European Learning Tech Standardisation Crisis Due to Lack of Openness
1. European Learning technology
standardisation in crisis due to
lack of openness
Tore Hoel
Oslo and Akershus University College of
Applied Sciences, Norway
Standardisation Management Workshop
I-ESA conference 24 March 2014, Albi, France
7. The Battle of CEN WS/LT
• «The policy officer [responsible for the
implementation of the European Union
Opening Up Education Action plan] made it
clear that by open standards was meant free-
of-charge specifications (which is clearly
clashing with CEN's business model)…»
(CEN/CENELEC, 2013).
14. The range of Opens
http://e-infranet.eu/output/e-infranet-open-as-the-default-modus-operandi-for-research-and-higher-education/
e-InfraNet:‘Open’asthedefaultmodusoperandiforresearchandhighereducation
2 days in September
24 Sep The Workshop has been on a wrong track for more than ten years: To produce standards that are open and freely available for download and use for all is wrong. CEN standards are documents for sale. The experts that are contributing their work for free in the workshop need to buy the standards back in order to read and use them. This is a matter of principle, compromising this system will put all CEN standardisation in jeopardy. It must be stopped, even if not a single euro is earned by selling the CWAs of the Workshop.
25 Sep Alle educational materials supported by EU projects should be available to the public under open licenses. Open interoperability standards are necessary to ensure economics of scale, and «such standards must remain open». Therefore, the Commission will «promote the development of open frameworks and standards for interoperability and portability of digital educational content, application and services, including OER, in cooperation with European standardization organisations and programmes».
Open vs. closed innovation
Knowledge widely distributed - found outside the company.
Inbound & outbound flows of knowledge
Actors - Engaging research
Process - Openness
Output (product / document) - Quality and Timeliness
Standards bureaucrats
Researchers - University
Expenses, flexible process, positive for my research, my expertise relevant, knowledge about the process, influence, cost…
Creators, implementers and users see openness differently (Kretschmer, 2005)
Research willing to do anticipatory
Industry more reluctant
Participants role: «Wait!»
Standards characteristics
⁃Small is beautiful
⁃How to engage implementers and users - need of agencies to promote; what if the vendors don't botherUnderstanding the market
⁃Is formal standardisation able to compete with consortia?
Example, MLR vs. LRMI
Accounting principles inspired frameworks: correctness, clarity, relevance, comparability, economic efficiency, and systematic design
Asking the users: “larger models tend to be negatively connected with quality” (Mendeling et al. 2007)
Athens declaration (MLO-AD): “Harmonization efforts should focus on small, simple models based upon existing commonalities that can be expanded upon at national or regional level, rather than all- inclusive monolithic standards.”