Cloud engineering
A read on the cloud estate you already have: what it costs, whether the architecture supports what you need, and where the security gaps are.
Cloud estates accumulate. Workloads get moved under a deadline, an architecture is chosen for a reason that stops applying, teams provision independently, and after a few years nobody holds the whole picture. The symptoms show up separately: a bill going up faster than usage, a change that takes longer than it should, an audit question nobody can answer.
They are usually the same problem seen from three angles, which is why this is assessed as one engagement rather than three. Reviewing cost alone tends to produce savings that create fragility. Reviewing security alone produces recommendations the architecture cannot absorb.
What we do
Whether the current design supports what the business needs it to do: workload placement, coupling between services, scaling behaviour under load, and the decisions that are now constraining you. Across AWS, Azure, and GCP, including estates spanning more than one.
Where the money goes and how much of that is avoidable: idle and oversized resources, storage tiering, egress, and commitment coverage against actual usage. Most estates carry a double-digit percentage of spend that buys nothing, and finding it usually pays for the assessment.
See also: IT Services
Identity and permission boundaries, public exposure, encryption, network segmentation, and logging coverage. Assessed against the obligations that actually apply to you rather than a generic benchmark, since a control that matters for CUI may be irrelevant for a public marketing site.
Where the assessment boundary sits in the current estate and whether it is defensible. A boundary that expanded by accident is a boundary you are paying to evidence, and narrowing it is often the single largest reduction in compliance cost available.
See also: Compliance Readiness
What happens when a component, a zone, or a region fails, and whether recovery has been tested rather than assumed. Backups that have never been restored are a common and expensive finding.
Findings ordered by payback rather than by category, so the work that funds the rest goes first. Cost findings frequently pay for the security work, which is a large part of why the three are assessed together.
Process
Read-only access to the estate and a complete inventory of accounts, subscriptions, resources, and spend. Automated where possible, because manual inventory of a cloud estate is out of date before it is finished.
What the estate has to satisfy: availability targets, compliance obligations, and where the business expects to be in a year. Findings are meaningless without something to assess against.
Work through architecture, cost, and security in parallel, with findings from each informing the others rather than reported in isolation.
Size the opportunities: what a change would save or reduce, and what it would cost to make. Recommendations without both numbers are hard to fund.
A prioritized roadmap ordered by payback, with quick wins separated from structural change so the two can be funded differently.
Deliverables
Every engagement produces documentation you can hand to an auditor, a customer, or your own board without translating it first.
Both are the same conversation. An assessment usually starts by producing the first accurate inventory the organization has had.