Visit https://ebookfinal.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks

Requirement Engineering for Knowledge Intensive

Processes Reference Architecture for the
Selection of a Learning Management System 1st
Edition Sven-Michael Wundenberg (Auth.)

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookfinal.com/download/requirement-
engineering-for-knowledge-intensive-processes-
reference-architecture-for-the-selection-of-a-learning-
management-system-1st-edition-sven-michael-wundenberg-
auth/

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookfinal.com

Here are some suggested products you might be interested in.
Click the link to download

Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam 15th

Edition Michael R. Lindeburg

https://ebookfinal.com/download/civil-engineering-reference-manual-
for-the-pe-exam-15th-edition-michael-r-lindeburg/

Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam 14th

Edition Michael R. Lindeburg

https://ebookfinal.com/download/civil-engineering-reference-manual-
for-the-pe-exam-14th-edition-michael-r-lindeburg/

Dependability and Computer Engineering Concepts for

Software Intensive Systems 1st Edition Luigia Petre

https://ebookfinal.com/download/dependability-and-computer-
engineering-concepts-for-software-intensive-systems-1st-edition-
luigia-petre/

Architecture Solutions for E learning Systems Claus Pahl

https://ebookfinal.com/download/architecture-solutions-for-e-learning-
systems-claus-pahl/
Knowledge Management for Process Organizational and
Marketing Innovation Tools and Methods Premier Reference
Source 1st Edition Emma O'Brien
https://ebookfinal.com/download/knowledge-management-for-process-
organizational-and-marketing-innovation-tools-and-methods-premier-
reference-source-1st-edition-emma-obrien/

System engineering management 3rd ed Edition Blanchard

https://ebookfinal.com/download/system-engineering-management-3rd-ed-
edition-blanchard/

Materials and Process Selection for Engineering Design

Second Edition Mahmoud M. Farag

https://ebookfinal.com/download/materials-and-process-selection-for-
engineering-design-second-edition-mahmoud-m-farag/

A New Agenda for Architecture The Autopoiesis of

Architecture II 1st Edition Patrik Schumacher

https://ebookfinal.com/download/a-new-agenda-for-architecture-the-
autopoiesis-of-architecture-ii-1st-edition-patrik-schumacher/

ISO IEC 20000 1 E 2018 Information technology Service

management Part 1 Service management system requirement
1st Edition Iso/Iec Jtc 1
https://ebookfinal.com/download/iso-iec-20000-1-e-2018-information-
technology-service-management-part-1-service-management-system-
requirement-1st-edition-iso-iec-jtc-1/
Requirement Engineering for Knowledge Intensive
Processes Reference Architecture for the Selection of a
Learning Management System 1st Edition Sven-Michael
Wundenberg (Auth.) Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Sven-Michael Wundenberg (auth.)
ISBN(s): 9783658088316, 3658088311
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 7.91 MB
Year: 2015
Language: english
BestMasters
Springer awards „BestMasters“ to the best master’s theses which have been com-
pleted at renowned universities in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
The studies received highest marks and were recommended for publication by
supervisors. They address current issues from various fields of research in natural
sciences, psychology, technology, and economics.
The series addresses practitioners as well as scientists and, in particular, offers guid-
ance for early stage researchers.
Sven-Michael Wundenberg

Requirement Engineer-
ing for Knowledge-
Intensive Processes
Reference Architecture for
the Selection of a Learning
Management System
Foreword by Prof. Dr. Michael Bächle
Sven-Michael Wundenberg
Laupheim, Germany

BestMasters
ISBN 978-3-658-08831-6 ISBN 978-3-658-08832-3 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-658-08832-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2015930455

Springer Gabler
© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or
part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illus-
trations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer Gabler is a brand of Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden is part of Springer Science+Business Media
(www.springer.com)
Foreword V

Foreword
This constructivist Master Thesis discusses the development of a reference-
architecture for the Learning Management System’s (LMS) selection process in a
polytechnic-knowledge-transfer organization.
The focus lies on the Requirement Engineering (RE) process’s quintessence based
on research about standard RE procedures and RE approaches combined with basic
knowledge about LMS and best-practice experiences for LMS projects.
The resulting reference-architecture, particularly its frameworks and questionnaires,
were tested prototypically in the real-life instance of a polytechnic school, the TA, and
delivered outstanding results (rated by stakeholder-representatives and experienced
providers of a commercialized LMS). The developed reference architecture was
found to represent a solid, easy to use and well-structured guideline for the RE-
process, the additional conceptualization and the creation of information necessary to
consult the stakeholders.
This advisory information not only recommends which LMS fits the respective
school’s requirements, business-structure and objectives best, but also provides
concepts for the consecutive steps of the LMS-implementation and -operation and it
delivers objective data on cost structure and cost-effectiveness considerations in re-
gard to the individual LMS. The reference architecture therefore features clear pro-
cess models, checklists and a questionnaire which summarizes basic questions and
the corresponding elicitation-circumstances for the requirement-elicitation process.

This thesis comprises information from the fields of RE, Knowledge Management
Systems (KMS), E-Learning, and cost-utility analysis.
Prof. Dr. M. Bächle
Table of Content VII

Table of Content
Foreword .......................................................................................................... V

Table of Content ..................................................................................................... VII

List of Figures ......................................................................................................... XI

List of Tables ....................................................................................................... XIII

List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................. XV

Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................... 1

1.1 Initial Situation and Purpose of Study .................................................... 1
1.2 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................... 2

Theoretical Part ...................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 2: Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development ............................... 4

2.1 Requirement Engineering (RE) ............................................................... 4
2.1.1 Definitions .................................................................................................. 4
2.1.2 Requirement Elicitation .............................................................................. 5
2.1.3 Requirement Analysis ................................................................................ 7
2.1.4 Requirement Specification and Documentation (RSD) ............................... 7
2.1.5 Requirements Validation ............................................................................ 8
2.2 Knowledge Management vs. Learning Management ............................. 9
2.2.1 Definitions: KMS and LMS ......................................................................... 9
2.2.2 Differentiation and Evolution: From KMS to LMS ......................................11
2.3 Typical LMS modules, features and elements ......................................13
2.4 LMS in Learning Organizations..............................................................15
2.4.1 Approaches and Reasons to/for LMS implementation ...............................15
2.4.2 Awareness of Acceptance Factors and the LMS-Application-Type............18
2.4.3 Type of eLearning – a Fundamental Selection Criterion ............................19
2.4.4 LMS Design – Past, Present and Trends ..................................................20
2.5 LMS on the market ..................................................................................21
2.5.1 Commercial Categorization of LMS ...........................................................21
2.5.2 LMS Benchmarking – Standards in the Market .........................................22
2.5.3 Commercialized LMSs ..............................................................................23
2.5.4 Open Source Project LMS.........................................................................23
2.6 Composition of the Problem Domain ....................................................24
VIII Table of Content

Constructivist Part ............................................................................................... 27

Chapter 3: LMS Reference Architecture Development ................................. 27

3.1 Requirement Elicitation Framework ......................................................27
3.1.1 Project Management – Foundation of the RE ............................................28
3.1.2 Data Collection..........................................................................................30
3.1.3 LMS Conceptualization – A Part of the Data-Collection .............................32
3.2 Requirement Analysis Framework .........................................................32
3.2.1 Requirement Evaluation ............................................................................32
3.2.2 Requirement Prioritization .........................................................................34
3.2.3 LMS Conceptualization – A Part of the Data-Analysis ...............................35
3.3 Developing Models for LMS application ................................................35
3.3.1 Conceptualization – Term Definition ..........................................................36
3.3.2 Best Practice in LMS Implementation ........................................................36
3.3.3 Best Practice for LMS Operation ...............................................................37
3.3.4 Best Practice for LMS Administration and Customer Assistance ...............38
3.4 Requirement Documentation Framework..............................................39
3.4.1 Requirement Classification and Prioritization ............................................40
3.4.2 Creating the RSD ......................................................................................41
3.4.3 Additional Analysis in the RSD ..................................................................42
3.5 Requirement Validation Framework ......................................................45
3.5.1 LMS Selection ...........................................................................................45
3.5.2 Economic Considerations..........................................................................47
3.5.3 Recommendation and Feedback Framework ............................................49
3.6 Change Management (CM) .....................................................................50
3.6.1 Requirement Change Management (RCM) ...............................................50
3.6.2 Organizational Change Management (OCM) ............................................51
Table of Content IX

Practical Part ........................................................................................................ 55

Chapter 4: Testing the Reference Architecture ............................................. 55

4.1 Test environment – The TA. ...................................................................55
4.2 Gathering Data, Information and Impressions – Methodology ............57
4.2.1 Initial Interview – Introduction into TA ........................................................57
4.2.2 Stakeholder Interviews ..............................................................................59
4.2.3 Site- and Technical-Survey .......................................................................62
4.2.4 Stakeholder Opinion Poll ...........................................................................64
4.2.5 Workshops and Presentations ..................................................................66
4.3 Data Sample – Preparing the Scoring Model ........................................71
4.4 Data-Evaluation – Utilizing the Scoring Model ......................................75
4.5 Advisory SRS ..........................................................................................79
4.6 Presenting the RE-Results .....................................................................83
4.7 Prototype Test: Summary and Interpretation ........................................85

Chapter 5: Conclusion ..................................................................................... 88

References and Appendices .............................................................................. 91

Appendices ........................................................................................................ 91
List of Appendices .........................................................................................................91

References ...................................................................................................... 119

