Can we trust the platform?
For platform leaders and MSPs. Assess the estate when controls and ownership are unclear; review Kubernetes when the next decision is cluster readiness.
A clear first step
Start with the problem.Leave with a decision.
A focused review or sprint gives your team evidence, an agreed next step and work it can use. Choose the situation that sounds familiar. We confirm fit and scope together.
Evidence from your environmentA named senior architectA handover your team can use
Selected starting points
Which decision is holding you back?
Start with a recognisable problem. If two routes look relevant, a 45-minute working session helps establish the right boundary.
What would let this pilot ship?
For ISVs and enterprise AI teams. Resolve architecture and reliability questions, or gather the engineering evidence your DPO and counsel need.
Is this automation worth building?
For NOC and assurance leaders. Agree the use case, KPI baseline and target architecture before deciding whether to fund an MVP.
The engagement catalogue
Fourteen ways to make progress.
Durations are elapsed delivery windows for an agreed scope. Some engagements have a detailed page; others start with a scope conversation. Availability and access are confirmed before work starts.
Cloud controls and readiness
Landing-zone assessment
Findings accumulate and teams work around controls.
Evidence for selected landing-zone themes and prioritised actions.
2–3 weeks elapsed
Explore landing-zone assessment →Kubernetes production-readiness review
Cluster incidents repeat or a production handover is approaching.
A focused review of one agreed cluster, selected readiness themes and priority actions.
2 weeks elapsed
Explore kubernetes production-readiness review →Governance-as-code sprint
Controls remain documents and exceptions keep growing.
Agreed controls expressed as reusable code for one cloud.
3–4 weeks
Discuss governance-as-code sprint →BIO and Azure technical review
The control mapping exists, but evidence is gathered by hand.
An agreed mapping, evidence gaps and an owned action list.
2–3 weeks elapsed
Bekijk de BIO-review in het Nederlands →Cost, recovery and handover
FinOps review
The cloud bill grows without clear ownership.
A cost baseline and prioritised actions with assumptions recorded.
2 weeks elapsed
Explore finops review →Resilience and disaster-recovery review
Recovery is documented but the evidence is incomplete or the path remains untested.
A recovery-design review and prioritised gaps; one bounded rehearsal is an optional, separately agreed scope.
Review schedule agreed after scope; optional rehearsal needs an authorised window
Explore resilience and disaster-recovery review →Platform-team enablement
Routine changes still go back to the original builder.
Six to nine working sessions around the team's agreed operating needs.
4–6 weeks elapsed
Discuss platform-team enablement →IaC and GitOps quick start
Console changes cause drift and rollbacks are difficult.
An agreed change path through version control, review and deployment.
3–4 weeks elapsed
Explore iac and gitops quick start →Agent production and engineering evidence
Agentic architecture review
The demo works, but production is blocked by design questions.
A target architecture outline and a defensible build decision.
3–4 weeks elapsed
Explore agentic architecture review →EU AI Act and GDPR engineering-readiness review
The system's decisions, data and controls are hard to evidence.
Technical evidence and gaps for engineering, DPO and counsel.
2–3 weeks elapsed
Explore eu ai act and gdpr engineering-readiness review →Evaluation harness and tracing
Quality is judged informally and regressions go unnoticed.
An evaluation baseline and traces for the agreed pilot.
3–4 weeks
Discuss evaluation harness and tracing →Inference and network operations
Model routing and inference cost review
Inference cost and latency are difficult to explain.
Measured tradeoffs and a routing or caching decision.
1–2 weeks elapsed
Explore model routing and inference cost review →In-tenancy inference platform sizing
Residency constraints block an AI use case.
A sized platform design with capacity and cost assumptions.
2 weeks
Discuss in-tenancy inference platform sizing →AIOps feasibility and KPI baseline
Alarm overload and slow diagnosis need a measurable starting point.
An agreed baseline and feasibility decision; also phase one of the NOC design sprint.
2–3 weeks
Discuss aiops feasibility and kpi baseline →Delivering for a client? Explore the MSP and SI partner route: senior delivery, an agreed responsibility split and a handover to your team or the client's team.
Not sure where to start?
Bring the problem you need to resolve.
A 45-minute working session helps establish the current situation, the impact you see and the decision an engagement should enable. No need to choose an internal offer code.