Teblog

Cloud: evolution not revolution

Fed up with 'cloud' yet? You ain't seen nuthin'. It's not going to go away. But, with a bit of luck, it's going to start falling into place.

When Microsoft announced its 'Software Plus Services', many people, including me, scoffed. We assumed that this was just a way of preserving its profitable fat client software business while nicking whatever advantage it could from cloud-delivered services.

Microsoft has sunk its Office hooks deep into the corporate marketplace. But that won't surprise you. For better or for worse, people actually like using the same applications as their colleagues inside and outside the organisation and, in enterprises, the most popular ones are from Microsoft.

It doesn't matter how hard competitors try, the compatibility just isn't there. And, with products like Word, useful capabilities like Track Changes are just not portable. The wiki brigade will point out the nonsense of Track Changes and argue that a single workspace with multiple authors and a proper version history makes so much more sense. And in a pure academic sense, they're right. But, in the main, wiki products are lightweight and alien compared with the richness and ubiquity of Word.

What many organisations really need is concurrent editing of single instances of Microsoft documents. Some companies are working on such things, but that's tomorrow. They will have to climb the curve of evangelist, early adopter and early majority before they get anywhere near mainstream acceptance. By which time, who knows?, maybe Microsoft will have extended Word into a Microsoft-hosted wiki-like environment.

But Word is only an example of what's going on. Plenty of other applications deliver tremendous capability at the desktop and their online cousins less. A long time ago an industry pioneer called Adam Osborne used to claim that, "adequacy is sufficient, everything else is irrelevant." He probably said it in order to foist a portable computer with a five-inch screen on an unsuspecting world. But, for many, especially in the lower reaches of the market, his observation is true. There, OpenOffice, Google Docs and other products/services will continue to steal desktop business from Microsoft.

But, despite claims to the contrary, we're not about to experience a cloud revolution. The world isn't going to suddenly put all its eggs in the cloud basket. We're going to see a wide range of engagements with cloud. We've seen the start with SalesForce.com - a massively popular niche application which can be tapped into from anywhere. The same goes for email, online storage and credit card payment services. These are all cloud-based and require little thought to implement. They sit well with existing business processes.

Other cloud services act as an extension of the IT department, providing physical expansion (and contraction) without wrecking budgets and causing chaos in the data centre. As we move forward and we think of entrusting more of our IT to the cloud, we will need to tread carefully, lest we create hard-to-manage interdependencies between service providers. Nothing new in priniciple, but this is our own business we're entrusting to outsiders. SLAs and responsibilities need to be nailed down carefully.

It seems pretty obvious now that cloud services will sit alongside existing applications and services and be called upon when they provide genuine incremental value. But this wasn't so obvious a little while ago when the evangelists were screaming 'cloud is the future' and Microsoft, in what looked like a rearguard action to save its traditional business, was arguing that 'software plus services' is the future.

It sticks in my craw to say it, but I think Microsoft got it dead right.

Rumours of KM's death exaggerated

Say 'knowledge management' to most people in our business and watch the curl of their lips. It seems to be a 'given' that KM is dead. The usual reason given is that knowledge sits between our ears, so how the heck can it be managed? Even those who are prepared to stretch the definition a little bit into 'information' are still inclined to question the value of the stored information. I mean, what information is readily given up and what's its half-life anyway?
A few months ago, I stumbled across a US/Indian IT services company called MindTree. It has a Chief Knowledge Officer called Raj Datta. Expecting the worst, I spoke to him and was somewhat astonished to learn that he has taken a lifecycle approach to knowledge management. He recognises that it does live between people's ears. But he also recognises that it can be shared through social tools. The result is an organisation which spends a lot of time, energy and money on the most important bit of knowledge management, its creation in the first place.
Staff are introduced to many thinking and idea generation tools - from De Bono's Six Thinking Hats to mind-mapping. Through workshops and discussion groups, they can learn about many thinking concepts, developing their minds and their ability to innovate. Without creation, knowledge/information capture is merely ossifying the past.
Staff, called 'Minds' incidentally, are then given a wide choice of social and collaboration tools, from blogs through wikis to discussion groups, and more. They are also given a physical workplace which encourages planned and serendipitous encounters.
The astonishing thing about this company is that it was implementing these ideas and blending them with its traditional KM/content management systems while most companies were still trying to figure out the relevance of social networking. MindTree turns out to have been something of a pioneer.
By joining the dots and ensuring that the complete knowledge lifecycle is supported: from inception, to storage, to sharing, to reuse, it provides the KM world an intelligent and holistic way forward.

