Platform direction
Which workloads belong where, and why — mapped to continuity, compliance, and cost constraints.
Cloud Advisory Group works with Australian organisations that run business-critical systems in cloud and hybrid environments. We are not a general IT reseller. Our work sits at the intersection of architecture, security, operations, and cloud economics — where poor decisions show up quickly in uptime, audit findings, or monthly spend.
2019
Year company founded in NSW
40+
Enterprise and mid-market programs delivered
3
Core disciplines: advisory, delivery governance, managed oversight
What We Take Ownership Of
Clients come to us when cloud has become difficult to steer: too many platforms, unclear accountability, rising cost without matching capability, or migration programs that stall after the first wave. We step in to establish a clear baseline, define a target operating model, and run the program with visible checkpoints.
We work with CIOs, infrastructure leads, security officers, and finance teams who need a single thread from decision to implementation. That means architecture choices are written down, risks are tracked with owners, and post-go-live behaviour is reviewed — not assumed.
Program delivery
Wave-based migration and modernization with cutover criteria your operations team can execute.
Run-state oversight
Support models, monitoring standards, and FinOps routines that survive after the project closes.
Our advisors are senior practitioners — not generalists rotated between unrelated accounts. Engagements are staffed against capability maps so architecture, security, and operations expertise stay on the same program from discovery through run-state review.
We document decisions in formats your audit and finance teams can consume: architecture decision records, control matrices, wave plans with rollback criteria, and monthly spend variance narratives tied to workload owners.
“They reframed our cloud program as an operating model change, not a lift-and-shift. The roadmap had owners, dates, and explicit trade-offs — which is what our board needed.”