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’re a large organisation; we can’t have everyone doing their own thing”
It’s certainly true that the larger the organisation, the more people will want to explore and experiment. Chaos can reign if some people are using one bookmarking system, while others are using something different. In many situations however the common ‘glue’ that holds things together is RSS - it doesn’t matter if one person is using Blogger, another Typepad and a third WordPress. Content is now portable, and all of these resources can be pulled together in an RSS reader.
Rather than stifle creativity, surely it’s better to embrace it? Look at the various tools in an area, run some pilot schemes and see what works best, then settle on a resource. Evaluation of tools is just as important, if not more so, in a Web 2.0 environment than it’s ever been in the past. Besides - if you have good, creative staff they will want to create their own resources, irrespective. Isn’t it better to do that within a structured environment, rather than having them skulking around doing things behind others backs?
“Our IT staff cannot support all of these different resources or applications”
The majority of applications are designed to be simple to use, and apart from integrating elements such as RSS feeds onto website pages little support should be necessary. Certainly if someone is capable of creating and using a resource they will be capable of basic troubleshooting. However, in cases where it is appropriate that everyone uses the same resource (blogging software, or a bookmarking application for example) it may be more appropriate to bring this in-house in a CMS or as a commercial product. It does need to be recognised however that we’ve moved far beyond the basic half a dozen or so software packages, and rather than restrict access to resources I would argue that it makes more sense to ensure that appropriate members of staff are trained in basic IT so that they are confident and able to take more control of applications.
“We can’t rely on resources that may disappear at any time, be bought by another company or which may be in any way unreliable.”
Having purchased a product does not mean that it is going to be reliable. The company may cease to trade, it may be taken over, it may chose to stop supporting a product. While a purchased product means that you can own a physical copy that is little consolation if you need to reinstall it, the product activation fails to work and the company no longer exists. Web 2.0 resources do go out of business or they are bought by other companies. In these situations many of them provide an exit strategy for their users - when Diigo bought Furl, they put an export option in place for users to safely move their collection of bookmarks across.
Although a product may be free, though it may be little more than one persons hobby, it should not automatically be considered as unreliable. However, if a body of data is crucial then of course it should be backed up, only accessible internally by purchased software. That should only be a small number of cases however. Once again, to look at the tools is a poor approach - the end result is more important. If a tool fails, others exist to take their place. In a Web 2.0 world there is never one tool, there is always a variety of them.
“Some of these resources have advertising on them, which we don’t want to be associated with.”
The people that run these resources do need to make money, and advertising is one way they have of doing this. If it’s an issue, find another resource that doesn’t use advertising, or see if there is a commercial version of the product that strips out adverts. This latter option should appeal to those who wish to only use purchased products!
“You can’t use it because we’ve spent out money on a Content Management System, and you have to use that.”
This is very much along the lines of ‘you must get it right first time’. A lot of Web 2.0 resources threaten a CMS, or more importantly, the person/group who decided to spend money bringing one in. I have yet to meet a librarian who said that they loved their CMS; I’ve had plenty who say it’s cumbersome, difficult to use and clunky at best. Ignore the tool - look at the activity. Can you do what you want cheaper/quicker/faster/easier than the alternative? If you can, surely it makes sense to use that instead, and in some cases that might mean use the CMS, in other situations it might be an external 3rd party resource. A CMS shouldn’t stop staff looking at alternatives, because a CMS can’t do everything. On the other hand, a good understanding of external tools can be used to ensure that the CMS is up to specification. By continuing to monitor Web 2.0 applications to see new applications and developments it will keep CMS vendors on their toes, and if a tool is available via a third party, why isn’t it available within the CMS application?
“We can’t protect staff privacy when they use third party tools”
This is a spurious reason at best. It’s used widely in a school environment - ‘Facebook is dangerous, so we don’t allow students to use it.’ My argument is that Facebook is dangerous, so students need to be taught how to use it safely. Staff should be aware of the dangers of using social media so that they can use it safely and effectively. Blocking access simply leads to further ignorance.
“We have a requirement to ensure that resources are available equally to all our users.”
Many Web 2.0 resources are text based, such as blogs. Other resources by their very nature are visual or aural, and this is not specific to Web 2.0, it’s a generic web accessibility issue. Existing policies need to be reviewed, and when it is considered necessary data should be made available in appropriate formats. I would however agree that it’s not always going to be possible to do this, and I don’t believe that there is a good solution to this problem. Refusing to address it will not assist anyone in the long run however.
“What about all the legal implications - copyright and so on?”
Yes, there are implications that need to be considered. However, much user generated content is made available under various Creative Commons licenses, and staff should be encouraged to use those whenever possible. Other resources are often made available by their creators for download, or for embedding into another website or weblog. An awareness of copyright law is important, but equally staff should be encouraged to contact the copyright owner to ask for permissions to re-use content. Just because something may not be allowed, doesn't mean that it isn't allowed.
“Great idea, but it’s going to contravene our Acceptable Use Policy.”
