Since the original Basel Accord was agreed and signed in 1988, central governments, driven by the EU, have been trying to ensure that financial institutions were managed in such a way as to provide a solid platform to the global economy. Starting with Basel I, increasing levels of central oversight have been put in place to try and maintain a good view on what could be happening within the markets. Through the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) first instituted in 2007, certain levels of capital are required to be held by the banks and insurance companies so that they are able to weather any economic storms that come the way of the markets.
CRD IV is the latest version, and it nominally came into effect on January 1st, 2013. “Nominally” will be covered later…
At the highest level, the basis for CRD IV is covered under the Basel II and Basel III Accords for the banks and under Solvency II for insurance companies, which increase the amounts of common equity and Tier 1 Capital that the institutions are required to hold. Basel II also covers how the banks will need to provide centralised prudential reporting – and this mandates the use of the extended business reporting language, XBRL.
In October 2012, Quocirca carried out research across the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain for EMC to gauge the preparedness of financial institutions for the use of XBRL as well as their understanding of the whole CRD IV process.
The research provided some interesting findings – just under half of respondents felt that adopting XBRL would be a major impact on the business, with 65% saying that integrating existing systems into an XBRL system would be of major concern. Unfortunately, only 25% of respondents had even chosen an XBRL solution for something that was to be mandated as of January 1st (at the time, only 3 months away), leaving the notion of the financial markets being ready to meet the implementation date as being a bit far-fetched.
But, back to the “nominally”. As the financial markets collapsed, the EU went into prevarication mode. There was always a transition period built in to CRD IV and Basel III, but this was meant to be for a move along a maturity model with everyone essentially staying in step along a defined set of processes. Although the nominal dates for CRD IV and Basel III remained as 1st January, the EU started to change the goalposts, saying that banks must hold more liquid assets and so lower their risk if facing another meltdown.
Country financial bodies, such as the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in the UK had to move to more of an advisory mode – without agreement from the centre, little in the way of solid process guidance could be provided by them.
So, although few banks and insurance companies were ready for the requirements of CRD IV and Basel III on 1st January, it makes little difference, as the central bodies concerned were still fiddling while the economy burned.
However, this is not an adequate excuse for the financial institutions concerned to be so far away from being able to meet the technical requirements of CRD IV. The need for centralised prudential reporting is still there – and the failure to plan to implement XBRL systems means that these institutions are incapable of meeting this need.
At some stage, the Powers That Be will get their act together and CRD IV will become law with the necessary Directives in place. Financial institutions would do well to ensure that they are implementing the right systems now to meet their reporting needs – without them, they will fall foul of legal requirements, which could cost dear in fines.
Quocirca’s report on the subject can be downloaded for free here.
Quocirca has recently published a free checklist to help those looking at investing in self-service solutions. So, why might it be useful?
Well, there has been a rush in the UK in recent retail situations towards customer self-service and automation. Pay at pump petrol stations, self-checkout tills and so on. The reasons for this are presented as ‘customer convenience’, but it is pretty clear that it is all too often about cutting costs and too little thought is given as to how to how it might affect the overall customer experience.
Specialist retailers will argue they have to do this in order to compete with either online or other higher footfall locations such as supermarkets, hypermarkets and shopping malls. There may be some truth in this, but by simply commoditising the shopping experience, those making knee-jerk decisions to automate customer service run the risk of further business decline.
Clearly something is amiss as so many major and well established specialist companies have and continue to disappear, mainly with a wail about “habits have changed”, “it’s all gone online” after they have narrowed stock ranges, made the stores feel like warehouses and trained the staff to be as friendly as bent nail.
The best (and surviving) retailers – whether online, mobile or physical stores – provide service excellence irrespective of the technology or channel. Automation and self-service has a very important part to play in all these routes to the market, but it has to be delivered with the customer in mind, not simply as a cost cutting exercise.
The first thing to realise is that self-service is not a standalone tool or alternative to existing processes, but has to be integrated into the wider business in order to be successful. It should be viewed as a strategic and well-researched investment, not a simple tactical option. For this reason, the decision making process of how to implement self-service and what solutions or tools to should be implemented has to be well thought out and comprehensive.
