Information Technology

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
We have access to plenty of technology that can serve us by automating more of our daily lives, doing everything from <a href="https://www.safety.com/thermostats/" target="_blank">adjusting the temperature</a> of our homes to (eventually) <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/22/technology/future/walmart-home-delivery-groceries/index" target="_blank">putting groceries in our fridges</a>.
But do we want these advancements? And – importantly – do we trust them?
Our research, published earlier this year in the <a href="https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/EJM-10-2017-0759" target="_blank" title="Rules of (household) engagement: technology as manager, assistant and intern">European Journal of Marketing</a>, looked at the roles technology plays in Australian homes. We found three main ways people assign control to, and trust in, their technology.
Most people still want some level of control. That’s an important message to developers if they want to keep increasing the uptake of smart home technology, <a href="https://www.statista.com/outlook/279/100/smart-home/worldwide" target="_blank">yet to reach 25%</a> penetration in Australia.
How smart do we want a home?
<a href="https://research.qut.edu.au/servicesocialmarketing/tools-techniques/smart-home-technologies/" target="_blank">Smart homes</a> are modern homes that have appliances or electronic devices that can be controlled remotely by the owner. Examples include lights controlled via apps, smart locks and security systems, and even smart coffee machines that remember your brew of choice and waking time.
But we still don’t understand consumer interactions with these technologies, and to speed up their adoption we need to know they type of value they can offer.
We conducted a set of studies in conjunction with <a href="https://www.citysmart.com.au/" target="_blank">CitySmart</a> and a group of distributors, and we asked people about their smart technology preferences in the context of electricity management (managing appliances and utility plans).
We conducted 45 household interviews involving 116 people across Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia, and Tasmania. Then we surveyed 1,345 Australian households. The interviews uncovered and explored the social roles assigned to technologies, while the survey allowed us to collect additional information and find out how the broader Australian population felt about these technology types.
We found households attribute social roles and rules to smart home technologies. This makes sense: the study of anthropomorphism tells us <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51e3f4ede4b053e5f0062efd/t/51f7e1c7e4b06892daa73fe5/1375199687213/making-sense-by-making-sentient.pdf" target="_blank">we tend to humanise things we want to understand</a>. We humanise in order to trust (remember <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/22/18276923/microsoft-clippy-microsoft-teams-stickers-removal" target="_blank">Clippy</a>, the Microsoft paperclip with whom we all had a <a href="https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/design/microsofts-clippy-was-one-of-the-most-hated-features-ever-but-distance-makes-the-heart-grow-fonder/news-story/772605472436e0f6860fd04e4cf1b6dd" target="_blank">love-hate relationship</a>?).
These social roles and rules determine whether (or how) households will adopt the technologies.
Tech plays three roles
Most people want technology to serve them (95.6% of interviewees, about 19 out of 20). Those who didn’t want any technology were classified as “resisters” and made up less than 5% of the respondents.
We found the role that technology can play in households tended to fall into one of three categories, the intern, the assistant and the manager:
<ul>
<li>
the intern (passive technology) Technology exists to bring me information, but shouldn’t be making any decisions on its own. Real-life example: <a href="https://www.switchyourthinking.com/our-projects/energy-efficiency-tips/" target="_blank">Switch your Thinking</a> provides an SMS-based tip service. This mode of use was preferred in 22-35% of households.
</li>
<li>
the assistant (interactive technology) Technology should not only bring me information, but add value by helping me make decisions or interact. Real-life example: <a href="https://www.ergon.com.au/retail/residential/account-options/homesmart" target="_blank">Homesmart from Ergon</a> provides useful data to support consumers in their decisions; including remotely controlling appliances or monitoring electricity budget. This mode of use was preferred in 41-51% of households.
</li>
<li>
the manager (proactive technology) Technology should analyse information and make decisions itself, in order to make my life more efficient. Real-life example: <a href="https://international.tibber.com/?dialog=smart-analyses" target="_blank">Tibber</a>, which learns your home’s electricity-usage pattern and helps you make adjustments. This mode of use was preferred in 22-24% of households.
</li>
</ul>
Who’s the boss?
According to our study, while smart technology roles can change, the customer always remains the CEO. As CEO, they determine whether full control is retained or delegated to the technology.
For example, while two consumers might install a set of smart lights, one may engage by directly controlling lights via the app, while the other delegates this to the app – allowing it to choose based on sunset times when lights should be on.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267222/original/file-20190402-177167-1su1agi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Roles for consumer and smart technology - the consumer always remains the CEO, but technology can be viewed as an intern, assistant, or manager. Natalie Sketcher, Visual Designer
Notably, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/life/are-we-really-that-busy-time-poor/10231066">time pressure</a> was evident as justification for each of the three options. Passive technology saved time by not wasting it on fiddling with smart tech. Interactive technology gave information and controlled interactions for busy families. Proactive technology relieved overwhelmed households from managing their own electricity.
All households had clear motivation for their choices.
Households that chose passive technology were motivated by simplicity, cost-effectiveness and privacy concerns. One study participant in this group said: "Less hassle. Don’t like tech controlling my life."
Households prioritising interactive technology were looking for a balance of convenience and control, technology that provides: "A good support but allows me to maintain overall control and decision-making."
Households keen on proactive technology wanted set and forget abilities to allow the household to focus on the more important things in life. They sought: "Having the process looked after and managed for us as we don’t have the time to do it ourselves."
This raises the question: why did we see such differences in household preference?
Trust in tech
According to our research, this comes down to the relationship between trust, risk, and the <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-47437-3_95" target="_blank" title="Let the User Decide! User Preferences Regarding Functions, Apps, and Interfaces of a Smart Home and a Service Robot">need for control</a>. It’s just that these motivations that are expressed differently in different households.
While one household sees delegating their choices as a safe bet (that is, trusting the technology to save them from the risk of electricity over-spend), another would see retaining all choices as the true expression of being in control (that is, believing humans should be trusted with decisions, with technology providing input only when asked).
This is not unusual, nor is this the first study to find the importance of <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1094670512474841" target="_blank" title="The Impact of Endogenous Motivations on Adoption of IT-Enabled Services: The Case of Transformative Services in the Energy Sector">our sense of trust and risk</a> in making technology decisions.
It’s not that consumers don’t want advancements to serve them - they do - but this working relationship requires clear roles and ground rules. Only then can there be trust.
For smart home technology developers, the message is clear: households will continue to expect control and customisation features so that the technology serves them – either as an intern, an assistant, or a manager – while they remain the CEO.
If you’re interested to discover your working relationship with technology, complete this three-question <a href="https://www.onlineassessmenttool.com/what-s-your-relationship-with-technology/assessment-80899" target="_blank">online quiz</a>.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114510/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Kate Letheren, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Queensland University of Technology
Rebekah Russell-Bennett, Social Marketing Professor, School of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations, Queensland University of Technology
Rory Mulcahy, Lecturer of Marketing, University of the Sunshine Coast
Ryan McAndrew, Social Marketer &amp; Market Researcher, Queensland University of Technology
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/control-cost-and-convenience-determine-how-australians-use-the-technology-in-their-homes-114510" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Control, cost and convenience determine how Australians use the technology in their homes

