Since the beginnings of the internet there has been a possible conflict of interest between those who believe everything on the net should be free, and those with a commercial bent, who want to sell internet-based products and services.
So, how does the availability of “easy to use” free tools and systems, such as Flickr, Del.icio.us, Writely, Frappr, Nuvvo, Yahoo Groups, Google Calendar, Elgg etc etc, work alongside those commercial interests?
First of all, let’s set a context: I’m writing from the position of being part of a company that sells a range of learning “products”, from off-the-shelf face-to-face training through to bespoke formal, open and self-directed learning solutions (see Terry Anderson for a definition of these that works) that mix online and offline learning. So where does the free stuff fit into our world?
There’s no such thing as a free lunch
No matter how “free” something is, there is always a business model attached to it. Every service has a cost that must be met somehow, whether by direct payment for the service, grants and donations, or indirect subsidy from another paid-for service. The viability of that business model dictates the stability of the free service. If we sell a commercial solution that includes free elements, we must be confident that the free stuff will work consistently well, which means being confident in the business model that supports the free stuff.
For example, we may build a Google search as a prescribed activity into a learning solution for a client. It’s a pretty safe bet that that will work – as a society we’ve gained confidence in Google’s business model and its product. If however, we were to use Frappr as a way of showing the locations of people involved in the learning group this would probably be done an experimental option within the solution. Although Frappr has a superb product, it doesn’t yet have a demonstrably viable business model, which means confidence in the long-term viability of the product is not that high.
There are many start-up companies, like Frappr, that don’t appear to have a good business model, yet gain commercial confidence by being bought up by companies such as Yahoo (which bought Flickr) and Google (which bought Writely). As soon as that happens, then it is more likely that these services will be built into solutions.
There is also an accountability issue, in that most large organisations prefer to use systems and services with which they have some sort of contractual relationship. With free solutions, there is usually an explicit clause in the terms and conditions which removes any accountability from the service provider. But then, the providers could incorporate this into their business model, to provide paid for support and warranties for organisations that wish to have that level of protection.
We should remember that free stuff in the guise of open-source software (Open source primer) is actually well embedded within the commercial world, although it tends to be for the back-office applications such as Linux and Apache for servers, and systems like DNS and SMTP which underpin the internet. However, a number of front-office applications, such as Moodle are also gaining wide acceptance. Again, this is mainly because confidence in the sustainability of the application has increased to a critical level. This has happened through the exponential increase in the number of developers involved, and also through the business model adopted by Moodle.com which ensures that development and support will continue.
Building the free stuff into a learning solution
We have used a number of free services to provide access to open information that can then be integrated using RSS. For example, using Del.icio.us to provide a set of links tailored to a specific group.
But, as soon as you need to hide information, restrict access or brand the solution for a particular client, then the difficulties arise:
- Will we require users to register with each of the free services individually?
- Will we have to host our own set of services and information behind a firewall or a single login?
Many learning solutions require complex mixes of interactions, activities and resources. If each interaction, activity and resource comes from a different service provider, with its own branding, navigation and registration process we are likely to lose learners rapidly. The question is then, how do we make use of these “best of breed” services, at the same time as providing learners with branded, coherent, integrated solutions?
About the Author. Mark Berthelemy is a Learning Solutions Architect for Capita Learning and Development. He works with clients to help them understand the potential of new technologies to support effective learning and then to implement those technologies across their organizations. If you wish to contact Mark, please email: mark.berthelemy@capita.co.uk.
Comments