer
>
> Anybody got any ideas/thoughts/experience with this?
>
> LOVE to hear thoughts...
>
> --
> http://cms-list.org/
> more signal, less noise.
>
--
http://cms-list.org/
more signal, less noise.