List of Figures XI

List of Figures
Figure 1: RE Process Model .................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Requirement Elicitation Techniques ....................................................... 6
Figure 3: KM Layers and Areas (CEN, 2004) .......................................................... 9
Figure 4: KM Definition .......................................................................................... 10
Figure 5: Architecture for an integrated KMS (Riempp, 2003) ............................ 12
Figure 6: Common LMS Features ......................................................................... 14
Figure 7: Critical Factors for LMS Acceptance (Al-Busaidi & Al-Shihi, 2012) ... 18
Figure 8: Stakeholder Arrangement (Folden, 2011) ............................................. 20
Figure 9: Problem Domain ..................................................................................... 26
Figure 10: RefArc Steps aligned to RE structure ................................................. 27
Figure 11: Business/LMS Relation (Frankfurth, 2010) ......................................... 28
Figure 12: “Kano-Model” (Spool, 2011) ................................................................ 34
Figure 13: Implementation Process Framework .................................................. 36
Figure 14: Strategic Alignment Model (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993) ....... 38
Figure 15: Process Model – Creating the RSD/SRS ............................................ 39
Figure 16: Pillars of the RSD ................................................................................. 41
Figure 17: Requirement Shell – Example ............................................................. 42
Figure 18: Scoring Model – Example .................................................................... 43
Figure 19: Soring Model – Graphical Illustrations – Example ............................ 44
Figure 20: LMS Selection Framework – Process Model ...................................... 46
Figure 21: RCM Approach (dependent on Schelle et al., 2008) .......................... 50
Figure 22: Phases of Change (Recklies, 2010)..................................................... 52
Figure 23: Management specific CSF for OCM .................................................... 52
Figure 24: LMS Specific CSF for OCM .................................................................. 54
Figure 25: Stakeholder Portfolio – TA .................................................................. 56
Figure 26: LMS Adaption to Business Structure (Draft in German) ................... 58
Figure 27: Survey Distribution – TA...................................................................... 65
Figure 28: Brainstorming Results Orientation Workshop................................... 67
Figure 29: Concept Base for Content/Group Management – TA (in German) ... 69
Figure 30: Content-Distribution-Management – TA ............................................. 70
Figure 31: Weight Assessment Communication Modules – TA ......................... 73
Figure 32: Stakeholder/Weight Distribution Example – TA................................. 73
XII List of Figures

Figure 33: Total Criterion Weight Calculation Example – TA ............................. 74

Figure 34: Scoring Model Utilization Example – TA ............................................ 76
Figure 35: Scoring Model Result Example – TA .................................................. 77
Figure 36: Web Chart Result Example – TA ......................................................... 78
Figure 37: ECA Example OS-solution – TA .......................................................... 81
Figure 38: Cost-Structure Example Calculations – TA........................................ 82

All figures and the appendix can be accessed on www.springer.com under the au-
thor's name and the book title.
List of Tables XIII

List of Tables
Table 1: Overview of the two approaches (Kruse & Tan, 2011) .......................... 17
Table 2: Excerpt for Elicitation RefArc Questionnaire ........................................ 30
Table 3: Perspectives for the Questionnaire Design ........................................... 31
Table 4: Examples for Popular Methods in Requirement Analysis .................... 33
Table 5: Requirement-Type-Prio-Matrix – Example ............................................. 40
Table 6: LMS Selection Logic – Procedure .......................................................... 46
Table 7: LMS Application – Common Costs and Benefits .................................. 48
Table 8: School Characteristics – TA ................................................................... 55
Table 9: Survey Structure and Content ................................................................ 64
Table 10: CTW/Priority Realation Example – TA .................................................. 75
Table 11: Results LMS-Selection Process – TA ................................................... 84
Table 12: Cost Comparison OS vs. Commercialized LMS .................................. 85
List of Abbreviations XV

List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Denotation
BL Blended Learning
BRS Business Requirement Specification
BRSF Business Requirement Specification Framework
CEA Cost/Efficiency Analysis (see also CSA, MoE, MoS)
CM Change Management
CSA Cost/Suitability Analysis (see also CEA, MoE, MoS)
CSF Critical Success Factors
ICB IPMA Competence Baseline
JRD Joint Requirements Development
KM Knowledge Management
KMS Knowledge Management System
KPI Key Performance Indicator
LE Learning Environment
LM Learning Management
LMS Learning Management System
LP Learning Platform
MoE Measure of Effectiveness (see also CEA, CSA, MoS)
MoS Measure of Suitability(see also CEA, CSA, MoE)
OCM Organizational Change Management
PKTO Polytechnic Knowledge Transfer Organization = polytechnic uni-
versity/ school
PLE Personal Learning Environment
PM Project Manager
RCM Requirement Change Management
RE Requirement Engineering
RefArc Reference Architecture
RM Requirement Management
RSD Requirement Specification Document
SRS System Requirement Specification
SRSF System Requirement Specification Framework
SOP Standard Operations Procedures
TA Name of instance school
TCW Total Criterion Weight
UI User Interface
WBS Work Breakdown Structure
Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Initial Situation and Purpose of Study

In modern academies or schools, a KMS constitutes a necessity to support the insti-
tute’s organization and administration, to enhance the teaching and to promote the
communication and the possibilities of data- or information-sharing. Furthermore,
KMSs nowadays are a qualifying aspect and figurehead for the business image of a
modern institute. Especially a business concerned with the conditioning and transfer
of knowledge can gain advantages through the immense potential of Knowledge
Management Systems and through the rising service level a KMS provides.
In the area of schools, academies and universities the need for specialized KMSs is
high. Consequently, there are a large number of Learning Management Systems
(LMS) which can provide those enhancements to the respective institute’s core com-
petencies.
This is a constructivist thesis, so the challenge is to formulate a general framework
for the LMS selection process based on current scientific data, “best practice” and
research as well as on survey and workshops to determine the stakeholders’ wishes
and needs. This framework should comprise guidelines, process models, selection-
support-tools and examples for the data acquisition necessary to formulate require-
ment specifications, the compilation of use cases for the LMS utilization and the cost-
/effectiveness contemplation (Cost Effectiveness/Suitability Analysis, CEA or CSA) to
determine the LMS’ effectiveness and its respective costs. The framework shall con-
stitute a general means to support the LMS determination for polytechnic and voca-
tional schools.
At present the TA, a polytechnic school, does not yet capitalize KM- or LM Systems
but is resolved to expand its services by implementing an LMS. Thus the framework
was tested prototypically by applying its methods to the life example of the TA with
the aim to find a solution and utilization concepts for LMS employment.

Sven-Michael Wundenberg, Requirement Engineering for Knowledge-Intensive Processes,

BestMasters, DOI 10.1007/978-3-658-08832-3_1, © Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015
2 Introduction

1.2 Goals and Objectives

The master thesis first objective, due in March 2014, is to devise a Reference Archi-
tecture (RefArc) for the introduction of an LMS into a polytechnic school. The archi-
tectures development shall be based on scientific research of LMS fundamentals,
current best practice methods and “lessons learned” experience as well as on stand-
ard procedures for requirements engineering (RE).

The architecture shall cover:

x A framework for the recapitulation on the essential specifications and re-
quirements, based on a survey, workshops and direct discussions with the
stakeholders
x A subsequent specification of the necessary LMS modules and elements
x A framework for the selection process
x A framework for implementation and Change Management (CM)
x An operational concept framework
x A cost-benefit assessment framework
x An appraisal on two to three final choice LMS along the above criteria

The second objective is to test the developed Reference Architecture prototypically

on a generic instance of a polytechnic school, the “TA”.
To evaluate the architecture’s cogency, its applicability and to find further room for
improvement, the respective frameworks were to be employed in the instance of the
TA. The result is a specification document containing:
x Recapitulation on the essential determining factors and requirements, based
on site survey, census, workshops and interviews with the stakeholders
x A requirement specification containing the necessary LMS modules, features
and further criteria
x An LMS implementation plan and Change Management recommendations
x LMS operation concepts
x A cost-effectiveness assessment including a deliberation of open source LMS
vs. commercialized LMS services by a professional provider
x The resulting suggestions of the LMS selection process and consequently
x An appraisal on two to three final choice “off the shelf” LMS along the above
criteria including recommendations for future adaptation and extensions
Introduction 3

As architecture development and testing are conducted in close temporal context the
objective is also due by the end of March 2014.

Sub-Objectives:

1. A background research in standard references and a selection of additional

sources about the LMS fundamentals and common utilization experiences in order to
find:
x Current “best-practice” and “lessons learned” knowledge
x Opportunities of “off-the-shelf” LMS on the market
x A deeper understanding of the problems and possibilities in the LMS’ imple-
mentation.

Research results have to give answer to the following questions:

x What are the basic principles of the requirements engineering approach for a
LMS requirements definition?
x What is the definition of and differentiation between a KMS and an LMS?
x What are the reasons and necessary pre-conditions to implement and use a
LMS?
x Which suitable LMS are available on the market and what kind of services do
they provide?
x What best-practice recommendation can be followed in the processes of im-
plementation and later the use of the LMS?
x What are common problems and “lessons learned” in the mentioned process-
es?
x How can robustness, simplicity and user-friendliness be achieved?
x How can the LMS be designed and presented to gain the highest possible
number of content users?

2. The realization of a survey accompanied by workshops and stakeholder inter-

views to gain an elicitation of the stakeholders’ requirements regarding the LMS and
the utilization concept.
For the survey, between 50 and 80 sets of data from the chosen stakeholder groups
are planned to be achieved.
4 Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development

Theoretical Part

Chapter 2: Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development

In this chapter an aggregation of fundamentals and principles of RE and KMSs (re-
spectively LMS) in regard to the objectives will lead to formulating the thesis’ problem
domain.