To start with, an organisation must identify why the move the self-service is being made in the first place and what the main requirements are. There may be cost reduction element, but how important are other matters such as increasing cross-channel co-ordination or improving customer service levels and internal communications? For example are customers automatically invited to chat if their website interaction indicates they might need help or can support agents see what customers have done, requested or replied in order to avoid duplication of effort on the part of the customer?
However, this process may reveal that there are underlying issues with poor business systems, such as lack of a formal handover at shift changes or problem departments – e.g. a technical group refusing to get involved in customer contact. These will need to be addressed separately to the implementation process as simply deploying self-service alone will not fix these internal problems.
Next consider which suppliers will need to be approached and investigated. As well as taking the partisan views of the vendors themselves and some of their ‘tame’ customers, dig deeper and find out the broader market perspectives from a wider mix of customers, perhaps through trade shows and conferences. Industry analyst perceptions may also be valuable, but be aware that some analyst houses may overlook specialist or niche vendors and it is best to take a broad view.
The bulk of any product or service suitability assessment will come down to comparing features and functions, and a checklist will be useful. However, as this is an important investment, it is always important to check the people, company and its current client base of an intended supplier to get the full insight.
It is never easy going through the process by oneself, and even self-service benefits from some sort of external guidance. So for an idea of how to approach the self-service product and vendor selection process, download a free checklist
At the end of 2012, Quocirca carried out research for BNP Paribas Leasing Solutions into the perceptions around IT and communications financing amongst UK small and medium businesses (SMBs). For the research, SMBS are defined as organisations having revenues of between £5m and £50m per annum. The results show that there are marked differences in buying habits within these SMBs – and that there is a lack of strategic thinking that could impact their capabilities to compete in the market.
The research indicates that although the value added reseller is the most used strategic channel for the strategic buying IT and communications equipment, there is also a lot of tactical buying of equipment directly from the web. Although this happens particularly at the smaller end of the market, where the buying decision was mainly down to the owner/manager, it is still seen amongst the larger organisations where there was a dedicated purchasing function in place.
This tends to indicate “reactive” buying, where equipment is sourced as and when required, for example where a piece of equipment breaks or where a new project requires new hardware. However, by buying reactively, the underlying platform can become less strategic – standardisation and homogeneity can be reduced, while asset lifecycles are difficult to monitor and maintain as no real controls are in place.
It also militates against the way that modern IT is going – virtualisation and cloud computing work best where there is a more standardised and lifecycle managed set of equipment underpinning them.
However, for an SMB, putting in place this sort of rigour may be difficult. Consider and organisation that has a total IT budget per year of, say, £500,000 – this falls someway along the middle of the range of SMBs that are covered in the research. According to standard metrics, between 60 and 70% of this will be spent on maintaining the existing platform – what is known as “keeping the lights on”. This will leave, at the low end, £150,000 for new IT investments.
This is not a lot when it comes to trying to implement a new technology platform – and many SMBs find themselves in the position of wanting to carry out more strategic projects, but cannot as the required money is not within their grasp.
However, the use of structured financing could help SMBs make far more of their available money by aggregating planned spend over three years into a single pool of resource that can be used as needed. Taking the same example as above, that £500,000 IT budget could be aggregated over a three year agreement to give £1,500,000 – and through a suitable finance agreement, all that money can be made available as of day one to the SMB for use against IT spend.
Obviously, the SMB will still need to plan for keeping the lights on over the three year period. However, it should be able to put in place better processes around purchasing ITC equipment; it may be able to negotiate better deals on pricing; a more standardised and modern platform should lead to savings in managing the platform and in its energy usage.
Assuming that making changes to how ITC is purchased and managed drives down the keep the lights on costs to 60%, then £600,000 is now available for ITC project investment – an increase that could make all the difference between an SMB managing by struggling along and reacting to ITC events and an SMB that is more optimally supported by its ITC platform and is better suited to compete in today’s market conditions.
ITC financing can make a massive difference to organisations that are looking to gain better control over future spend and also in controlling its ITC platforms. The key is to make sure that the partner chosen to provide the financing agreement has a track record in this kind of work – banks will often require a legal financial hold against business assets, which could include the business premises and other assets, whereas a good ITC finance organisation will only have a hold against the equipment purchased through the agreement.
Quocirca has written a report on the subject that is freely downloadable here.
Toward the end of 2012, Quocirca met with an interesting company called DataSift. DataSift is a social data platform company – it takes feeds of data from the majority of social media sites and can then mine through social conversations for content, trends and insights. This is of obvious interest for organisations that are tracking sentiment of their brand in the market – but may also have other uses as well.
