So much in the working world has changed in recent years. Smart phones have become ubiquitous, tablets have edged out PCs and the 'cloud' has started to swallow everything. Unfortunately, though, one thing remains stubbornly the same: boring PowerPoint presentations.

I recently spent time at a major industry conference, sitting through more hours of PowerPoint than I care to recall. While much of the content delivered was interesting and useful, the way the electronic slideshow software was used left much to be desired. Why does it still have to be this way?

Microsoft's PowerPoint software burst onto the business scene back in 1990. Since then it has become a regular feature of meetings and presentations around the world.

Now I have no problems with the software itself - it's the way it's used. All too often it becomes an electronic crutch used by a presenter to get through their spiel. Rather than acting in a supporting role, it becomes the centre of attention.

Instead of displaying endless bullet points of text or impossibly detailed flow charts, PowerPoint slides should be used to support what is being said. Eye-catching visuals and simple headings are what will help maintain audience engagement without the risk of electronic boredom.

Anyone who stands and reads the text of the slides behind them out loud to the audience should be immediately escorted from the room and locked up.

A well crafted PowerPoint presentation can be an enjoyable and memorable experience. Unfortunately - however - they remain a very rare commodity.

No one likes making mistakes at work, but doing so could well be the best way to get ahead.

While traditional theory revolves around getting things absolutely right before taking them to market, increasing numbers of business thinkers reckon failure can actually help. Put something out and see how it's received. If it works, great. If it doesn't, dump it and move on.

You don't have to look very far for examples of this approach. Search specialist Google is constantly releasing new products and services to test how users respond. If they catch on, Google continues to develop and expand them. If not, they are quietly killed off.

On the hardware front, Samsung is an example of the trend. The electronics giant is continually putting out portable devices in every conceivable size. Some fly, but some don't. As long as success outweighs failure, the company continues to grow.

The 'fail to succeed' approach is also followed by many software makers. In the past, a company would have waited until a program or app was fully finished and polished before releasing it to the world. Now many get their product out the door before following it with a rapid series of updates to add functionality or fix any problems that arise.

According to Gartner, failure rates of between 20 and 28 per cent among business projects is likely to become the norm. As more organisations get their collective heads around the fact that failure is not bad, they'll increase their experimentation and - as a result - have more successful futures.

What's your organisation's attitude to failure?

Is it just me, or is the point of LinkedIn becoming lost to some people?

The popular business network has a lot of value to add. It’s great for maintaining professional relationships and re-establishing links with former work colleagues.

It’s also an efficient way to recommend people you know for jobs or put in a good word when someone’s chasing a new client or contract.

But, just like the real world, it all lacks a certain something when the two parties are not really connected. Can two people be deemed professional contacts when they don’t actually know each other?

The question has arisen for me quite a few times lately when LinkedIn invitations to connect have arrived from people I barely know or (in some cases) have never actually met.

Usually accompanied by nothing more than the standard boilerplate message from the website, the messages invite me to link to the person so we can vouch for each other in the swirling world of business.

Really? What’s the point? What value is a virtual connection when it has no matching relevance in the physical world?

Services such as LinkedIn are designed to facilitate extensions of existing business relationships. If that relationship doesn’t already exist, it’s very difficult to create online.

Surely it’s far better - and more valuable - to reserve your professional network for people you actually know.

How's your LinkedIn network?

Most Monday mornings, I start my work day by creating a to-do list of tasks for the week ahead. But try as I might, I can't find any better tool than a pen and paper.

While I make use of electronic tools in almost every other facet of my working day, my list of tasks remains firmly stuck in the pre-digital world.

Over the years I've tried a range of alternatives that I hoped would boost my productivity by keeping me on track. I've tried simple text files containing lists of tasks and apps written specifically for the job.

When Google added tasks to Gmail I jumped at using it, thinking it might be the answer to my quest - but it wasn't to be. After a week or so of diligently logging things, I found myself once again reaching for the pen and pad. Along the way I've also tried apps such as Evernote and even Remember The Milk.

While they all offer great features, none really mapped onto the way I work. I need a place where I can log tasks as they come up, cross them off when they are completed and quickly get a feel for how I am traveling with big projects. The list also has to be instantly accessible so I can quickly remind myself of what has to be done next.

For me, the pen and pad delivers this and so remains an important tool in my daily work toolbox. But this doesn't mean I've given up the hunt for a digital alternative.

With all the attention devoted to cloud computing, it's easy to think it's become the normal method of operation in the business world. Reality, however, appears to be rather different.

Clouds

While most businesses now understand the benefits offered by cloud-based services and infrastructure, it's going to take a little while longer before they are fully on board with the concept.

A recent survey by analyst company Ovum found 74 per cent of IT activities within organisations are still performed by an in-house IT facility. Indeed, only 4 per cent of IT activities currently make use of cloud resources.

While this percentage is forecast to rise quickly during the next few years, it's somewhat surprising that it's still so low. This is despite massive marketing and education campaigns by vendors and extensive coverage in technology and business media.

Seems a world where the cloud is the primary technology platform for business is still a little way off.