AWS Cloud Management & Governance

Yes, and it is the most common starting point. The first step is a read-only review that establishes what is actually running, how access is granted, what is backed up, and where spend is going. You receive that baseline as a written document whether or not you go further.

Yes. An AWS architecture and operations review is deliberately available as a standalone engagement, with no requirement to change providers afterwards. You get an independent written assessment of the environment, the risks in it, and what it would cost to address them. Several organizations use it to hold their existing provider to account rather than to replace them.

Usually, yes — but attribution has to come before optimization. If resources are untagged, no tool can tell you which team or workload owns the spend. The work is tagging discipline first, then identifying idle and oversized resources, storage on the wrong tier and unnecessary data transfer, and only then considering commitment pricing, which is premature before the baseline is understood.

Yes, with the caveat that migration is the easy part to sell and the hard part to live with. The questions that decide whether a migration goes well are what the workload actually depends on, how it will be identified and accessed afterwards, how it will be backed up and recovered, and who operates it on day two. Those are addressed before anything moves.

Yes. That hybrid shape is more common in the mid-market than all-in cloud. The objective is one identity model, one monitoring view, one backup standard and one set of documentation across both, rather than a separate operational practice for each.

Yes. Most environments IT KORR operates are Microsoft-centred for identity and productivity with AWS carrying specific workloads. Federating AWS access to existing Microsoft identity, rather than maintaining a second user population, is usually one of the earliest improvements available.

Yes. Reviewing a proposal — scope, architecture, assumptions, what happens operationally after go-live, and what the ongoing cost is likely to be rather than the quoted project figure — is a legitimate standalone engagement and considerably cheaper than discovering the gaps afterwards.

IT KORR does not claim AWS Partner status, AWS competencies or an AWS MSP designation on this page. What is offered is operational management of AWS environments as part of a governed IT estate. If partner status is a procurement requirement for you, raise it in the first conversation so it can be answered directly rather than implied.

In most environments reviewed, the material risks are not exotic. They are over-broad roles, long-lived access keys, root account usage, publicly reachable storage or endpoints that were never meant to be, absent logging, and no process for removing access when people leave. Those are addressed before anything more advanced is worth discussing.

Coverage is confirmed first — what is backed up, how often, and where it is held. Then recovery is tested end to end and timed against your stated objective, and the result is documented. Backup isolation matters too: a backup reachable by the same credentials that run the workload offers limited protection against a compromise.

That is the point of the governance work rather than a separate exercise. Configuration baselines, access reviews, recovery test results and change history are maintained as the environment runs, so answering an auditor, a client security questionnaire or an insurer draws on documentation that already exists.

A read-only AWS review. It is scoped, finite, requires no change of provider, and produces a written baseline you keep regardless of what you decide next.