The one obvious target for DataSift is Twitter – the vast majority of Twitter data is available in the public domain (only direct messages (DMs) are hidden from general view). However, DataSift can also track activity around an organisation’s Facebook page, content from blogs and forums – including other semi-private information the organisation accesses via social networks established between itself and the public.
The platform is cloud-based with prices based on a combination of “complexity”, hours and hourly cost along with a data cost. The hourly cost is the simplest to explain. The price is based on the period being analysed – for a week, this would be 168 hours, for a month (nominally) 720 hours. Complexity is more difficult and is based on a calculation that can only be completed once the query has been created. However, the business model does mean that you only pay for what you get: no on-going subscriptions that have to be paid no matter what – everything is on a per use basis. The data cost is based on a small charge per Tweet analysed. For statistical validity, DataSift recommends that a 10% sample rate is used, which lowers the price significantly.
As a test, Quocirca asked DataSift to run a Twitter-only analysis of 2012 Twitter activity for a named set of vendors who are often mentioned in the same breath as big data. The query required just 10 lines of code to be written, and gave a complexity score of 2.1. Without the 10% filter in place, 2.23 million Tweets were analysed.
We selected an interesting topic as the basis for our test and Quocirca will be writing a more detailed piece on the findings, but the highlights below illustrate the potential power of the system:
- Twitter activity around big data grew by 64% over the year. This is not surprising – big data was still an emerging topic back at the beginning of the year, but was being pushed harder and harder by the vendors and the media as the year progressed.
- Nearly three quarters of Tweets contained an active link. People were not just dropping Twitter comments about big data – they were referring people to other content outside of Twitter.
- Apache had the biggest footprint with 9.4% of vendor mentions in Tweets being about it. Apache, with its Hadoop parallel processing engine and Cassandra database, is unsurprisingly the big player here.
- Second placed was 10gen, the commercial entity that looks after MongoDB, with 6.24% of vendor mentions.
- Of the “big guys”, IBM gained a creditable third place with 3.25%, with HP in fourth with 2.38%.
- There were geographic differences – IBM’s strongest country was France; Cloudera’s was Japan. SAP was (unsurprisingly) strong in Germany; DataSift itself was very strong in the UK.
- At a domain level – the sites that people were pointing people to most from their Tweets, Forbes.com was a surprise winner. Behind that, GigaOM.com and Techcruch.com were the next biggest content sources.
As a single point of interest, a look was taken at HP at a sentiment analysis level. Through the first part of the year, people’s views of HP remained fairly level, with a net sentiment score (positive comments minus negative comments) of 0 – not good news in itself, but it could have been worse. However, between 14th November and 10th December, a lot of sentiment activity took place.
On the 21st November, HP’s sentiment score plunged close to -10,000. It recovered back to zero by the 24th, and then went back down to -5,000 on the 28th, rose again and then crashed down to -7,000 on the 1st December.
Why? On November 20th, HP’s CEO Meg Whitman told Wall Street analysts that HP had massively overpaid for software firm, Autonomy, and accused former executives at Autonomy of cooking the books. Financial and technical analysts went into a frenzy – the very people who use social networking the most to get information out as quickly as possible. The ongoing fall-out was what caused the triple-dip poor sentiment scores over the following weeks.
This shows that, although HP got a fourth place in the mentions it had around big data, it was not necessarily positive to HP’s brand. This is why a company such as DataSift is important – it not only can remove the grunt work of dealing with analysing the massive firehose of data that comes from social networks, but also applies solid analytic against this to ensure that what a customer sees as results is there in context.
The managers of any successful business must keep a constant focus on productivity. Well implemented IT helps to achieve this, for example through automating manufacturing processes, improving supply chain efficiency or enabling flexible working. The same managers may assume that the IT departments that help deliver these innovations are themselves productive. In many cases they will be wrong.
A recent Quocirca research report – The wastage of human capital in IT operations – shows that many IT teams could improve their productivity dramatically. As much as 40% of a team’s time can be spent on routine low level tasks, for example patching software, dealing with end user device problems or error checking.
IT managers themselves are well aware of the issues and those in mid-market organisations in particular list such wastage of their team’s time as a top frustration. They have a clear understanding of their staff’s skills, but are not able to use them as effectively as they would like. For the individuals involved, work becomes boring and there is general demotivation.
