 Great pleasure to introduce a gentleman I last saw with a finisher's medal around his neck from the London Marathon. Mr. Gunnar Menzel. So Gunnar is the Chief Technology and Innovation Officer for North and Central Europe for Capgemini. With a total of over 14,000 architects globally, he's one of only two certified master architect and master integrated architecture framework architects across the entire Capgemini group. In addition, Gunnar is part of the main editorial board for Capgemini's techno vision framework. As certified master architect and IAF master architect, he's a member of Capgemini's Global Architecture Board and as a senior leader within Capgemini's Global Architecture community, he's playing a key role in setting the direction of the architecture profession across the group, something we care greatly about at the open group too. And he's also responsible for the development of future talent. Born in Germany, Gunnar now lives with his family in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom. So a warm virtual welcome from the open group please for Gunnar Menzel. Over to you, Gunnar. Thanks Steve. Yeah, indeed. I remember well in London, but I overrided this couple of years ago now, so of course this should have been physical, so unfortunately we have to revert back to virtual, but I think we all understand why and we'll appreciate that. Now, first question first, I hope you can see my screen. Yes, absolutely we can. Wonderful, wonderful. Right, so I'm going to take you, or I'm going to focus on over the next 20, 25 minutes on a particular subject. So Céline just said the scene in terms of sustainability, walking you through what AXA is doing in terms of sustainability. And I wanted to hone, I wanted to focus on one particular aspect of that. And of course when we talk about sustainability, sustainability is a wide subject. My focus for the next 20 minutes, 25 minutes, it's really about the carbon side of ICT sustainability. First of all, I mean, you don't really have to drive a lot of context. Again, as was mentioned before, if you look at the impact, the environmental impact that happened over the last, just the last two years, you know, there's clearly a call for action for us. If you look at the catastrophic floods that we had in Germany in 2020, if you look at the incidents and the fires, but also the floodings that happened all over the world last year, there's clearly kind of a call to action for society to do something about. And particularly when you look at the carbon footprint impacts, so the cause and effect of these natural disasters, then clearly carbon is a key factor in climate change. You may say, well, with COVID, we didn't travel and we have reduced our carbon footprint. Whilst that is true, you're seeing indications currently, and these are the figures that I had, I think the latest one from end of 2020, early 2021, I think it was when you see the levels of carbon going back to 50% above industrial revolutions are certainly an indicator that we're still increasing. Now you may say, well, okay, what has it all got to do with ICT? Celine also mentioned before, and I'm just going to note on these, that we also in the IT industry have a responsibility, 3% to 4% of carbon contribution or CO2 contribution globally is driven by ICT. So all of IT globally together, as was mentioned, is on par with aviation fuel in 2018. So all planes flying throughout the air or in the world before COVID, same kind of CO2 footprint that they had created. If you were to look at it from an electricity consumption perspective, then if you were to put all IT into our country, it would be the third largest electricity consumer in the world. So quite significant, because it's about 10% of all electricity is currently consumed by IT. Another way of seeing this, I mean, another perspective on the impact or the unintended consequences of ICT is there was a video that was released in 2016, I think, and it hit 5 billion views, the first video that hit 5 billion views on YouTube, and somebody calculated that 5 billion views on YouTube consumed the same amount of electricity as 40,000 US households in a whole year. Now you and I, if you watch something on YouTube, I don't think we really consider the implications or the unintended consequences of IT. You can imagine, of course, we all know there is quite a number of hops that connect me to you throughout the world with using this Webex platform, for instance, and I don't know what our CO2 footprint is using this platform virtually. So there are some unintended consequences that IT is creating. And of course, depending on which country you are, as again, as Srin has mentioned, there's a certain carbon footprint to that, of course. I said for IT consumes about 10% of all electricity worldwide. Now with COVID and with the shift of work to more virtual, you see some indications that that will even further increase. So prediction currently is that by 2030, all of IT globally would maybe consume 20% of all electricity. And again, of course, if the energy mix of that 20% is more carbon heavy, so for instance, coal or gas, then of course, that will have direct consequences because it would pollute or will contribute towards the greenhouse gas emissions. Now, but all is not so bad because of course, IT also has a huge part of play to help us to address our carbon footprint. So the UN has calculated that IT or ICT together actually has the potential to cut 10 times as much as it omits. So it could cut out 20% of all carbon globally, all of it by using IT, for instance, to reduce transport or to use IT to cut out certain activities or to be more efficient, more effective. And UN, if you're interested, they're quite interesting because the sustainability development goals have been articulated by the UN, of course, COP is the key subject here. And again, IT has a big part of play to support us addressing our global carbon footprint. But still, the fact remains that we have an obligation to address our impact from an IT's