Hoard or share? Your call.

A long time ago, when I was a wage slave in a computer company, I figured out two things.

1) People will always be around and therefore I should work in a field that involved communication and people. (Teaching and writing became important parts of my life subsequently.)

2) I should, as much as possible, do things once and get paid lots of times. (I subsequently entered the publishing world - magazines first, then software.)

These activities have, to varying degrees, determined the trajectory of my life for the past 33 years. And a jolly fine life it's been, thank you for asking.

But, somewhere along the way, things changed. I found myself giving more and more of my stuff away. I (wrongly) bombed the price of my niche software too far. I found myself cheerfully handing out information and opportunity leads to others. At some point I moved from hoarding and dribbling out my knowledge in exchange for largish sums of money to giving away more and receiving something else in return, friendships and business relationships based on trust and transparency.

I'm not totally stupid, I realise I have to sell something and that something tends to be what's between my ears, my native talents or what I can lay my hands on and package more skilfully than others. It makes for a good life in which all the bits join up rather harmoniously. People, fortunately, know about me and are happy to pay me when they think they can get some value out of me.

I was prompted to write this by a tiny, three-minute, interview conducted in a noisy restaurant by one Suw Charman. She, incidentally, was partly responsible - along with Adriana Lukas and Jackie Danicki - for acting as midwives as I entered the world of blogging at the end of 2004. Her interview was with JP Rangaswami, a man who is a paragon of knowledge sharing. He gets hardly any sleep so has a ton of time to do his job (a very important one at BT), to keep up, to engage with all the 'greats' of the social computing world, and to reflect very deeply on our world, much of which ends up in his blog.

To paraphrase the (short) interview, he pointed out that capturing and keeping knowledge is part of the incentive system in many organisations. But the new generations coming through (and the more enlightened of the older generations) have a more sharing attitude. The core question is: do people want to share? And, by implication, he believes the the answer is, increasingly, "yes". It shows in his behaviour. The benefits show in his reach and influence. And little of this could have happened without him deciding to reach out and share.

And, as I've written many times before, inside an organisation, the benefits are potentially huge. Rangaswami believes that the decision (should we implement social software?) that organisations need to make  is akin to deciding whether or not a company should have a telephone exchange. In time, it will become obvious. Like email and mobile phones before, it will take a while to bite (he thinks the transition could be ten years or more) but it will happen without question.

Align green and business strategy, or fail

Call me an idiot if you like, but I fell for one of the oldest tricks in the book this morning. A few weeks ago, a colleague forwarded what looked like an interesting invitation from Infor to watch some webinars. My response was to wonder to my colleague why Infor hadn't written to me directly since it knew me. But all this was forgotten as I finally got round to doing something about it.

Here are the opening few lines of the invite:

We invite you to learn more about Green Initiatives

Two thought provoking webinars, sponsored by CFO Europe and Infor, available to view now

CFO Europe and Infor recently sponsored two webinars addressing green issues: "Green Strategy and the CFO: At the Crossroads between Profitability and Sustainability" and "Environmental Performance Management: How CFOs Contribute to the Green Strategy".

I'd taken a briefing from one of the speakers in January and thought this was a chance to catch up. All was going swimmingly until I noticed a spelling mistake on one of the slides, the very mistake I'd pointed out in the January meeting. Then it dawned on me, the 'recent' webinar was no such thing. It was recorded last November.

