实现有效的多机构工作在森舞台已被证明比最初预期更难以实现。为了创造一个气候变化森专业人士和机构可以有效地工作在一起，它是必要的，与会者了解什么是改变的障碍。一些障碍，实现更有效的多代理在森环境已确定由英国工作（2007）专业；不同机构的优先顺序；处理风险和需要改变组织文化。与其他专业人员和机构合作涉及森和多机构工作人员走出他们的舒适区和承担风险。安宁，A.（2001节）的亮点，然而，给予综合服务运作的两个重要方面少有关注。首先是挑战的森工人创造新的职业身份在不断变化的社区实践（我是谁）。二是工人的公开交流和分享他们的个人和专业知识来创建一个新版本的知识（我所知道的）一个新的工作多机构的方式。”lownsbrough，H和O’Leary博士（2005）指出，“尽管每个孩子问题的真正支持，所有森专业面对不回到自己的舒适区，他们的组织边界的不断挑战，他们的专业权威和生活这些传统的界限内可以更复杂和危险，和之后的工作在一个特定的方式他们是不容易忘记的岁月。虽然没有人反对综合服务的多机构工作僵硬，R（2007）的好处，并有明确的战略支持和方向，为当地的重组和重组配置森服务，以满足更脆弱的儿童的需求更有效。仍然很少有研究证据的多代理策略的效率，或建议哪些活动是最有用的，没有全面的模型影响其成功的鲑鱼，G.（2004）的问题。然而，政府已经表现出了很大的承诺，地方政府发展多代理合作伙伴，森的一部分，也为当地政府和社区发展自己的多代理活动相当的灵活性，满足自己的需要。“加入”工作已经为森的团队在工作的专业人士的深层意蕴，并为委员会服务机构。在多代理团队工作中，专业知识边界有可能变得模糊，职业身份可以成为挑战的角色，责任的变化。一些森的团队成员可能会挣扎，以应付他们的职业身份的一个版本的碎片之前，可以建立一个新的版本。此外，森改革的快速步伐留下很少的时间调整，因为森队（从战略规划到运作实施）（往往在紧张的时间尺度）
加拿大阿尔伯塔代写论文:森专业
The achievement of effective multi-agency working within the SEN arena has proved more difficult to achieve than was initially anticipated. In order to create a climate of change where SEN professionals and agencies can work effectively together it is needed that the participants understand what the barriers to change are. Some of the barriers to achieving more effective multi-agency working within the SEN environment that have been identified by DFes (2007) are professionalism; conflicting priorities of different agencies; dealing with risk and the need to change the culture of organisations. Working in collaboration with other professionals and agencies involves SEN and multi-agency workers moving out of their comfort zone and taking risks. Anning, A. (2001, p.8) highlights, ‘However, little attention has been given to two significant aspects of the operationalisation of integrated services. The first is the challenge for SEN workers of creating new professional identities in the ever changing communities of practice (who I am). The second is for workers to openly communicate and share their personal and professional knowledge in order to create a new version of knowledge (what I know) for a new multi-agency way of working.' Lownsbrough, H. and O'Leary, D. (2005) states that ‘Despite the genuine support of Every Child Matters, all SEN professionals are faced with the constant challenge of not reverting back to their comfort zone of their organisational boundaries, their professional authority and life inside these traditional boundaries can be far less complex and threatening, and after years of working in a particular fashion they are not easily forgotten. Although no one argues against the benefits of integrated services of multi-agency working Stiff, R. (2007), and there is clear strategic backing and direction for local restructuring and reorganisation to configure SEN services to meet the needs of the most vulnerable children more effectively. There is still little research-based evidence regarding the efficiency of multi-agency strategies or suggesting which activity is most useful, with no comprehensive model of the issues influencing its success Salmon, G. (2004). However, Government has demonstrated substantial commitment to local authorities developing multi-agency partnerships of which SEN is part of, and also providing considerable flexibility for local authorities and communities to develop their own multi-agency activities, tailored to meet their own local needs.”Joined-up'' working has deep implications for the professionals working within the SEN teams, and for the agencies that commission their services. In multi-agency team work, professional knowledge boundaries could have a tendency to become blurred, professional identity can become challenged as roles, and responsibilities change. Some SEN team members may struggle to cope with the fragmentation of one version of their professional identity before a new version can be built. Moreover, the rapid pace of SEN reform leaves little time for adjustment as SEN teams move (often within tight time scales) from strategic planning to operational implementation