perspective, that 3%, which might be 6% if we don't do anything by 2030. Now, you could look at, so the question is, how do I or how do we address our carbon footprint? Now, there are various different viewpoints, a very different perspective. The presentation you just heard before is a solution angle. So it kind of drives into kind of, you know, the elements that you can apply very successfully as you heard, an access case to addressing some of these subjects. But there are three key areas that you could have a look at from an ICT's perspective. First, the approach you're taking to creating solutions. Second, the actual solutions of products, again, some of them were mentioned before. And third is the way you operate actually your ICTs or you operate your data centers or your networking or your storage or your compute. So there are three different areas you can have a look at, or you can focus on when you're addressing reduction in IT or reduction in CO2 or carbon footprint in ICT. And as I mentioned, I'm just going to focus on the carbon side in terms of IT or ICT. And for my short presentation now, I can't unfortunately cover the entire scope, otherwise, you know, why 25 minutes will maybe be a bit longer. But I thought maybe for this short slot, it might be interesting to dive into the art or the approach you're taking to creating a more sustainable solution. Just as a side info, I was working for a public sector organization here in the UK in 2010, so this is now 12 years ago. And I led the entire transformation of all of the infrastructure in the application landscape. So it's about 150 applications, about 2500 servers. And it was not just to re-host and re-platform, so to address technical debt. And it was also a very, very hard target on CO2 emissions and how to target to reduce the entire CO2 emissions of all of IT by 50%. And some of the elements that you see in here is also the approaches or the tools that ISTRA we use in Capgeminar to helping us to do that with clients. From an architecture perspective, I might add. So how do you architect solutions that have sustainability embedded? Again, part of this discussion was already kind of mentioned in the previous presentation, but they want to kind of dive a bit more in detail the hows. How do you actually do this? Not what are the solutions, what are not the technologies, but what is the approach we're taking to be more sustainable? What are the steps that we need to do? We, as architects, we need to do when we are designing solutions that become or have to be more sustainable. Again, with this carbon footprint or carbon focus in mind. Well, first of all, is define clearly what does actually sustainability mean and have some clear related principles and targets. So clear focus first is be really clear with what do you mean by sustainability? So when I say do you, I mean the organization, again, as I mentioned before, have a very clear specification and clear support top-down by having a clear articulation of the intent, the objectives and the purpose, for instance, and the vision maybe. I could be saying we want to reduce our carbon by 50% by 80%. We want to be net neutral by X, Y and Z. So there will be or there might be certain objectives that we need again from the architecture perspective to define before you start changing or before you start designing. Then, and this may be quite obvious, but still we believe and I believe really important, you have to make sure the sustainability is part and parcel of your design process. So this is when you are designing a solution, even a cloud solution or a COTS product or you're implementing a commercial off-the-shelf product or you're moving to a public cloud provider, still you have to make sure that sustainability has to be part of your solution design process. How you do that, I'll show you or give some indications. Again, I can't explain you in detail, of course, but I'll give you some indication to how we see that in capture and how you could develop that. Then another practical aspect, again, from an architecture perspective, from a practitioner perspective, is how do you make sure that sustainability is included? It comes also from practical experience when I was working for this public sector organization. You have to balance, value for money, agility, compliance, as well as sustainability. Sometimes sustainability or carbon footprint impact, for instance, can be or can be seen as more a secondary objective or a secondary focus area, but if you really want to make an impact from a sustainability perspective, you have to balance those characteristics at the same time and ideally have those characteristics, particularly when you're making decisions around options, are on the same level. Again, I'll spend a slide or two on explaining or providing some insights of what it could look like, not to say that this is the entire answer, of course. And last but not least, particularly when you're executing as an architect, and here I mean the activity of architecting a solution. So when you go through your solution lifecycle, you have to really make sure you're applying a real design thinking approach, design thinking approach, meaning take into account different stakeholders, balance various different options, making sure people are aware of the positives, but also the negatives. Again, as before you heard, there are solutions that can significantly reduce the carbon of an organization. Think about using AI or reducing the amount of travel, but you still require an AI tool. You may know that AI itself need a lot of training to be operational. That training in a pre-production environment could cost quite a lot of electricity. And if that electricity is coming from sustainable sources like coal or gas as an example, there could be a carbon footprint. So you have to have a view on these different characteristics and balance them, but also apply a design thinking approach to your design activity or your architecting activity. Now, in Capgemini, as you heard, we have about 14,000 