Oh well. In for a penny, as they say...

If you're interested in nailing the business drivers for green initiatives and you're fairly new to the subject, you'll get some value out of watching the webinars. There's a little bit of subtle selling but, in the main, the speakers play with a straight bat. (I didn't watch the second, but I assume the quality is similar to the first.)

A key learning is that organisations which treat their green, or sustainability, strategy as somehow separate to their business strategy are probably setting themselves up to fail on both counts. The two need to be integrated for the best overall results. In fact, we're really talking about integrating corporate social responsibility (CSR) which should incorporate green strategies.

The CFO was chosen as the focus because they are the custodians of corporate information. They own the budget, they have influence in all departments, and so on. They are well placed to provide or withhold funding according to the likely impact on the balance sheet of any investments, green or otherwise.

When the audience (at the original webinar) was asked what practical impact green awareness had on their organisations, most identified 'process improvement' as the major impact. This suggests that existing processes were improved rather than 'rip and replace' major investments made. Very few - around three percent - identified 'cost cutting' as a benefit, a fact that astonished the speakers. They couldn't see how reducing energy use could fail to cut costs. One of the speakers suggested that the 'either/or' polling mechanism might have been the cause of the surprise.

When it comes to implementing an environmental strategy, the key is to link it to organisational objectives - financial returns or benefit to stakeholders, for example. Gross margin could link to energy use or market share to customer perception.

Failure is usually either the result of lack of funding or lack of communication. If the funding is tied to specific actions which result in future success then it will be, itself, sustainable. Effective communication to employees and stakeholders needs no expansion here.

The audience was asked to vote on barriers to success. Way out ahead of all others (at 63 percent) was 'other competing priorities', which simply reinforces the need for linking investments to organisational goals. One of the speakers warned about starting too many key initiatives. Twenty to thirty would be plenty. Definitely not hundreds - this is the sort of thing that results from attempting to implement every 'good idea', rather than filtering out all but the most impactful.

Legislation is coming, it's still a bit muddly, but this will change the business case because, although voluntary in the early stages, it will eventually impact the bottom line, for better or for worse. This is expected to bite within four years.

The one thing that always bothers me about these presentations is that the supply chain is largely ignored when it comes to the question of equipment replacement. One of the speakers mentioned first year write downs of certain conforming equipment purchases: a fine incentive to invest in green equipment. But no-one ever seems to address the embedded environmental footprint of the new equipment and that of disposal of the old. It seems to me that, by using the business as the boundary of environmental calculations, totally wrong decisions can be made in the context of the planet as a whole.

Or am I missing something?

Green IT for Dummies: HP/Freeform Dynamics special edition

If you were one of the early readers of this post and you had trouble downloading, please try again. HP has improved the download process. You can just answer section 1 then skip to 3.

Eleven months ago, to the day, Freeform Dynamics and Wiley put the wheels in motion for a green IT for Dummies mini book. Somewhere along the line, Hewlett Packard offered to sponsor it and we're delighted to say that it's now officially available as an online download.

Or, to quote from HP's forthcoming announcement, "Copies of the book were already handed to out to people at the European Sustainable Energy Week and due to the positive success and feedback HP is making a limited number of pocket books available online to download."

Physical copies of the book will continue to be given out at appropriate conferences and exhibitions and, indeed, Freeform Dynamics has its own small stock. But, given that this is a book on environmental sustainability, the idea of downloading it and reading it online has a certain resonance.

The pocket book's very readable, 'Dummies-style', 28 pages look at how IT can reduce its own environmental impact and that of the organisations it serves. Apart from the main story, it also contains case studies, checklists and helpful links.

The chapter headings are: Gearing Up to Go Green; Cleaning Up IT; Greening Your Organisation; Changing Staff Attitudes and Taking Action; and, Ten Greenspirational Links.

If you're wondering whether it's for you, perhaps these assumptions about the readers will help:

You hold a senior position in an organisation (whether large, medium or small) and are wondering how to maintain or even improve performance while following a more sustainable environmental agenda.

