The Next Big Thing

[#1]

I was talking with Jim Pierce of GreenIT08 about how narrow the perspective is of many of the people who talk about Green IT. This was driven home to me twice yesterday when I sat through 2 different industry expert’s discussion. They used phrases like:

Green IT refers to environmentally sound IT. It is the study and practice of designing, manufacturing, and using computers, servers, monitors, printers, storage devices, and networking and communications systems efficiently and effectively with no or minimal impact on the environment.

I worry about this view that power is power -- implying that IT is a commodity. There are changes that can be made in this area, like ensuring that the data center manager actually knows how much power they consume and gets measured and rewarded accordingly. There is much more that will have real business impact though.

The current focus within many organizations on application portfolio management, that drives infrastructure and apps modernization, should think about value generated/watt. It is value that’s important! These infrastructure only statements add no additional revenue and have only an isolated effect on increasing margin for the enterprise. That to me is not really “green” IT, since their efforts do not add to corporate advantage – the real reason to have IT in the first place. These systems are there to run applications that actually do something; we need to focus on those systems too. Clock cycles are not enough.

Granted it is not as easy to calculate as current flow down a circuit, but who said IT should be easy.

[#2]

You seem to be missing the point of 'green' IT. The point is to shift the focus away from corporate advantage and profit, and towards humanitarian advantage and environmental 'profit'. Even if corporate revenue and margin are not increased, or even decrease, as a result, the idea of 'green' IT is that humanity and its environment benefit.

[#3]

I agree. While value is obviously important to the business, there are often small (or even large) things that can be done that will have little or no impact on profitability. If this is the case, it is our duty to perform these actions.

[#4]

Why do you worry that power is power?

Surely you would worry more should power not be power, thus labelling technology obsolete and reverting the entire population back to the dark days of pen and paper. No longer would one be able to erase with a stroke of the delete key, but one would be forced to use the liquid correction formula known as 'tipex'.

Do not worry that power is power, embrace it.

[#5]

David - I disagree with your perspective that we're to shift away from corporate advantage and profit. Business is not a hobby. Business value generation is critical to an organization future. Public companies are owned by stockholders who expect a return on their investment. They should also expect that better techniques will be used to maximize value generation. This is not an issue where it is one or the other, there is an expectation of both. We are moving to an 'and' expectation and 'or' will not be a choice.

Power consumed using old, obsolete technologies is just waste. Power used to generate value is the foundation of the future not the past. I had an entry about the TI semiconductor fab that was 'greener', under budget and under schedule. When done properly, you 'green' does not have to give up value.

[#6]

I was not suggesting that EDS should shift its approach away from corporate advantage or profit, as I doubt that this can happen. What I am suggesting is that a process that does not have our environment as the top priority should not be labelled 'Green' IT. Otherwise the adjective has no meaning.

[#7]

I think you're absolutely right to point out that the debate is too narrow... but, I would say that a significant proportion of IT is just 'infrastructure' and should be treated as such - simplify, standardise, drive cost down (and be greener in the process).

So much of what IT needs to do now (and you could argue that IT should have done it already!) is about reducing adverse effects (cost notably) rather than delivering new business opportunities etc... But then there's that other side to IT... how smart IT solutions can help deliver more efficient supply chain management (fewer airmiles for the things we buy perhaps)... or how technology makes it easier to tele-work (fewer commute miles) and collaborate (partner with someone on another continent without having to fly out there once a week) etc.

I think it is important to work on the narrower issues of heat and power - but at the same t ime, smart CIO's will be looking at the issue in a much broader and more imaginative way