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Ever wondered what all the fuss is about when it comes to smart homes? You’re not alone.
While the idea of networked entertainment systems, automated security, mood lights and voice-controlled thermostats is popular, uptake of smart home technologies has been lower than anticipated.
Some researchers say this is because of affordability and installation challenges. Others claim it’s because smart home technologies aren’t that desirable or useful.
New research we’ve released today identifies the benefits and problems smart home adopters actually experience, and compares them to the technological solutions on offer. Our report shows that while living in a smart home is appealing for early adopters, it also throws up some unexpected challenges.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XzZgnII0b64?wmode=transparent&amp;start=24" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe> 
The 3Ps
The smart home market is growing rapidly, but the industry is still frequently dubbed a “solution in search of a problem”. Interest in smart home technologies can be dismissed as “boys and their toys” because men are more often the instigators for bringing smart home technology into the home and managing their operation.
Current US industry sales figures show consumers of smart home devices are slightly more likely to be male (57%), while “smart home obsessives” (those who customise and fine-tune every aspect of their home automation systems beyond standard off-the-shelf offerings) are typically men. But women – especially those 18-35 – are increasingly interested in smart home technology.
We visited 31 households that were early adopters of smart home technology and interviewed 42 people for between one and 2.5 hours. We found three primary categories of use:
<ul>
<li>security devices to facilitate care and protection</li>
<li>automated or multitasking tools to improve productivity</li>
<li>aesthetic and ambience enhancements that provide pleasure.</li>
</ul>
We refer to these as “the 3Ps”: protection, productivity and pleasure.
Protection
In our study, technology users expressed a desire to care for and protect the home and its occupants. Smart cameras installed in the home allowed adults to monitor dependants – children and, increasingly, pets – while they were away.
These strategies of protection were also used in the homes of people living with disabilities. Smart technology provided safeguards against potential vulnerabilities by, for example, allowing people to remotely unlock doors for visitors, or monitor the room temperature and health of children with special needs.
Productivity
A commonly identified benefit of smart home technologies was their ability to generate “small conveniences” that reduced the physical or mental effort involved in daily tasks. These efficiencies allowed householders to offload the burden of mundane activities.
Automated or voice activated lights, heating, doors or blinds became significant and normal parts of everyday life. Householders doubted whether they could live well without these conveniences once they become accustomed to the benefits.
Smart home technologies also improved productivity through coordination and multitasking. In particular, voice assistants, such as Amazon’s Alexa and Google Home, freed people’s hands to do other tasks, making households feel more productive.
One research participant was living with a disability that made small everyday tasks extremely difficult and exhausting. She described productivity as a way of conserving her energy for other tasks, making smart technologies “absolutely brilliant and invaluable” for people with disabilities.
Pleasure
Living in a smart home and experimenting with new devices also provided considerable amounts of fun and pleasure. Smart lighting and speakers were a major source of this enjoyment, generating sensory experiences to affect ambience and mood. Automated water features also generated sensory pleasure.
We found householders created a relaxing and pleasurable home environment to replicate the experience of going on holiday or living in a resort. Home cinemas, audiovisual systems, pools, and outdoor and indoor entertainment areas were all common pursuits seeking this vacation-style pleasure.
For the predominantly male smart home initiators we interviewed, pleasure also came from implementing and “tinkering” with their smart systems. Further enjoyment ensued when sharing these smart devices and experiences, and showing them off to others.
And the pitfalls
While our research showed the potential benefits of smart home technologies, it also revealed a few pitfalls that are likely to limit market growth.
Those adopting smart home technologies for the care of others are usually confident in their knowledge and skills in setting up new technology, but expressed concern for the security or privacy of other less aware or capable households.
Somewhat ironically, smart home technologies can undermine productivity by creating extra “digital housekeeping” in the home. This included researching and setting up new devices, updating and synchronising software, fixing problems or glitches, or just tidying up the various cables and technologies required to keep it all running. Most of this extra work was being done by men, but it was also viewed as a pleasurable hobby.
The further downside of smart home technology is that potential new and enhanced forms of entertainment and ambience increase household energy consumption. This has a cost to both the householder and planetary resources as a whole.
Finally, householders want to integrate smart technologies into their home to increase its value and desirability to others. While this is easy for homeowners, the ability of renters to make changes to the home are very restricted.
Jenny Kennedy, Postdoctoral research fellow, RMIT University
Larissa Nicholls, Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University
Paula Arcari, Research Officer, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University
Yolande Strengers, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University
The authors would like to acknowledge Melissa Gregg, Principal Engineer and Research Director of the Client Computing Group at Intel, for her contributions to this article.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102837/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/one-reason-people-install-smart-home-tech-is-to-show-off-to-their-friends-102837" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

