Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Subscribe to our e-mail newsletters
For more info on a specific newsletter, click the title. Details will be displayed in a new window.
Computerworld Daily News (First Look and Wrap-Up)
Computerworld Blogs Newsletter
The Weekly Top 10
More E-Mail Newsletters 
Mark Hall's picture
Mark Hall

On the Mark

IT leaders should be carbon information leaders, too

CIOs are perfectly placed to become your organization's carbon information manager as well as IT leader. Just what your department needs. More work.

Carbon information managers (CIMs) are "an emerging role" in the modern enterprise, according to a report released last week by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) of the United Kingdom and IBM. CIMs are going to be the point person who leads the definition of how a business measures its carbon footprint and the person who oversees the projects needed to reduce it.

And don't be in any doubt, your company's goal is to reduce its consumption of greenhouse gasses (GHG). Not just the rate of growth of GHG consumption, but true cuts.

"This is a major, long term issue," says Richard Hodges, CEO of GreenIT, an IT consultancy in Sonoma, Calif. "It's not a fad."

Hodges says every international agreement he knows of sets GHG targets lower than the ones as nations we have today. In the CDP/IBM report some of the companies profiled lay out specific carbon-emission reduction goals, some as high as 50% by 2020.

Leading a company-wide effort to cut GHG consumptions is fraught with challenges, Hodges admits. Risk-averse CIOs will be leery of the task.

But who else in the organization, asks Hodges, has the insight into so many departments and groups as does the head of IT? He also contends that the tools likely needed to measure and reduce GHGs will be IT-based, making CIOs ideally suited to shoulder the duty of carbon information management.

Hodges advises you start with practical measures in IT itself. First and foremost, remove useless or underused gear. And, yes, turn out lights in rooms without people. Go to double-sided printing. Eliminate personal printers from offices and cubes. He says these all sound simple, but involve corporate cultural issues that can hamper success.

Rolling out a new ERP system might be a walk in the park compared to removing a VP's printer from his office.

What People Are Saying

Not only will risk adverse

Not only will risk adverse CIOs be leery of taking on this role, but also educated CIOs who recognize the "crisis" of man made global warming / climate change for the hoax that it is.

>>Eliminate personal

>>Eliminate personal printers from offices and cubes.<<

I've seen this one many times, and it's treated almost like an article of faith. However, I have never seen a really good justification for this sweeping generalization.

There are some good reasons for using more smaller printers than a few really big ones.

Firstly, electronic data is NOT the only data that needs to be kept private. If you are going to force people who print this stuff to print to shared printers that are in a space shared by people who should not have access to that information, then you had better spring for the really high end printers and the lock boxes to allow people to literally lock their documents away.

Secondly, printer placement can have a huge impact on workflow issues. For instance, some of our staff run dozens of jobs each day, and need the output for each one right away - they are actually using and working with these print outs rather than just filing them away. If someone needs exercise, then walking down the hall 20 times a day might be good for them. But you can be sure that it's not doing much good for the efficiency. And, if those papers need to be handed to someone who is sitting in your office (or even by your cubicle) then having to walk away from your desk for more than a minute presents some problems that I hope are obvious.

In terms of carbon footprint, as well, there are some advantages. The bigger - and more expensive - a piece of equipment is, the easier it is to replace. So, with smaller, less expensive equipment, you can replace any given item sooner. And, it lets you replace a large chink of energy guzzling equipment piecemeal, but starting *immediately* so that you can immediately start reducing energy use, rather than having to wait a longer time to get started.

The other thing is that today, most printers don't take up that much energy when not in use, but many of the smaller printers do take less power to print a few pages than the bigger printers. So, having a large number of smaller printers is NOT as energy consuming as it used to be. Depending on usage patterns, and how good your big printer is on printing power vs the smaller printer, it's far from obvious that the centralized approach is really that much more energy efficient.