You can place your slogan here.
This would also be a great spot for a top product pitch.
This would also be a great spot for a top product pitch.
25 barriers to using Web 2.0 technologies and how to overcome them.
“We don’t own the resource and can’t brand it”
This is another excuse that I see quite often for not doing something. Many resources do allow you to brand what you’re doing - you can create an avatar which is the corporate logo for example. Some will let you use CSS to create a webpage/weblog that looks just like the one on your site. Other applications such as custom search engines can be embedded onto your existing site. We use things all the time that we don’t own and cannot control. Ever heard of ‘Google’? Thought so. Quite frankly we’ve moved beyond the concept of owning the brand - what you need to look at is ways to own the conversation. Conversations about your organisation will be taking place on blogs, social media networks, in the Google Sidebar wiki, on Buzz, on Twitter. Not getting involved with those resources doesn’t mean that the conversations don’t take place - it simply means that you’re not involved with them.
“We can’t have a blog because someone might write nasty things in the comments”
I love this one, but it’s worrying how often I hear it. If they want to write nasty things, they can do so on Twitter, Facebook, their blog or anywhere else they choose. You have no control or input into that. If someone writes something that you don’t like in your blog you have the choice of publishing it or not. If you do publish, you can explain why they’re wrong, or you can admit that they’re right and promise to do something about it. Whichever way - you come across as a listening, caring organisation. Not having a blog means that you come across as an organisation that’s too scared to interact with users, or worse, doesn’t care.
“There are security implications.”
What security implications would those be, exactly? I’m not going to say that there are not, because with some applications there certainly are. However, surely a positive, confident and competent approach is to look at the security implications and deal with them. Blocking access to applications is too often the first approach, when it ought to be the last. A good IT department should be looking for ways that it can help, not hinder. In any instance, an information department really should have access to just about anything, up to and including Facebook and YouTube because they’re useful information tools. If the question is rather more ‘we can’t trust our staff’ then that’s an entirely different conversation which shouldn’t get tied up with security/access to resource queries.
If it’s considered too dangerous to put material onto an external website that’s a good reason not to use a product, and that sort of security should be paramount. In most cases however, that’s going to be quite rare, and it shouldn’t hinder the use of other sites for more general material.
“It’s an IT issue, and not your job”
That’s like saying the use of the telephone is down to BT telling you what you can say when using it. Like it or not, Web 2.0 technologies are changing the roles very quickly. In the ‘old days’ we had publishers and consumers. Consumers are not publishers and vice versa. Surely it’s the job of everyone in the organisation to be on top of their game and to work as effectively as possible. Many of the applications out there don’t require any IT involvement, save to perhaps adding a line of code of a webpage. They’re not using bandwidth, not taking up server space and there are few if any security issues. It’s seldom an IT issue - but almost always an information issue.
Moreover, many of the tools are specifically designed to be used by people who don’t have any technical background at all. Web 2.0 tools are, in the main, accessible to anyone who wants to spend a few minutes (and it’s seldom more than that) learning to use them.
“These tools change the way in which we would work. Our bureaucracy couldn’t work with that.”
Well, there’s no doubt that Web 2.0 applications change or threaten to change the status quo. That’s why some people find them exciting, and others find them threatening. Rather than try and run away from this, accept that change is inevitable, and an organisation either fights it, causing chaos in the longer term, or works with it to ensure controlled change.
“Yes, but what about all the pornography and other unsuitable material?”
That is indeed an issue, and yes, sometimes you or your users will see unsuitable material. However, this happens when searching the web perfectly innocently. The difference is that if you find unsuitable material on a webpage there’s not much you can do about it. Within a social networked environment it becomes easy to not only complain but to get others to do the same. A Facebook group called ‘Hitting women’ did not last for long when people started to complain. In general I think you will find less unsuitable material when using Web 2.0 resources than with traditional websites.
“What if our staff spend all day on social networking sites?”
Then the issue that you have is with your staff, not the resource. If your staff want to waste work time, they’ll do it one way or another - long lunches, gossiping at the water cooler and so on. However, if that is a compelling concern it should not be beyond the abilities of the IT staff to limit access to social networking sites to lunchtimes, or in blocks of 5 or 10 minutes. Staff can also be monitored if the organisation prefers a dictatorial approach. However, I would still maintain that it’s important for information staff to have access to information resources with as little hindrance as possible.