One reason people install smart home tech is to show off to their friends

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Whether it’s the use of Terminator imagery, visions of dystopia, or discussions of genomics, it’s common practice to use the metaphors and framing of speculative fiction to guide discussion into new and innovative areas.
A common theme is a world where humans do less work and machines do more. Why have we not yet reached that point?
I recently gave a talk on the implications of blockchain technologies for international trade. This technology can automate work that was manual and error-prone, bringing benefits with less human labour.
A colleague from another university reminded me afterwards that the promise of less work in the future was a mainstay of science fiction. Given my interests in smart city technologies, he asked, why did I think that we would finally see a real reduction in human work, as had been promised for so many years?
Trend towards shorter weeks reversed
To answer this question, we need to return to the mid-late 19th century, when the explosion of science-fiction writing began. Here are some Parisian illustrations of the year 2000. In these pictures, manual effort is reduced to button-pushing and supervision. Machines do the work and, hence, humans do less.
But what became of all this saved time? What happened to the leisure-oriented future?
A small amount of history is in order, as the 40-hour working week is a relatively new development. At the start of the 19th century, 100-hour weeks were not uncommon, and Australia has a long history of labour movements to develop a liveable working week.
The adoption of the 40-hour working week is often interpreted as a boon for workers but, as Henry Ford admitted, it is as much a benefit for employers. Ford observed that fatigued workers made more mistakes. Asking his workers to put in more than 40 hours a week usually cost him more money than he made.
John Maynard Keynes, writing in 1930, thought we’d be working 30 hours a week by 2030. Our problem would be too much free time.
We were on track to reducing working hours until 1980, when we went the other way. Working harder, for longer, somehow became desirable. And demandable.
Rutger Bregman has explored this at length in his book, Utopia for Realists. He champions a 15-hour work week to remove “bullshit jobs” and to give humans time to do useful and rewarding things. But this is at odds with how we often think about work. Work, and the amount of work we do, frequently defines our value.
Overwork is often interpreted as commitment, rather than inefficiency. The visions of reduced working weeks were, whether the authors knew it or not, visions of a more effective workforce. But to admit to doing less work is often interpreted as a proxy for caring less.
Given subsistence and thriving are generally related to the job we do, work is not just important in terms of perception, it is vital to survival.
So what’s different now?
Returning to my colleague’s question, have we actually reached a point where we could work less and get the same amount of work done? If so, why now?
In the developed world, home appliances have greatly reduced the need for physical labour. Fewer people need to be involved in tasks that once left them little time to do much else.
For example, the word processor and email have, to a great extent, replaced the dedicated secretarial staff that briefly flourished with the rise of the typewriter. At one time all copies were made with manual scribes, carefully duplicating what they read. Then we had carbon paper. Then photocopiers. Then printers. Then the requirement for physical copy reduced.
An entire stream of labour appeared and disappeared as technology advanced. We freed ourselves of one kind of work; we just replaced it with another.
The rise of robotics has heralded a new model for labour: one where humans can be removed from the entirety of a task, beyond supervision or programming. But we know that we may not always want to do this. In India, Nitin Gadkari, the minister for road transport, highways and shipping, said: "We won’t allow driverless cars in India. … I am very clear on this. We won’t allow any technology that takes away jobs."
India has 400 million workers, 12.5 million of them identified in transport, storage and communication industries. Putting millions of people out of work is at odds with India’s plans to increase the numbers in the workforce.
So we have two reasons emerging for why we haven’t seen the promised labour reductions. The first is our perceptions of working hours as proxy value of an employee. The second is that few governments want to cause widespread unemployment as this is then linked to social and economic issues.
But this is at odds with what we know about work: too much of it is bad for us and the job itself.
Working out the post-work economy
Until now, these answers have been enough because we didn’t really have machines that could replace us. But that has changed in many areas. Planes can land themselves. Cars can drive themselves. Computer-controlled trains run in many subways and airports of the world.
In terms of transport, then, humans are rapidly becoming superfluous, except as passengers. And transport is only one example. We can now say “let someone else do it” and have that someone not be human.
We finally have the means to sensibly replace human labour, without forcing that work on to someone else. But this does not mean we can simply do that. We need to work out how to support people in a post-work economy.
We need to accurately identify which jobs machines can’t do. We need to identify how we will be social without the accidental socialisation caused by the necessity of work.
We now live in the age predicted by science fiction. It’s up to us whether we choose to give ourselves the leisure, or not.
Nick Falkner is associate professor and director of the Australian Smart Cities Consortium at University of Adelaide.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-happened-to-our-promised-leisure-time-and-will-we-find-it-in-the-smart-city-83570" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Will smart cities lead us to our promised leisure time?: Nick Falkner