Such policies were not cast in stone and handed down by the great geek in the sky. They were created by members of staff, and need to be reviewed on a regular basis. An AUP should provide guidance for acceptable use, but if it’s constantly being invoked to stop innovation, perhaps it’s less of a guideline and more of a rigid set of rules. In which case, it’s a different conversation; move it away from Web 2.0 and open a discussion about the purpose of an AUP and why it’s backwards looking.
“No. You can’t do it.”
It’s hard to argue against this, but I’ll try my best. First of all, what’s the ‘it’ that is being referred to. Break down ‘it’ into manageable chunks. Be clear in your mind about the different ways a resource will allow you to work faster, better or more effectively. Move the conversation away from the tool and onto the activity. No manager is going to discourage a conversation about how their staff can work better. Don’t try and introduce lots of changes in one go, just start with one. When that works, you can try using that as the Trojan horse, along the lines of ‘well of course, we’re already using Web 2.0 technology’ as though it’s the most natural thing in the world - which it should be.
Alternatively, look at the resources not as a producer of content, but as a consumer. Twitter is an excellent news resource. It’s not necessary to have an account in order to search it. Delicious is a superb way of searching through data that people have self identified and tagged; it can essentially be used as a search engine and once again, an account is not necessary. Argue for access because it’s an information tool, not a publishing tool. If you can do that, and demonstrate the value, it’s then a short step to using it.
The anarchic approach of course is ‘just do it’. If something isn’t filtered or blocked, start using it, demonstrate the value, don’t use ‘Web 2.0’ in any discussions, just regard it as a tool that is effective and a benefit to the organisation. It’s hard to say ‘no’ when you have to make a case to back that up, and it’s much easier to simply go with the flow.
Conclusions
I think it's important to remember that Web 2.0 is the internet in transition. It's all too easy to think we understand the web, and know what it is, but quite frankly we don't. It is constantly changing and developing, yet for many people their understanding of the net hasn't changed much since they first encountered it This understanding is, in some cases, years out of date. Once someone falls into the trap of thinking that Web 2.0 or social media is a 'thing' rather than a description of change, they're going to find it very difficult to cope with.
I'll finish this piece with a quote that I picked up recently somewhere on the web. "If you're still talking about 'Web 2.0' you're a dinosaur."
Return to page 1 of 25 barriers to using Web 2.0 technologies and how to overcome them.
Return to page 2 of 25 barriers to using Web 2.0 technologies and how to overcome them.
If you would like to comment on this piece, please do! Simply click on the 'Comment?' button in the social media bar at the bottom of the screen.
“We’re a large organisation; we can’t have everyone doing their own thing”
It’s certainly true that the larger the organisation, the more people will want to explore and experiment. Chaos can reign if some people are using one bookmarking system, while others are using something different. In many situations however the common ‘glue’ that holds things together is RSS - it doesn’t matter if one person is using Blogger, another Typepad and a third WordPress. Content is now portable, and all of these resources can be pulled together in an RSS reader.
Rather than stifle creativity, surely it’s better to embrace it? Look at the various tools in an area, run some pilot schemes and see what works best, then settle on a resource. Evaluation of tools is just as important, if not more so, in a Web 2.0 environment than it’s ever been in the past. Besides - if you have good, creative staff they will want to create their own resources, irrespective. Isn’t it better to do that within a structured environment, rather than having them skulking around doing things behind others backs?
“Our IT staff cannot support all of these different resources or applications”
The majority of applications are designed to be simple to use, and apart from integrating elements such as RSS feeds onto website pages little support should be necessary. Certainly if someone is capable of creating and using a resource they will be capable of basic troubleshooting. However, in cases where it is appropriate that everyone uses the same resource (blogging software, or a bookmarking application for example) it may be more appropriate to bring this in-house in a CMS or as a commercial product. It does need to be recognised however that we’ve moved far beyond the basic half a dozen or so software packages, and rather than restrict access to resources I would argue that it makes more sense to ensure that appropriate members of staff are trained in basic IT so that they are confident and able to take more control of applications.
“We can’t rely on resources that may disappear at any time, be bought by another company or which may be in any way unreliable.”
Having purchased a product does not mean that it is going to be reliable. The company may cease to trade, it may be taken over, it may chose to stop supporting a product. While a purchased product means that you can own a physical copy that is little consolation if you need to reinstall it, the product activation fails to work and the company no longer exists. Web 2.0 resources do go out of business or they are bought by other companies. In these situations many of them provide an exit strategy for their users - when Diigo bought Furl, they put an export option in place for users to safely move their collection of bookmarks across.
Although a product may be free, though it may be little more than one persons hobby, it should not automatically be considered as unreliable. However, if a body of data is crucial then of course it should be backed up, only accessible internally by purchased software. That should only be a small number of cases however. Once again, to look at the tools is a poor approach - the end result is more important. If a tool fails, others exist to take their place. In a Web 2.0 world there is never one tool, there is always a variety of them.
“Some of these resources have advertising on them, which we don’t want to be associated with.”