Whilst the wastage should in itself be major concern, an even bigger concern is that this very issue is holding IT departments back from their raison d’être; helping businesses overall increase their productivity and competitiveness. IT managers admit that if they had 50% more man hours available to them, they would use these to modernise IT infrastructure and deliver new applications.
So what can be done? The truth is that the mundane tasks are not going to go way. IT managers have three options; stick with the status quo and accept the wastage; introduce cheaper, low skilled labour, probably through outsourcing areas of IT operations management; or introduce more automation.
It is estimate that 80% of IT infrastructure is common to most businesses IT operations. So, mundane tasks are being repeated by skilled operators on a huge scale. Outsourcing just displaces the problem, when in reality automating these tasks and repeating them across multiple businesses should be straight forward.
The vendors of automation tools are themselves experts at building the procedures that enable repetitive tasks to be carried out time and time again across different organisations IT infrastructure. Such tools can recognise exceptions and make an intelligent hand over to human operators, be they an internal staff member or an expert from a third party specialist.
Once the investment in the tools has been made, the incremental charge for repeating is negligible compared to outsourcing. Such tools enable the industrialisation of IT; the efficient repetition of certain tasks hundreds or thousands of times over without consuming valuable IT staff time.
There are three options for achieving this:
- Capital investment in new tools installed on-premise from the “big” systems management vendors; namely BMC, HP, CA and IBM (some would add Microsoft’s Systems Centre to this list)
- Freeing budget from operational spending to subscribe to on-demand system management services that support high levels of automation such as IP Soft and ServiceNow
- A hybrid approach with the flexibility to deliver both of the above, which is possible with the IP Soft tools and a few other vendors such as Kaseya
The ineffectiveness of many IT operations will spiral out of control if action is not taken to improve the way they are managed. Putting in place the necessary IT management tools, services and procedures to maximise automation and to industrialise processes will address this and reduce skills wastage. The ultimate value will be the ability to efficiently manage the increasing complexity of IT infrastructure, whilst delivering new applications that will ensure a business remains competitive.
Quocirca recently had an interesting discussion with an off-shore hosting and cloud company. Jersey-based (as in the UK Channel Islands, not the US New Jersey) Calligo is positioning itself as the right place to be for data – and for running the applications that create and consume the data.
Why is this important? Well, organisations are beginning to wake up to the fact that even when a data centre is in a “friendly” country, there is still potentially high risks to the intellectual property (IP) held within the data.
The US Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) make those European companies that have looked into their possible impact shudder. That a foreign power can demand – and get – access to their data just because it is hosted by a company in the US – or is in a facility anywhere in the world that is owned by a company in the US – means that many are looking for alternative arrangements with companies that can still offer a broad range of services, but backed with better data security agreements that cannot be ridden roughshod over by the regional government.
Calligo’s view is that Jersey is highly controlled from a data viewpoint. Although it is nominally “in” the UK, it is actually a separate British Crown Dependency. This means that it is autonomous, makes its own laws and operates outside of the reach of other country’s legal systems – including the UK. Sure, EU laws will still apply when push comes to shove – but a European customer may be happier with a Jersey/EU escalation than a <country>/EU/US three-way battle.
This means that data can be stored in a country where the legal system is subject to fewer overall laws, is overseen by fewer people and can be targeted to specific needs. Jersey has pedigree here with the way it has dealt with financial services in its country.
Jersey is also well connected from a data viewpoint to both the UK and the European mainland through multiple cables, and from these to the rest of the world. Therefore, placing applications and data in a commercial, secure facility on an island that is part of the EU but is autonomous has many things going for it.
But, however well Jersey is connected to the rest of the world, it cannot overcome its relative geographic isolation. When fast, low-latency response is needed, e.g. for transactional work in the US or in Japan – the underlying latency can still be an issue. Calligo recognises this, and is looking at where else in the world it can set up similar facilities and meet the needs of organisations that want to be assured of greater security for their data and therefore their intellectual property.
The Cayman Islands are one option – they are well placed for the south of the US, for Central America and for the major markets of the top of South America. Although the Cayman Islands are a British Overseas Territory with their own legal system, they come under the overall control of the UK and have a Governor appointed by the Queen – but can still enact and follow laws that make sense from a commercial viewpoint to the islands.