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network (NBN) <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/National_Broadband_Network/NBN/First_report">released</a> its first report on Friday, just as most people on the east coast of Australia headed into a long weekend, complete with two sporting grand finals.
The release on a Friday afternoon, sometimes referred to by the media as the “<a href="https://politicaldictionary.com/words/friday-news-dump/">Friday news dump</a>”, is generally what governments do when they want the published report to gather dust.
In fact, its hundreds of pages actually included two reports from the one committee. The dissenting report, supported by its Liberal Party members, including the committee’s chair Sussan Ley, contradict many of the conclusions of the first, which was backed by the Labor Party members and Australian Greens, among others.
One ironic benefit of the report is that whatever your political view, there will be something that you’re likely agree with. But is that the way to create good internet policy?
What did the report say?
The report is from the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/National_Broadband_Network" target="_blank">latest committee</a>, formed in September 2016, to inquire and report on the rollout of the NBN. It replaced the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/National_Broadband_Network" target="_blank">Senate Select Committee on the NBN</a> that operated between 2013 to early 2016.
The report makes 23 recommendations. These range from recommending that the NBN cost and plan for a switch for all remaining <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_x">Fibre to the Node</a> (FTTN) connections to use <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_x" target="_blank">Fibre to the Curb</a> (FTTC), through to recommending that the government measure and report on “digital inclusion”.
Many of these recommendations are dismissed or ignored in the Chair’s dissenting report.
As political and business commentator Alan Kohler <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/alan-kohler/nbn-report-a-waste-of-time/news-story/bf0d6fb2f3ce7d5b9d61054d1af3f976" target="_blank">summarised</a> in The Australian:
<blockquote>
Like so much of Australian public policy over the past 10 years, the NBN has been hopelessly politicised, so that anything that comes out of any politician’s mouth on the subject can be ignored as most likely unreliable twaddle.
</blockquote>
<h2>The challenges of the process</h2>
Given the political nature of the process and the desired outcomes, in my view, there is a bias built into the process from the start.
This is both in how facts are interpreted and presented in the report, and how groups, companies and individuals with specific vested interests use committees as a means of stating their claims.
The report claims for example that FTTC is a “future-proofed technology” whereas FTTN is not, but little evidence is given to back up the claim.
It appears “future-proofing” is simply a term for the fact that FTTC would theoretically cost less to upgrade than FTTN, but complete data is not offered.
In another case, the report discusses complaints made to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman about connection delay issues, citing a “slight decrease” in the number of complaints relative to the number of activated premises.
The decrease is not entirely insignificant: for example, complaints made about 0.98% of total new connections in quarter three of 2015-16 dropped to 0.56% in quarter two of 2016-17.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/10/06/NBNDelays.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
 <img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/10/06/NBNDelays.png" alt="">
The rate of fault complaints about NBN services has also dropped slightly over time and is running at 0.15% of premises activated (2,460 complaints made out of 1,652,564 premises activated over time in quarter two of 2016-17).
Another key problem with committees of this sort is that during the time it takes to investigate, write and publish the report, events have overtaken the process.
The report recommends that the NBN cost a plan to substitute FTTC for FTTN. This has <a href="https://www.itnews.com.au/news/nbn-co-says-fttc-dreams-thwarted-by-board-govt-469967" target="_blank">already happened</a> after a fashion, with NBN Co presenting costing to the NBN Co board and to the government. The proposal was apparently rejected because it would have been too expensive and not kept NBN Co’s funding within the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/nbns-bill-morrow-uploads-attack-on-over-competitive-telco-market-20170731-gxm329" target="_blank">A$49 billion</a> limit.
<h2>History repeating</h2>
Much of what is included in the report are issues that have been discussed by previous committees, but also more widely in the public sphere. We have seen the same topics, arguments, paucity of data and overreliance on anecdote time and again.
Given the government’s “Friday news dump”, a more general question to ask is whether making submissions to these committees is worth the time and effort?
I personally attended an expert session in Parliament held by the previous committee in early 2016. The same issues and questions were asked then and by and large the same types of responses were given. Nothing came of that and this report largely rehashes the same conversation.
As Alan Kohler remarked, public policy shaping the NBN has been marked by political motives and to a far lesser extent, economic or social ones. For that reason, data is not being given proper weight, and is often shaped to support a political perspective.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85078/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Given the situation, we are perhaps fortunate to have made the progress we have.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-glance-148" target="_blank">David Glance</a>, Director of UWA Centre for Software Practice, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-western-australia-1067" target="_blank">University of Western Australia</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-the-nbn-we-keep-having-the-same-conversations-over-and-over-85078" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

