You know what you need. What comes back from a vendor or integrator doesn't always match it — and by the time the gap shows up, it's usually operational, not theoretical.
A requirement gets translated into a proposal, and somewhere in that translation, scope grows. Extra platforms get added because they're in a vendor's standard bundle. Monitoring gets duplicated because two products each cover part of the requirement. Licensing gets sized for capacity you don't need yet, or won't need at all. None of it is dishonest — it's what happens when the person building the proposal is optimizing for their own portfolio, not your outcome.
Does the proposed architecture actually solve the problem you described, end to end?
Which components are required, which are optional, and which were added without a clear justification?
Does the solution meet the technical standards and regulatory requirements that apply to you?
Can your team, or your managed service partner, actually run this day to day?
What is the real cost of ownership — licensing, operations and support — not just the headline price?
Is there a simpler architecture that delivers the same outcome?
We start from what you actually asked for, not just what came back.
We assess the architecture against the checklist above, without involving the vendor or integrator.
A clear account of what's justified, what's questionable and what to push back on — with reasoning, not just a verdict.
If it's useful, we stay involved while you go back to the vendor or integrator with your questions.
This work draws primarily on Solution Assurance, RFP & Bid Advisory and Technology & Cost Optimization.