“It’s been filtered because of ‘x’ reason.”
Often material or resources are filtered for no good reason. I’ve seen Twitter blocked because a CEO thought it was all about celebrities being stuck in lifts because her only exposure to the resource was via news reports. In a situation like that come up with a list of reasons why an application is useful professionally. Make the point that you are a professional and will use it appropriately. If there’s still a negative reaction, you’re having the wrong conversation, and it should be moved into the area of staff trust and responsibilities. Material is blocked through ignorance in many cases. I was at a site recently where Slideshare was blocked because it was regarded as a social networking site. There is very little networking on Slideshare at all. The block was wholly inappropriate. Rather than having to make a case to unblock a site, surely a better approach would be to have a situation where a case should be made to block one?
“Staff don’t want to learn this new stuff though!”
Then, once again, the issue that you have is with your staff, not the resource. Staff have a responsibility to their employers to do their jobs to the best of their ability, and this includes learning new skills and techniques. Most Web 2.0 resources are not difficult to learn - quite the opposite in fact - they are designed to be simple to use. If they’re hard, people won’t use them (can we say ‘Google Wave’ at this point?) and the resource will fail. Having said that, the employer also bears responsibility here as well - they need to allow staff to explore resources and to ‘play’ - until people can get to grips with applications they won’t integrate them into their day to day work.
“We’ve never done it this way before, and our users won’t like it!”
Valid points. If you’ve done your research. Is that just an assumption, or have users been asked? Some users certainly won’t like it, in the same way that some don’t want to the new fangled internet. Others however will be keen to get involved, to work with staff to create new resources. Are you going to be backward facing, or looking ahead at new challenges and opportunities? If users don’t like a particular innovation however, that doesn’t mean that they won’t like others - remember, Web 2.0 isn’t a ‘thing’ in and of itself, it’s a generic term. Just because one thing doesn’t work doesn’t mean that none of them will.
Return to page 1 of 25 barriers to using Web 2.0 technologies and how to overcome them.
Continue to page 3 of 25 barriers to using Web 2.0 technologies and how to overcome them.
“We don’t own the resource and can’t brand it”
This is another excuse that I see quite often for not doing something. Many resources do allow you to brand what you’re doing - you can create an avatar which is the corporate logo for example. Some will let you use CSS to create a webpage/weblog that looks just like the one on your site. Other applications such as custom search engines can be embedded onto your existing site. We use things all the time that we don’t own and cannot control. Ever heard of ‘Google’? Thought so. Quite frankly we’ve moved beyond the concept of owning the brand - what you need to look at is ways to own the conversation. Conversations about your organisation will be taking place on blogs, social media networks, in the Google Sidebar wiki, on Buzz, on Twitter. Not getting involved with those resources doesn’t mean that the conversations don’t take place - it simply means that you’re not involved with them.
“We can’t have a blog because someone might write nasty things in the comments”
I love this one, but it’s worrying how often I hear it. If they want to write nasty things, they can do so on Twitter, Facebook, their blog or anywhere else they choose. You have no control or input into that. If someone writes something that you don’t like in your blog you have the choice of publishing it or not. If you do publish, you can explain why they’re wrong, or you can admit that they’re right and promise to do something about it. Whichever way - you come across as a listening, caring organisation. Not having a blog means that you come across as an organisation that’s too scared to interact with users, or worse, doesn’t care.
“There are security implications.”
What security implications would those be, exactly? I’m not going to say that there are not, because with some applications there certainly are. However, surely a positive, confident and competent approach is to look at the security implications and deal with them. Blocking access to applications is too often the first approach, when it ought to be the last. A good IT department should be looking for ways that it can help, not hinder. In any instance, an information department really should have access to just about anything, up to and including Facebook and YouTube because they’re useful information tools. If the question is rather more ‘we can’t trust our staff’ then that’s an entirely different conversation which shouldn’t get tied up with security/access to resource queries.
If it’s considered too dangerous to put material onto an external website that’s a good reason not to use a product, and that sort of security should be paramount. In most cases however, that’s going to be quite rare, and it shouldn’t hinder the use of other sites for more general material.
