About · Selected work
Selected evidence of work I have led, shaped, advised or built across enterprise technology, governance, practical implementation and independent public-interest projects.
These examples focus on role, judgement and outcome rather than presenting a complete career history. Organisational and client details are bounded where appropriate; the substance of the work is retained.
Enterprise leadership & transformation
Work where technology decisions, organisational readiness, governance, suppliers, delivery discipline and leadership accountability had to hold together in real operating environments.
Led delivery of a major digital experience platform transformation for a national organisation, coordinating internal teams and an implementation partner across public-facing experience, content and system integration.
A major public-facing platform needed to be replaced without disrupting services people relied on. The work crossed content, digital experience, integration, technology operations and vendor delivery.
I led the technology delivery programme, with accountability for planning, delivery governance, vendor coordination, technology dependencies, implementation readiness and transition into operation.
I established the delivery structure, maintained the relationship between internal stakeholders and the implementation partner, challenged readiness and dependency assumptions, kept decisions and risks visible, and held schedule and budget discipline through implementation.
The organisation moved to the new digital experience platform while maintaining service continuity. The programme completed on schedule and 10% under budget.
Designed and operationalised a technology delivery model that brought discovery, project delivery, governance, transition and ongoing support into a clearer operating structure with more explicit ownership, cadence and escalation paths.
Technology delivery had to serve discovery, major change, governance, business-as-usual support and transition into sustained operation. Without a clear operating model, prioritisation and stakeholder engagement could become reactive or depend too heavily on individual relationships.
I led the Technology Solutions Delivery function and shaped how the team worked across delivery, governance, support and discovery while connecting that model to the wider technology function and organisational governance forums.
I structured responsibilities and working cadences, clarified escalation paths, chaired and contributed to technology portfolio, change and project governance, improved how work was classified and reported, and helped establish Jira as a shared working surface across the broader technology function.
Technology work became easier to classify, prioritise, govern and communicate across teams and stakeholders. The broader governance uplift in which this work sat recorded a 30% reduction in incident escalations.
Carried executive responsibility for a multi-team technology function during periods acting as Head of Technology, maintaining decision-making, governance, delivery oversight and stakeholder representation across strategic and operational technology matters.
The organisation needed continuity of senior technology leadership while substantial delivery, operational, cyber, people and governance responsibilities continued. Technology still needed an accountable voice in executive decisions and a clear path for material operational issues.
As Acting Head of Technology, I held functional leadership responsibility across the technology group, including people and delivery decisions, executive engagement, governance and reporting, cyber and incident escalation, and coordination of material technology matters with senior organisational stakeholders.
I represented technology in executive and governance forums, maintained priorities and decision flow across the function, worked with technology leaders on delivery and operational issues, supported critical-incident escalation, and translated technical constraints and trade-offs into decisions non-technical leaders could act on.
The technology function maintained leadership continuity, operational stability and forward momentum. Material technology issues retained an accountable executive path rather than being deferred.
Led a workplace technology modernisation programme through to 95% staff adoption, treating implementation, operating readiness and user adoption as one delivery problem rather than considering the platform delivered once the technology was available.
The organisation needed to modernise its core workplace technology across a broad staff population. The technical rollout had to be matched by usable operating arrangements, stakeholder readiness and sustained adoption.
I led the technology delivery of the modernisation programme, coordinating the platform change with stakeholders, implementation activity, governance and adoption requirements.
I maintained the programme structure and technology dependencies, connected implementation decisions with organisational readiness, worked across technical and non-technical stakeholders, and kept adoption visible as a delivery outcome rather than treating deployment as the finish line.
The modernised workplace environment reached 95% staff adoption, establishing the platform as an operating norm rather than a partially adopted technology rollout.
Advisory & practical technology
A long-running part of my practice sits between advice and implementation: understand what is actually wrong, choose a proportionate approach, coordinate the providers and leave behind something that can be operated.
I have maintained an independent technology practice helping smaller organisations and public-facing services make practical technology decisions and get the resulting systems working. Depending on the engagement, that can mean adviser, implementer or an ongoing technical point of accountability.
Smaller organisations often face technology decisions that are consequential without being large enough to justify a major programme or permanent specialist team. A domain problem may really be an ownership problem; an email or Microsoft 365 issue may cross identity, devices and support; a website decision may involve DNS, hosting, security, suppliers and ongoing maintenance rather than only design.
I work as the technology adviser and, where useful, the implementer: diagnose the issue, recommend an approach, select or coordinate providers, configure the solution, establish support arrangements and remain available where continuity matters.
