Absolutely. Multi-cloud strategy is a capability, not a requirement we impose. Our IoT work was AWS-native — EKS, Redshift, Apigee on AWS. If you're committed to a single cloud, we work within that commitment and optimize for it rather than advocate for migration.

A structured review across five dimensions: architecture (are workloads deployed on the right services?), security (are IAM policies, network boundaries, and secrets management configured correctly?), cost (where is spend concentrated and is it justified?), reliability (are redundancy and failover mechanisms in place?), and operational visibility (can your team see what's happening without writing scripts?). Output is a prioritized list of findings, not a generic report.

Cloud vendor PS teams optimize for adoption of their platform's services. We optimize for your outcome — which sometimes means using fewer managed services, not more. We're not incentivized by your cloud spend. We're incentivized by building infrastructure that's maintainable, cost-effective, and actually performs.

Yes. Rightsizing Kubernetes clusters, identifying idle resources, tuning Kafka partition counts and replication factors for the actual throughput needed — these are standard parts of our infrastructure engagements. We've done this with past clients where cloud spend is a board-level concern.

It's built in, not bolted on. Our IoT work was designed within 3GPP TS 33.501 5G security standards. Our financial services engagements operated under strict data governance requirements. Security posture and compliance constraints shape the architecture from the first design decision.

Not at all. We have direct experience with Red Hat OpenShift alongside GKE and EKS. OpenShift's operator model and stricter security contexts require specific configuration patterns — we know them and have worked within them in enterprise environments.