Regional Financial Institution — CRA & Dual-Cloud IaaS Pricing — Selling Brief

Sales Snapshot

156

CloudScape Assets

Full server estate inventoried via Flexera CloudScape · Licensed assets export · 30-day performance data collected

Azure

Recommended Platform

Microsoft-centric ecosystem · Azure AD / M365 investment · Long-term forward path; Private Cloud for legacy workload interim

5 wks

CRA Timeline

Kickoff → CloudScape → Workshops × 2 → TCO + R-Factor → Final report & recommendations

SOW

Executed CRA

"SOW - Regional Financial Institution - CRA - EXECUTED.pdf" — confirmed executed engagement

Cloud Pricing Models

Separate AWS and Azure IaaS workbooks built · Instance-level pricing for full estate · Peak and rightsized scenarios

The Unique Angle — Why This Reference Works

A regional bank with a deeply Microsoft-invested infrastructure stack — M365, Azure AD, Hyper-V, SQL Server, and a VMware VDI environment — needed an independent, data-driven answer to a question they'd been debating: should we migrate to Azure, stay on Advisory Private Cloud, or do both? The IT team had existing Advisory Private Cloud infrastructure and was weighing whether to deepen that investment or transition workloads to Azure as a long-term cloud-first strategy. They had specific legacy application complexity (Lasko database workloads, legacy platforms not cloud-ready in their current state) that made a simple "lift and shift to Azure" approach risky and potentially costly.

We ran a full 5-week CRA: deployed Flexera CloudScape for 156-server discovery, built application stacks and dependency trees for all named workloads, produced separate AWS and Azure IaaS pricing workbooks with both peak-load and rightsized configurations, ran the R-Factor (6Rs) disposition analysis, and delivered a Cloud Decision Matrix evaluating Private Cloud Hyper-V vs. Azure across 12 criteria — compute, networking, storage, databases, licensing, DR, migration complexity, financial model, latency, manageability, hybrid, and technology alignment. The recommendation: Azure is the long-term forward platform given the Microsoft ecosystem investment; Private Cloud is the better interim for legacy and replatform-required workloads. SOW executed.

Use this when selling to: Community banks, regional financial institutions, credit unions, or any Microsoft-centric organization evaluating Azure migration with legacy application complexity. Especially strong for conversations about VDI modernization (VMware → Azure Virtual Desktop), dual cloud pricing comparisons, or organizations that have been on Advisory Private Cloud and are evaluating a transition to managed Azure.

CRA Engagement Timeline — 5-Week Structured Delivery

Week 1: Project kickoff · Flexera CloudScape provisioning and deployment · Document request and review · Configure and deploy appliance to client environment

Week 2: CloudScape data collection period (30-day performance baseline) · Application survey distribution to app and system owners · Workshop 1 (infrastructure and applications)

Week 3: Import app-to-server mapping · Build application stacks with 95th-percentile utilization · Dependency matrix construction · Workshop 2 · Collect and validate survey responses

Week 4: TCO modeling and cost analysis · R-Factor (6Rs) analysis per application — Rehost, Replatform, Refactor, Repurchase, Retire, Retain · Migration complexity scorecard · Overlay cost structure

Week 5: Technology recommendations for critical components · R-Factor portfolio review with client · Develop final presentation report · Cloud Decision Matrix and VDI analysis delivery

Cloud Decision Matrix — Private Cloud (Hyper-V) vs. Azure

Advisory Private Cloud (Hyper-V)

Dedicated Dell r740 compute with managed Hyper-V hypervisor and optional managed VMs
Dedicated Unity 350F all-flash storage in both DCs; dedicated Cisco firewalls with My.Advisory portal ACL management
Dedicated 500Mbps pipe between Advisory DCs — predictable latency
Hyper-V-to-Hyper-V migration: faster, lower risk — no replatforming required for in-place workloads
Predictable, fixed financial model — lower cost than Azure at equivalent capacity
DR: native Hyper-V replication tools; BYOL for SQL and OS licensing
Best aligned for legacy Lasko DB workloads and any app requiring Hyper-V cluster fault tolerance

Recommended: interim platform for legacy and replatform-required workloads

Microsoft Azure

Near-unlimited scalability · IaaS (VMs), PaaS (App Service), containers (AKS), serverless (Azure Functions)
Azure VNets, ExpressRoute, Azure DNS · Blob Storage, Managed Disks, Archive, Azure Files
Azure SQL Database, Azure Cosmos DB — path to replatform database workloads from on-prem SQL
Azure Site Recovery (ASR) for DR — may require 3rd-party tools for legacy workloads
Native evolution for Microsoft 365, Azure AD, Intune — no license penalty; BYOL flexibility
Higher cost than Private Cloud; some legacy apps require Replatform/Refactor before migration
Azure Virtual Desktop (AVD): natural replacement for VMware VDI in a Microsoft-first environment