architects globally, and it's part and parcel to the daily work of an architect today to consider sustainability as a key aspect. And you heard this in the introduction when Steve introduced my role. We have this integrated architecture framework. If you've been with Open Group for a while, you know about IAF, because we also use IAF as a content framework to drive Torgav, or to support Torgav, Torgav9. And we still develop IAF also as in Capgemini as our integrated architecture framework. And IAF is kind of our bedrock when it comes to making sure we are delivering, we're designing an architecture that is valid for money that delivers the non-functional characteristics. And what we realized, sorry, what we've done, I think it was middle of 2020, if I'm not mistaken, to release our latest version of IAF as version six, and we call it the sustainability addition. So for us in Capgemini, sustainability is at the heart of a solutioning process, so of a architected design activity, because as you can see, year sustainability is on par with security or the governance. So we see this as a perspective on the entire solution. So security is not something that we see as an outside activity, or a separate to infrastructure or separate to governance. And I talked about this on par, so making sure when you're making design decisions, moving, for instance, from logical to physical, that you're considering all the aspects, like, for instance, requirements, functional requirements, but also the non-functional characteristics. And this is, of course, the key element when you're designing these solutions and making sure that you're taking into account all the characteristics of a solution. IAF helps us to articulate the entire solution. It defines, as a framework, content framework, so it defines which artifacts do you need to create a solution, coherent and complete solution. And we pre-coded the artifacts next to the standard artifacts you would expect from an architecture perspective, also within IAF. I just pulled out some of the key elements. So we coded or pre-coded artifacts, a meta model of artifacts behind the various different abstraction levels, abstraction level for us is the why, the what, the how, and the with what. And we encoded the artifacts that you would typically develop or deliver within these activities. Now, as I mentioned, this here wasn't intended to give you an answer to this for a solution. It was intended as a, this short presentation was intended to provide some insights on the how, on how to design, how to design solutions that are considering sustainability next to other aspects like functional requirements, but also cost value for money or compliance. Now, I mentioned before, the four areas, how do you actually do it? I mentioned, you know, make sure that you have a framework, also articulate it, make sure that you apply design thinking. Design thinking is really that you balance your, and you work as customer or client and architect, but you balance all these different aspects when you're creating a solution. So obviously, when you are deploying, say a CIM solution for a particular area or you're implementing a digital service or whatever might be, because you think about usability, you think about stability and availability is all these non-functional characteristics, you need to make sure that you deliver the functionality. That needs to be done with compliance in mind. And also, of course, you only have a certain amount of, I guess, funds available to you. So value for money will be critical, not only in doing the process, but also once the solution is deployed. And we see this now. And I think this was all a question that Steve had asked before. We see, I see certainly over the last, say, three or four years now, more and more sustainability being on par and those characteristics. So when you are executing as an architect, when you're working as an architect, enterprise solution or technical architect, and you've been asked to design a solution, you must make sure that the sustainability related aspects of the target or the final solution you're creating is not a secondary aspect or something that comes at the end. It's actually something that you have to take into account right from the start. Actually, the earliest you do this, the better, because sustainability, undoubtedly, carbon footprint may have an impact on or limiting your options that you have from an architecting perspective. So if you're making those design decisions too late, you may be constrained and you may not be able to do them. So I thought, I give you a kind of helicopter view across the how from an architecting perspective. Again, apologies, I can't go into the detail. I know I'm an architect as well. I want to see the details. So I would ask the question now, if it was you, okay, tell me how do you actually do this? What are the documents? What are the tools? But before you do this, if you just stop you for a second, allow me another five minutes because I have some examples and they may help to illustrate what I actually mean. Now, first example, again, a problem quite obvious, but it's also the answer to the question was the first thing, obviously, you need to be aware of what is the ICT contribution or the contribution from a YouTube perspective. So you may know that your manufacturing of a server, a storage component, an asset, typically is about 20% of its carbon footprint over its lifetime. I say typically, because of course it depends on what asset you have. It might be quite different between a mobile phone and say huge DS8700s or big storage unit. Doing its operation, the majority of CO2, of course, has been consumed during the operation. So typically it's about 80%. Again, it can be swaying from say 60 to 90%. And about one or two percent is the disposal of an asset that could cost the CO2 or CO2 will be related to the disposal of an asset. Now, one answer to the question, how do we reduce our footprint, sweat the assets longer? As Zilla was mentioning this before, rather than