dg-WcCDQK78NT

When it comes to the NBN, we keep having the same conversations over and over

<html><body>
SPONSORED POST
Melbourne is the top ranked ‘tech city’ in Australia and 14th in the world offering the infrastructure, business environment, talent pool and lifestyle to make it a strong base for tech companies, according to new Savills research. 
And according to Victoria’s Minister for Small Business, Innovation and Trade, Philip Dalidakis, that is no surprise given the Government’s policy of taking “brand Victoria to the world”.
While US cities dominated the top of the Tech Cities rankings – Austin (Texas) came in at number one followed by San Francisco, New York, and London, according to the <a href="https://www.savills.co.uk/tech-cities" target="_blank">Tech Cities 2017</a> programme - the liveability of cities including Melbourne, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Toronto, placed them above more established global tech rivals.
Savills National Head of Research in Australia, Tony Crabb, said the elevation of ‘liveable’ cities in the rankings centred on their strong performance in terms of ‘buzz and wellness’, factors that were likely to prove increasingly important to the tech industry in decisions on where to locate and on attracting future talent. Melbourne was ranked 8th on this index.
“Everybody here knows Melbourne’s reputation as the world’s most liveable city, a title it has taken for six consecutive years, and so it is not surprising to see how well Melbourne ranked on this metric. 
“That single factor may well prove, more than any other, the most critical factor in further establishing and maintaining Melbourne‘s pre-eminence in what is increasingly one of the most important employment and growth industries in the country,” Mr Crabb said.
The UK report quantified ‘buzz’ (nightlife, entertainment, culture) and ‘wellness’ (pollution levels, quality of parks, healthcare, commuting times) and the cost of living in each location to create a specific ‘city buzz and wellness index’. 
It noted that given the increased focus on physical and mental wellbeing among the latest generation of workers, it could come to dominate their decision-making.
According to Nicky Wightman, Director Savills Worldwide Occupier Services, providing an environment which enables tech companies and start-ups to plug straight into the infrastructure and funding they need to be a success is an important part of any tech city.
“However this alone won’t necessarily make them attractive destinations. Young tech talent increasingly want to live in dynamic, healthy neighbourhoods within walking or cycling distance of the office.
“Cities that deliver those environments are therefore likely to consolidate their positions as destinations for tech talent and occupiers who want to attract the best staff,” Ms Wightman said.
The report’s release follows the Victorian Government’s recent announcement that Texas-based software firm, AgileCraft, would open its Asia-Pacific headquarters in Melbourne.
Mr Dalidakis said AgileCraft was yet another example of a leading global tech company choosing Victoria as an entry point for the Asia-Pacific market.
“Over the past two years we have taken brand Victoria to the world, attracting more and more leading global companies to invest in the state’s booming tech sector,” Mr Dalidakis said.
AgileCraft Chief Executive Officer Steve Elliott said Melbourne’s emerging tech sector and close proximity to Asia made it a perfect location to set up its regional headquarters and expand throughout the Asia Pacific region.
“We consider ourselves to be an innovative company at AgileCraft and the Victorian Government made it clear to us that it is trying to attract innovative businesses to the state, so we look forward to being a part of the Victorian technology ecosystem,” Mr Elliot said.
Savills Tech Cities 2017 Buzz and Wellness Index 
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/03/22/Tech%20Cities%20-%20Overall%20Rankings.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
 <img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2017/03/22/Tech%20Cities%20-%20Overall%20Rankings.png" alt="">
Savills Tech Cities 2017 overall rankings
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/03/22/Tech%20Cities%20-%20Buzz%20and%20Wellness%20Index.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/03/22/Tech%20Cities%20-%20Buzz%20and%20Wellness%20Index.jpg" alt="">  
About Savills Tech Cities
<a href="https://www.savills.co.uk/tech-cities" target="_blank">Savills Tech Cities</a> 2017 programme aims to understand the diverse factors that make places a good location choice for the tech sector; examining 22 global centres which have thriving and growing tech industries, home grown start-ups and incubators, and are at the top of global shopping lists for tech companies looking for space in which to locate. <a href="https://www.savills.co.uk/tech-cities/index" target="_blank">Explore the globe</a>.
 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Savills research finds Melbourne top ‘tech city’ in Australia   