2.1 Requirement Engineering (RE)

Designing a RefArc in correspondence with this thesis’ objectives is primarily a re-
quirement engineering task, centered on process modeling, checklist assembling and
template designing.

2.1.1 Definitions
To analyze the RE process, the necessary definitions for requirement, requirement
engineering and requirement documentation are:

Requirement:
A requirement is a condition or capability needed by a user to solve a problem or
achieve an objective (Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers, 1990). Require-
ments describe user-level facilities, general system/product properties, specific con-
straints of system/product or constraints of the development (Cockburn, 1998).

Requirement Documentation:
Requirement documentation is the official statement of the system requirements for
costumers, end users and software developers/engineers (Cockburn, 2001).
In German speaking countries two types of documents are differentiated:
x Business Requirement Specification (BRS) Î what is needed
x System Requirement Specification (SRS) Î how it should be build

In English speaking countries, these two aspects are often incorporated in a single
document called Functional Specification or (Software) Requirements Specification
(Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers, 1990).

Sven-Michael Wundenberg, Requirement Engineering for Knowledge-Intensive Processes,

BestMasters, DOI 10.1007/978-3-658-08832-3_2, © Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015
Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development 5

Requirement Engineering:
In lack of a common definition, for the purposes of this thesis the term requirement
engineering shall be defined as:

All activities involved in discovering, documenting and maintaining a set of require-

ments for a system or product.
It implies that systematic and repeatable techniques should be used to assure com-
pleteness, consistency and relevance of the description (Robertson & Robertson,
2012).
RE can be subdivided (see Appendix E) into the requirement elicitation, requirement
analysis, requirement specification and requirement validation. Those are overlap-
ping and often iterative steps in the RE process (Institute of Electrical & Electronic
Engineers, 1990).

Figure 1: RE Process Model

2.1.2 Requirement Elicitation

The first step in the RE process is the data collection and requirement elicitation. Ac-
cording to the Robertsons (1998, 2003) this includes:
x Trigger for the RE,
x Stakeholder analysis and management,
x Risk management,
x Information about the company’s vision, mission, business structure as well
as goals and objectives (to create a scope for the RE),and
x The requirement elicitation itself via interviews, surveys, workshops and
brainstorming.
6 Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development

The necessity for new requirements can be instigated by legal triggers (regulations,
law or standards) economic and strategic causes (product change, profit or organiza-
tional change) or technical reasons (new technology, technological problems) (Pohl,
2008).
RE is strongly building on the stakeholders’ scope, wishes, and needs. To design the
requirements according to those, it is elementary to understand the stakeholders’
visions, missions, their objectives and goals as well as their business structure and
possible project risks (Robertson & Robertson, 2012).
Consequently, becoming acquainted with the stakeholders and business is the first
and most important step as this will carry influence throughout the entire RE process.
As stakeholders’ backgrounds and objectives may vary widely, it is important to dif-
ferentiate between the respective stakeholder groups, rather than seeing them as
homogeneous (Lamsweerde: & Lamsweerde, 2009).
Stakeholder and risk analyzing tools like portfolios are essential, as are blue sheets
on vision, mission and objectives, and business structure, in regard to the require-
ments that are to be elicited and to be incorporated constantly. Doing so, the compa-
ny’s scope for the project can be framed (Robertson & Robertson, 1998).

The actual requirement elicitation can start once the scope is established, and will
employ all means of data acquisition (see Figure 2 and Appendix A). The quality de-
mands for the elicited data are portrayed in 2.1.4.

Creativity Observation
Techniques s Techniques

Questioning
Techniques

Figure 2: Requirement Elicitation Techniques

Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development 7

2.1.3 Requirement Analysis

After a thorough data acquisition, which does not end with the beginning of the anal-
ysis phase (Alain Abran, 2004), the data needs to be analyzed and put in perspec-
tive. Continued stakeholder involvement is very advisable (Institute of Electrical &
Electronic Engineers, 1990). The data will be translated into requirements and those
can be classified, weighted, organized and prioritized (must-, should-, may- and
must-not criteria). If necessary, immersed information can be gathered and require-
ments can be particularized (Robertson & Robertson, 1998).

Robertson (2012) mentions the following criteria for the analysis as:
x Interconnection: Check the separate requirements for interconnections. Do
they have a causal relation or can they be implemented independently?
x Association: Group and implement the requirements. Which belong to one
special field?
x Role relation: Consider every user/stakeholder individually. Each may have a
different view and different requirements. Which must be taken into account?
x Planning: First thoughts on the project planning and realization should be part
of this phase.

2.1.4 Requirement Specification and Documentation (RSD)

The step of Requirement Specification and its Documentation, the RSD, contains the
finalizing of the requirement into a written down and agreed on document as a foun-
dation for implementation, prizing and jurisdiction.
Within the specification, the requirements are normally allocated to types like non-
functional or technical requirements (see Appendix B).
The requirements should fulfill certain quality standards (Institute of Electrical &
Electronic Engineers, 1990) (see also Appendix C):

x Correctness x Modifiability
x Unambiguousness x Traceability
x Completeness x Understandability
x Consistency x Feasibility
x Verifiability x Necessity
8 Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development

The structure for an RSD typically orientates itself towards the project’s work pack-
ages and the Responding Work Breakdown structure (WBS) (see Figure 1) (Institute
of Electrical & Electronic Engineers, 1990).
Normally, multiple extra documents to specify certain aspects of the RSD like Use
Case Diagrams, Approval Documents, Configuration and Design templates or Test
Cases are added to the RSD (Robertson & Robertson, 2012).
The RSD’s level of detail is largely dependent on the following factors (Institute of
Electrical & Electronic Engineers, 1990):
x normal practice of organization
x contracting out the system development/production to another company
(more detailed)
x 1st step: high-level description, 2nd step detailed specification
x Stakeholder requirements/ user requirements
x System requirements

Often the analysis, specification and documentation happen parallel and intercon-
nected to each other. Consequently, a versioning system should be used to keep
track on the editing status (Robertson & Robertson, 2012).
Detailed templates and instructions on the compilation and writing of an RSD can be
found via the Internet. One good example is the “Volere Template” (Robertson &
Robertson, 2003). Further pointers to the writing and compilation can be found in Ap-
pendix D.

2.1.5 Requirements Validation

As the requirements may need to be refined in the processes of the requirement
specification or implementation, a constant validation and quality assurance/ control
of the requirements needs to be in place (Robertson & Robertson, 2012).
According to Schienmann (2001), the requirements have to be checked in regular
intervals according to the following quality characteristics (see also Appendix C):
x Consistency
x Feasibility
x Necessity
x Priority
x System Usability
Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development 9

2.2 Knowledge Management vs. Learning Management

Within the wide field of interactive media in the Web 2.0 frame, there are several in-
stances of vertical and horizontal specialization. One of those areas of specialization
engages in the creation, transformation, acquisition, structuration and cataloging,
storage, transfer, validation and sharing of knowledge (Gray, 2009).
A kind of specialization of those Knowledge Management Systems is represented by
their derivations used in the knowledge-transfer-service-sector of schools, universi-
ties and other knowledge transferring institutes, namely the Learning Management
Systems.

For a better grasp of the communalities and differences between KMS and LMS the
definitions and differentiations of those terms are necessary.

2.2.1 Definitions: KMS and LMS

To understand the nature of a KMS, the term Knowledge Management needs to be
set perspective first:

Knowledge Management System:

According to CWA 14924-1 (CEN, 2004), KM is the management of activities and
processes for leveraging knowledge to enhance competitiveness through better use
and creation of individual and collective knowledge resources.

Figure 3: KM Layers and Areas (CEN, 2004)

10 Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development

It can be argued that this definition is not extensive enough and that human-oriented
KM (psychological and sociological perspective – the employee is the relevant
knowledge bearer) and technology-oriented KM (IT as enabler of KM – Databases
and software are key success factors) should be combined into a holistic approach in
which the innovative, creative potential of the KM users will be encouraged and sup-
ported by IT-based information systems.

Figure 4: KM Definition

By this definition of KM, a KMS is a form of Web 2.0 based social computing tool
specially designed to support the KM processes by providing integrated features, e.g.
wikis, blogs, communication devices etc. (Kalz, Schön, Lindner, Roth, &
Baumgartner, 2011; Swanger & Whitlock, 2011).
Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development 11

Learning Management System:

The term Learning Platform (LP) or Learning Management System characterizes a
complex, often web based software system which pools multiple task specific sub-
programs under a shared User Interface (UI). These subprograms support, for in-
stance:
x Allocation and organization of learning content for different learning scenarios
x School administration
x Information management
x Online school business related communication.

So the LP or LMS serves as a further interface between students and educational

service providers (Baumgartner, Häfele, & Maier-Häfele, 2002), and its multi-media
environment hugely enhances the learning experience by providing input signals for
multiple human sensory organs. Internal and external communication and administra-
tion are supported by distinct communication, administration and information struc-
tures (Farmer, 2010).