You hold a senior position in the IT department and are wondering how to reduce your energy consumption, your general environmental impact and help the organisation meet its environmental goals.

You’re a concerned employee who feels that your organisation could do more for the environment.

The book was written by three analysts (me, Martin Atherton and Tony Lock) from Freeform Dynamics to ensure a comprehensive and pragmatic coverage of the subject. HP was very supportive but the book was independently written.

We hope, if your own profile matches one of those above, that you will find this guide a useful starting point for your own journey towards environmental sustainability.

Lotusphere mop-up; then I'll shut up

Rather than write a series of blog posts of ever-diminishing interest (for me and for you), I thought a final Lotusphere round up would make sense.

First up, Doug Heintzman. He's the director of Lotus Strategy. We talked about the market for collaboration software, top to bottom. I mentioned the bottom  last week. But, at the top, he talked about the Enterprise Adaptability practice: something that materialised after the last Lotusphere. The most interesting bit, for me, was the toolkit that it provides its practitioners for studying the social networking patterns in enterprise and using it to help build an ROI case. I asked him what parameters were measured, hoping to get a checklist for you, and was rewarded with a verbal finger wag. Something to do with the huge intellectual property value in the patterns that emerge. Drat and double drat. If you're interested in learning more, start here.

Okay. I've given up trying to find the next thing online. It was a brilliant use of the 'Crocodile Dundee in New York' scene where Dundee has headed for the subway to get out of Sue's life. She's dumped her fiancé and wants Dundee. The scene is the one in the subway where she wants to get a message to Dundee that she wants him back. Verbal messages are transmitted up and down the crowded platform until he clambers over the heads of the passengers for a reunion. Aaaah. You can see the clip on YouTube, but it hasn't got the IBM punchline. I tell you, if that's a real ad', aimed at real people, IBM/Lotus has hit a hole in one. Sean Poulley, the host of the session claimed that the nine collaborative tools being offered will be "competitively priced with meeting-only services". Interesting.

I'd wager that Casey Dugan was the most enthusiastic person at the event. She was showing off Beehive - a social networking site where people can reveal stuff about their personal lives as well as maintain professional connections. It has 50,000 users inside IBM so it is clearly of value to this substantial minority. It lives behind the firewall, which is less risky than public services. It's still a research project at the moment but you can grab more details here.

I think that's enough for one year about Lotusphere, except to say that some things made me unhappy. My Linux/Firefox  netbook wouldn't render my agenda properly. And I'd have liked a single sign on to the three different IBM services I was trying to use: the analyst site, the LotusLive site and the Lotusphere site. And, as for responsiveness, getting hundreds, maybe thousands of people trying to hit the access points and networks at the same time was a recipe for disaster. I gave up early and took to wandering round carrying bits of paper and having face-to-face conversations with real live people. Much more fun.

Now I'm taking a break. See you in a few weeks.

Dodging Stockholm Syndrome at Lotusphere

Someone was talking today about the Stockholm Syndrome in which hostages empathise with their abductors. Having just come back from Lotusphere I can understand that feeling.

You're surrounded by hordes of 'yellow blooded' delegates and IBM/Lotus folk who applaud and cheer at the drop of a hat. Sometimes to small nuances that totally escape the uninitiated, like me. I could cheerfully sit there sneering from my analysts' special seating area in the auditorium. But, when it came to talking to these genuinely enthusiastic souls, it was hard to remember that this was an organisation that had a particular job to do: to keep the faithful on board and to secure the interest of the rest of the world.

That it did the former, I have no doubt. The announcements came thick and fast. Given that Lotusphere happens once a year, it will be a while until all of the products and services are on general release. But the overall effect of the event was to persuade the faithful that Domino/Notes is a cracking platform, that it has a future, that it will simplify programming (did I hear by "500 percent"? I think I did) and that it will be possible to integrate all of the social software offerings into existing and future applications, making them a one-stop-shop for work, communication and collaboration.

