Managed Azure Services

Harrby reviews subscription structure, management group hierarchy, landing zone maturity, identity and RBAC model, network topology, security posture, cost patterns, monitoring coverage, and operational gaps, and assesses CAF and WAF alignment across all five pillars.

Harrby defines the target Azure architecture across management group and subscription design, landing zone structure, identity and access model, network segmentation, security baseline, monitoring architecture, and operational model, and documents design decisions with rationale against CAF and WAF guidance.

Harrby implements governance controls, establishes or remediates landing zone structure, applies the security baseline, configures monitoring and alerting, enables cost management tooling, and documents operational runbooks, introducing changes in a controlled sequence to minimise workload disruption.

Harrby manages governance policy enforcement, security posture monitoring, cost oversight and anomaly detection, platform health monitoring, incident response, change management, and regular operational reporting, with clear responsibilities and documented change processes.

Harrby conducts regular WAF pillar assessments, reviews cost optimisation opportunities, analyses Reserved Instance and Savings Plan efficiency, tracks security posture progression, assesses the Microsoft Azure roadmap, and delivers architecture improvement recommendations aligned to workload evolution.

Monthly Azure bills are increasing but the cause isn't clear. Resources are running that nobody owns. Reserved Instances purchased during a migration are being underutilised. Cost visibility exists but cost management doesn't.

Subscriptions were created as needed. Resource groups reflect project names from three years ago. Naming conventions exist in a document nobody follows. The environment works, but changing anything requires understanding a structure nobody fully documented.

Microsoft Defender for Cloud is showing recommendations that have never been addressed. Security policies are applied to some subscriptions but not others. Privileged access is broader than it needs to be. Nobody has reviewed role assignments in the last 12 months.

Infrastructure was moved to Azure, a new environment was built, or a significant workload was deployed. The project is done. Now the environment needs an operating model to keep it governed, secure, and cost-efficient over time.

Outages are taking longer to diagnose than they should. Monitoring exists but alerting isn't tuned to what matters. Operational runbooks are missing or out of date. Recovery procedures haven't been tested.

Azure infrastructure is part of the security and compliance scope. Landing zone governance, identity controls, network segmentation, and security policy enforcement need to be documented and demonstrably operating.

The engineer who designed the environment has left. The internal team managing Azure is capable but stretched across too many responsibilities to operate it with the consistency a production environment requires.

New workloads are being planned or existing ones are growing. Scaling into an unstructured environment compounds existing problems. Governance, security, and cost management need to be in place before the environment gets larger.

Reliability, Security, Cost Optimisation, Operational Excellence, and Performance Efficiency — assessed and managed continuously across your Azure environment.

Fully managed, co-managed, or advisory-led, matched to your internal cloud capability and governance maturity.

Subscription hierarchy, landing zones, identity, networking, security, and cost management aligned under one operating model.

Regular WAF assessments, cost reviews, and security posture progression built into the service.

Security baseline implementation, Microsoft Defender for Cloud posture management, network segmentation, identity and access governance, and policy enforcement across subscriptions — so the infrastructure layer meets the same security standard as the rest of the architecture.

Azure cost management tooling configured, anomaly detection enabled, spending patterns reviewed regularly, Reserved Instance and Savings Plan recommendations provided, and idle or orphaned resources identified before they accumulate. Azure should cost what the business expects.

Monitoring and alerting tuned to what matters, operational runbooks documented, availability and recovery design reviewed against the WAF Reliability pillar, and incident response processes defined in advance.

Landing zone architecture, management group hierarchy, Azure Policy enforcement, naming standards, and tagging strategy provide the structure that makes the environment understandable, auditable, and manageable as it grows.

Governance enforcement, security posture management, cost monitoring, and routine operational tasks managed by Harrby — freeing internal teams to focus on workload delivery and business outcomes.

Azure infrastructure governance, identity controls, network design, and security policies documented and aligned to ISO 27001, Essential Eight, and Australian Government cloud security requirements — providing the evidence base for audits, assessments, and government tenancy obligations.

Management group hierarchy, subscription design, Azure Policy initiative assignment, resource group standards, naming and tagging conventions, and governance baseline implementation aligned to the Microsoft Cloud Adoption Framework. A landing zone is the foundation for everything that follows.

Role-based access control design, privileged identity management, administrative account governance, service principal and managed identity management, and regular access reviews. RBAC sprawl is one of the most common and consequential governance failures in Azure environments.

Virtual network design review, subnet segmentation, network security group management, Azure Firewall oversight where applicable, private endpoint strategy, and DNS architecture. Network design decisions made during initial deployment are expensive to change later.

Defender for Cloud posture management, secure score tracking, recommendation triage and remediation, security policy assignment, regulatory compliance assessment, and integration with Microsoft Sentinel where in scope. Azure security requires active, continuous management.

