The idea of designing Learning Management Systems has attracted a large number of people, businesses and organizations, to produce software for e-learning. Presently about 120 vendors are active in the Western e- learning market. Market analysts suggest the number will be dramatically reduced due to aggressive acquisition, merging and competition. The enthusiasts who initiated the LMSs came primarily from the distance and adult education sector, with explicitly stated aims rooted in the tradition of democratic access to education. This opened avenues for personal and societal progress. When the LMSs became commercial and went for the market, they have increasingly focused the needs of the business sector on human resource management, with inherent perspectives of human capital/knowledge capital/intellectual capital. This reflects an immanent conflict of focus, which needs to be addressed. Generally, LMSs are marketed as genuine tools for learning (Haugsbakk 2004). Their competitive edge depends on their ability to serve both sides (democratic aspect vs human capital). According to the theoretical perspectives of "Social construction of technology" as well as ActorNetwork theory postulates that the design and adjustment of technology takes place in complicated interactions between designers, producers, customers and the public. Social actors intervene and interpret the meaning of tools and technology, and redesign their shape and functions according to contemporary needs. A variety of actors representing different interests and powers are active in developing the competitive factors to make them market winners. Postulating that current LMSs are undergoing such processes, one fundamental question is which side plays the dominant part in the redesign of the LMS, deciding its future direction.Redesigning and reinventing can take place through adding new features - or a more fundamental change. According to Paulsen (2003) there is a desire in the market to integrate present systems with other information systems, such as accounting systems, student management systems, content creation systems. Both for business, as well as for educational institutions, integration serves the purpose of understanding flows and drifts, discovering flaws and maintaining production. According to business market- analysts, integration into other information systems is the decisive trend. This is fully comprehensive within a human capital framework of understanding.However, in addressing the problems of current LMSs, other perspectives need attention, namely the needs of the teacher, of the educational organisation, and the student. Educational technology has, in my opinion its intellectual roots in didactics. Current educational features of the LMS reflect didactical ideas that are easily (relatively) computed: tutoring, computer mediated discussion groups, e-mail, content delivery, testing, assessing (grading). Inserting functions that reflect the most conventional and repetitive forms of didactical activities is legitimate, but they tend to promote discourses about control and predictability, simplifying the complexity to its details and atoms, in contrast to reflecting the complexity of acting, reflection, reorganizing and evaluation in real teaching life. User-design based on experiences of real teachers and real students are rare. According to Reeves (2002) research and development with such foci are vastly underrepresented. Avoiding critical impulses from didactical experiences reflected within didactical theory can be decisive for the development of the LMS, and lead to the bureaucratic "Iron Cage" of educational technology (Hautakangas and Kiilakoski 2004). Critical research might induce other tendencies that might promote reflexivity, organisational development and didactical innovations.