Your Azure architecture assessment, scoped and run by a named senior engineer.

What you get, and what you keep

A written assessment of the environment in scope: current-state architecture and diagrams, the risks and constraints that actually matter for this estate, migration readiness or security posture findings against what you are trying to achieve, and a prioritised remediation path with sequencing and dependencies.

You also get the decisions written down — what we would do first, what can wait, and what we would not do at all. It is the artefact an internal team needs to argue a business case, and the artefact an incumbent MSP or system integrator rarely hands over.

You own the findings whether or not you continue with North Ark. They are not held back pending a decision on the delivery work, and nothing in the report is written to make that delivery work look inevitable.

Why it is paid, and why that is better for you

An assessment given away for nothing is still paid for — just by the sales process that follows it. That is why its conclusion tends to be a proposal, why the scope is whatever a presales resource can cover in an afternoon, and why the artefact stays with the vendor rather than with you.

Paying for the assessment changes who it serves. The engineer is accountable to the finding, not to the pipeline. The scope is agreed in advance and large enough to be useful. A conclusion of “this is sound, finish it in-house” is a legitimate outcome, and we have no commercial reason to avoid it.

It is also the cheapest part of the sequence. An assessment costs a fraction of the migration, uplift or remediation it scopes — and considerably less than discovering during cutover that the landing zone had to be rebuilt first.

The assessments we run

These are the defined engagements. Which one fits depends on how much of the answer you already have.

Azure Architecture Assessment — Landing zone, hybrid paths, operability.

Microsoft 365 Security Assessment — Identity, tenant posture, what is deferred.

Infrastructure Health Assessment — What is fragile, what is fine, what waits.

Cloud Cost / Architecture Review — Spend that follows design, not guesswork.

Security Gap Assessment — Controls that matter for this estate, not a generic checklist.

Technical Discovery Workshop — When the outcome is not yet defined enough to price.

An Azure architecture assessment and a Microsoft 365 security assessment are the two most common starting points for the search that brought you here. If the outcome is not yet defined enough to scope, the Technical Discovery Workshop is the honest entry point.

How it runs

You describe the environment and the decision you are trying to make. We agree the scope, the questions the assessment has to answer and the window in writing, then quote it. One named senior engineer does the work and stays accountable for what the findings say — you are not handed from a consultant to an implementation team that never saw the estate.

Access is read-only wherever read-only is enough. We work with your team rather than around them, and we do not need to displace an incumbent MSP to look at an estate.

What happens after the findings

Three honest endings. Your team takes the report and finishes the work — that happens, and it is a good outcome. Or the work becomes a defined Outcome Project with acceptance criteria, a named senior owner and a handover. Or the estate needs ongoing senior depth rather than one programme, which is Co-Managed Engineering beside your internal team.

Assessment, then project, then co-managed capacity, is the usual path. Each step is quoted on its own and none of them converts into an unlimited retainer by stealth.

Next step: Talk to an Engineer using the form on this page. Tell us which assessment you think you need, or describe the programme that has stalled and we will say which one fits.