2.2.2 Differentiation and Evolution: From KMS to LMS

Modern companies often intend to support and promote their business by the means
of using Enterprise 2.0 software, which are collaborative Web 2.0 based, emergent
social media software tools, to enhance the internal and external communication,
knowledge creation, organization and conservation, and project coordination (Koch &
Richter, 2009; McAfee, 2006). Often this will be combined in KMSs.
As the company’s vision, mission, goals and objectives, its needs and its business
intents and structure largely determine the KMS’s layout and concepts, a KMS usual-
ly needs to be adapted (Riempp, 2003). In the case of knowledge-transferring busi-
ness, as in schools or universities, this adaptation accounts for a whole new and
specialized kind of KMS (Back, 2002), the LMS.
So an LMS basically has to constitute the complete KMS construct (Figure 5), includ-
ing the basic IT-, database-, and integration infrastructure and the determining strat-
egy and process levels, but with an emphasis on chosen pillars. The major differenti-
ator for an LMS is its “instructing nature” (Piña, 2010).
12 Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development

Figure 5: Architecture for an integrated KMS (Riempp, 2003)

Consequently, an LMS is a derivation of a KMS for a specialized company with its

attention and business intent centered on skill and knowledge conveyance Therefore
the specialized needs in supporting this task lead to a layout which enhances internal
and external communication, skill-transfer, group- and content management and the
support for the daily business (Back, 2002). Compared to the KM factors of the CWA
14924-1, the activities of knowledge creation, transformation, workflow integration
and application for product or service advancement (except for school-services) are
less emphasized.
Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development 13

By following these specialized needs, modern LMSs often excel in providing user
friendly:
x Learning environments (so called class- or learning areas), to assemble and
deliver learning content rapidly
x Communication features like e.g. chat rooms, forums, virtual video meeting
places
x Modules to consolidate training initiatives on a scalable web-based platform
x Content- and group structure to organize faculties, topics and classes
x Direct access to relevant information like schedules, plans, current news
x Organizational features like student, staff and source databases for the school
administration
x Tools for centralizing and automating administration
x Tools for self- and self-guided services
x Apps to support mobility, portability and standards
x Personalized content and knowledge reuse functions
to support the learning experience and success (Dżega & Pietruszkiewicz, 2011;
Piña, 2010).

As the possibilities for the application of online learning are diverse, the LMS has to
be designed to support the institution’s preferred forms. Derived from the original E-
Learning idea, a consensus evolved that Blended Learning (BL) supports the largest
portion of those users who are interested in E-Learning (Breu, Guggenbichler, &
Wollmann, 2008), but in individual cases other forms may be preferred (Piña, 2010).

2.3 Typical LMS modules, features and elements

Typically an LMS consists of a web based user interface which bonds several appli-
cations and features together (Folden, 2011). Those modules belong to one or more
of the pillars depicted in Figure 5. Figure 6 illustrates the most common modules
within the respective pillar (Itslearning, 2013; Mahara, 2013; Piña, 2010; Stud.IP,
2014).
Those models are of variable relevance depending on the stakeholders’ needs. So
the required LMS configuration may differ from school to school, and the requirement
definition and weighting gains major importance (Salmon, 2004).
14 Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development

• Forum •CCalendar •VVirtual Class •CContent • Searc

Search
• Chat F
Function R
Rooms S
Structure Funct
Function
• Direct • In
Info Board •LLearning •DDatabase • Menu Bars

Skill Management and Transferr

Navigation and Search

Communication and Collaboration

Adminstration and Transaction

n

Content Communication & Managementt

Messages • Substitution Portfolio • Topic • Content/
• Emails Plans • Personal Coordination Folder Menu
• Video and • News Flash Learning • Media Player Trees
Voice Chats • Module Environment Funtionality • Fast Access/
• Instant • Grouping • Mentoring • Media Access Response
Messaging Concept / Functions Abilities Areas
• Participation Course • Progress • Wikis • Work
Module Management Reporting • Blogs Offline/Synchr
• Student • Check- onize
• Surveys • Online
Registration Yourself Journals and • Orientation/
• Collaborative
and Functionality Notes Help
Writing
Administration • Skill Gap • Bookmarks • Look and Feel
• File Exchange
• Curriculum Analysis Design
• Virtual • Templates
and
Whiteboard • Forms
Certification
• Productivity Management
Tools
• Online
• Progress Marketing
Managemnet
• Grade
• Involvement Management
• Assesment • Cost and
Tools Finance
Overview

Figure 6: Common LMS Features

The significantly positive attitude of students and teachers towards their individual
LMSs (Kvavnik & Caruso, 2005) mainly derives from the advantages is gained
through certain features (Piña, 2010):
x Various ways of content and knowledge transfer; communication, assessment
and administration of online instruction into a single secure platform that can
be accessed by anyone on the Internet (Dabbagh & Bannan- Ritland, 2005,
Ullman & Rabinowitz, 2004 as cited by (Piña, 2010))
x The standardized interface of an LMS makes it easy for students to navigate
through information, courses and groups.
x The secure password-protected nature of an LMS limits access of instructional
resources to users enrolled in the course (Gibbons, 2005), and provides data-
and copy-right-security.
x Delivering information and instruction to mobile devices takes advantage of
research indicating that many users are increasingly relying upon mobile de-
vices.
x Outcome assessment systems, which work in cooperation with the LMS, sup-
port the students’ self-evaluation and the teacher-student-evaluation
Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development 15

Furthermore, an LMS also has to represent a number of characteristics to satisfy the

stakeholders’ needs (Breu et al., 2008; Salmon, 2004):
x User friendly, intuitive design and self-explanatory functionalities
x Adequacy for the users’ levels of experience and knowledge
x High system robustness against data-loss or system failure
x High data security standards
x Easy accessibility
x System flexibility for schools’ individual configurations and concept adapta-
tions

2.4 LMS in Learning Organizations

The Implementation of an LMS requires knowledge on how to approach the task,
awareness of the reasons for the implementation, and awareness of the desired
types of LMS application and learning support.

2.4.1 Approaches and Reasons to/for LMS implementation

Kerres (2012) distinguishes two different approaches of LMS implementation, Top-
Down (initiated through the schools’ managements’ visions) and Bottom-Up (initiated
through the students’ demands and requests). He also highlights several reasons for
both approaches. Experiences at German universities (Kruse & Tan, 2011) show that
often a combination of both methods is used, based on the combined reasons for the
LMS introduction into the educational facility. As the reasons may vary widely be-
tween the respective schools, a selection of prevalent reasons will be given.

To meet the high competition in the professional polytechnic school market, modern
appearance and media-professionalism are constantly gaining in importance.
Changes in student population trigger changes in teaching and learning methods.
Nowadays, students participating in learning processes are part of the so called “digi-
tal natives”, the generation that has grown up with digital technology (Mladenović,
2011).
In modern teaching and learning processes, the learning group is composed of stu-
dents with different cognitive competences if compared with previous student-
generations (Prensky, 2001). Students nowadays have computer literacy; they are
very accustomed to internet technologies and being online; they expect immediate
16 Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development

answers to questions posed; prefer learning through experience; have a highly ex-
pressed interest in social interaction (so therefore are willing to accept anyone into
the group who is a friend of their friend or otherwise connected); prefer working in
groups, and look for interactivity within rich-interface-environments (Mladenović,
2011).
Beside the common student population, the importance of part-time-student popula-
tions is growing, as the enrollment rate for part-time- or distance-education is ten to
fifteen times higher than the rate for fulltime education (E. L. Allen & Seaman, 2007).
Those groups have higher and slightly different needs in media-learning-support
(Hewitt & Forte, 2006).

Another common reason for the top-down approach is the growing collaboration be-
tween educational facilities, or with external companies/industries. Moreover, a re-
gional or national standardization of educational media usage is propagated in sev-
eral areas (Kruse & Tan, 2011). A highly linked network of online-learning-platforms
fostering the worldwide online-education will come into existence, resulting in the fact
that individual schools will have to participate or suffer tremendous setbacks com-
pared to their competitors (Rovai, 2004).

A typical reason for bottom-up approach is the informal organization of students into
learning- or working-groups. They use social media, cloud sourcing and the Internet
extensively in their pursuit of their respective tasks. Coordinating those activities by
providing a platform will gain the school a higher customer satisfaction and data-
security (Kruse & Tan, 2011).

A shared striving between students and educational-service-providers for time and

money optimization, support for administration and organization, and the search for
new means of communication are applicable reasons for both approaches (Kerres,
2012; Kruse & Tan, 2011).
Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development 17

Table 1 will give a basic overview over the two approaches:

Approach Bottom-Up Top-Down

Proceeding One faculty or one department The key administration pushes the
starts using an LMS, afterwards integration of an LMS into the univer-
other faculties/departments start sity
participating
Advantages x The LMS is chosen based on x High frequency of usage.
user demands. x Academic staff might get inter-
x Users have concrete ideas ested in the didactical possibili-
and request to use the LMS. ties during administrative usage.
x High intensity of usage in x Other IT systems used at the
courses university can be connected to
x High satisfaction with the the LMS support
chosen system refinement x Authentication can be organized
x Participation by the users is centrally from the beginning.
higher x Students can use one single
LMS and not different ones in
their subjects.
Disadvantages x Low number of users. x Focus is possibly on administra-
x Coexistence of several LMS tional processes.
in different faculties or de- x Didactical possibilities might play
partments. a minor role.
x Redundant workload for x People might be displeased by
supporting the different the fact that one LMS is forced
LMSs. when they have used another
x If one LMS is chosen to be one before.
the general one at that uni- x The LMS might not fulfil the spe-
versity: difficulties to merge cial needs of some academic
the different users and data staff or departments.
to one LMS. x Lower intensity of usage in
x Several login data for aca- courses
demic staff and students.
x Users might have to handle
different LMS interfaces.
x Other IT systems are most
likely not to be connected to
the several LMS
Rate of usage x Low usage x High usage
x Few users in the beginning, x Many users from the beginning
can increase rapidly
Kind of usage x Didactical focus x Administrative focus
Table 1: Overview of the two approaches (Kruse & Tan, 2011)
18 Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development

2.4.2 Awareness of Acceptance Factors and the LMS-Application-Type

To utilize an LMS successfully and economically the stakeholders’/users’ acceptance
of the LMS is critical. Many factors influence the users’ acceptance. Al-Busaidi and
Al-Shihi (2012) believe the factors depicted in Figure 7 to be critical.
Therefore an adaptation – as accurate as possible - of the LMS to address these crit-
ical factors seems to be the best way to ensure the stakeholders’ acceptance. Critical
parameters regarding the LMS features have to be identified and weighted.

