There are many small barriers to effective use of social media and technology in public services. In democratic engagement and participation; communications and outreach; education; or just about any other area of work - the same soluble barriers hold up action.

This wiki builds upon this blog post and offers a space to share learning about how to overcome the many small hurdles.

Select any of the barriers listed below to add your comments, insights and experiences on how they affect the uptake of social technologies, or how they can be overcome.

As of 2nd July 2009 I've re-organised the hurdles/barriers under a new set of headings (but have kept the original numbering for the time being). Over the coming months I'll re-organise the barriers and add to them further to build a more comprehensive list backed by a wider range of evidence and practical experience.

1. Access to Web 2.0 sites is blocked or filtered;

2. Requesting that a website is unblocked requires a form to be filled in and the request may not be actioned for 24 hours or more;

3. A site that has previously been unblocked is suddenly blocked again;

4. A site is only unblocked for the computer a staff member usually sits at - and they are unable to access Web 2.0 Sites from another part of the office or another desk;

5. Web 2.0 Sites can only be accessed during lunch hours;

6. Managers see abuse of ICT resources as an ICT issue rather than a management issue;

7. ict staff see access to Web 2.0 sites as an issue for ICT decision making rather than for team leaders and managers;

8. There is no capacity to provide staff with internet-enabled mobile phones even if a business case can be made;

9. Staff are not aware of the ict internet access and mobile phone/internet access resources they can legitimately ask for;

10. Permission to use Web 2.0 is granted ad-hoc but not enshrined in policy so a change in ICT manager could make access more difficult;

11. Computer only have out-of-date Internet Browsers (E.g. IE6);

12. Staff cannot change their browsers home-page;

13. Staff cannot install browser plug-ins or add-ons and key plug-ins like Flash are out-of-date versions;

14. E-mail sign-up confirmations from Web 2.0 sites regularly get caught in spam filters;

15. Staff cannot install desktop widgets and utility software (e.g. Twitter clients RSS readers etc.) Many widgets have regular updates that staff cannot install themselves. So even if IT install the widget once, it soon needs a new install;

16. Office computers have no ability to play sound;

17. There is no easy way to get a photo onto an office computer. For example a personal photo to use as a profile picture online;

18. Any customisations staff add to their computer log-in are regularly lost;

19. There is no WiFi in meeting rooms and guests cannot get access to the internet in the building;

20. There is a one-size fits all IT policy;

41. Staff have never received basic training in how a web browser web addresses and search engines work;

42. Staff are not aware of tabbed web-browsing;

43. Staff do not make use of search tools;

44. Staff find it difficult to adapt to and remember new ways of working digitally;

45. Staff are not able to download edit and upload images in web formats;

46. Staff do not know how to install new utility software or browser plug-ins;

47. Staff have no opportunities to share skills and develop their understanding of digital environments;

35. Staff see Web 2.0 as an extra burden to add to already busy and pressured days;

21. There are no finance procedures or company credit cards to pay for low-cost online subscription services;

22. There are no systems in place for backing up content from Web 2.0 tools;

23. There is no secure password vault that can be used to keep track of ‘corporate’ memberships of Web 2.0 sites;

24. There is no agreed way of notifying other staff members of plans for using Web 2.0 tools;

25. There are no policies or procedures for responding to positive or negative online comments;

26. There is no processes for carrying out CRB or Independent Safeguarding Authority checks on staff or sub-contractors involved in the use of Social Media to engage with young people or vulnerable adults;

27. There are no policies on personal use of Social Networks and Social Media sites;

28. There is no accessible guidance available to staff on personal use of Social Networks and Social Media sites;

29. There is no policy on Safeguarding and Child Protection in digital environments;

30. There is no policy on Data Protection in digital environments - and no guidance on items of data which should not be shared in digital environments;

31. There are no policies on appropriate levels for official staff engagement with Web 2.0

32. Consent forms and model release forms make no mention of possibly sharing photos or videos from events and activities online;

36. Ideas from outside the organisations are treated with suspicion;

37. The organisation wants to be in control of any discussions that take place about it online;

38. The organisation wants to moderate every discussion that it is any way responsible to convening or starting;

39. The organisation wants to put it’s brand front-and-centre in every online engagement;

40. Service-user engagement is not valued;

33. Senior managers see Web 2.0 and the Social Web as something to be scared of;

34. Senior managers see Web 2.0 as a passing fad or at best a persistent distraction and minority interest;

48. Managers do not support staff exploration and experimentation with Web 2.0;

49. Managers take no ownership over exploration and experimentation with Web 2.0 and provide no support to their staff;

50. Managers react to initial teething problems with Web 2.0 engagement by shutting it all down and banning further exploration of the potential;

The original blog post which has given rise to this wiki space listed 50 hurdles to social media adoption. However, there are likely many hurdles not covered above. Please feel free to suggest further hurdles that we should address by adding them below.

• There is a lack of clarity over the law relating to engagement
• There is no need to worry about learning Web 2.0 when Web 3.0 is knocking at your door!

• Time
  • With so many Web 2.0 services out there, I only have time to do one.
  • There are so many Web 2.0 services out there, I don't have time to choose which to use.
• Expectations
  • An expectation of instant success - the web moves so fast, growth is exponential. If a blog or page on Facebook does not become popular quickly people think it is not worth bothering with any more, it won't catch on.
  • Attempts to quantify results. Where Web 2.0 is considered a marketing tool, its success is often measured against traditional standards, conversions into desired behaviours. Money and time invested is compared against the number of emails gathered for a mailing list, the number of clickthroughs to the proper website, the number of sign-ups to an event. Web 2.0 might be more about supporting a brand identity, raising awareness. Is Web 2.0 success quantifiable? How do you make a case for it if not?

* There is a perceived lack of demand amongst the local community/'customers' for web 2.0 engagement. * It is difficult to build a business case for using web 2.0 tools. * Focus on products rather than concepts/'solutions': Web 2.0 tools are too short-term to spend time understanding, training & using e.g. by the time we have started using Facebook then young people will have moved elsewhere. Specific products will come and go but the fundamental skills, policies etc. remain transferable. * Misunderstanding of how to evaluate impact and focus on quantitative measurement, if any, rather than qualitative evaluation. Is it about numbers or about quality of interactions? * Lack of targeted approach e.g. one message fits all in web 2.0 world and misfires in the main as means little to anyone.

• Paul Evans has created a quick PDF of the 50 Challenges here