Cloud Adoption Framework

A cloud adoption framework is a published method for moving an organisation onto cloud services. It sets out the stages, the skills to build and the checks to run. It is somebody else’s method, not your plan — that gap shapes how you use it.

Two of the most-read versions come from the cloud providers themselves, and both are free to download. Amazon Web Services publishes one. Microsoft publishes another for Azure.

Neither was written about your company, and that is deliberate. A generic method has to fit a bank, a hospital and a 200-seat contact centre without favouring any of them.

Your own sequence — which system moves first, and by when — is a cloud strategy roadmap. That is a separate document you build from the framework, and it is not the framework itself.

Key takeaways

• A cloud adoption framework is a published method you read before anything moves, written by a vendor or a public body rather than by you.
• The two most-cited versions come from Amazon Web Services and Microsoft, and both are documents anyone can download.
• A framework names stages and capabilities, but it never names your workloads, your dates or your budget.
• The company-specific sequence you build from a framework is a cloud strategy roadmap, which is a different document with a different job.

How it works

A framework works as a readiness checklist. It groups the work into stages, names the capabilities each stage needs, and gives both sides of a contract the same vocabulary. You read it before the first workload moves, not during.

Amazon Web Services dates its Cloud Adoption Framework to 22 November 2021 and says the point of reading it is to identify and prioritize transformation opportunities before you commit anything.

Microsoft’s version for Azure splits the same ground into more steps. Its published guidance runs through stages from Strategy and Plan to Migrate, Govern and Manage, each carrying its own task list.

The stages look sequential on paper. In practice, governance and security work keeps running alongside everything else, which is why both versions treat them as continuing rather than finishing.

Underneath the stage names, every framework asks the same question: are you ready?

Most teams score themselves against those readiness questions rather than answering yes or no. The habit comes from the capability maturity model, which rates a practice on a fixed scale.

An AI readiness assessment narrows that same method down to one question. Both tell you where the gaps sit before anyone signs anything.

Skills are usually the first gap to show. A framework will tell you that you need a cloud architect — it won’t tell you whether to hire one or rent one.

Renting often means cloud managed services, where a provider runs the platform day to day. Teams already living on cloud-based tools start with a shorter gap list.

A framework also hands you an argument you can borrow. When a board asks why security work has to land before migration work, pointing at a published stage order beats defending your own opinion.

None of that removes the reading time. A full framework runs to dozens of pages, so the useful move is to read the stage list first, then only the stages where you already suspect a gap.

Examples

Published frameworks are easy to name because they sit in public. Two come from cloud vendors and more come from government bodies. Reading two of them side by side shows how differently they carve up the same work.

Amazon Web Services carries a publication date of 22 November 2021 on its framework and ships it as a downloadable whitepaper. It is a method to read, not a service to buy.

Microsoft’s Cloud Adoption Framework covers Azure and names its stages openly: Strategy, Plan, Ready, Migrate, Modernize, Cloud-native, Govern, Secure and Manage. Nine labels, one method.

Providers OA works with reach for one of these documents when a buyer asks how a migration will be run. The framework gives both sides the same word for “ready”, which shortens the argument considerably.

Public bodies publish their own versions as well, usually tied to procurement rules rather than to one vendor’s tooling. Those read differently, because the constraints they encode are legal rather than technical.

A contact-centre operator already running hosted tools may use only the governance and security stages. A manufacturer carrying 30 years of on-premise systems will read all of them and still need help.

The limit shows up fast. No published method can tell you which of your 400 applications is business-critical, so every reading ends in your own inventory work.

Related terms

These five terms sit closest to a cloud adoption framework. Two describe where workloads end up, two describe who does the work, and one is the scoring habit that the readiness questions were built on.

• Public Cloud Outsourcing: the model where shared provider infrastructure carries your workloads.
• Private Cloud Outsourcing: dedicated infrastructure run for a single client, usually for data-sensitivity reasons.
• Cloud Architect: the role that turns framework guidance into a working design.
• Cloud Managed Services: third-party operation of a cloud platform after the move is finished.
• Capability Maturity Model: the fixed scoring scale that most readiness questions are built on.

FAQ

Is a cloud adoption framework the same as a cloud strategy?

No. The framework is a published method anyone can read, while your strategy is the set of choices you make after reading it. One is generic by design; the other names your systems.

Which cloud adoption framework should I use?

Most teams use the one published by the cloud provider they have already picked, because the stage names line up with that provider’s tooling. If you run two clouds, choose one framework and hold to it.

Do I have to follow every stage?

No, and few organisations do. Stages you have already cleared can be scored and skipped, which is exactly what the readiness questions are for.

Will a framework tell me what my migration costs?

It will not. A framework lists the cost questions worth asking, but the numbers come from your own workload inventory and your provider’s published pricing. Providers quote against that inventory, never against the framework.

Can an outsourcing provider apply the framework for me?

Yes, and many do, usually as a short assessment engagement before any migration work is scoped.

Read more definitions and compare the firms doing this work at Outsource Accelerator.