The Sweet Spot
6 min read
I admire the work of Helen Barrett -- I've even said so on one or two occasions. My admiration for her scholarship and leadership on portfolios, however, served to increase the frustration I felt after reading her blog post about NECC.
Really, it's the second paragraph of her post. I still haven't figured out where this prose falls on the spectrum between FUD and misinformed, but it's somewhere in there. At the outset, I want to make it clear that I do not see anything mean spirited in what Helen wrote. However, the information she provided in her post runs so counter to my own experience as an educator, technologist, and an open source developer, that I found myself incapable of saying nothing.
To give the entire paragraph in all its glory:
This morning, one person asked me the usual question about my recommendations about free or low cost tools. Of course I said that was not the first question to ask... determine the purpose first, and then look at the tools to best meet those goals. He asked about Elgg an open source ePortfolio tool. I told him that this software had a lot of promise as a blog, archive and social networking tool, all important components of a working portfolio. However, it is still missing the presentation builder that allows a learner to organize presentation portfolios for different purposes or audiences (a component that is part of their development plan). Of course that is one problem with open source software... without a business model to support the development, it can take longer to implement changes unless there is a regular funding stream. My experience with commercial tools shows that the companies are very responsive to their customer base, and have the resources to support ongoing support and development. Educators in schools need to recognize that they often get what they pay for, and the commercial market needs to look at how to make their products more affordable for schools. Somewhere in between free and $?? there is a sweet spot. I'm not sure we are there yet.
Now, to look at things piece by piece:
This morning, one person asked me the usual question about my recommendations about free or low cost tools. Of course I said that was not the first question to ask... determine the purpose first, and then look at the tools to best meet those goals.
Absolutely correct. Very sound advice.
He asked about Elgg, an open source ePortfolio tool. I told him that this software had a lot of promise as a blog, archive and social networking tool, all important components of a working portfolio.
Four sentences in, and still looking good. But wait for it'€¦
However, it is still missing the presentation builder that allows a learner to organize presentation portfolios for different purposes or audiences (a component that is part of their development plan).
And here's where things go south. A look at Elgg's roadmap shows the presentation piece as part of the "New Features." Additionally, this roadmap covers the period of time from May to October, 2006. So, for those of you looking for an Open Source tool for portfolio-based assessment, you can have it in October. If you want it faster, contact Curverider, the company started by the Elgg project leads to provide Elgg services. Or, if you have ideas about the precise features you want in this tool, post them in the Elgg development forum.
Of course that is one problem with open source software... without a business model to support the development, it can take longer to implement changes unless there is a regular funding stream.
This touches on a very important point: the muddy relationship between funding and quality software. At the end of the day, all that matters is whether the software works effectively. If something meets a precise need perfectly, the question of open source or proprietary fades into irrelevance. However, as the quote implies, financial support translates into lines of code, which translates into working software. Much open source software is now of comparable quality to many proprietary applications; in some cases, the open source software is better. More on this later.
My experience with commercial tools shows that the companies are very responsive to their customer base, and have the resources to support ongoing support and development.
Really. Let's get a Blackbaud client to run smoothly on a Mac. Let's get Internet Explorer to respect HTML standards. Let's get Windows Firewall to stop spyware. Let's get any proprietary vendor to have the transparency in development, and availability of core developers, in all steps of the development process. In Moodle, Drupal, and Elgg, all of the project leads participate on a regular basis in community discussions. Show me any proprietary software application with the growth rate of Drupal, Moodle, or Elgg that combines a transparent development process with ready availability of project leads.
In general terms, proprietary companies have more cash than open source developers. Given that many open source projects produce software as good or better than their proprietary counterparts, that should make a lot of people very uncomfortable. Open source development produces comparable or better results for a lot less money -- this reality alone should lead people in charge of budgets to look to open source projects and developers for solutions. We are already creating effective tools, in many cases on our dime. Imagine what we could do with some additional support.
Educators in schools need to recognize that they often get what they pay for, and the commercial market needs to look at how to make their products more affordable for schools. Somewhere in between free and $?? there is a sweet spot. I'm not sure we are there yet.
I could not agree more -- you get exactly what you pay for. When you pay an open source developer to deliver a solution for you, you can get exactly what you want. You can have that developer train your tech staff to maintain the code. You can get the documentation you want, not the documentation the vendor provides. You can share your solution back with a larger community, where other developers will build on the foundation you helped create. Open source isn't free -- as with anything you use, there will be costs associated with maintenance, training, and upkeep. However, the costs associated with open source generally go toward developing a sustainable solution.
If a school doesn't like a proprietary solution, they have one of two choices: migrate the data to another solution, or deal with things as best they can. Open source solutions offer a middle ground: build the functionality you want -- and this is where you develop a more sustainable solution. With open source applications, the basic feature sets of an application provide the starting point to describe what an application can do. An open source developer can build out additional functionality far more quickly than a vendor for proprietary apps.
And that's a pretty sweet place to be.