refreshing after five, why then refresh after seven? Of course, you have to take quality into consideration. As in the meantime, before failure, increases after a certain period, you may have more outages. So you may have more outages, by the way, and it's not, of course, no proof, it's just an indicator. So there are implications you have to consider you have to consider for certain areas that may not be applicable to do that for others. It's certainly be a good option to think about to reducing the carbon footprint. Because when you buy an asset, like for instance, if you buy a mobile phone, 20% of its carbon footprint is already built in by the production of this asset. The longer you use it, the less overall impact you will have. So there are calculators, there are examples out there that you can use. Here's one example. Again, I'm just using one. This is an example from Dell that issues the typical footprint of, this was an M service this year, I can't remember now, which is an M830, I think it is. And this is taken off Dell's calculator. You can see also here the distribution of CO2 across its lifetime, so 18.5 in its manufacturing, then users were 80% and then end of life maybe 0.1%. And of course, this is, you have to take this with a pinch of salt, because the nine tons of CO2 calculated over its lifetime, it depends of course how you use the server in which utilization patterns you would deploy. But it gives a good indication of what to expect, particularly when you need to make decisions. Which way would I go? Will we do it ourselves on-prem? By the way, if you go on to cloud, of course, cloud still has servers. So sometimes a year, if I move on to public cloud, I don't have to worry about CO2 because it's not my server anymore. Well, it's still your service, so you still have footprint override maybe lower than if you had to build it yourself. Again, it may not be the case. So it's, of course, there are different options available with different implications. Now, another example, an apology is quite busy here. I thought I'd show it because of course, having clearly articulated principles also means helping being more sustainable. Because if you inject these principles right at the beginning, when you're starting, when you're enterprise study, for instance, or you're doing a solution design, it would help you to be more considering the carbon footprint of a solution. And here I thought I'd give you some examples of some principles. Again, right, of course, high level. You can see here a clear statement of intent from an enterprise architecture perspective around sustainability. Then more solution-focused principles that are related to this EA principle and something that can be used when you're making decisions, particularly around solution approach. So how do you build your solution? Is this all on our own kit? Will we use a cloud or what is the framework we're using from a solution perspective? For instance, when I was working for this public sector organisation, when we designed the DC at the time, it wasn't, the public sector wasn't really, it didn't have a big footprint. So the option was only right to build yourself. And we built a data center without any UPSs. So no batteries in our data center, just flywheels, because we didn't want battery footprint in those data centers. This was back in 2009 when we designed the data center without air conditioning. So use fresh air flows to cool the service. And that DC is in the middle of Europe, Britain, England. So not in the Arctic or anywhere. Last but not least, and I'm almost done, Steve. I promise, I said I'll do it in less than 25 minutes. I'm almost there. There's another example, because we've been designed, I've been in the IT industry for 35 years, 34 years. My standard pattern is when I design a solution, I typically have a pre-production environment. A pre-production environment can be a development environment, a functional testing environment, SIT, system integration test environment. I may have a UAT, user acceptance test environment. They certainly have a production environment. And that production environment also maybe have a disaster recovery environment, maybe also another environment. So there are many different environments, meaning potentially quite a lot of duplications. And we certainly see from an approach perspective that maybe that's not the most effective way of working. Why don't we just have two? So have one, which is life, and the other one is develop. And then you do all your testing and develop, including SIT, so system integration testing, maybe user acceptance testing. Now this may require, of course, you having more a microservice approach or more cloud-based approach. So with legacy systems, this might be a bit more trickier, but still I think questioning the layout of our typical production approach might be a good idea. So to finish off, so the question is ICT and CO2 is clearly there. You heard the 3%. If you don't do anything, we have maybe 20% of electricity consumption by 2030, which is a lot. What do we do? If you park all the solutions that are out there, approach is clearly a key angle. We are architects. It's our main job, to design solutions. So when you design solutions, make sure that you consider the correlation between ICT usage and CO2. Again, maybe very obvious. Yes, true, but understanding first what is there or what will be there is a really important aspect. And then when you are designing a solution, make sure that CO2, carbon sustainability, again, focused here on carbon, of course, is an NFR, a non-functional requirement, and it's on par with other characteristics. Some organizations are making generous, making decisions to state that sustainability or carbon impact is even more important than say, value for money or cost. So even if it's more expensive to go carbon less impactful or more sustainable, it's better for us. So we'd rather do that. So make sure that CO2 is part of your NFRs. And then, of course, obviously, have a look at and see how you can