EXPLORE THE ROAD AHEAD
What changes when the assumptions change?
AWS + Azure · Landing zones & day-two enterprise operations
Readiness to receive workloads—not mission-application migration. No client data, scores or forecast commitments.
What this adjustment means
One collection picture. A connected road ahead.
30 requests inform 51 readiness positions across 10 domains, linked to 53 workstreams. Select a position to reveal its catalog relationships. Collection does not automatically establish readiness or change dates.
51 readiness positions
53 workstreams
Coral: modeled schedule driver · Teal: modeled flexibility · Unmarked: no indicator. Only the small platform model responds to the global controls below; the full 53-workstream catalog is not a migration forecast.
How the operating relationship changes
Additional teaching scenario—not an MC² record or export. Move through a hypothetical portfolio transition and discuss who remains accountable, who performs the work and which handoffs need agreement.
Authored illustration: no moves before month 12, then uniform movement to 100% cloud at the selected horizon. No capacity, waves, migration patterns, cost or authorization calculation. This view is independent of the platform sliders.
These are discussion paths, not maturity scores. Legacy does not mean manual, and cloud-native does not mean automatically better. Validate the technology, process and skill changes independently of portfolio movement.
Example responsibility conversation—not accepted RACI
Compare today with the target while both teams support the transition. A = accountable owner; R = team performing the work. These are example roles, not accepted assignments. Confirm consulted and informed participants locally.
| Service activity | Today · candidate A | Cloud target · candidate A | Cloud target · candidate R | Transition conversation |
|---|
Mission-managed cloud still requires platform ownership. CSSP coverage, response authority and provider responsibilities must be agreed. The AO retains the authorization decision. Skills and monitoring evolve through deliberate handover—not automatically as systems move.
Explore a scenario
Change one assumption at a time. Money is represented as funding availability; spending is not a speed multiplier.
Assumptions, dependencies & six-month review
Timing and relationships below are authored teaching assumptions—not OEM estimates or confirmed client facts. The 53 names and reference bars come from the existing workstream catalog. Only ten illustrative platform stages are calculated; nine domains have controls. Mission migration is outside scope; unmodeled workstreams do not imply a complete program forecast. AWS and Azure are context; separate provider paths and shared resource contention are not modeled.
Changing a dependency to “confirmed — simulated” changes its label only. It does not change dates, readiness or the dependency structure.
A confirmed relationship is not a completed activity. At a six-month review, validate each relationship, remaining effort, waiting time and available capacity. Keep original baseline, actual progress and proposed forecast separate. This prototype records no actuals and cannot adopt a new baseline.
Capacity scaling is deliberately simplified and has no staffing floors, resource-leveling, wave-by-wave authorization or cost calculation. Evidence preparation does not establish control effectiveness. A decision allowance neither grants authorization nor predicts approval.
In-tab exploration only · Refresh resets assumptions · Export creates a fictional scenario JSON, never a client intake record.