Recommended: long-term forward platform — Azure AD/M365 investment makes Azure the strategic choice

Application Landscape — Named Stacks Inventoried

~25 Named Application Stacks Discovered via CloudScape

ADS COMPLY DBPRECISION CONFLUENCE ELASTIC JASPER JIRA PROCESS RDC1 SCHEDULER SQL - PROD WEB INFOR CRM PAS PROD PERCEPTIVE RKAPP SCHWABSQL Lasko DBs (legacy) Windows 2012 EOL (legacy)

All stacks mapped with server-to-application dependencies via CloudScape. Stacks with legacy designation (2012/2003 OS, Lasko DB workloads) were flagged as Replatform or Retain in the R-Factor analysis — these are the workloads that require Private Cloud as an interim before Azure migration. Primary dependency hub: RKAPP, SQL-PROD, SCHWABSQL, and ELASTIC are the most-connected stacks and serve as migration sequencing anchors.

VDI Migration Analysis — VMware → Azure Virtual Desktop

Current VMware VDI Environment

VMware VDI architecture delivering virtual desktops to all end users
Architecture classification — RDS/XenApp (session-based) or Horizon/XenDesktop (full VDI) — identified as key scoping question for accurate sizing
Underlying OS distinction (Windows Server vs. Windows Desktop) required before final Azure Virtual Desktop instance sizing
Migration path to cloud must include a viable VDI replacement — cannot move server workloads without solving the desktop layer

Azure Virtual Desktop (AVD) Recommendation

AVD is the natural evolution for a Microsoft-invested organization — M365, Azure AD, and Intune investments all feed directly into the AVD licensing and management model
Multi-tenant Windows 10/11 desktops provisioned natively from the Azure portal — no separate VDI infrastructure to manage
Future optimization path: application virtualization and shared infrastructure to increase user density and reduce per-user cost
Recommendation: limited-scope PoC with a representative user group across all business application functions before full fleet migration commitment

TCO & Service Blocks — How the Financial Model Was Structured

Tier 1 · Entry

$15K/mo

Azure spend baseline · Platform Essentials service block · Foundation for Manage & Operate add-on

Tier 2 · Mid

$20K/mo

Azure spend + Platform Essentials + Manage & Operate · Standard managed Azure services bundle

Tier 3 · Full

$35K/mo

Full-stack: Platform Essentials + Manage & Operate + Managed Security (PDR) · Target steady-state for full estate

TCO Model Structure

Peak scenario: current CloudScape provisioned inventory mapped to Azure/AWS instances — like-for-like replacement cost
Rightsized scenario: conservative 30% savings applied over peak based on Advisory rightsizing expertise and industry benchmarks
Dev/Test/Staging: no optimization applied in base model; additional $4K–$5K/month ($50K+/year) savings available through automation — flagged as a quick win
Peak days modeled separately: back-to-school, Nov–Dec holiday period, and miscellaneous peaks (burst compute cost impact)

Dual Cloud Pricing Workbooks

AWS: EC2 instance mapping per stack — r5a, t3a, x2iedn families; COMPLY, DBPRECISION, ELASTIC, JASPER, JIRA, PROCESS, RDC1, SCHEDULER, SQL-PROD, WEB, INFOR CRM, PAS PROD, PERCEPTIVE, RKAPP, SCHWABSQL
Azure: VM mapping — a8-v2, f16s-v2, d4as-v5, e16-4as-v5 families; same stacks mapped to Azure equivalents
Both workbooks include: instance cost/hr, storage IO cost/hr, storage cost/hr, network IO cost/hr, total cost/hr · Stack ID and stack name preserved for cross-referencing with CloudScape inventory
RSVC Spend Estimator produced in parallel — Advisory Virtual Cloud alternative pricing for comparison

Forward Opportunity — What Follows an Executed CRA

Migration Execution

Azure Migration SOW

CRA delivered the R-Factor portfolio, migration complexity scorecard, and dependency-based move bundles. The natural next engagement is a Phase 2 migration SOW scoped by wave — starting with Rehost-ready workloads on Azure and sequencing the Replatform/Refactor workloads through Private Cloud as an interim. Groundwork is complete; scope is defined.

Managed Azure Services

$20K–$35K/mo MRC

Service Blocks modeled at three spend tiers ($15K, $20K, $35K/mo Azure) with Platform Essentials, Manage & Operate, and Managed Security (PDR) components scoped. The CRA produced the financial baseline that makes this a data-backed managed services proposal, not a cold pitch.

VDI Modernization

Azure Virtual Desktop

VMware VDI fleet replacement with Azure Virtual Desktop is a separately scoped workstream. PoC recommended as the entry point — limited user group, all business apps validated. For a Microsoft-invested bank, AVD is a cost reduction and simplification story: eliminate VDI infrastructure, leverage existing M365 and Azure AD licensing.