What of the outsiders? Well, some deals have been put together to increase Lotus' reach and increase the customer's convenience. Salesforce.com, RIM - the BlackBerry folk, SAP, LinkedIn and others are all happily welding themselves to different parts of the Lotus infrastructure. There were others, of course and you can read about them on the IBM website.

But what about the size of organisations that can participate in the Lotus experience, and would they want to? This is where things get a little murkier.

Without question, Lotus is at its happiest with organisations that periodically write large cheques. And who can blame it? But it has ambitions to charge downmarket to hit organisations as small as, depending who you speak with, 1000, 500, 100 or 5 employees. That's quite a spread. But it becomes clearer when you look at the channels to market.

Again, IBM's comfort zones are selling direct or selling through systems integrators. The one thing that you can't miss at Lotusphere is what a massive industry owes its existence to the company's products. Consultants, integrators, third party software suppliers, even hardware makers, are only too happy to drink the Lotus Kool Aid and make money while providing valued services to their medium to large enterprise customers.

But Lotus needs to find a convincing route to the smaller organisations. It has, or soon will have, a bunch of offerings, in the shape of LotusLive Engage (Bluehouse as was) and various other versions of the software - Connections, Meetings and Events. These are variously abbreviated versions of the full blown equivalent on-premise offerings. And, in case you didn't know, all will run in the cloud. IBM's cloud. Again, there's more but that will do for now. The route to market is through intermediaries. Anyone with a bespoke requirement or an integration requirement will probably turn to their local reseller and a deal will be made. But the hoi polloi, assuming they realise the value of communication and collaboration, will go where exactly?

Lotus talks about being in discussion with telcos but we've seen many attempts over the past ten years for these to engage profitably at the low end. They have the relationship with clients through the telephone business but it's a big jump from selling lines and equipment to selling stuff with an intellectual content to a small business. I'm told that selling off the page has been a dismal experience so far. So either the customers will have to mature at their own pace and come knocking when they understand this stuff. Or someone has to get out there and engage with them effectively.

Enter stage left the hosting companies. The good ones are already used to providing high levels of advice and support online. They sell to small businesses. Perhaps this is where Lotus should be looking for salvation. SIs for people prepared to dig deep in their pockets and a lightweight semi-automated service provision for those with short arms.

Or, in the blizzard of information last week, did I go snowblind? Please correct me, if you feel so moved. At least I don't feel I'm suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

The organisational social software paradox

Last week I reported on the shape of the enterprise social networking space with the help of Andrew McAfee's Berkmann Centre lunchtime presentation on the subject. This week I'll get a little closer to home and present you with a paradox you're going to have to resolve if you're thinking of introducing social networking into your organisation.

A few months ago, Freeform Dynamics and MWD joined forces to carry out research among 201 companies on the subject of collaborative computing. The respondents were roughly equally split between France, Germany and the UK. All organisations were at least 1000 employees and half of them were over 5000. Sixty percent of the respondents were IT-centric and forty percent business-centric. All had some responsibility for workforce communication and collaboration.

The research contained all manner of interesting stuff but, as promised last week, I'm going to take a couple of charts out which relate to risk. One of our questions centred around the unofficial use of collaboration software within the organisation. As you can see from the chart below, social software of the kind we were discussing last week has crept into most of these organisations to some degree. Over fifty percent of respondents report wide adoption while almost every organisation has at least some.

In the officially sanctioned figures (not shown), social media is in third place at a little under 25% but instant messaging remains bottom of the heap.

Now, I don't know if I'm being dim here, but if something is unsanctioned, it seems that people would need to get it in by stealth. This is easy enough to do with solo desktop software (if organisational desktop control is lax enough) but social media, by its very nature, needs more than one participant and a shared location in which participants can 'meet', either synchronously or asynchronously.

This being the case, it seems highly likely that at least a percentage of those interviewed must be using public services in order to achieve their social networking objectives. Some, of course, will have an in-house 'skunk works' server - rather as Euan Semple did when he was at the BBC - but this requires some degree of computer skill and, of course the authorisation of the IT department at least.