Calligo also includes a data ownership clause in its agreements – the data always belongs to and is owned by the customer. Many cloud providers make no statements about this – which can cause issues for the actual data owner. On top of this, Calligo says that it has a special clause in its agreements, which make it clear that should the untoward happen, the data has to be turned over to the customer (even by a business administrator) – so making it easier for a customer to regain access to the data and move it to another provider.
Similar approaches in other parts of the world could give Calligo an interesting footprint for a global offering. With small, autonomous island states being more likely to provide laws that are data friendly while still retaining strong audit and overall data security capabilities, Calligo’s offerings of IaaS, PaaS and SaaS (for example, it hosts SugarCRM and other applications) combined with the capability to use external cloud offerings where it makes sense (such as Google Maps) will make sense to many organisations.
Overall, Calligo looks like an interesting company. For those who have worries about how their data is secured not just from the baddies out there, but also from the governments who are enacting ever more threatening laws around data access, the use of Island nations as a home for data could be just as good as using them for financial affairs.
Two back to back events recently saw Quocirca talking to veterans of the software industry; CA and Symantec. The high level message from both is pretty much to same; we help to secure and manage your data and IT infrastructure. Yet, it is rare to find these two head-to-head; because in reality they are more different than they are alike.
True, they are both US headquartered (more or less) pure software companies with annual revenues of a similar order (CA circa $5B, Symantec circa $7B) and both with profits of around $1B. Their current share price and market-cap are similar and their stock market history has followed similar ups and down over the last decade. Both are now 30-something; CA founded in 1976 and Symantec in 1982. Symantec’s higher revenue is reflected in its head count, 20K employees opposed to CA’s 14K, but that gives them remarkably similar productivity of about $350K per head.
Furthermore, both sit on similar piles of cash of about $13B. This ability to accumulate cash has been key to the way each has grown, through aggressive acquisition; both have acquired tens of companies over the years, in Symantec’s case almost doubling its size when it merged with Veritas in 2004 to move into the storage market.
So, for two companies appearing so similar what are the differences that allow them to operate side by side in the IT industry without too many dogfights? The most obvious is their legacy; CA comes from a background of providing software for mainframes (the ultimate in enterprise computing), whilst Symantec’s origin lies in its consumer focussed Norton anti-virus technology (probably still a more recognised brand than Symantec itself). The main target market shared by both vendors is supplying software for mid-market and enterprise businesses to manage and secure Windows and Linux based systems.
Even here, whilst they may still sound similar their products have historically not overlapped much. When it comes to management Symantec’s main focus is end-points (via its 2007 Altiris acquisition) and storage, whilst CA is listed as one of the big 4 systems management companies (along with BMC, IBM and HP – or 5 if you include Microsoft), focussed on broad management of enterprise IT (in CA’s case including those mainframes).
In security, historically the overlap has also been limited. Many still think of Symantec as primarily a security company, but over the years its acquisitions have taken it beyond its roots in anti-virus to included email security, web security, data loss prevention (DLP) and so on. Few think of CA in the first instance as a security company but it also always operated in this space, more focussed on identity and access management (IAM), despite also having its own anti-virus.
However, that is changing – CA has been acquiring more and more security assets, for example it moved in to DLP in 2009 when it acquired Orchestria. And Symantec is now moving into IAM with its O3 platform that includes single sign on (SSO) via a partnership with Symplified, secure web access and compliance enforcement/reporting. Whilst Symantec remains by far the bigger of the two in IT security, it can expect to see more and more of CA going forwards.
Both vendors are keen to be seen as innovators (or keeping up depending on your viewpoint) with the key IT trends; cloud, mobile, social media, big data etc. However, this week they were both as keen to talk about people as products and solutions. Symantec has recently replaced its CEO of the last 3 years, Enrico Salem (whose blood was said to flow yellow, the vendor’s corporate colour) with Steve Bennett who joined the board from Intuit in 2010. In a session on strategy, Symantec had little to say except the new CEO’s pronouncements could be expected in January 2013. John Brigden, Symantec’s head of Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) for the last 7 years will be keen to see what that means for his organisation.
CA has already shaken up its EMEA operations bringing a new head Marco Comastri just over a year ago from Poste Italiane (he has also worked at IBM and Microsoft). Comastri is bringing new faces and trying to get CA EMEA more focussed on solution selling than technology.