Figure 7: Critical Factors for LMS Acceptance (Al-Busaidi & Al-Shihi, 2012)

Baumgartner et al. (2002) consider the following parameters to be the most applica-
ble:
x Communication possibilities (like internal messages, chats, discussion
boards)
x Didactical advantages (like online exercises, tutorials, learning diaries)
x Administrative possibilities (like participant lists, dividing participants into
groups, configuration of the whole system based on one’s needs)
x Technical possibilities (like stable operation, adaptability to individual means,
interoperability with other IT systems, data protection, support)
Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development 19

Salmon (2004) identifies two additional fundamental parameters:

x Design (how attractive, user-friendly and clearly laid out is the LMS)
x Usefulness (which advantages does the LMS offer to the respective user)

Following the argumentation of Rovai (2004) and the creators of the “itslearning”
LMS (Itslearning, 2013), another critical factor can be determined:
x networking (how good/useful is the LMS’s interconnection with other social
media or LMSs of collaborating schools and companies)

As these parameters are regarded as of different importance in every educational

institution, they have to be weighted individually to gather a basic picture of the
LMS’s requirements for the respective institution (Baumgartner, Hartmut, et al., 2002;
Kalz et al., 2011; Kruse & Tan, 2011). An extended list of Critical Success Factors
(CSF) (Robertson & Robertson, 2012) (Re.ViCa, 2009) can be found in Appendix G.

2.4.3 Type of eLearning – a Fundamental Selection Criterion

An LMS, as described in the definition and differentiation section, specializes, inter
alia, in providing an optimized eLearning platform. As the application of online learn-
ing differs widely between different schools, caused by different business orienta-
tions, the awareness of the individual type of online teaching is essential.

ELearning evolved from a combination of the traditional classroom learning combined

with online and multimedia tools to a distinct form of education. Although there are
many mixed forms, it is typically divided into the field of distance learning (use of tele-
learning, only without corporeal attendance to a school) and blended learning (Sup-
port of school-bound education through eLearning options) (Folden, 2011). For a de-
piction of the eLearning evolution see Appendix F.
To determine the respective school’s preferred type of eLearning, a deeper under-
standing of the school’s vision, mission, goals and objectives and the business struc-
ture is necessary (Riempp, 2003). This can be gained by interviewing the stakehold-
ers intensively. As described in subsections 2.1.2 and 2.4.2, the stakeholders’ re-
quirements, in this case regarding the type of online-learning, is of the utmost im-
portance for successful LMS operations. The archetypal stakeholder arrangement
can be found in Figure 8.
20 Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development

Figure 8: Stakeholder Arrangement (Folden, 2011)

2.4.4 LMS Design – Past, Present and Trends

The chosen and adapted LMS should support the desired style of eLearning. A short
summary about LMS design history and trends will help to get an overview about
what this entails.
LMSs were originally designed as a document storehouse and a method of distrib-
uting content from the instructor to the user (Baylen & Hancock, 2010). This pattern
is now being confronted. Open-source-, social networking software or Google threat-
en the position of the commercial learning-management-system (Young, 2009 as
cited by Baylen & Hancock, 2010, p. 81), but constant progress in the LMS develop-
ment leaves to expect the next generation (or perhaps replacement) of the LMS
(Baylen & Hancock, 2010).
Trends in the markets and new prerequisites arise. Current studies show that the
growing number of LMS users are favoring mobile technologies over, and perhaps
additionally to, desktop and notebook computers and are adept at using the ad-
vanced features of these technologies for both entertainment and communication
(Rainie & Keeter, 2006; Rainie & Madden, 2005).
Many LMS-service providers now provide mobile-apps for smartphones, PDAs and
tablets. Providers failing to catch this trend already notice sales problems and a de-
Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development 21

cline in costumers (Krumm, 2012), but the LMS-market is just beginning to react to
this new challenge constituted by the explosion of the Web 2.0 activity that is becom-
ing a routine part of students’ lives (Baylen & Hancock, 2010).
The web is growing increasingly participatory. Modern LMS consumers are active
content authors, collaborators and contributors. However, the already established
blog-, chat-, forum-, and wiki-modules most modern LMS have already incorporated,
will not be sufficient for future LMS applications. New user-friendly means of student
involvement with fast and easy access need to be designed (Baylen & Hancock,
2010).

The focus of the LMS will be put increasingly on the multi-media, multi-sensory Per-
sonal Learning Environment (PLE), which incorporates audio-visual communication
and information systems. Cloud sourcing, worldwide content- and learning tracking,
just-in-time-learning and talent management are the current buzz-phrases regarding
the near future of LMS design (Bhatia, 2014).

2.5 LMS on the market

2.5.1 Commercial Categorization of LMS

LMSs are mostly grouped into three different categories regarding their commercial
status: In-House-, Open-Source- (OS) and Corporate-/Commercial-Solutions
(Frankfurth, 2010; Krumm, 2012; McIntosh, 2014; Piña, 2010).

In-House LMSs are self-developed, often highly aligned, LMSs. They are often used
to get a best-fit solution but with the disadvantage of high effort for maintenance, ac-
tualization and development (McIntosh, 2014).

Open-Source LMSs are for the most part LMSs developed by interest-groups using
open development structures and allowing a no-cost software-application on a user-
allocated server. All administration- or maintenance-work is to be done by the school
single-handedly (McIntosh, 2014).

Commercial LMS-Service-Providers normally offer their own LMS solution or a sup-

ported OS Solution. In this case the LMS normally offers extensive features and a
high rate of support regarding technical administration, help-desk and even cloud-
space (McIntosh, 2014).
22 Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development

Sometimes those distinctions are further subdivided into Corporate and Education
LMSs, with the distinction being that Companies (Corporates) will need more course
planning, while schools, having already course planning in place, will focus on the
distribution of the learning content and thusly on the educational versions (McIntosh,
2014). Nowadays this distinction is blurred and the systems are adapted to the indi-
vidual company or school, impartial to this subdivision and more dependent on indi-
vidual requirements (Frankfurth, 2010).

Another differentiation is standalone vs. integrated LMSs, distinguishing whether an

LMS is integrated into other campus systems and LMS-cooperation-networks or
standing on its own to fulfill only a distinct task (Piña, 2010).

As there are hundreds of different solutions available on the market, finding the right
one takes a lot of effort, organization and a structured selection process (McIntosh,
2014; Piña, 2010), which incidentally this thesis is about. This is also the reason why
only a few selected LMS possibilities will be mentioned within this subsection.

2.5.2 LMS Benchmarking – Standards in the Market

A good way to get a first impression and an idea of the LMS options on the market is
to benchmark which LMSs are used by school with a similar focus. This will provide
an idea of how LMSs can be utilized, and it may already offer some first- and second-
hand experience with the system (McIntosh, 2014).
However, as already mentioned, selection, implementation and utilization are highly
dependent on the stakeholders’ and the organizations’ vision, mission, objectives and
business structures. These may already differ between schools with similar educa-
tional focuses. Consequently, the requirements will differ as well as the desired way
of LMS operation (Frankfurth, 2010; Rovai, 2004).
Many consulting companies, like Saba or Solics, specialize on LMS-benchmarking, -
selection and -consulting. Moreover, many lists of LMSs on the market can be found
on the Internet. Often those already have some benchmarking-features and provide
user-comments and/or experiences as well as links to testing foundations like
“Stiftung Warentest” (Barrish, 2013; EduTech, 2014; Re.ViCa, 2009; Solics GmbH,
2012).
In the next subsections a small selection of commendable LMSs centered on the
German market, will be given. For web-links to lists of LMS see Appendix H.
Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development 23

2.5.3 Commercialized LMSs

According to Euler (as cited by Frankfurth, 2010), eLearning increasingly has in-
creasingly become a business to make money with. The application of media-didactic
technologies provides a vast market to profit from, says Euler. Especially with the
demand for eLearning on mobile devices and through the high rate of technological
evolution, commercial LMSs have dominated the online-education market for several
years now (Leal & Queirós, 2011).

As costs increase, schools and companies are now looking for other options such as
OS-solutions that are financially more attractive. However, the cost-comparison has
to be done carefully, as OS-solutions often come with hidden costs and efforts (Leal
& Queirós, 2011). Professional service providers normally include the costs for host-
ing, implementing, administrating, maintaining the system into their pricing-structure,
as well as the costs for providing cloud space, training the school staff and regularly
updating the system.
Other important benefits of commercial LMS solutions are the outsourcing of the se-
curity requirements and the provider’s higher professionalism in the necessary ser-
vices.