So, let's take a look at the second chart. This relates to the concerns of the respondents towards the use of public services for this sort of thing. Don't forget it includes the conferencing, communication and screen sharing applications mentioned in the first chart.

Security, compliance, user distraction and support overhead all rank reasonably highly when you aggregate 'major concern' and 'some concern'.

We clearly have a discrepancy between what people are doing and what their organisations would like them to be doing. No doubt the employees have their reasons for behaving in this contradictory way. I'd hazard a guess that they've found the perceived benefits outweigh the perceived risks. Within most organisations, I'd have thought it unlikely that people would adopt social software just so they can chat to their personal friends. (By the way, if you'd like to alarm yourself with a detailed run down of risks, take a look at this new report on Web 2.0 security from the European Network and Information Security Agency.)

I'll confess to a degree of bafflement and, if you are in one of these contradictory situations, I'd love to hear from you. Perhaps you can tell me whether things are as laissez faire as they appear or whether guidelines and controls have been put in place to minimise, or at least balance, risk. And, maybe, tell us how hard it is for your organisation to take social networking seriously and what efforts you're making to articulate the commercial benefits to the powers that be.

I look forward to hearing from you.

The knowledge worker and Enterprise 2.0

Always good to hear Andrew McAfee in action. He's the guy who coined the Enterprise 2.0 moniker a couple of years ago. He's an associate professor at Harvard Business School and, yesterday, he ran a lunchtime presentation and Q&A on "Enterprise 2.0: How Organizations are Exploiting Web 2.0 Technologies and Philosophies." The audience was a mix of students, faculty, journalists, analysts, bloggers, business folk and venture capitalists.

The subject matter was of particular interest to me this week, having already done a press interview, worked with some potential research clients/partners and prepared for a conference, all on a closely-related topic. It struck me as a good idea to listen in. Not least to get a reality check for my own thoughts. The tip-off, by the way, came through Elsua - an online pal who works for IBM - through Twitter, an increasingly popular web 2.0 micro-blogging tool.

The presentation, with minor adjustments, wasn't so different from what he was saying a couple of years ago. In fact, if this stuff is new to you, you will find value in his How to Hit the Enterprise 2.0 Bullseye blog post (November 2007). The bullseye in the headline means targeting the organisation but, in the body, it refers to his model of how a knowledge worker inside an organisation sees their connections to others. Because it focuses on people, it is immune to the shifts in technology. New applications can be added to and removed from the model without wrecking the basic insights it provides.

To keep it simple: at the heart are the people with whom we have strong ties - our colleagues, the people we work with, have lunch with and maybe socialise with; The next lots are those people we know - if we saw them in a pub we'd be happy to have a drink with them; beyond that, and this is where it gets interesting, are the people who would make potential colleagues, if only we knew about each other; and, finally, the outer ring contains the world of helpful people out there whose worlds are unlikely to collide with ours.

The strong tie group is unlikely to be the source of novel information or links to potential colleagues. They know each other too well. The weak ties are those most likely to lead us to new ideas and new opportunities. Enterprise 2.0 technologies don't cause these things to happen, but they can act as amplifiers of these natural processes. Wikis might be popular among strongly tied individuals while Twitter or Facebook might be used in both areas. The next ring cannot really be exploited without some Enterprise 2.0 technology, blogging in particular. McAfee talks about "narrating your work". Do this and with the help of regular search, tags or links from other sources it acts as a magnet to others who are interested in what you do.

The ring with no ties represents strangers. While having nothing to do with collaboration, it is a source of collective intelligence. McAfee ran us through some examples of prediction markets to show the usefulness of this ring. It boils down to aggregating the individuals' predictions of a particular outcome - presidential results, company performance, whatever. Closely linked to betting and not social at all. But remarkably accurate.