Whether it is at the global or European level, these two software juggernauts have a momentum all of their own and management may find is frustrating to change direction. They should not try too hard, both have huge legacy customer bases and healthy finances, shareholders will not be happy to see either compromised.
Energy usage is a focus for many at the moment. For IT, it seems to be a big focus – mainly as organisations become more aware of how much energy is wasted in their data centre facilities. However, it is likely to be brought into even greater focus in the not so far distant future, as the looming energy deficit starts to become more apparent.
A mix of short-sightedness and prevarication by politicians means that the UK is now at a position where it is unlikely that it will be able to meet all its consumers’ energy needs in just a few years – the UK’s energy market overseer, Ofgem predicts that the UK’s current energy generation over-capacity of 14% could fall to 4% in just 3 years. The failure, or the need to take down for even planned maintenance – of only one generation plant could lead to insufficient power being available for all the country’s needs.
Therefore, planned outages will be required to be put in place – and the biggest energy users will be targeted where overall country needs will not be adversely impacted.
So – steel and aluminium production is unlikely to be hit. Retail may be asked to cut down on lighting and heating. But the one place where politicians can really point to is the use of IT – and how many organisations could be asked to reduce their energy usage here – or risk having it cut off for periods of time.
It is widely accepted that data centres are inefficient when it comes to usage of energy – the average utilisation of a server is around 10-20% of cpu, and of storage around 30%. Sure – a move to virtualisation can drive up these utilisation rates and so lower the amount of equipment being used and so lower the energy being needed – but is this the best way to address the overall need?
To take a bigger picture, it is necessary to look at the whole data centre facility and its energy usage. There is a means of gaining a measure of the overall energy efficiency of a facility through the use of power usage effectiveness, PUE. This is a comparison of the total amount of energy used by a facility divided by the amount that is used to power the IT workloads – i.e. that used by servers, storage and network equipment. The rest of the energy is used in peripheral areas, such as lighting, cooling, and uninterruptable power supplies (UPSs).
A theoretical perfect data centre should therefore have a PUE of 1 – all the energy is used in powering IT workloads. However, in practice, the PUE for an “average” facility is around 2.0 – for each Watt of power used for IT workloads, another Watt is used for peripheral items.
So – only 50% of the facility’s total energy is reaching the servers, storage and networking equipment. Running at 20% IT equipment utilisation means that at a rough estimate, around 90% of a facility’s total energy input is essentially going to waste. Upping IT equipment utilisation rates to 40% and getting rid of excess equipment could mean a saving 10% of a data centre’s energy usage – which is wonderful – but still only means that 20% of a data centre’s energy is being used for useful IT work.
However, the majority of data centres utilise UPSs to support pretty much all the energy used across the facility. Unfortunately, many of these devices are pretty old, and will be running at 94% efficiency or less. Modern UPSs run at 98% efficiency or greater. But, is a 4% improvement in energy efficiency at a UPS worth the bother when a 10% improvement at the server and storage layers is possible?
Back to the maths. If all the facility’s energy goes through the UPS, then a 4% improvement across all systems (servers, storage, networking, cooling, lighting) is a 4% savings in energy bill – without having changed anything but the UPS. Now, introduce the virtualisation mentioned above. The server utilisation rates are upped from 20% to 40% as before, and the saving is 10% of the data centre’s energy bill. But, because we have improved the overall data centre’s energy usage as well, we get a greater saving. Every time we improve the equipment in the data centre – IT or support – then we gain that extra energy efficiency as well.
Modern UPSs also provide a host of other capabilities – as battery technology and battery management systems have improved, a well-implemented UPS can help in bridging some breaks in energy provision without the need for auxiliary generators to switch in. They can also better deal with low voltage situations (“brown outs”), ensuring that an optimised energy feed gets to all equipment.
Should Ofgem be right, there will be planned brown outs and power cuts around the country within a few years. Organisations can help in many ways – improving their data centres so that they are more energy efficient could put this back by a few months. However, ensuring that their data centre facilities have newer, more effective UPSs in place can help in not only providing a far more energy efficient facility, but also in dealing with the problems that an energy deficit could present.
Quocirca has written a report on the subject, which can be downloaded for free here: http://quocirca.com/reports/773/powering-the-data-centre