Enterprise Migration Strategy: Moving Legacy Systems to Azure Without Breaking the Business

Impossibile aggiungere al carrello

Puoi avere soltanto 50 titoli nel carrello per il checkout.

Riprova più tardi

Rimozione dalla Lista desideri non riuscita.

Riprova più tardi

Non è stato possibile aggiungere il titolo alla Libreria

Per favore riprova

Non è stato possibile seguire il Podcast

Per favore riprova

Esecuzione del comando Non seguire più non riuscita

Enterprise Migration Strategy: Moving Legacy Systems to Azure Without Breaking the Business

Ascolta gratuitamente

Vedi i dettagli del titolo

3 mesi a soli 0,99 €/mese

Dopo 3 mesi, 9,99 €/mese. Si applicano termini e condizioni.

A proposito di questo titolo

The Uncomfortable Truth About Cloud Migrations — And the Promise Most organizations think cloud migrations fail because of a bad technical choice: the wrong service, the wrong network model, the wrong SKU. That’s comforting—and wrong. Migrations fail because leadership frames them as IT projects: move the servers, hit the date, don’t disrupt the business. That framing guarantees disruption, because businesses aren’t disrupted by compute. They’re disrupted by entropy: identity drift, policy gaps, exceptions that compound, and delivery teams improvising at scale. This episode simplifies the problem and raises the bar at the same time: platform first, then sequencing, then modernization that compounds instead of collapsing. Remember this line. It’s the thesis of the episode: Nothing broke technically. Everything broke systemically. Act I — The Foundational Misunderstanding: Migration as an IT Project The first mistake is thinking “legacy” means old hardware. Legacy isn’t servers in a basement. Legacy is socio-technical debt: brittle software, undocumented dependencies, approvals hard-wired into people, audit evidence stored in tribal memory, and business processes that only work because three specific humans know which workaround runs on Tuesday nights. That distinction changes everything. When executives say, “We’re moving to Azure,” what they usually mean is: we’re changing where the infrastructure lives. What they’re actually doing is changing the operating model—or pretending they can avoid doing so. They can’t. Microsoft Azure doesn’t fix a broken operating model. It amplifies it. In the same way a faster conveyor belt doesn’t fix a messy factory floor—it spreads the mess faster. If you migrate chaos, you don’t get agility.You get expensive chaos. And the failure pattern is consistent:Leadership mandates speed: “We’ll tighten controls later.”Delivery teams hear: “Ship now, governance is optional.”Security hears: “Accept risk until audit season.”Finance hears: “We’ll figure out costs after exit.”The platform team—if one exists—gets a date, not authority.So what gets measured? Apps migrated. Servers decommissioned. Percent complete. Those are activity metrics. They feel productive. They are also irrelevant. The outcomes that matter are different:Time from idea to productionStability when change happensPredictable cost-to-serve per workloadHow many teams can onboard without inventing their own cloudCloud migrations are justified by outcomes, not architecture diagrams. Why This Keeps Surprising Executives An IT project assumes a stable environment and knowable requirements. Enterprise migration assumes neither. The business changes mid-migration. Org charts shift. Compliance expectations evolve. Threat models change. Vendor contracts move. And every exception you approve today becomes a permanent path tomorrow. Exceptions are not one-time decisions.They are entropy generators. That’s why “we’ll centralize later” is a lie organizations tell themselves. Not because people are dishonest—because once a working path exists, it becomes dependency. And dependencies become politically untouchable. The cloud didn’t create this behavior.It exposed it. So when leadership says, “Just lift and shift first,” what they’re often buying is time. Time is fine—if you spend it building the control plane. Most organizations don’t. They spend it approving more lifts, more shifts, more exceptions. And then they act confused when cost rises, risk rises, and delivery slows. Failure Story — The Cutover That “Went Fine” A regulated financial services organization decided to migrate internal finance applications quickly. The intent was simple: move the apps in a quarter, keep the same access model, clean up governance afterward. The apps moved. Cutover succeeded. Availability was fine. Then Monday arrived. Access requests exploded because old approval pathways didn’t map cleanly to Azure roles and Microsoft Entra ID groups. Audit trails fragmented because logging wasn’t centralized. Teams created “temporary” fixes: ad-hoc role assignments, shared accounts, spreadsheet-based compliance evidence. Nothing broke technically.Everything broke systemically. The invisible constraint they ignored was governance throughput. In regulated environments, the speed at which teams can ship infrastructure is faster than the speed at which you can safely change access, policy, logging, and evidence. If you migrate faster than you can enforce intent, you accumulate governance debt faster than you can repay it. That debt doesn’t sit quietly. It shows up as blocked work, audit panic, and incident response that can’t answer basic questions. The boring principle that would have prevented this: Establish the landing zone before you migrate anything that matters. The first workload sets the precedent. The precedent becomes the pattern. The pattern ...

Ancora nessuna recensione