Roger, where do you draw the line between Fronter, Moodle, and other open source platforms?


Roger Larsen: There are many similarities in functions and features, but the concept is completely different. With Fronter, our customers have access to the source code, but most of them do not want to make additions to the code, administer the servers, or upgrade the system. We actually never promote Fronter as open source, but as "commercial" open source in order not to confuse the markets.


And what exactly do you mean by that?


Roger Larsen: We offer an all-inclusive service package - like the description of the source code, hosting, support, upgrades, and much more. Our customers want guarantees that the platform runs perfectly. However, if a problem does come up, we fix it within a few hours. With a free open source platform, the customers have to take care of all this themselves.


But how do you know what your customers need or want?


Roger Larsen: In each country where we are present, we have established reference groups with 20 to 25 professors, teachers, trainers, and eLearning experts. At the moment, that makes a community of 150 people in eight countries. They meet twice a year, and in a democratic procedure, they decide which additional features and applications the platform needs. We pass their requests on to our developers. After ten years of development, Fronter covers most of the functions that schools, universities, and governmental institutions want to have.


So you only keep adding features?


Roger Larsen: No, today's learning platforms already have most of the features needed. More often, a learning platform is not judged by its functionality and features but on its availability, service levels, reliability, and security. Free open source solutions are often feature oriented: they are attractive in the beginning, but only until the first bug has to be fixed.

Learning platforms have become mission-critical infrastructure - as important as electricity. Therefore, customers want predictability, warranty, and security. They want somebody they can shake hands with who is also 100 percent responsible that the platform works.


Why don't you let the community change the software - as in the Linux concept? It looks like you want total control of your product.


Roger Larsen: Our customers can change the code if they wish. However, our experience has shown that most of them are not interested in working on the source code. They'd rather come up with ideas and proposals and let their service provider develop the products. Even users of free open source products hardly add their own features. They see their job in customizing the product.


Like adapting it to their own look and feel?


Roger Larsen: Customization means much more: It includes changing the entire structure according to internal departments and turning certain functionalities on or off for different purposes. For example, a primary school has different needs than an institution for higher education distance learning.


But schools and universities normally don't have the money for commercial platforms.


Roger Larsen: Many people think that open source means "free", but it doesn't. They do not see the hidden cost for servers, administration, and support. You always have to calculate the total cost of ownership. We serve 10,000 learning institutions in Europe, and as eLearning specialists, we can offer services efficiently and usually much cheaper than other outsourcers.


Do you include Web 2.0 elements, too?


Roger Larsen: There is no need to develop features that are already on the market. If requested, though we can build a bridge to the most common portals used by the students - like wikis, blogs, Facebook, YouTube, etc. Fronter fulfils a function similar to that of an operating system: It works in the background and enables the users to run programs like Word, Photoshop, or Nero. If they plug in a mouse or printer, the system automatically searches for the appropriate driver; it recognizes a new camera and shows the pictures. Even though the programs come from different vendors, they work on the same platform.

Accordingly, our learning platform is becoming an infrastructure for Internet services the students want to use. We support a large number of industry standards for content, assessment, testing, interoperability, and integration.


So Web 2.0 has already become part of regular classes?


Roger Larsen: No, because most institutions want to keep control. There is a big discrepancy between the informal learning process students are used to and the framework they find in schools and universities. In public Internet, students can do whatever they want, but at school, they often have little control over the structured learning process.


Isn't that an old-fashioned way of teaching?


Roger Larsen: You should not forget that learning institutions have important obligations: In higher education, they need to provide accreditation, to make sure they give accurate and correct information, and to prevent plagiarism. In these processes, they also have to be able to store and secure the related data for the future. In some countries, schools are required to store the work of students for ninety years, and this will not work if you rely on Web 2.0 applications without a learning platform underneath.


But that brings us back to LMSs as data silos. Isn't Fronter a silo, too?


Roger Larsen: Honestly speaking, Fronter as a mere platform would also be a silo, and Web 2.0 evangelists say that the community concept is the only future. But after some communities and wikis have closed, I don't hear that criticism anymore. I am still convinced that schools and universities need a learning platform in order to maintain their obligations. However, only those who are able to integrate Web 2.0 applications will survive.