Sticking to the social part of the bullseye, McAfee said that the biggest fear of managers is that information would leak that shouldn't. He noted that email, photocopiers and USB sticks, among others, already provide plenty of ways to leak information. However social tools do increase the number of people who can see leaks, so the participative benefits of the Enterprise 2.0 world have to be weighed up against the risks of disclosure. Related to this, he mentioned that some companies 'close down' too much. Their use of social tools might be restricted to strong tie groups, foreclosing the possibility that someone else in the organisation might have something valuable to offer.

He claims to have begged organisations for horror stories relating to these technologies and says "the collection is empty". People inside organisations don't use this stuff to do nasty things. This is partly to do with the fact that they cannot participate anonymously and people already know how to behave.

I'm not sure that this is universally true, so next week I'll take a closer look at the risks and the remedies, especially when the outside world becomes part of the equation.

CA sets out its sustainability stall

Imagine my joy when a 3.1MB pdf from CA landed on my digital desk. When I realised the filename was sustainability-report.pdf,  I got interested. As a fairly avid supporter of sustainability (I won't bore you just now, but you might want to look here and here) I thought, "Great, CA is another vendor which is taking this environmental stuff seriously." Either that, or I had to brace myself for a big bucket of greenwash.

At first glance, I was disappointed. It starts off as a conventional report about the company and doesn't give environmental sustainability a proper look-in until page 50. I thought this odd, but then remembered that sustainability is not just about the environment. If you can't sustain your business, then you can't do much for the people in it, its customers, the community or the wider world. Or, as the report summarises, "sustainability incorporates environmental responsibility, economic prosperity and social accountability."

The details of the report matter little here (you can read it yourself). Suffice it to say that CA is looking at its own business and it has taken some actions, reported some of its behaviour to the Carbon Disclosure Project and others and is planning further actions. It is also applying what it learns to the development of products and services for its customers which will start to become available in the spring.

This is the first time that CA has 'come clean' on sustainability issues. Unlike many other companies that have been banging the environmental drum for a while now, it was either watching and waiting or it couldn't see the point of publicising its fifty or so existing environmental initiatives. Then, just over a year ago, it decided to create an overarching sustainability strategy for the company world-wide. The report is the first major public evidence of the journey the company has taken, although the subject did get a couple of airings at CA World in November.

(At this point, a small confession. As a journalist, I was conditioned to be primarily interested in new and different stuff. In this previous life, I would have been tempted to ignore CA for being so late to the sustainability party. Now, in my life as an analyst, I realise that everyone turns up to any particular party at a different time. This doesn't make them less welcome. Lesson learned.)

So, back to CA. Perhaps because it arrived at the need for a cohesive sustainability strategy later than others, it has been able to take a more holistic approach than most. Steve Boston, VP of sustainability strategy, explained to Freeform Dynamics that his primary consideration was to "protect and nurture all resources needed to stay in business." This covers: environment - air, water, power for the data centre, and so on; social - the people needed to build, sell and buy; and economic - top line, bottom line and governance. Only after taking care of the business can global citizenship be addressed.

We talked about Al Gore - big tick for raising awareness, big cross for the nebulousness of the climate change challenge, which makes CEOs and CIOs feel relatively powerless. A tick for carbon trading and a cross for carbon taxes. Steve Boston has spent a year closely engaged in the subject and has emerged with some clear ideas of what he thinks will work in the business world and what will not.

CA starts its thinking in its traditional area, the data centre, but don't expect it to stop there. The goal will be to create automated management systems that can react in real time to current conditions. In September, it introduced a solution internally called CA Green Governance, "to help prioritize our sustainability initiatives, keep projects on track and monitor risk, compliance, cost, timelines and measurement." It's early days for the company, but its intention is to refine the product in the light of the company's own experiences then make it a customer offering. You'll find details on page 60 of the report.

While the company's individual green initiatives detailed in the report are interesting in themselves, the more important aspect of the CA story is that it is focusing on sustainability in the round. While the drivers for its own actions and its planned products and services are strictly commercial, the benefits are intended to accrue to both the business and to the wider environment.