The most well-established commercial LMSs on the German market at the time of
this thesis are (Baumgartner, Häfele, et al., 2002; Runge, 2014):
x “Itslearning®”
x “Blackboard®”
x “EDYOU®”
x “Global Teach®”
x “Learning Space®”
x “ILearning®”

2.5.4 Open Source Project LMS

OS-solutions have financial and programmatic appeal for the stakeholder (Stewart,
2007), but also carry a specific philosophical attitude in regard to open development,
commitment to, and dependency on external companies.
In an open source environment, the source code is available free of software licens-
ing fees and free of contractual agreement with a specific provider. Moreover, a pro-
gram or system based on open source software may be customized and branded
24 Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development

according to a user’s or institution’s needs and desires (Breu et al., 2008; Krumm,
2012; Piña, 2010). This, however, may require in-house development.

The OS developer community, which fosters the OS software, is diversely active for
the respective OS-LMS, so this has to be factored in before choosing an LMS (Breu
et al., 2008; Piña, 2010).

The best known OS solutions (Baumgartner, Häfele, et al., 2002; Runge, 2014) are:
x “Stud.IP®”
x “Moodle®”
x “Sakai®”
x “Ilias®”
x “Mahara®”

Many other solutions are available and the importance may vary widely in different
regions worldwide.

2.6 Composition of the Problem Domain

This thesis’ objectives constitute the need for a “Reference Architecture”, so the the-
sis basically is about the constructivist creation of this RefArc based on research and
best practice.
The necessity for such a RefArc is derived from the need for an individual adapted
LMS in any respective educational organization and the high number of possible so-
lutions on the market.
Sound requirement engineering is the foundation for a well-designed selection pro-
cess and an equally well-designed LMS in operation, as the LMS has to be adapted
and tailored to satisfy the user’s needs and to support the respective business struc-
ture in an optimal way. Therefore the choice of the right LMS basis, the conceptual-
ization of the adaptations and the utilization are of essential interest.

The RefArc shall help to identify the school’s requirements for an LMS, to compare
and evaluate the contestants with the help of the requirements, to develop implemen-
tation- and utilization-concepts and to assess the expected cost-effectiveness ratio.

To provide an optimized solution to an organization in search of an LMS, requirement

specifications and systematized, generally applicable and scientifically founded se-
lection and evaluation processes have to be devised.
Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development 25

Consequently, the problem domain is inherent to the area of requirement manage-

ment while also being connected to the fundamentals and best-practice know-how in
the following fields:
x LMS basic knowledge as well as understanding of LMS selection, implementation
and application
x Project Management (to structure the selection and implementation process ef-
fectively and efficiently)
x Data acquisition principles (for the elicitation and weighting of requirements and
the gathering of necessary information for the project)
x Conceptualization and process modelling (to support the utilization and support
the realization of the requirements)
x Statistic evaluation and utility-analysis (to objectively support the LMS evaluation
along the requirements and to enable an objective comparison between the
LMSs)
x Economic analysis (to compare cost and outcomes of LMS employment, and to
illuminate cost structure and find hidden costs to contrast different kinds of LMSs
like open source solutions vs. LMSs from professional service providers)
x Change Management (to support the implementation process and include the
stakeholders in the processes and hereby ensure higher LMS utilization and thus
higher economic value)
x Business counseling (to present the requirements, results and recommendations
appealingly to the stakeholders to grant agreement to the findings)
26 Knowledgebase for the RefArc Development

Figure 9: Problem Domain

LMS Reference Architecture Development 27

Constructivist Part

Chapter 3: LMS Reference Architecture Development

Building on the 2nd chapter’s theoretical basis, this chapter is about combining re-
search results of LMS-best-practice-experience with the RE to create a general and
practically applicable RefArc for the LMS selection and operation-planning process-
es. General process models, checklists and templates to aid in the actual require-
ment elicitation and conceptualization processes are the outcome.
The general structure for the RefArc is derived from the RE-principals described in
2.1. This will be complemented by the LMS-know-how research foundation.

Requirement
nt Elicitation
Requirement nt Analysis
Project
Management
Foundation Requirementt Requirement nt Documentation
Evaluation Requirement
Data Requirement
Collection Requirementt Classification Validation
Prioritization and
LMS/Businessand WeightingPrioritization Requirement
Structure Affirmation
LMS/BusinessCreating the
Conceptualiza (by
tion Structure RSD Stakeholders)
Alignment
Additional LMS Selection
Conzeptualization & Analyis in the Cost/Efficiency
RSD Analysis
Change Management

Figure 10: RefArc Steps aligned to RE structure

3.1 Requirement Elicitation Framework

The first step is the requirement elicitation (Robertson & Robertson, 2012) in order to:
x Draw a picture of the initial situation
x Know the reasons and triggers for the implementation enterprise
x Understand the stakeholders and their goals
x Understand the company/school, its vision, mission, business structure and
objectives
x Collect the data and impressions necessary for the next steps of analyzing
and formulating the requirements

Sven-Michael Wundenberg, Requirement Engineering for Knowledge-Intensive Processes,

BestMasters, DOI 10.1007/978-3-658-08832-3_3, © Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
A—Yes; among those that didn’t look ahead and supply, I think that
to be true.
Q—They still train on Scotch, don’t they?
A—Well, they are not as well trained as they used to be.
Q—Don’t you find a great many people that think they are Critics?
A—Yes, but I find very few that get paid for it.
Q—Do you believe in constructive Criticism?
A—No; I believe in entertaining Criticism.
Q—Do you get many letters kicking on your opinion?
A—Oh, yes; quite a few.
Q—In that way you can tell just how many read it, can’t you? I read
where three out of four of every newspaper started failed. What
percentage of dramatic Criticisms do you think is responsible for this
failure?
A—I don’t know; I was never on a failing paper.
Q—That’s pretty good; that’s a Nifty. Now you Critics having never
tried it, you don’t realize just how hard it is to be an Actor?
A—Yes, the more plays we see the more we realize it.
Q—Now, you say you have worked for Mr. Hearst twenty-five years
for teaching him the Banjo. What instrument did Brisbane teach him
and do you think I could interest him in a Base Drum? I hammer a
mean Blues on one of those things.
A—You might snare him with that. It takes two heads to make a
drum.

Now, Dear Readers—both of you—if this little interview has made

you feel more kindly toward the Dramatic Critics, and has brought
their overworked profession to the high standards to which I have
tried to honestly picture them, my work will not have been in vain.
“THE WORLD TOMORROW,” AFTER
THE MANNER OF GREAT
JOURNALISTS.
 “THE WORLD TOMORROW,” AFTER
THE MANNER OF GREAT
JOURNALISTS.[B]
Now for the last few months I have been writing and I have become
ambitious and want to do “Bigger and Better things.” I realize that my
writings up to now have only appealed to the Morons. (That’s not
Mormon misspelled. It’s Morons, just as it’s spelled.) So I have been
a close Student and admirer of some of our great editorial writers
and I have tried to study their style and, beginning with this article, I
am changing my entire method of Literature and I hereby bid Adieu
to my Half-Wit Audience. (As a writer’s Writings never appeal to a
higher grade of intelligence than the Writer himself.) So, from now
on, I am going to give these learned and heavy thinkers a run for
their Laurels. I am out to make the front Page. My Column will be
called The World Tomorrow, not only commenting on the news of
Today but predicting what the morrow will bring forth.
A Race Horse, In Memorandum, beats the great Zev, the
International Favorite and My Own thrown in for good measure. That
news will perhaps interest 40 million Human Beings, and 2,000
Bookmakers, while the news of the unearthing of a Prehistoric Skull
at Santa Barbara, California, linking us up with the Neanderthal Age
will only be appreciated by a small Majority of us thinking People.
Some anthropologists, however, consider the extinct Neanderthal
Man as a separate Species (Homo Neanderthalenis) intermediate
between the Java Man (or Pithecanthropus). According to Linneaus,
Humanity comprises four races: the Whites, having a light colored
skin, belonging to the Caucasian race; the Blacks, the completest
possible negation of White; the Republicans, form of genus Homo
ape in his earliest Prehistoric State; and, last of the four Races the
Democrat. The Democrat doubtless originated in the eastern
Hemisphere. The main structural characters distinguishing him are
his gait, the modification of the feet for walking instead of
prehension, and the great Toe being non-opposable, and, most of all,
the enormous development of the brain, and smooth rounded Skull.
But what cares the man of today for the Neanderthal Age! He is of
the Speculative Age. If he can get 10 Dollars down on the Nose of a
winner at about 15 to one, he don’t care if we descend from Goat or
Ape.
As Demosthenes, the Great William Jennings Bryan of his time, so
aptly put it when he casually met Confucius, the originator of Mah-
Jong on Epsom Downs: “Good Afternoon, countryman, art thee
risking a few Shekels on thy favorite Crow Bait in this Race?” And
Confucius pulled the following Nifty which has been handed down
through the Ages, and made him the Philosopher or Shanghai:
“No, Demosthenes, Betting is a form of unintelligence. So long as we
have betting, we will know we have the ignorant with us.”
That little remark of Confucius was well said, and the fact that we
had 40 million interested in the Race, and only a handful interested
in the Neanderthal Man, proves we have a long way to go yet until
Civilization is thoroughly reached.