“It’s an IT issue, and not your job”
That’s like saying the use of the telephone is down to BT telling you what you can say when using it. Like it or not, Web 2.0 technologies are changing the roles very quickly. In the ‘old days’ we had publishers and consumers. Consumers are not publishers and vice versa. Surely it’s the job of everyone in the organisation to be on top of their game and to work as effectively as possible. Many of the applications out there don’t require any IT involvement, save to perhaps adding a line of code of a webpage. They’re not using bandwidth, not taking up server space and there are few if any security issues. It’s seldom an IT issue - but almost always an information issue.
Moreover, many of the tools are specifically designed to be used by people who don’t have any technical background at all. Web 2.0 tools are, in the main, accessible to anyone who wants to spend a few minutes (and it’s seldom more than that) learning to use them.
“These tools change the way in which we would work. Our bureaucracy couldn’t work with that.”
Well, there’s no doubt that Web 2.0 applications change or threaten to change the status quo. That’s why some people find them exciting, and others find them threatening. Rather than try and run away from this, accept that change is inevitable, and an organisation either fights it, causing chaos in the longer term, or works with it to ensure controlled change.
“Yes, but what about all the pornography and other unsuitable material?”
That is indeed an issue, and yes, sometimes you or your users will see unsuitable material. However, this happens when searching the web perfectly innocently. The difference is that if you find unsuitable material on a webpage there’s not much you can do about it. Within a social networked environment it becomes easy to not only complain but to get others to do the same. A Facebook group called ‘Hitting women’ did not last for long when people started to complain. In general I think you will find less unsuitable material when using Web 2.0 resources than with traditional websites.
“What if our staff spend all day on social networking sites?”
Then the issue that you have is with your staff, not the resource. If your staff want to waste work time, they’ll do it one way or another - long lunches, gossiping at the water cooler and so on. However, if that is a compelling concern it should not be beyond the abilities of the IT staff to limit access to social networking sites to lunchtimes, or in blocks of 5 or 10 minutes. Staff can also be monitored if the organisation prefers a dictatorial approach. However, I would still maintain that it’s important for information staff to have access to information resources with as little hindrance as possible.
“It’s been filtered because of ‘x’ reason.”
Often material or resources are filtered for no good reason. I’ve seen Twitter blocked because a CEO thought it was all about celebrities being stuck in lifts because her only exposure to the resource was via news reports. In a situation like that come up with a list of reasons why an application is useful professionally. Make the point that you are a professional and will use it appropriately. If there’s still a negative reaction, you’re having the wrong conversation, and it should be moved into the area of staff trust and responsibilities. Material is blocked through ignorance in many cases. I was at a site recently where Slideshare was blocked because it was regarded as a social networking site. There is very little networking on Slideshare at all. The block was wholly inappropriate. Rather than having to make a case to unblock a site, surely a better approach would be to have a situation where a case should be made to block one?
“Staff don’t want to learn this new stuff though!”
Then, once again, the issue that you have is with your staff, not the resource. Staff have a responsibility to their employers to do their jobs to the best of their ability, and this includes learning new skills and techniques. Most Web 2.0 resources are not difficult to learn - quite the opposite in fact - they are designed to be simple to use. If they’re hard, people won’t use them (can we say ‘Google Wave’ at this point?) and the resource will fail. Having said that, the employer also bears responsibility here as well - they need to allow staff to explore resources and to ‘play’ - until people can get to grips with applications they won’t integrate them into their day to day work.
“We’ve never done it this way before, and our users won’t like it!”
Valid points. If you’ve done your research. Is that just an assumption, or have users been asked? Some users certainly won’t like it, in the same way that some don’t want to the new fangled internet. Others however will be keen to get involved, to work with staff to create new resources. Are you going to be backward facing, or looking ahead at new challenges and opportunities? If users don’t like a particular innovation however, that doesn’t mean that they won’t like others - remember, Web 2.0 isn’t a ‘thing’ in and of itself, it’s a generic term. Just because one thing doesn’t work doesn’t mean that none of them will.
Return to page 1 of 25 barriers to using Web 2.0 technologies and how to overcome them.
Continue to page 3 of 25 barriers to using Web 2.0 technologies and how to overcome them.
Phil Bradley's website
Making the net easier
Making the net easier
Designed by GOEMO.de
This page and site contents © Phil Bradley 2010. Content not to be used without prior agreement. Contact Me Site Map
Web 2.0 resources search engine
Looking for UK material? Use this search engine!
Delicious Bookmarks