I’m fascinated by how emerging techniques in data analysis are opening up new ways to improve business processes. But it is not just the business community that is benefiting from the concepts behind Big Data. Useful data can be derived from just about anything – even oysters – and used to improve processes. The application of data analytics to environmental management forms the heart of the Sense-T project in Tasmania, and that project is the lead example in my first posting for The Guardian’s Australian website. But even this ambitious project represents just the earliest stages of how we might wield data to make a better world.

Often the talk around cloud computing focus on business issues such as cost reduction or security. Rarely it seems does the experience of end users actually receive much consideration. But the tiny lags that seem commonplace when loading web pages can grow to be major frustrations when the occur in the context of a business application and are experienced thousands of times a day.

This article for IT Pro was a chance to look into the problem of latency and the effect that it can have on user experience.

Late last year I was asked by the editor of CPA Australia’s INTHEBLACK magazine to look into the issue of digital assets and how they are valued in modern organisation. The truth, as it turns out, is that they generally aren’t.

Current accounting standards apply valuations to physical assets such as plant and equipment or inventory, but intellectual property, databases and software-based processes barely get a look in.

Which is odd, because some of the worlds most valuable companies, such as Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Google, have asset to valuation ratios of around 4 per cent. They have very few physical assets backing their massive valuations.

Rather, it is intangible assets, such as digital assets and brands, which make up these valuations. These are often classed on ‘goodwill’. All of this means that in most instances the only way to value a software or data-oriented company is based on its earnings – and even that is a fairly crude measure, especially for a start-up. In the end, most valuations simply come down to what the market is willing to pay. Which in an era where the use of data is what sets aside a business, makes no sense at all.

Anyway, you can read more of my researching into this topic in this article in INTHEBLACK.

A few weeks ago I had the chance to catch up with Amazon.com chief technology officer Dr Werner Vogels. I first met Werner two years ago when Amazon.com was making overtures to Australia’s internet start-up community.

This time around represented an opportunity for me to learn more about how Amazon’s retail operations make use of data. The whole company is essentially a data company – Werner describes it as a technology company that happens to do retail. The company doesn’t make a decision without data, and when it does make a decision it watches the response in terms of changing data patterns and decides whether to stick with that decision or do something else.

It is a model that is the extreme end of the spectrum in terms of data usage maturity, but still holds lessons for all companies. In recent presentations I’ve been describing how all companies are essentially data companies, and that it is how well organisations collect, manage and utilise data that will set them apart into the future. If your business has customers, then you can be guaranteed that your customers generate data. But for most businesses, that data is never collected, let alone put to use.

Anyway, some of his thoughts made its way into this story for CMO.com.au.

We all have to work – well, most of us, anyway. But the way that we work is changing. The internet is changing the way that we interact with the workplace, and where we chose to work from, even across national borders. Human ingenuity is also reshaping how we work, and who we can work for.

In the days before the Industrial Revolution we were mostly all small businesses or freelancers, with relatively few people employed by governments or large agencies. Often companies were formed specifically to complete a purpose, such as a voyage of exploration, and then disbanded. Employment contracts were far less common than they are today.

Perhaps this older model of employment – one where each person runs their own personal small business – is the more natural mode of employment? Perhaps our education system – which gears students to become employees – is wrong? Maybe we are better off taking care of our own needs, rather than expecting our employer to do that for us?

I don’t know the answer to these questions, but its a topic that fascinates me. As someone who has worked as a freelancer for the past 10 years, I have enjoyed a huge amount of freedom, and a fair dose of frustration. But I’m in no rush to re-enter the ranks of full-time employment. And it seems that the ranks of those who feel the same way I do are swelling.

In these two articles for BRW I had the chance to investigate the changing nature of work. The first – click here – looks at what it means to be an employee. The second – click here – looks at the increasing trend of workers taking control of their own destiny.

I’d love to hear your thoughts.