Across different engagements I have worked with domains and DNS, web and hosting infrastructure, Microsoft 365 and cloud services, email and public trust controls, Cloudflare, service desks, work-management and collaboration tooling, supplier choices, technical governance and practical transition into support.
Clients gained technology environments and support arrangements that were understandable enough to operate and appropriately scaled to their needs. Several relationships extended beyond initial implementation into recurring support and advisory work.
These are recurring capabilities that strengthen the selected work without needing to be inflated into standalone case studies.
Turn technical constraints, incidents and control questions into decisions that executives, boards and accountable owners can act on.
Separate unavailable evidence from negative evidence, preserve provenance and avoid inheriting provider assumptions as conclusions.
Make responsibilities, dependencies, readiness and handover explicit across internal teams, vendors and service providers.
Improve how technology work is classified, prioritised, escalated, transitioned and supported without adding process for its own sake.
Work directly with domains, DNS, email, cloud, workplace and web systems when senior judgement and hands-on implementation need to meet.
Independent & public-interest work
Independent work where I have moved from an observed problem to a functioning evidence, triage or governance surface, with deliberate boundaries around what the resulting tool can and cannot claim.
Founded and built an independent public-interest observatory that repeatedly observes a fixed panel of .au domains, preserves visible domain-layer evidence over time and publishes recurring reports, longitudinal analysis and standing research questions without turning public signals into scores or unsupported conclusions.
Public DNS, registration, mail and infrastructure signals are observable, but individual lookups are transient and reveal little about persistence, recurrence or change over time. Useful longitudinal evidence also needs method, provenance, publication boundaries and limits of interpretation.
I am the founder and steward of .auDO. I have shaped the collection and evidence model, reporting architecture, public information design, operating model, methodological boundaries and research direction.
I built repeated observation and publication around a fixed 100-domain panel; established evidence and reconciliation controls; developed current-state, cohort, monthly and Featured Analysis surfaces; introduced longitudinal Mail Posture evidence while retaining private/public boundaries; formalised the observatory's public-interest role and independence; and established Research Agenda v1 with six standing longitudinal questions.
.auDO has developed from an experimental observation pipeline into an operating evidence resource with a continuous archive, recurring Monthly Observatory Briefs, Featured Analysis, current-state and cohort views, a public methodology and a standing Research Agenda.
Related evidence .auDO Reports Research Agenda
Built ThreatScope Check as a bounded public trust-signal triage instrument, with a separate operator workbench for inspecting the underlying point-in-time evidence. The two surfaces deliberately separate what public evidence reasonably supports from what an operator may need to inspect in detail.
Public domain-checking tools tend either to expose dense technical output that only specialists can interpret or collapse incomplete public signals into simple scores and claims that imply more assurance than the evidence supports.
I shaped and implemented the product boundary, public assessment method, evidence hierarchy, result language, API and operator workflow, including decisions about which observations can drive a public finding and which remain supporting context.
The public Check now provides attention-oriented triage across DNS hygiene, Email authenticity, Web delivery and Registration visibility, with Certificate Transparency retained as supporting context. Separately, ThreatScope Check Signals provides a stateless operator workbench across Overview, Surfaces, Evidence, local-only Compare and Export, retaining exact values, provenance and unavailable collection context without introducing monitoring or saved history.
ThreatScope now has two deliberately different but coherent surfaces: a public instrument that tells a reader what the observed evidence reasonably deserves attention, and an operator workbench that makes the returned technical relationships and provenance inspectable.
Related evidence ThreatScope Check Separating signals from claims
Created a versioned ten-question starting point and five bounded practice guides for turning uncertainty about domain ownership, authority, DNS, email trust and incident readiness into practical governance action.
Organisations depend heavily on their domain layer but often cannot answer basic questions about ownership, privileged authority, renewal, email use, supplier dependencies or the incident path if something fails. The argument needed a practical adoption path.
I authored and steward the Baseline, including the canonical questions, interactive review, practical guides, starter records, worked walkthrough, versioning, citation and reuse model.
I translated the governance argument into ten stable questions and five bounded guides covering domain inventory, registrar and DNS authority, email authority, incident readiness and recurring review. The local browser-based review produces priorities and next actions without scores, accounts, retained answers or backend assessment processing.
The work now provides a complete but deliberately small path from governance question to practical operating action. Version 1.0 is in stewardship mode with a stable canonical core and evidence-led change rules.
Related evidence Domain Governance Baseline Practical guides Source essay
Read across the work
The selected work shows the range first. The Trust Practice describes the recurring discipline behind how I observe, frame decisions, establish accountability and move technology into operation.