The Crown Prince of Germany is to be allowed to return, proving that

War don’t pay. You only have to go back into History a short way to
the Trojan Wars. What happened to Priam the King of Troy when
Prince Paris his Heir and Son was born? Eros, Goddess of Discord,
threw out a Golden Apple to the most beautiful, and Juno, Minerva
and Venus all claimed it. Paris was to decide. He gave the Apple to
Venus. Helen of Troy, the most beautiful Woman in Sparta, got
jealous of Paris and that culminated in the War of Troy. Troy was
besieged for 9 years. This Trojan War alone should prove to the
greedy Interests that War don’t pay. And Sons born of Kings don’t
pay. A law should be passed that all offspring of Royal Birth should
be of the feminine Gender.
An American army airman flies at the rate of 258 miles an hour.
What does this astounding feat mean to the World? What did
Napoleon say at Austerlitz in 1805, just after the battle of Ulm, and
after the Old Corsican had rushed his troops from Cologne? He said,
“An army travels on its Stomach.”
Look at the progress that has been made in the mode of
Transportation from the Napoleon days to this! I don’t know exactly
how far a man could travel in a day on his Stomach. If he had a good
Stomach and was an Apt Traveler he might make pretty good
headway. There was no way in reckoning speed in those days as
there was no way of fixing a speedometer on a Soldier’s Stomach,
but if you take a Soldier going away from the Enemy, and if his
Stomach held out, he certainly ought to have had the abdominal
record of his time.
But has Congress heeded what the Airship is doing? No, they go
ahead building Battleships which will be as useless as a shipping
board. Transportation advances but our Lawmakers are still traveling
on their Stomach.

Lloyd George goes home to England after inviting us to join in the

Salvation of Europe. You have only to turn to Hugo’s Oration on
Voltaire to find out if we should meddle in the selfish affairs of
European Turmoil. Hugo said: “Before going further, let us come to
an understanding, Gentlemen, upon the word Abyss. There are good
abysses: such are the abysses in which evil is engulfed. Rabelais
warned royalty in Gargantua. Moliere warned the people at Tartuffe.”
That proves right there to any thinking person that we should not
meddle in the affairs of these envious Nations. The more Trouble
you get them out of, the more they get into. No, the time has come
when this Country has got to bank up our own fires for a cold
morning. Just remember Cicero’s words speaking at Glasgow in
regard to America’s participation in the World’s War: “La premiere
femme du monde la tete montee en se couchant.” Those who want
to adjust Europe’s Carburetor should remember Horace Greeley’s
immortal Gag: “Go west, young man, Not east.”

A Lady in Chicago is arrested for killing a casual acquaintance.

That’s news. If she had killed her Husband or Lover that would be
commonplace. But friends are seldom killed. What does the 8th
chapter, second verse, of the first Book of Matthew teach us? That
verse should be enough to teach us that friendship should be
trusted. We will never have true civilization until we have learned to
recognize the rights of others.

Judge Gary, the head of the great Steel Corporation, eats only the
white of a soft boiled egg for breakfast. Which should be a lesson to
some of you who think you have to eat the whole egg to subsist. We
should look and learn from our Men who have Done Things. Read
Einstein’s Theory on what constitutes over-gorging. He says: “Light
rays, if obstructed, have an observed constant velocity irrespective
of the relative velocity between the observer.” That should show
even the ignorant when they have enough.

A little Girl in Brooklyn started to school and forgot her books and
had to go home for them. There you have a bit of news that is
valuable. We are at that age when we are rushing headlong and
paying no attention to small details. It’s only the big things of life that
interest us. For instance, the little Girl was only interested in getting
to the School, not in what she had when she got there. If we only
stopped to realize that it is really after all the little things that count,
why, we would be a wiser and more contented race. People that
can’t remember should remember what Socrates said to Plato on the
subject of forgetfulness. He said: “Where then I wonder shall we find
Justice and Injustice in it? With which have we contemplated? Has it
simultaneously made its entrance?”

A Professor of Columbia University won a prize by writing a Book in

15 hours. That’s a good thing. The quicker the Authors write them
the quicker they can get to some useful work. But if Pascal were on
earth today and heard of that feat he would say: “That’s fine,
Professor, but what did you do with the other 10 Hours?”

It takes two and a half Tons of Marks to buy a Stein of Beer in Berlin.
Before the War you could have bought two and a half Tons of Beer
for a Mark. What does Wall Street think of that? It shows you that
selfish Interests can’t rule the People, when they make up their mind
to rebel.

P.S. You see I have an Encyclopedia, too.

