Learning designers are rarely asked to choose the LMS. In many organisations, that decision sits with IT, procurement, or senior leadership, often driven by cost, security, or legacy contracts rather than learning need. By the time a learning designer is involved, the platform is already fixed and the question has shifted from “Is this the right system?” to “Can you make this work?”
That doesn’t mean learning designers have no role to play. It means the role is quieter, more indirect, and often only recognised once workarounds, exclusions, or duplication begin to accumulate.
In practice, learning designers tend to influence LMS decisions in three ways: by translating learning requirements into concrete risks, by identifying design constraints early, and by making visible the long‑term consequences of seemingly neutral platform choices, which introduce constraints that shape what becomes feasible in practice.
One of the most common issues is that LMS decisions are framed as technical or administrative rather than pedagogical. Platforms are assessed on feature lists, compliance tick‑boxes, or reporting capability, with limited attention paid to how learning will actually be designed and experienced.
This often shows up in small but consequential ways.
A platform may offer a modern authoring interface or upgraded rich‑text editor, yet still make basic pedagogical tasks awkward or impossible. Where structured content such as tables cannot be created directly, educators frequently compensate by uploading images instead. These workarounds are understandable, but they introduce accessibility barriers and place the burden of inclusive practice onto individuals rather than the system itself. Over time, what appears to be a minor technical limitation quietly shapes what kinds of learning are considered “feasible”, and therefore what can reasonably be designed and claimed.
The most important questions from a learning design perspective are often absent when thinking about adopting a new LMS: How does assessment actually work in this system? What forms of feedback are supported without excessive workarounds? How flexible is sequencing? How accessible are the defaults?
These questions don’t sit neatly within procurement processes, but they have significant downstream impact. As I’ve explored in The Role of Technology in Modern Learning Design, technology shapes learning not through novelty, but through the constraints it introduces into design decisions. An LMS that handles assessment poorly, for example, quietly limits what kinds of learning experiences are feasible, regardless of a designer’s intentions.
Learning designers can add value by reframing platform discussions around these realities. Rather than asking for “better engagement tools” or “more interactivity”, it is often more effective to talk about what learners will or won’t be able to do. Can they practise meaningfully? Can they receive feedback that supports improvement? Can learning be revisited, revised, and reflected on over time?
Accessibility is another area where platform decisions matter, as they determine whether inclusive design can be sustained under real conditions. LMS accessibility statements frequently focus on technical compliance, while overlooking how accessibility plays out in learning workflows.
In some systems, for example, key accessibility elements such as transcripts, captions, or extended image descriptions cannot be created or attached natively. Instead, they are hosted separately and linked from within the learning environment. While this can meet technical requirements, it fragments the learner experience and increases cognitive load, particularly for those using assistive technologies or studying under constrained conditions.
Platform choices that necessitate such workarounds make inclusive design harder to sustain at scale. Even when individual educators are motivated to do the right thing, navigation structures, assessment timing, feedback presentation, and content authoring tools all affect whether learning is genuinely inclusive. As discussed in Ensuring Digital Accessibility in Learning Design, accessibility is rarely solved at the platform level alone, but platform choices can make inclusive design either easier or significantly harder.
There is also an important boundary‑setting role here. Learning designers are often expected to “fix” problems that stem directly from platform limitations. Naming those limitations early, clearly and professionally, helps shift responsibility back towards organisational decision‑making rather than individual design effort.
This boundary‑setting becomes particularly important where core learning activities depend heavily on third‑party tools. In many institutional contexts, formative practice, summative assessment, collaboration, and live teaching are distributed across separate systems. While this can extend functionality, it also fragments the learning experience and complicates feedback, progression, and support. When these limitations are treated as design problems rather than platform constraints, learning designers are left compensating for decisions made elsewhere, making trade-offs between design intent and system constraint visible. Making those constraints explicit is not resistance, but an essential part of responsible design practice.
It is not about resistance; it is about transparency.
It cannot happen only once either because, crucially, influencing LMS selection does not always happen at the point of selection. It often happens later, through documented pain points, design rationales, and evidence of workarounds. Over time, this accumulated expertise shapes future decisions, even when designers are not formally involved.
Learning designers may not choose the LMS, but they are uniquely positioned to understand what that choice enables, restricts, or quietly undermines. Making those consequences visible is a form of influence in its own right and one that supports better conversations long after the contract is signed.
Leave a Reply