$20M Cloud Migration: How Independent Governance Eliminated $200K per Month in Recurring Waste
Executive Summary
A vendor-led $20M cloud migration plan appeared sound. The architecture was detailed. The timeline was clear. The CIO was comfortable approving it.
The CFO was not.
The question was simple and unanswered, what business outcomes justify this spend, and how does the board evaluate whether it is capital-efficient.
Within 30 days of independent governance intervention, the migration was redesigned, eliminating $200K per month in recurring cloud waste, preventing long-term consumption lock-in, and preserving every required capability.
The difference was not technology.
It was governance.
The Situation
The organization was preparing for a large-scale VMware-to-AWS migration projected at approximately $20M annually. The plan was produced by a major vendor with deep cloud expertise and extensive documentation.
From a technical standpoint, the proposal looked reasonable.
From a financial standpoint, it did not.
The CFO could not determine:
-
Why specific architectural choices were required
-
Which costs were fixed versus variable
-
How consumption would scale over time
-
Whether the plan optimized for business value or vendor economics
Approval felt risky, but delay felt worse. This is the position many CFOs find themselves in, signing off on technology investments they cannot clearly defend.
That uncertainty triggered an independent governance review.
The Structural Problem
The issue was not incompetence or bad intent.
It was incentive alignment.
The migration plan was vendor-led, meaning architectural decisions were optimized for:
-
Higher baseline consumption
-
Premium service tiers labeled as “standard”
-
Oversized compute and storage allocations justified by hypothetical future growth
-
Built-in buffers that would compound costs year over year
None of these choices were technically wrong.
They were financially misaligned.
The cost model assumed scale, not discipline.
The financial narrative assumed inevitability, not tradeoffs.
The result was a structurally expensive design that would be difficult to unwind once implemented.
This is a common failure mode in cloud programs. Vendors optimize for consumption. CIOs optimize for capability. CFOs are left without a clear capital efficiency framework.
The Governance Intervention
JH Strategic IT was engaged to apply independent governance before execution, not after costs were locked in.
The review focused on four questions:
-
What business capabilities must this migration enable
-
Which architectural choices are truly required versus convenient
-
How will costs behave under normal, peak, and growth scenarios
-
Where are consumption assumptions inflating long-term spend
The intervention included:
-
Financial modeling of proposed AWS consumption
-
Deconstruction of vendor architectural assumptions
-
Right-sizing of compute and storage tiers
-
Redesign of the migration sequence to avoid early over-provisioning
-
Reframing the program in business and capital terms the board could evaluate
No tools were removed.
No scope was cut.
No timelines were extended.
The plan was redesigned, not downsized.
The Outcome
Within 30 days, the revised migration plan delivered:
-
Eliminated $200K per month in recurring cloud waste
-
Prevented long-term lock-in to vendor-optimized consumption models
-
Maintained every required capability
-
Preserved the original migration timeline
Annualized, this represented $2.4M in ongoing cost avoidance, without operational tradeoffs.
More importantly, the CFO gained a defensible capital narrative. The board could now see:
-
What was being funded
-
Why it mattered
-
How costs would scale
-
What governance controls were in place
The approval conversation shifted from fear-based approval to informed decision-making.
What This Looks Like For CFOs
Most cloud waste is not discovered through audits.
It is designed in before the first workload moves.
Once consumption-heavy architectures are implemented, reversing them becomes politically and operationally difficult.
Independent governance changes the equation by:
-
Separating architectural necessity from vendor economics
-
Forcing capital discipline before commitments are made
-
Giving CFOs a language to challenge and approve technology spend
This case did not succeed because the vendor was wrong.
It succeeded because governance was applied before incentives compounded.
Why This Matters for CFOs
For COOs, technical credibility should translate into:
-
a realistic view of how systems behave under operational stress
-
clarity on which capabilities truly protect throughput, quality, and customer experience
-
decisions that weigh resilience and performance against margin pressure
-
an honest assessment of risk that goes beyond marketing language from vendors
-
The question is simple.
Does the governance advice you receive make operations more predictable and defensible, or does it add complexity without impact.
When This Pattern Appears
This situation is common when:
-
Large cloud migrations are vendor-designed
-
Consumption models are presented as inevitable
-
Financial impacts are discussed after architecture is finalized
-
CFOs are asked to approve programs they cannot clearly explain
If the business cannot articulate why a $20M migration is capital-efficient, governance is missing.
Next Step
If you are facing a major cloud decision and cannot clearly explain the long-term financial implications to your board, start with governance.
Independent review before execution is how capital discipline is enforced without slowing the business.
Strategic IT Governance Resources
If you are evaluating IT spend, risk, or value under board or investor pressure, these resources explain how different situations require different governance responses.
Start With Decision Clarity
A clear decision framework for executives deciding between independent governance, internal IT leadership, vendors, or large consulting firms.
Executive Persona Guidance
How to translate IT spend into defensible financial narratives the board can challenge and approve.
How governance exposes operational risk, cost leakage, and execution blind spots before they hit the P&L.
How independent IT governance supports diligence, value creation, and post-close oversight across portfolio companies.
Core Services
A fixed-scope engagement that delivers a board-ready financial view of IT spend, risk, and value.
A rapid diagnostic for executives who need immediate clarity before a board meeting, renewal, or capital decision.
A structured program that installs permanent financial and operational governance over IT.
Ongoing executive-level oversight to keep spend, risk, and vendor behavior aligned with business outcomes.