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Implementing new technologies to maximise and increase productivity in the construction industry is among the primary concern of respondents to a new survey.
The Construction Industry Innovation &amp; Productivity Report 2016, released by fintech startup Progressclaim.com surveyed over 200 construction workers and found less than half or 37 percent believe their industry is an early adopter of new tech-focussed solutions. 
Lincoln Easton, Progressclaim.com founder said 82 percent of respondents felt it’s important to work in a progressive and innovative organisation.
"A staggering number of respondents felt their workplace was not at all, or only slightly, advanced in their uptake of different technology types, with standout areas of concern including: drone technology (78 percent), 3D printing (77 percent) and BIM technology (54 percent)," he said.
"Even in areas such as IoT (the Internet of Things), desktop software and cloud technology, where respondents showed the most trust in their workplace’s abilities, the results were still low, with barely half indicating their workplace was somewhat advanced – 51 percent, 46 percent and 45 percent, respectively. 
“Increased productivity (90 percent), less time wastage (83 percent) and increased competitiveness (75 percent) ranked as the top three benefits of new technologies – but, as an industry, we are lacking long term vision, resources and expertise to roll out new solutions. 
“A project-focussed approach, rather than long term thinking, is breeding a stagnant culture that’s stifling progression at pace or scale.
"The findings uncovered key hurdles to be: a lack of expertise and resources that can be dedicated to manage the implementation (50 percent), a lack of standardisation across the industry (50 percent) and a reluctance to change current processes (39 percent)."
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Digitisation disconnect in construction industry - report

<html><body>
Since the advent of internet marketing and mobile technology in the 1990s, the nature of buying and selling has been turned on its head, according to McGrath's latest report.
A huge range of digital platforms continue to change the method and pace of real estate transactions, with buyers and sellers more informed and better prepared than ever before and the best agents harnessing innovation to improve their marketing power and service style.
Specialised apps, price predictors, social media, free market research and cheap independent property reports available for purchase online have all worked to benefit the consumer.
Email, SMS, database marketing and big data has enabled agents to better engage with buyers and global property portals have expanded their audience.
A raft of business software and bluetooth gadgetry has increased their efficiency and shortened response times to enquiries.
Real estate technology began with search and has now extended to service.
Consumers want a less stressful experience and are intolerant of agents who can’t provide it.
For example, the experience of opens is changing, with names and numbers still taken at the door but on an iPad that syncs with the agent’s phone and database for more effective follow-up.
Buyers can use apps to pre-register their attendance and skip the queue; and can request and receive a contract via email before they have even left the property.
Scores of small innovations are often quickly superseded.
The evolution of the signboard provides an example – once a simple board, it was then given an overhead light, a QR code, then full background lighting and now touch screen.
Photos on a webpage are no longer enough, with 360-degree photography and fly-through technology providing a more complete perspective and the opportunity to inspect every part of a room.
Location analytics are helping buyers purchase in unfamiliar locations with greater confidence.
Buyers can discover an area’s demographics, traffic data, property developments, points of interest, drive times, walk times and street and aerial views with ease.
And there is so much more to come.
According to CoreLogic’s Future of Real Estate Report, push technology, artificial intelligence, virtual reality and blockchains will be the next big tech trends in real estate.
Push technology will alert home hunters to nearby properties for sale and unlock special content to heighten their engagement.
<a href="/images/2016/10/31/2027.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/31/2027.jpg" alt="">
Virtual reality will provide an on site experience for off site clientele. VR stations in real estate offices will make open inspections an everyday convenience for buyers.
Artificial intelligence will use algorithms to help buyers search, all the while learning from each interaction to understand what the user really wants in their next home.
Blockchain technology and smart contracts will simplify the transaction process and automate procedures traditionally undertaken by intermediaries like banks and inspectors.
<a href="/images/2016/10/31/2027.2.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/31/2027.2.jpg" alt="">
Platforms allowing customers to send a single loan request to a multitude of lenders will result in more competition and a better deal on finance for borrowers.
<div>
Technology will undoubtedly continue to raise clients’ expectations and the best agents are meeting this challenge through a more holistic approach, including building long term relationships with their clients and focusing more on ‘outcomes’ over simple sales transactions, the report concluded.
</div>
</body></html>