FOOTNOTES:
[B] With apologies to Arthur Brisbane.
SETTLING THE AFFAIRS OF THE
WORLD IN MY OWN WAY
“IF THEY HAVEN’T GOT ENOUGH WATER IN THERE TO FILL
THE HARBOR, WE WILL HAVE TO ASK THE NEIGHBORS TO
DRAIN THEIR CORN LIQUOR.”
 SETTLING THE AFFAIRS OF THE
WORLD IN MY OWN WAY
Well, they brought our Soldiers back from Germany. Would have
brought them back sooner but we didn’t have anybody in
Washington who knew where they were. We had to leave ’em over
there so they could get the Mail that was sent to them during the war.
Had to leave ’em over there anyway; two of them hadn’t married yet.
Since I wrote you last, an awful lot has happened at the Studio in
Washington, D. C. You know out where they make the Movies, the
place we make them is called the Studio. We are a great deal alike
in lots of respects. We make what we think will be two kinds of
Pictures, Comedy and Drama, or sad ones. Now you take the
Capitol at Washington, that’s the biggest Studio in the World. We call
ours, Pictures, when they are turned out. They call theirs Laws, or
Bills. It’s all the same thing. We often make what we think is Drama,
but when it is shown it is received by the audience as Comedy. So
the uncertainty is about equal both places.
The way to judge a good Comedy is by how long it will last and have
people talk about it. Now Congress has turned out some that have
lived for years and people are still laughing about them, and as for
Sad productions, they have turned out some that for sadness make
“Over the Hills” look like a roaring farce.
Girls win a little State Popularity Contest that is conducted by some
Newspaper; then they are put into the Movies to entertain 110 million
people who they never saw or know anything about. Now that’s the
same way with the Capitol Comedy Company of Washington. They
win a State Popularity Contest backed by a Newspaper and are sent
to Washington to turn out Laws for 110 million people they never
saw.
They have what they call Congress, or the Lower House. That
compares to what we call the Scenario Department. That’s where
somebody gets the idea of what he thinks will make a good Comedy
Bill or Law, and they argue around and put it into shape.
Then it is passed along, printed, or shot, or Photographed, as we call
it; then it reaches the Senate or the Cutting and Titling Department.
Now, in our Movie Studios we have what we call Gag Men whose
sole business is to just furnish some little Gag, or Amendment as
they call it, which will get a laugh or perhaps change the whole thing
around.
Now the Senate has what is considered the best and highest priced
Gag Men that can be collected anywhere. Why, they put in so many
little gags or amendments that the poor Author of the thing don’t
know his own story.
They consider if a man can sit there in the Studio in Washington and
just put in one funny amendment in each Bill, or production, that will
change it from what it originally meant, why, he is considered to have
earned his pay. Take for Instance the Prohibition Production that was
introduced in the Congress or Scenario Department as a Comedy.
Well, when it came up in the Senate, one of the Gag or Title Men
says, “I got an Idea; instead of this just being a joke, and doing away
with the Saloons and Bar Rooms, why I will put in a Title here that
will do away with everything.” So they sent around to all the Bars in
Washington and got a Quorum and released what was to be a
harmless little Comedy—made over into a Tragedy.
Then they put out a Production called the Non-Taxable Bond, or “Let
the Little Fellow Pay.” Well it had a certain Vogue for a while with the
Rich. But it flopped terribly in the cheaper priced Houses.
Another one they put out a lot of you will remember was called the
Income or Sur-Tax. It was released under the Title of, “Inherit your
money and your Sur-Tax is Lighter.”
The main Character in this one was a working man on salary, with no
Capital investment to fall back on, paying more on his income than
the fellow who has his original Capital and draws his money just from
interest. That Production has been hissed in some of the best
houses.
They started to put on a Big one that everybody in America was
looking forward to and wanted them to produce called, “The Birth Of
the Bonus,” or “How Could You Forget so Soon!” But on account of
Finances they couldn’t produce that and the “Non-Taxable Bond
Production” both, so they let the Bonus one go.
They have been working on two dandies. One is called, “Refund,
Refund, I am always refunding You.” It’s principally for British Trade.
Then they got a Dandy Comedy; well, it’s really a serial as they put it
on every year. Everybody in the whole Studio is interested in it and
get a share of it. It’s really their yearly Bonus in addition to their
Salary. It’s called, “Rivers and Harbors,” or, “I’LL GET MINE.”
They got some of the funniest Scenes in there where they take 56
million Dollars of the People’s money and they promise to make a lot
of Streams wide enough to fish in. Now I saw a Pre-Release of it and
here are some of the Real Titles. In Virginia, their Gag Senator has
thought of a River called the MATTIPONI. In North Carolina, their
Title writer, Overman, thought of a name, the CONTENTNEA
CREEK. But the funniest Title in the whole Production is the
CALOOSEHATCHIE, in Florida. It’s located right in the fairway of a
Golf Course and Congress must move it or in two years it will be
filled up with Golf Balls.
Then they have a scene applying for funds to dredge TOMBIGBEE
CREEK, and the BIG SUNFLOWER, in Mississippi. Well, that’s
money well spent to do that, as they may find some of the missing
population.
And there’s the CLATSKANIE in Oregon. Now what I am wondering
is how our Navy is to make the Jump from the Harbor of Tombigbee
to the Docks in Oregon on the Clatskanie. Of course, that’s a
different appropriation or production, and will be arranged later.
Now I am off my Senators from Oklahoma, especially Robert Owen,
who is a part Cherokee Indian like myself (and as proud of it as I
am). Now I got names right there on my farm where I was born that
are funny, too, and Owen don’t do a thing to get me a Harbor on the
VERDIGRIS river at OOLAGAH in what used to be the District of
COOWEESCOOWEE (before we spoiled the best Territory in the
World to make a State).
Right across the river from me lives JIM TICK-EATER. Now suppose
a foreign fleet should come up there. We can’t ask those Turtles and
Water Moccasins to move out without Government sanction. If they
haven’t got enough water in there to fill the harbor (we are only 18
miles from NOWATER, Oklahoma), why, we will have to ask all the
Neighbors to drain their Corn Liquor from their stills in there for a
couple of days. Then we could float the Leviathan.
Of course I don’t get anything done for my Harbor because my River
really exists.
Now, Folks, why patronise California-made Productions? The Capitol
Comedy Co. of Washington, D. C., have never had a failure. They
are every one, 100 percent funny, or 100 percent Sad.
They are making some changes in their cast down there and later I
will tell you about that. Also something about the Director.
So long, Folks, I will meet you at the Naval Manœuvers on
CONTENTNEA CREEK next year.
A SKINNY DAKOTA KID WHO MADE
GOOD
 A SKINNY DAKOTA KID WHO MADE
GOOD
Out of the west came a little skinny runt kid, born out in the hills of
South Dakota. On Sundays the Cowpunchers and Ranchers would
meet and have Cow Pony races. On account of his being small he
was lifted up and a surcingle was strapped around over his legs and
around the horse. He was taken to the starting line on a straightaway
and was “lapped and tapped” off. He had the nerve and he seemed
to have the head. So they cut the surcingle and he got so he could
sit up there on one of those postage stamp things they call a
Jockey’s saddle. He kept riding around these little Country Shooting
Gallery meets, and Merry-Go-Round Gatherings, until he finally got
good enough to go to a real race track at New Orleans. There he
saw more Horses in one race than he had ever seen at one track
before.
His first race he ran 2nd. Then he said to himself, “Why run second?
Why not run first?” And he did. They began to notice that this kid
really savied a Horse. He spoke their language. Horses seemed to
know when the kid was up. He carried a Bat (Jockey’s term for a
whip) but he never seemed to use it. Other Jocks would come down
the stretch whipping a Horse out when the best he could finish would
be 4th or 5th. But not this kid. When he couldn’t get in the money he
never punished them. He hand rode them. He could get more out of
a Horse with his hands than another Jock could get with the old
Battery up both sleeves.
He got to be recognized as one of the best, and he passed from one
Stable to another until he landed with the biggest, a real Trainer and
a Real Sportsman-Owner. How many thousands of People in every
line come to New York every year that want to make good, get
ahead and be recognized! They come by the millions. How many, if
anything happened to them, would get even a passing Notice in the
busy and overcrowded New York Press. If some Millionaire died, the
best he could get would be a column. Then perhaps it wouldn’t be
read through by a dozen. But what blazoned across the front pages
of every Metropolitan daily a few days ago, in bigger headlines than
a Presidential Nomination, bigger than the Prince of Wales will get
on his arrival? In a race at Saratoga Springs, N. Y., a Horse had
fallen and carried down with him a little skinny Kid (that had slept in
his youth not in a 5th Avenue Mansion but in Box Stalls all over the
Country with Horses, the Horses he knew how to ride and the
Horses that loved to run their best for him).
Here was the Headline: “SANDE IS HURT. He may never ride
again.” They don’t have to give even his first name; few know it.
They don’t have to explain who he is. They don’t have to tell which
Rockefeller or Morgan it was. It was just Sande. There is only one.
Our Sande! The boy who had carried America’s colors to Victory
over England’s great Papyrus and their Premier Jockey Steve
Donohue.
The Ambulance rushes on the track and picks him up; it is followed
by hundreds afoot, running. The entire grand stands of people rush
to the temporary Track Hospital to see how Sande is, and hoping
and praying that it’s not serious. He revives long enough to tell his
Wife he is all right. Game kid that. Then he faints again. Mrs.
Vanderbilt and the elite of Society are assisting and doing all they
can to help. A personal Physician to a President of the United States
is working over him. He could not have shown any more anxiety over
the President than he did over this kid. When the thousands of
pleasure seekers and excitement hunters rushed from the stands
and saw them lifting that frail lifeless looking form from the track
Ambulance there was not one that wouldn’t have given an Arm off
their body if they had thought it would save his Life, and that goes for
Touts, and Grooms, and Swipes, as well as the Public.
Some western people who don’t know are always saying Easterners
have no Heart, everything is for themselves and the Dough. Say,
don’t tell me that! Geography don’t change Human Nature. If you are
Right, people are for you whether it’s in Africa or Siberia. A wire was
sent by Mr. Widener, a millionaire Racing Official, to Dr. Russell the
great Specialist of Roosevelt Hospital, New York, “Come at once.
Spare no expense. SANDE is Hurt!” That’s all Secretary Slemp could
do if President Coolidge was hurt.
Mr. Sinclair withdrew all Horses from the remaining Races. He would
withdraw them for Life if he knew it would restore this Kid who
worked for him, back to normal again.
Now what made this One Hundred and Ten Pounds (half portion of
physical manhood) beloved by not only the racing Public but by the
masses who never bet a cent on a Horse race in their lives? The
same thing that will make a man great in any line—his absolute
HONESTY. The racing public are very fickle and when they lose they
are apt to lay blame on almost any quarter. But win or lose, they
knew it was not Sande. To have insinuated to one of them that he
ever pulled a Horse, would have been taking your Life in your hands.
What do you suppose he could have gotten out of some bunch of
betting Crooks to have pulled Zev in the big International Race?
Why, enough to retire on and never have to take another chance
with his Life by riding. He could have done it on the back stretch and
no one would have ever known.
Ability is all right but if it is not backed up by Honesty and Public
confidence you will never be a Sande. A man that don’t love a
Horse, there is something the matter with him. If he has no sympathy
for the man that does love Horses then there is something worse the
matter with him. The best a Man can do is to arrive at the top of his
chosen profession. I have always maintained that one Profession is
deserving of as much honor as another provided it is honorable.
Through some unknown process of reasoning we have certain things
that are called Arts, and to be connected with them raises you above
your fellow Man. Say, how do they get that way? If a Man happens to
take up Painting and becomes only a mediocre painter, why should
he be classed above the Bricklayer who has excelled every other
Bricklayer? The Bricklayer is a true Artist in his line or he could not
have reached the top. The Painter has not been acclaimed the best
in his line hence the Bricklayer is superior. Competition is just as
keen in either line. In fact there are more good bricklayers than
Painters. If you are the best Taxi Driver you are as much an Artist as
Kreisler. You save lives by your skilful driving. That’s a meritorious
profession, is it not?
A Writer calls himself a Literary Man or an Artist. There are
thousands of them, and all, simply because they write, are termed
Artists. Is there a Sande among them? Caruso was great, but he had
only to show ability. He didn’t have to demonstrate any honesty.
Nobody tried to keep him from singing his best by bribery.
Now if you think the Racing Public and millions of well wishers are
hoping for this Kid’s recovery, what about the Horses? They knew
him better than the Humans did. Why, that Horse would have broke
his own neck rather than hurt Sande. Who is going to ride him in the
next race and make him win and not whip him?—not Sande. Who is
going to sit on him just where he will be the easiest to carry? Not
Sande. Who is going to lean over and whisper in his ear and tell him
when to go his best? Not Sande. Who is going to carry a Bat and not
use it? Not Sande. Who is going to watch the hand on that starting
Barrier and have him headed the right way just when the starter
springs it? Not Sande. No, the Horses are the ones who are going to
miss him.
If we could speak their language like he can, here are a few
conversations that you will hear through the cracks in the Box Stalls:
“Gee, I can’t run; I don’t seem to get any help. I wish Sande were
back.”
A three year old replies, “I wish there was something we could do. If
they would just let us go up to the Hospital and talk to him he would
savy,” “I wish we had him here in a Box Stall. I would stand up the
rest of my life and give him my bed. I would fix him some Clean Hay
to lay on. He don’t want those White Caps and Aprons running
around. He wants to lay on a Horse Blanket, and have his busted
Leg wrapped up with Bandages like he knows how to use on ours. I
bet they ain’t even got Absorbine up there. That Kid would rather
have a Bran Mash than all that Goo they will feed him with up there.”
The Old Stake Horse 4 stalls down the line overhears and replies:
“Sure, I bet they have one of them Bone Specialists. What that Kid
needs is a good Vet.”
The old Selling Plater butts in: “Sure, we could cheer him up if he
was here. Them Foreigners up there don’t speak his Tongue. That
kid is part Horse. Remember how he used to kid wid us when he
would be working us out at daylight when the rest of the Star Jocks
was in feathers. One morning I told him if he didn’t quit waking me
up so early in the morning I was going to buck him off. He got right
back at me; he said, ‘If you do I will get you left at the Post your next
race.’ Gee, he sure did throw a scare into me. And, say, you couldn’t
loaf on that Bird either. He knew when you was loafing and when you
was trying. I throwed up my tail one hot day to make him think I was
all through. He give me one cut with the Bat and I dropped that tail
and left there so fast I could have run over Man of War. Gee, those
were great days; Do youse reckon Zev knows anything about it? I
hope they don’t tell him; it would break his heart. He sure did love
that kid.”
Patient readers, Lincoln went down in History as “HONEST Abe,”
BUT HE NEVER WAS A JOCKEY. If he had been a Jockey be might
have gone down as just “Abe.”
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookfinal.com