Circular Economy

Green IT series — Article 4/4 Two years ago, as part of a CSRD compliance programme, I was handed a non-functional requirement. It came down to a single sentence: the solution must make it possible to have indicators for assessing its environmental impact during operation. An environmental requirement, written in black and white, in a document that binds design. On paper, that is a win. In short Three words are enough to empty an environmental requirement of its force: during operation excludes manufacturing, which is to say the heaviest item of all. What is already manufactured is already paid for. The only remaining variable is lifespan, reuse and decommissioning — which is where the circular economy of IT becomes an architecture subject. Regulatory pressure has receded; the footprint has not. An organisation that has not prepared the ground will find itself at exactly the same point when the demand returns. ⎙ Imprimer / Télécharger en PDF Three words that empty a requirement Let us read it again, because everything turns on how it is worded. ...

Green IT series — Article 1/4 A perfectly cooled datacentre, running workloads no one consults any more, will post an excellent PUE. That is the whole problem. And it is only the visible version of a much wider paradox. In short PUE measures the efficiency of the envelope, never the usefulness of the computation — and the same illusion plays out at organisational scale, where a green programme coexists with projects that have no reason to ever cross its path. Enterprise architecture is not there to constrain choices or arbitrate between visions. It is there to make the whole coherent — provided it sits in the right place, with the right levers. Sobriety and the circular economy of IT are not programmes running alongside the value stream. They are quality attributes within the value stream. ⎙ Imprimer / Télécharger en PDF A flawless indicator for an absurd system Let us start with the tool, since the tool is what gets brandished. ...