Talk Track — Using This Engagement

Microsoft-Centric Financial Services Conversations

"We're on Advisory Private Cloud today, we've got M365 and Azure AD, and we're not sure if Azure is actually better for us or if we should just stay where we are."

We ran this exact evaluation for a regional bank. They had existing Advisory Private Cloud infrastructure, a full Microsoft 365 and Azure AD deployment, and a set of legacy database workloads that weren't cloud-ready. We deployed CloudScape for a 30-day data collection across 156 servers, built application stacks and dependency trees for every named workload, and produced a Cloud Decision Matrix evaluating Private Cloud Hyper-V versus Azure across 12 criteria — compute, networking, storage, databases, licensing, DR, migration complexity, latency, hybrid model, and financial. The answer wasn't binary. Azure is the long-term forward platform because of the Microsoft ecosystem investment — M365, Azure AD, SQL modernization path, Azure Virtual Desktop replacing VMware VDI. But Private Cloud is the right interim for the legacy workloads that need Replatform or Refactor before they're Azure-ready. The CRA gave them a sequenced, evidence-based roadmap rather than a vendor pitch.

"We have legacy applications that we know aren't cloud-ready. Every migration vendor tells us to 'just move them' but we know it's not that simple."

That was exactly the challenge at this engagement. The R-Factor analysis surfaced applications running on Windows Server 2003 and 2008 that would be in an unsupportable state on Azure without Replatform work. Azure doesn't provide cluster-mode Hyper-V equivalents for certain legacy workloads — which means you either rely on single-instance Azure VMs with their inherent fault tolerance limitations, or you do the replatform work first. We modeled both paths in the TCO: Azure peak-load, Azure rightsized (conservative 30% reduction), and Private Cloud as an interim — then built move bundles based on application dependencies and R-Factor scoring so the legacy workloads have a staged path rather than a forced migration. The CRA doesn't just tell you "it's complex" — it tells you which workloads are Rehost-ready, which need Replatform, and in what order to move them.

"Our VDI is on VMware and it's a major concern in any migration conversation — no one has a clean answer for us."

The VDI layer is consistently the hardest part of a bank migration conversation because it touches every end user and every business application simultaneously. For this client, we produced a VDI Considerations analysis alongside the CRA — assessed the existing VMware VDI architecture, evaluated Azure Virtual Desktop as the forward path, identified the key scoping questions (session-based vs. full VDI, Windows Server vs. Desktop OS), and recommended a limited-scope PoC with a representative user group across all business application functions as the risk mitigation approach. For a Microsoft-invested organization that's already on M365 and Azure AD, AVD is the right long-term answer — it eliminates the VDI infrastructure entirely and leverages existing licensing. The PoC validates that before the fleet commitment.

My Role on This Engagement

CloudScape Deployment

Deployed and configured Flexera CloudScape for 156-server inventory; built application stacks with 95th-percentile utilization and dependency mapping ("Raj/Eric" attributed in task tracker)

Dual-Cloud IaaS Pricing

Produced separate AWS (EC2) and Azure VM pricing workbooks — instance-level mapping for full estate; peak and rightsized scenarios for both platforms

TCO Model

Built Regional Financial Institution TCO Spreadsheet v1 — 3-scenario comparison (Azure peak, Azure rightsized, Private Cloud) · Service Blocks pricing tiers at $15K, $20K, $35K/mo · Dev/Test optimization note

Cloud Decision Matrix

Produced 12-criteria Cloud Decision Matrix (DOCX) — Private Cloud Hyper-V vs. Azure · Final recommendation: Azure long-term, Private Cloud interim for legacy apps

VDI Considerations

Authored VDI Considerations document — VMware VDI current state, Azure Virtual Desktop evaluation, PoC recommendation, and key scoping questions

R-Factor & Move Bundles

Built R-Factor (6Rs) portfolio for all application stacks; developed move bundles based on dependencies and client criteria; built migration complexity scorecard

Context & Reference Notes

Client: Regional Financial Institution — regional financial institution. Anonymized in portfolio as "Regional Financial Institution." Engagement: Cloud Readiness Assessment, 2022. SOW confirmed executed: "SOW - Regional Financial Institution - CRA - EXECUTED.pdf." Cloud context: AWS and Azure both priced; Advisory Private Cloud (Hyper-V) also in scope as incumbent platform and interim option. Azure identified as the long-term forward platform. Discovery scope: 156 servers in CloudScape (August 2022 inventory); 30-day performance data collection; Flexera CloudScape Licensed Assets export (September 2022). Application stack depth: ~25 named stacks from RKAPP, COMPLY, SCHWABSQL through PAS PROD (6 servers), EPICJIRA, EPICWEB, and others — all with cross-stack dependency mapping. Team: "Raj/Eric" attributed on CRA task tracker for CloudScape and application stack work. Use as a reference for FinServ, banking, or Microsoft-heavy infrastructure conversations. Use "Regional Financial Institution" framing in external references unless account team confirms otherwise.