Most cloud problems show up first as a bill

Readiness is less about technology than about operating model: who will own the environment, who holds the budget, and whether your obligations around data location and auditability can be met on the platform you are considering. Our assessment covers current infrastructure, application suitability, compliance constraints and team capability, and returns a recommendation on approach — including which workloads should not move.

It depends on your existing stack, your team's skills, the services you actually need and how your workloads are priced. Organisations already invested in Microsoft tooling and identity often find Azure the lower-friction option; data and machine-learning-heavy work frequently favours Google Cloud; AWS has the broadest service catalogue and the deepest hiring pool. We evaluate against your specifics. Multi-cloud is a legitimate answer for some organisations and an expensive complication for most, so we do not recommend it by default.

With visibility. Before optimising anything, spend has to be attributable to teams and workloads, which usually means fixing tagging and account structure first. From there the order is: remove what is unused, right-size to actual utilisation, tier storage, schedule non-production environments off outside working hours, and only then buy commitments against the stable baseline. Committing early is the most common expensive mistake, because it locks in whatever waste you had at the time.

The controls that matter most are unglamorous: least-privilege identity with no long-lived credentials, no unintended public exposure, encryption with clear key custody, comprehensive logging that someone actually reviews, and a configuration baseline enforced in code so it cannot drift. Our security assessment measures your live environment against those and returns ranked findings with remediation steps. Backup recoverability is included, because untested backups are a common and entirely avoidable failure.

Occasionally, yes. Workloads with steady, predictable demand and heavy storage, compute or egress can be materially cheaper on owned or colocated hardware, and a few well-known companies have saved substantial sums doing exactly that. The counterweight is the operational burden you take back on — hardware lifecycle, capacity planning, resilience and the staff to run it. We model both sides on your actual usage. For most estates the answer is a partial move at most, but the question deserves numbers rather than an opinion.

Most begin with a fixed-scope assessment over roughly two to four weeks using read-only access to your accounts, producing a written report and a prioritised action list. From there you can take the plan to your own team, ask us to implement specific items, or set up a standing advisory arrangement for design reviews and spend checks. The assessment stands on its own and does not obligate you to the delivery work.