Landing zone design
Subscription and resource-group topology, naming, tagging, policy and budget guardrails set before the first workload arrives.
Information technology consulting
Cloud landing zones, identity, networking and migration, designed with a cost estimate attached, built from code, and cut over on a date you chose rather than one an incident chose for you.
The situation
Two patterns turn up repeatedly. The first is an estate that grew by clicking: resources created by hand, no naming convention, permissions granted individually, and no way to rebuild any of it. The second is a lift-and-shift that moved the servers but none of the assumptions, and now costs more than the data centre did.
Both are fixable, and neither is fixed by a tool purchase. It takes a design that someone can defend, expressed as code that someone can review.
Scope
Subscription and resource-group topology, naming, tagging, policy and budget guardrails set before the first workload arrives.
Identity groups, role assignments and least privilege, so leavers lose access by leaving a group, not by memory.
Virtual networks, private endpoints and egress paths documented in a diagram that matches reality.
Terraform in Git, with pull-request review and a pipeline that plans before it applies.
Workloads ordered by risk and dependency, each with a rehearsed cutover and a written rollback.
An estimate before the build and a review after, including the reserved-capacity and right-sizing decisions worth making.
Architecture
The landing zone we build for a team without a platform group. Everything here is expressed as code you own; the parts drawn with a dashed edge are deliberately deferred until something in your business asks for them.
Of delivered infrastructure defined as reviewable code
Rehearsed cutover before the real one
Resources created by clicking in the portal
Deliverables
Every engagement ends with artefacts you own outright, whether we continue together or not.
Typical stack
Chosen for support horizon and hiring pool, not novelty. If your team already runs something equivalent, we will use yours.
Questions
No. Some workloads are cheaper and calmer where they are, and we will put that in writing. What we will not accept is not knowing which category a system falls into.
By designing for parallel running: the new path is live and verified against the old one before anything is switched, and the switch itself is reversible.
That is our preferred arrangement. We would rather leave behind a team that can operate the platform than a dependency on us.
Related
Observability that answers questions, alerts worth waking up for, pipelines that refuse bad builds, and secrets kept…
See detailsThe recurring manual work that consumes a week every month, rebuilt as durable jobs that log what they did, recover…
See detailsGetting data out of the systems holding it hostage and into one place that can be queried and trusted, with schema…
See detailsGet started
Describe it in three sentences and we will tell you what the first two weeks would look like.