The people that run these resources do need to make money, and advertising is one way they have of doing this. If it’s an issue, find another resource that doesn’t use advertising, or see if there is a commercial version of the product that strips out adverts. This latter option should appeal to those who wish to only use purchased products!
“You can’t use it because we’ve spent out money on a Content Management System, and you have to use that.”
This is very much along the lines of ‘you must get it right first time’. A lot of Web 2.0 resources threaten a CMS, or more importantly, the person/group who decided to spend money bringing one in. I have yet to meet a librarian who said that they loved their CMS; I’ve had plenty who say it’s cumbersome, difficult to use and clunky at best. Ignore the tool - look at the activity. Can you do what you want cheaper/quicker/faster/easier than the alternative? If you can, surely it makes sense to use that instead, and in some cases that might mean use the CMS, in other situations it might be an external 3rd party resource. A CMS shouldn’t stop staff looking at alternatives, because a CMS can’t do everything. On the other hand, a good understanding of external tools can be used to ensure that the CMS is up to specification. By continuing to monitor Web 2.0 applications to see new applications and developments it will keep CMS vendors on their toes, and if a tool is available via a third party, why isn’t it available within the CMS application?
“We can’t protect staff privacy when they use third party tools”
This is a spurious reason at best. It’s used widely in a school environment - ‘Facebook is dangerous, so we don’t allow students to use it.’ My argument is that Facebook is dangerous, so students need to be taught how to use it safely. Staff should be aware of the dangers of using social media so that they can use it safely and effectively. Blocking access simply leads to further ignorance.
“We have a requirement to ensure that resources are available equally to all our users.”
Many Web 2.0 resources are text based, such as blogs. Other resources by their very nature are visual or aural, and this is not specific to Web 2.0, it’s a generic web accessibility issue. Existing policies need to be reviewed, and when it is considered necessary data should be made available in appropriate formats. I would however agree that it’s not always going to be possible to do this, and I don’t believe that there is a good solution to this problem. Refusing to address it will not assist anyone in the long run however.
“What about all the legal implications - copyright and so on?”
Yes, there are implications that need to be considered. However, much user generated content is made available under various Creative Commons licenses, and staff should be encouraged to use those whenever possible. Other resources are often made available by their creators for download, or for embedding into another website or weblog. An awareness of copyright law is important, but equally staff should be encouraged to contact the copyright owner to ask for permissions to re-use content. Just because something may not be allowed, doesn't mean that it isn't allowed.
“Great idea, but it’s going to contravene our Acceptable Use Policy.”
Such policies were not cast in stone and handed down by the great geek in the sky. They were created by members of staff, and need to be reviewed on a regular basis. An AUP should provide guidance for acceptable use, but if it’s constantly being invoked to stop innovation, perhaps it’s less of a guideline and more of a rigid set of rules. In which case, it’s a different conversation; move it away from Web 2.0 and open a discussion about the purpose of an AUP and why it’s backwards looking.
“No. You can’t do it.”
It’s hard to argue against this, but I’ll try my best. First of all, what’s the ‘it’ that is being referred to. Break down ‘it’ into manageable chunks. Be clear in your mind about the different ways a resource will allow you to work faster, better or more effectively. Move the conversation away from the tool and onto the activity. No manager is going to discourage a conversation about how their staff can work better. Don’t try and introduce lots of changes in one go, just start with one. When that works, you can try using that as the Trojan horse, along the lines of ‘well of course, we’re already using Web 2.0 technology’ as though it’s the most natural thing in the world - which it should be.
Alternatively, look at the resources not as a producer of content, but as a consumer. Twitter is an excellent news resource. It’s not necessary to have an account in order to search it. Delicious is a superb way of searching through data that people have self identified and tagged; it can essentially be used as a search engine and once again, an account is not necessary. Argue for access because it’s an information tool, not a publishing tool. If you can do that, and demonstrate the value, it’s then a short step to using it.
The anarchic approach of course is ‘just do it’. If something isn’t filtered or blocked, start using it, demonstrate the value, don’t use ‘Web 2.0’ in any discussions, just regard it as a tool that is effective and a benefit to the organisation. It’s hard to say ‘no’ when you have to make a case to back that up, and it’s much easier to simply go with the flow.
Conclusions
I think it's important to remember that Web 2.0 is the internet in transition. It's all too easy to think we understand the web, and know what it is, but quite frankly we don't. It is constantly changing and developing, yet for many people their understanding of the net hasn't changed much since they first encountered it This understanding is, in some cases, years out of date. Once someone falls into the trap of thinking that Web 2.0 or social media is a 'thing' rather than a description of change, they're going to find it very difficult to cope with.
I'll finish this piece with a quote that I picked up recently somewhere on the web. "If you're still talking about 'Web 2.0' you're a dinosaur."
Return to page 1 of 25 barriers to using Web 2.0 technologies and how to overcome them.
Return to page 2 of 25 barriers to using Web 2.0 technologies and how to overcome them.
If you would like to comment on this piece, please do! Simply click on the 'Comment?' button in the social media bar at the bottom of the screen.
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