eliminate CO2. Like, for instance, maybe approach your pre-production approach slightly different by cutting out some of those environments, which, of course, will help you to reduce your CO2, will help you to reduce some of the footprint. And make sure that ICT is what you do. Again, probably just echoing what was said before. You know, it's a very, very important subject to all of us, to us in the IT sector as architects, but also to us as individuals. The first picture you've seen on this presentation is where I used to live in Trier in the southwest of Germany. So it affects us at climate change. And we have a part to play as architects to really make sure that sustainability is part and parcel of our design. And with that, and I'm slightly over, maybe two minutes, I'll finish my presentation. Maybe we can go on to some Q&A, Steve, if we have any. Great stuff, Gunnar. Thank you very, very much. Really appreciate it. And we'll have, yes, we'll have you back on the panel a bit later, but we'll probably have time for a couple of questions right now. Both you and Celine have mentioned geography or where you are as an important factor in these decisions. We hear sometimes about the worst countries in the world in terms of emissions. Are there some that stand out at the other end of the spectrum, good places to be or advanced in their thinking? I think that's a really tricky question. I think the, I must admit, I'm not an expert in that area. However, when I investigated there's a bit, and again, Celine has mentioned a couple of figures before, when I had a look, for instance, I wouldn't say the UK is a leading light in this, but I was quite surprised by how little, for instance, UK, you was using coal. I think our coal consumption was, I think, on 2% or 3%. A lot comes from wind and from renewal. We have far, well, I have a bit, for my taste, personal taste, a bit too much gas still in there, but we're going into the right direction. I think COVID has obviously made a big impact because, and the gas prices, of course, now make an impact because there's been an impact over the coal. I think the point is, if you live in the country, there are standard figures and numbers being issued globally. So, you can have a look at what is your energy mix, for instance, for your data center. If your provider isn't providing that information, typically they do, and depending on which country is, you are, you can find it out yourself, what's the mix, and therefore how likely, how much carbon you're likely to produce. It's a bit more trickier than it sounds. Sometimes, when I advise people, when they ask me, how do I calculate it, it must be quite easy because they just look at the server and it tells me my CO2 footprint. Unfortunately, there's no A, B, C, D, and E label. In Europe, you have the categories. When you buy a fridge or a freezer, you know exactly what the energy efficiency of that fridge or freezer is. Unfortunately, in IT, we're not there yet. Again, I guess Lin has mentioned that before as well. It's a bit more tricky or bright, of course, there are some frameworks you can use. So, my advice would be, have a look at your country, see what is the typical mix. You can give a good guess of your how many, how much carbon you're likely to emit per kilowatt hour, and then you can use that as a calculator to calculate. By the way, if you're interested, if you connect with me on LinkedIn, it's actually a subject that I've written about on my last post on LinkedIn. How do you do that? That's great. So, do you, question come in, do you have a view on what are the highest leverage areas of IT to address first to increase sustainability? It was similar question to ask, to what I asked to Lin, where are the priority areas? The rest of the question, I mean, maybe it's leading down an answer, but reducing usage because it's the larger contributor or charging hardware manufacturer because it will potentially have a longer term impact or something else. Yeah, I guess I would give you an architecture response. An architect's response, it depends. I think it's very difficult generically to articulate. Let me give you an example. So, when I was working for the government department, as I mentioned, reduced the overalls to two by 50%. Where did we start? Well, it was first of the big consumers, so the big storage devices. It was on-prem at the time, of course, as well as the big power hungry applications. You mentioned, I think somebody mentioned, I don't know whether it was you, but crypto coins, for instance, mining, mentioned mining before, there are a number of heavy processing activity that you should really have a look at. And we work together with the business to really validate whether they were needed. So, this government department, we're running applications day and night to do certain calculations. And in IT, you usually don't really question that. You think, well, the business really needs it, so therefore, we should be executing it. But when we ask the question, this is really, could we do this differently? Could we use maybe different servers or you could lay out differently? You may find that there are different ways of doing this. It comes back to this original driver, so what is the intent here? What are you trying to achieve? And how much support are you getting from the organization? And again, maturity of understanding or appreciation of sustainability, particularly in the context of ICT, sometimes a bit understated because some people may say, it's only 3%, but the 3% might be 6%, it might be 10% soon. And we certainly can't do that. It has to be the other way around. So, we need to find a way to change the way we construct design, implement and operate IT. Gunnar, we'll leave it there. We're right on the break time, perfect timing. Really appreciate you joining us today and sharing that perspective. And yes, the presentations, all the presentations will be made available to all of you who've registered. So, a warm welcome, a warm thank you again to Gunnar Menzel of Capgemini.