Changing learning platforms is rarely just a technology decision. Organizations may find a new LMS that better fits their future requirements, but years of existing course content can make moving away from the current platform feel too risky.

The real question often becomes less about whether the new platform is right and more about what happens to everything that has already been built.

Why content becomes a major LMS migration concern

Course libraries represent a significant investment. Teams may have spent years building learning programs, structuring modules, uploading media, refining course journeys, and maintaining content across hundreds of courses. Recreating all of that manually on another platform can turn an otherwise reasonable migration into a long and expensive project. Totara itself has identified migration complexity and cost as recurring reasons organizations hesitate to change LMS platforms.

The challenge is more than moving files

Course migration is not the same as copying documents from one folder to another.

A learning platform stores relationships between content. A course may contain sections, subsections, units, individual components, media assets, settings, and navigation structures that together create the learner experience.

Open edX, for example, structures course outlines around sections, subsections, units, and components. Preserving those relationships is what makes migration difficult.

What happens when there is no migration path

Without an automated or semi-automated approach, teams often fall back on manual reconstruction.

Content is exported from the source platform, assets are downloaded, new courses are created in the destination LMS, and learning structures are rebuilt one piece at a time. That approach can work for a handful of courses. Across a mature course library, however, it creates a much larger operational problem.

Manual migration introduces multiple risks

The first risk is time. Every section, page, unit, media file, and course structure has to be recreated or checked individually.

The second is consistency. Content can be reformatted differently, media can be missed, and course hierarchy can become flattened or altered during reconstruction.

And the third is confidence. If stakeholders cannot predict how much content will survive the migration cleanly, the move itself becomes harder to approve.

A real example: moving Open edX content into Totara

We encountered this problem with organizations evaluating a move from Open edX to Totara. These organizations were not starting from scratch. They already had established course libraries inside Open edX and had invested significant effort in building them.

Open edX exports include course content, structure, sections, subsections, units, assets, pages, and other course data inside export archives. The challenge was turning that exported structure into usable Totara courses without manually rebuilding every course.

Steps to Migrate Open edX Courses to Totara Without Rebuilding Content Manually

From a business perspective, the objection was understandable. Even if Totara offered the better long-term fit, moving to it could mean reconstructing large amounts of content by hand.

For prospects with mature libraries, that meant additional cost, longer implementation timelines, and uncertainty around content quality after migration. The migration itself was becoming a reason not to move.

Step 1: understand the Open edX course structure

The first step was not importing anything.

It was understanding how Open edX represents the structure of an existing course.

Open edX’s exported OLX structure separates course elements into containers representing sections, subsections, units, and components. In exported files, these can appear as chapters, sequentials, verticals, and individual component files.

We needed to interpret that hierarchy correctly before mapping it into Totara.

Step 2: map that hierarchy into Totara

A migration should preserve more than the raw content.The way a course is organized matters to the learner experience. We built logic that reads the existing Open edX structure and maps its hierarchy into Totara’s course framework. That prevents a structured course from arriving as a collection of disconnected assets.

Step 3: automate content and media transfer

The next challenge was moving the actual learning material.

Instead of requiring an administrator to re-upload every asset and recreate every content element manually, we developed an import pipeline that processes the relevant Open edX course export. The pipeline brings course content and associated media into Totara as part of the migration process. This significantly reduces the amount of repetitive manual work involved.

Step 4: preserve presentation, not just data

Successfully transferring content does not automatically mean the migration has succeeded. A technically complete import can still produce a poor learning experience if content arrives badly formatted or disconnected from the intended course structure. We therefore focused on how imported content rendered inside Totara, not simply whether the underlying data existed. The goal was for migrated courses to feel intentional rather than look like raw conversions.

Step 5: build a reusable migration tool

We could have solved the problem with a one-off script. Instead, we packaged the migration logic as a reusable Totara plugin.

That decision changes the value of the work. The engineering effort can now support future Open edX migrations without requiring the underlying migration logic to be rebuilt every time.

From weeks of reconstruction to a repeatable process

The result is a much more controlled migration path. Course structure can be interpreted programmatically, content and media can be moved through an automated pipeline, and the destination course can be created without rebuilding everything asset by asset.

For appropriate course libraries, that can turn work measured in weeks into a process measured in days. More importantly, it reduces uncertainty around what happens to existing learning content during a platform change.

Why preserving structure matters

Migrating content without structure can create almost as much work as rebuilding it manually. A library of files is not a course.

Sections establish the learning journey. Subsections create logical groupings. Units determine how content is consumed. Media and other components complete the learning experience. Open edX’s own documentation reflects this layered course model.

An effective migration strategy has to account for those relationships.

Migration tooling changes the business conversation

This is where migration engineering becomes more than a technical exercise. Before a migration path exists, the conversation is often:

How much content will we have to rebuild?

Once reliable tooling exists, the conversation can shift toward:

How should we plan the move?

That difference matters when platform migration is being evaluated at an organizational level.

LMS migration should start before implementation

Organizations often treat migration as something to solve after selecting the new LMS.

In reality, migration feasibility should be part of the platform evaluation itself. Teams should understand what content exists, how it is structured, which content types are portable, what requires transformation, and what will need manual review before committing to a migration approach. This makes the implementation plan more predictable.

What should be assessed before migrating course content?

A useful migration assessment should begin with the existing course library.

• How many courses need to move?
• Which content types do they contain?
• How consistent are the course structures?
• How much media is involved?
• Are there custom components or functionality tied specifically to the current platform?

The answers determine how much of the migration can be automated.

Not everything should necessarily move

A good migration strategy is not always about transferring 100% of what exists. Platform changes can also be an opportunity to review the learning catalog. Some courses may be outdated. Some content may be duplicated. Some programs may no longer support current business goals. Separating migration from content strategy can result in bringing unnecessary legacy content into a new platform.

The better question is not simply, “Can we migrate it?”

It is also, “Should we?”

Automation should remove repetitive work, not judgment

Migration tooling is most valuable when it eliminates predictable, repeatable tasks. Reading standard course structures, moving assets, recreating hierarchy, and generating destination courses are good candidates for automation.

Content validation, quality review, obsolete-course decisions, and unique learning experiences may still require human judgment. The strongest migration approach combines both.

The bigger lesson

The work an organization has already invested in its current LMS should not automatically become a barrier to choosing a better future platform. Existing content has value.

The right migration strategy should preserve as much of that value as possible while reducing the effort and risk involved in moving it.

For Open edX users evaluating Totara, that means treating content portability as an engineering problem that can be solved rather than a reason to avoid migration.

From migration risk to migration readiness

Our Open edX migration plugin was built around a specific platform transition. But the broader principle applies to LMS migration in general.

Understand the source content. Map the structure. Automate what can be automated. Preserve the learner experience. And build enough repeatability into the process that migration becomes manageable rather than intimidating.

Considering a move from Open edX to Totara? Edly helps organizations assess, plan, and engineer LMS migrations that preserve existing course investments while reducing manual rebuilding. Talk to our Expert