Azure Monitor configuration, Log Analytics workspace management, diagnostic settings, alert rule design and tuning, and dashboard creation for operational and leadership audiences. Integration with Microsoft Sentinel for security event correlation where applicable.

Azure Cost Management configuration, budget alerts, cost anomaly detection, resource tagging for cost allocation, Reserved Instance and Azure Savings Plan analysis, idle resource identification, and regular cost optimisation reviews aligned to FinOps principles.

Operational runbook documentation, change management process for Azure infrastructure, incident triage and response support, platform health oversight, and structured escalation paths for production workload issues.

Ongoing support for workloads running in the managed Azure environment, WAF pillar assessments for critical workloads, architecture improvement recommendations, and advisory input on new workload designs and migration planning.

Architecture documentation, governance design records, security baseline configuration notes, RBAC design documentation, and framework alignment mapping across ISO 27001, Essential Eight, and Australian Government cloud security guidelines.

Commonwealth and State agencies, local government, and government-adjacent organisations operating under the Australian Government ISM, the Protective Security Policy Framework, and whole-of-government cloud tenancy requirements — where Azure landing zone governance, data sovereignty, and security baseline documentation are mandatory requirements.

Banks, superannuation funds, insurers, and financial technology businesses operating under APRA CPS 234 and related prudential standards — where cloud infrastructure governance, access controls, audit logging, and resilience design are part of the regulatory operating environment.

Healthcare providers, pathology services, and digital health businesses managing sensitive clinical workloads in Azure — where data sovereignty, access controls, encryption standards, and compliance with the Australian Privacy Act and My Health Record framework carry direct operational consequences.

Law firms, consulting businesses, and enterprise organisations running business-critical workloads in Azure — where governance, cost control, and operational reliability are a business continuity concern.

ISVs, SaaS providers, and technology companies whose products run on Azure — where the managed service covers the platform governance layer, freeing engineering teams to focus on product development.

Businesses moving workloads from on-premises or another cloud provider — where landing zone design, governance, and operational model need to be established at the point of migration.

Azure landing zone remediation for a financial services organisation

A superannuation fund had been running workloads in Azure for three years across eleven subscriptions created by different teams at different times. There was no management group hierarchy, no consistent Azure Policy enforcement, and no naming or tagging standard. Security recommendations in Defender for Cloud numbered in the hundreds. RBAC assignments had accumulated without review. The fund's internal audit team raised Azure governance as a finding ahead of an APRA CPS 234 review.

Harrby conducted a full Azure environment assessment against the Cloud Adoption Framework. A management group hierarchy was implemented to reflect the fund's organisational structure and policy inheritance requirements. Azure Policy initiatives were assigned to enforce security baselines, tagging standards, and allowed resource types. RBAC assignments were reviewed and rationalised; over 40% of privileged assignments were removed or scoped down. Defender for Cloud recommendations were triaged and addressed in priority order, reducing the secure score deficit by more than 60% within 90 days. Architecture documentation and a compliance evidence package were produced for the APRA review.

The APRA CPS 234 review proceeded without cloud governance findings. Harrby was retained for ongoing managed Azure operations.

Cost recovery after uncontrolled Azure growth

A professional services technology firm had grown its Azure footprint rapidly over 18 months as client projects were onboarded. Monthly Azure spend had grown from approximately $8,000 to over $35,000 with no clear cost allocation model and no Reserved Instance strategy. Leadership could see the total cost but not what was driving it or where optimisation was possible. Several development environments from completed projects were still running.

Harrby implemented a comprehensive tagging and cost allocation strategy across all subscriptions. Azure Cost Management budgets and anomaly detection alerts were configured. A resource inventory identified 23 resource groups associated with completed or inactive projects — the majority were decommissioned after confirmation with project owners. A Reserved Instance and Azure Savings Plan analysis was conducted against the stable workload base.

Monthly Azure spend reduced by approximately 34% within 60 days through decommissioning and Reserved Instance purchasing. Cost allocation by client and project was established for the first time, enabling accurate billing to clients.

Co-managed Azure for an internal cloud team

A state government agency had a capable internal cloud team managing Azure workloads but lacked specialist expertise in landing zone governance, Defender for Cloud, and WAF assessments. The agency was required to demonstrate ISM alignment and Essential Eight maturity for its Azure environment as part of a whole-of-government security review. Internal capability was strong on deployment but thin on governance and compliance documentation.

Harrby operated in a co-managed model — the internal team retained workload deployment and day-to-day infrastructure operations; Harrby owned landing zone governance, Defender for Cloud posture management, RBAC review, WAF pillar assessments, and the compliance documentation package. A quarterly WAF review was established as a standing deliverable. ISM control mapping for the Azure environment was produced and maintained by Harrby as part of the ongoing service.

The whole-of-government security review was completed with full Azure governance documentation provided. The quarterly WAF review became a standing input to the agency's technology governance committee.