Technology changing the way real esate is viewed: McGrath

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/64168/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Without data centres, today’s world stops. Flights are grounded, Wall Street closes, and the internet grinds to a halt.
Yet despite their emergence as nerve centres of the global economy, data centres have drawn almost no attention in debates about globalisation and nor are they often discussed outside of business and IT publications.
Even the recent debate on the bungling of the digital census managed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics focused on questions surrounding possible distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks.
This was despite mention of hardware failures as well as inadequate redundancy and load testing, which are problems that stem from operations within data centres.
Data centres provide governments and industry with advantages in terms of improving website and internet service speed, providing access to technical and security services and expertise, and cutting labour and hardware costs.
Consultancy firm Frost &amp; Sullivan forecasts that the Australian data centre services market will grow by 12.4 percent a year to 2022.
Much of this growth will be driven by regular internet users. If you use social media sites, Google applications, web-based mail services, or just carry a smartphone, you have your data stored in a data centre.
Even if you only very occasionally use the internet, you still have data stored about you: all metadata of people residing in Australia is now legally required to be stored by internet service providers for two years.
<h2>Where’s your data?</h2>
But where are these data – your data – being stored? Ask someone in Australia where everything they’ve ever uploaded to social media is actually located, and they are more likely to say “in the cloud” than “in a data centre”.
Although cloud technologies make it difficult to pinpoint data to a particular data centre, the reality is that data centres are never too far from us.
They are in our cities, suburbs and occasionally in rural and remote locations. In order to investigate the data centres near us we began looking in the inner Sydney suburb of Alexandria.
Most Sydneysiders are aware of the ongoing transformation of Alexandria, which includes parts of the urban renewal project called Green Square.
In the 1940s it was the country’s densest industrial area: more than 22,000 people were documented to be working in 550 factories that were crammed into a 4km-square boundary.
Today the suburb is best known for its warehouse apartments, tech industries, offices, commercial businesses and showrooms. The industrial look of the suburb has largely been retained thanks to a large number of heritage-listed buildings.
A lesser-known fact about Alexandria is one that is shaping its current development phase: it is one of the places you need to be if you want the fastest connectivity in Australia.
Alexandria, along with Brookvale on the Northern Beaches of Sydney, is where the Southern Cross Cable network “lands” in the country. This cable is one of five that sit above the ocean floor to connect Australia with the rest of the world.
As New York University’s Nicole Starosielski has explained on The Conversation, “undersea cables transport almost 100% of transoceanic data traffic”.
Few people know that Alexandria plays a role in connecting them to rest of the world, transmitting data through telecommunication networks.
This is not surprising. Neither the landing port nor the suburb’s cluster of data centres are easy to find.
Taking a walking tour around the data centres of Alexandria requires research and planning. Data centres generally do not have a company name on their front gates. They are secured by guards and surveillance technologies.
We decided to explore Alexandria by focusing on one company that has four data centres in the area, including a recently opened facility that will become one of the country’s largest data storage and processing plants.
Equinix is a US corporation that operates some 145 data centres across five continents. These data centres are “carrier-neutral”, which means they operate independently from the companies that interconnect within them.
Among Equinix’s clients are cloud service providers such as Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure.
Equinix bills its data centres as “international business exchanges”. Peering services like those offered by Equinix allow companies to enhance speed and obtain a competitive advantage by connecting directly with each other inside its facilities rather than having to establish links over the much slower public internet. High-frequency trading is one financial sector that benefits from such arrangements.
Equinix’s four Alexandria data centres are spread along Bourke Road. One is housed in a refurbished warehouse designed by renowned architect Harry Seidler in the late 1960s.
The recently opened facility, dubbed SY4, will almost double the company’s capacity in Australia. A development application submitted in 2014 details plans for power supply, water management and noise control.
The document states that the “data centre is to provide 24/7 mission critical services to business customers by providing a secure and reliable location for the ‘co-locating’ of their equipment”.
<h2>Bricks and mortar</h2>
An argument can be made that the public doesn’t really need to know where data centres like those in Alexandria are located. After all, much of the data they store, process and transmit are private and confidential.
However, since data centres comprise a growing global industry that provides critical social and economic infrastructure we think they warrant research.
Governments spend a great deal of resources safeguarding critical infrastructure. The protection of data and information systems is now included in this work.
However, the focus for data security is on the development of software, as though we have forgotten that data storage happens in real places on the ground – and not in “virtual” clouds.
Not knowing where data centres are located, or indeed what they actually do, prevents us from having conversations about how this infrastructure is governed, supported and protected.
We need to ask how data centres can and will impact on the economy, different industries, government policy, society and the environment.
Becoming acquainted with these facilities is a first step to understanding their role in shaping how digital communication and content are stored, used and moved around the world.
Brett Neilson is professor of Culture and Society, Western Sydney University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brett-neilson-292112" target="_blank">here</a>.
Ned Rossiter is professor of Communication., Western Sydney University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ned-rossiter-292064" target="_blank">here</a>.
Tanya Motley is lecturer in Internet Studies &amp; Convergent Media, Western Sydney University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tanya-notley-110182" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Where’s your data? It’s not actually in the cloud, it’s sitting in a data centre

