The 3-R Decision and the TCO That Convinces the CFO
The workload inventory from the last section gave every object a first-pass verdict. This section turns those verdicts into a funded project: the 3-R decision (rehost, re-platform, or re-architect) applied per workload rather than as one blanket strategy, a scorecard that makes the call defensible instead of a gut feeling, a three-year TCO model that translates the decision into dollars, and the one-slide narrative that actually gets a CFO or board to sign off. It closes with the anti-pattern that sinks more migrations than any technical mistake: treating “lift and shift everything” as a strategy instead of a fallback for the workloads that genuinely call for it.
flowchart LR
A["Workload Inventory\n(Lift / Redesign / Retire)"] --> B["Assessment Scorecard\n(6 dimensions, 1-5)"]
B --> C{"3-R Decision"}
C --> D["Rehost\n(low complexity, low value)"]
C --> E["Re-platform\n(moderate complexity)"]
C --> F["Re-architect\n(high value, high change freq)"]
D & E & F --> G["3-Year TCO Calculator"]
G --> H["One-Slide Board Narrative"]
H --> I["Funded Migration"]
Lectures
| # | Lecture | Est. Read |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rehost vs Re-platform vs Re-architect: The Decision Tree | 3 min read |
| 2 | The Migration Assessment Scorecard | 3 min read |
| 3 | Building the 3-Year TCO Calculator | 3 min read |
| 4 | Anti-Pattern: Lift-and-Shift Everything | 2 min read |
| 5 | Presenting TCO to the Board: The One Slide That Lands | 2 min read |
| 6 | Check Your Knowledge | Quiz |
| ← Previous: Check Your Knowledge | Next: Rehost vs Re-platform vs Re-architect: The Decision Tree → | |:—|—:|