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
While some recent office construction plans have focused entirely on open-plan layouts and stand-up desks, one particular feature of the modern workplace has shot up the priority list of many companies – interactive technology.
Ten years ago, technology costs represented about seven percent of a company’s interior construction budget. Now, they can consume 25 percent or more of a total build-out cost.
Companies are much more focused on digitization and connectivity, with common examples including more sophisticated conference rooms featuring interactive audio/visual technology and smart TVs, as well as cloud-based solutions for employee mobility.
The focus on technology has influenced workplace design as well. 
“Spaces are being designed to accommodate what the technology can offer now,” says David Roberts, international director at JLL.
“Pioneering workplaces consist of tech-enabled meeting and huddle areas, and employees can work seamlessly whether they’re in an office, cubical, meeting room – or even at home. The physical personal space matters less now while tech-focused spaces matter more.”
Of less importance to many of today’s offices are material finishes. 
“Materials, fixtures and finishes are getting less attention as the technological components of the workplace grow in prominence,” says Christian Beaudoin, national director, Research &amp; Strategy at JLL. “Offices are becoming more minimalist and decreasing expenses on millwork and granite, for example, so they can allocate more of the budget for technology.”
<h2>What a tech-enabled workplace looks like</h2>
One example of this is UI LABS, a first-of-its-kind research and development facility in Chicago dedicated to advancing high-tech commercial innovation. 
“It’s minimal in design but maximized in technology,” Roberts says.
Zurich Insurance‘s North American Headquarters in Schaumburg, Illinois, has also created a tech-enabled workspace. The simple task of setting up a video conference call used to require at least a week’s worth of notice and several steps. Now, employees simply agree to a meeting time, walk into the conference room and touch a screen to begin the meeting.
However, what works for one company may not necessarily be a good fit for another: Companies which are successful in using technology to maximize both a workspace and an employee base start by thoroughly researching how their own employees work.
This prevents the use of technology tools that don’t have the end user in mind. Companies embracing technology can use quantifiable data like seat sensors to show how much time people are at their desk or, for example, working in co-working spaces in an office. With that objective data, they then develop solutions built around the end users – a company’s employees.
A successful IT build-out also doesn’t put much stock in brands, manufacturers and providers until the planners have a clear understanding of the technology needs of each team. Once that is established, the appropriate components can be selected.
<h2>Change comes from within</h2>
Often IT teams work in a reactive capacity, but that should change in a tech-enabled workplace. A technology system should be intuitive and user-friendly so IT experts can dedicate time to solve actual problems rather than troubleshooting and re-booting computers. The design and support team should be an integral part of the IT build-out process from ideation to implementation, and they should continue to be involved even after.
“Companies may have to be prepared for more frequent updating of the systems in their space than people have been used to,” Beaudoin says. 
“During a 15-year lease, for example, they may need to upgrade technology as the business and the solutions evolve. It’s a much more continuous cycle of advancement.”
Finally, the budgets of companies that successfully embed technology in the workplace go beyond the rough cost-per-square-foot metric. They include cost allocations for pre-design research, envisioning sessions and data analysis, change management communications, adoption training and post-installation analysis and modification.
“With new technology frequently coming to market, the modern office is changing rapidly,” Roberts says. “Companies that take a holistic approach to IT can get the most out of their employees, their workspace and their technology.”
This article was by William Polk as featured in <a href="https://www.jllrealviews.com" target="_blank">JLL Real Views</a>
</body></html>

Information Technology

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Information Technology

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News