How do I size a commitment when a migration has not happened yet?

Size to the spend you already run with certainty, not the spend the migration is meant to create. Let the migration raise consumption into a ramped or phased structure built to absorb it, and capture the upside through tier thresholds rather than a larger commitment.

What is the main risk in structuring commitments around migrations?

Timing. Migrations slip, and as of June 2026 every major program charges you a shortfall if committed spend lands late. Commit to the migration destination and arrive late, and you pay for the gap twice.

Should I use a ramp for a migration commitment?

Usually yes. A ramp aligned below the migration curve lets the committed floor rise as the migration completes, with margin for slippage, so a delay does not become a shortfall.

What should I strip out of the migration spend number?

Workloads with no firm date, decommission savings on the source side, optimization that should happen during the move, and any scope that depends on an unfunded project.

Does a migration give me negotiating leverage?

Yes. A large migration is when the provider most wants your commitment, which is when you have the most power. Use it to win flexible terms, not only a headline rate.

Is this legal advice?

No. It is commercial negotiation guidance. Consult your own counsel for contract interpretation.

COMMITMENT STRUCTURING · BUYER SIDE

Structuring commitments around migrations

GET A CONFIDENTIAL REVIEW →

PUBLISHED JUNE 16, 2026 · REVIEWED JUNE 16, 2026

Structuring commitments around migrations is one of the hardest sizing problems a buyer faces, because the spend you are committing to does not exist yet. A migration promises a step change in cloud consumption, the provider prices a commitment against that promise, and the dates the whole thing depends on are the least reliable numbers in the plan. Structuring commitments around migrations well means committing to the spend you already run, not the spend a migration is supposed to create, and capturing the migration upside through structure rather than through a larger commitment.

The provider has every reason to size your commitment to the finished migration. That is where the bigger number lives. But migrations slip, scopes change, and some never complete. If you commit to the destination and arrive late, you carry a shortfall for spend that was always going to land eventually. The timing risk is yours, so the structure has to protect against it.

Why structuring commitments around migrations is a timing problem

Migrations move spend on a curve, and the curve almost never matches the plan. As of June 2026, the penalty for being early on your commitment and late on your spend is consistent across providers. An AWS EDP leaves you owing the shortfall if committed spend does not materialize on schedule (source: AWS EDP program terms). Azure MACC treats unused commitment as generally lost rather than rolled forward (source: Microsoft MACC documentation). So a commitment sized to a migration that lands six months late is a commitment you pay for twice: once in the shortfall, once in the on demand spend you were running while you waited. The asymmetry is the trap.

The defensive move is to size against the spend that is certain today and let the migration raise spend into a structure that was built to absorb it. This is scenario thinking applied to a moving target, closely related to scenario modeling a cloud commitment.

Structures that fit a migration

Ramp aligned to the migration curve

A ramp lets the committed amount start low and rise over the term. Aligned to a migration, the early periods sit near your current certain spend, and later periods rise only as far as the migration is genuinely expected to lift consumption, with margin for slippage. The detail of building one is in building a ramp structure that protects you. The key buyer discipline is to set the ramp below the planned migration curve, not on it, so a slip does not become a shortfall.

Phased commitments over the term

Rather than one commitment sized to the destination, phase the commitment so increases are triggered by milestones you control, a topic we develop in how to phase a commitment over a term. You raise the committed floor as the migration actually completes, not as the plan says it should.

Tier thresholds that reward completion

Negotiate discount tiers so that when the migration lands and spend rises, you reach a deeper tier automatically. This captures the migration upside without requiring you to commit to it in advance. You get the discount when the spend is real, not when it is promised.

What to strip out of the migration number

Workloads with no firm migration date, which should sit on demand until they move.
Decommission savings on the source side, which reduce net new cloud spend.
Optimization that should happen during migration, since lifting and shifting waste inflates the commitment.
Any portion of the migration that depends on a project not yet funded or approved.

That last point matters more than buyers expect. Migrations are often used to justify commitments that the migration itself has not been resourced to deliver. Strip the unfunded scope out before it becomes a committed liability. Cleaning up waste before the move, covered in our work on right sizing first, keeps you from committing to inefficiency you are about to fix.

Use the migration as leverage on terms

A migration is the moment a provider most wants your commitment, which makes it the moment you hold the most power. Buyers usually spend that power on a deeper headline rate. The better use is terms. Press for milestone triggered increases, the right to reallocate committed spend as workloads land in different services than planned, and protection against a migration that stalls. The discount is easy to quantify and easy for the provider to give. The terms are what protect you if the migration does not behave, and they are far harder to win after signing.

Build in room for the migration to land differently than designed. Workloads move to different regions, different instance families, and sometimes different services than the plan assumed. As of June 2026 a commitment that only counts a narrow set of services can leave migrated spend outside the discount it was meant to capture. Negotiate the broadest reasonable scope of qualifying spend so the commitment follows the migration wherever it actually lands.

A worked illustration

Consider a composite financial services firm migrating a large on premises estate, with a plan that lifts cloud spend from six million to sixteen million over three years. The provider proposes a commitment near the sixteen million destination for the deepest tier. Structuring around the migration instead, the buyer commits to a ramped floor starting at six million and rising to ten over three years, well below the planned curve. Tier thresholds are negotiated so that if the migration lands on schedule and spend exceeds the ramp, the deeper discount applies anyway. Two of the planned workloads slip by a year. Because the commitment was sized to the certain floor and not the destination, there is no shortfall, and the deeper tier still triggers on the workloads that did move. The provider proposal would have created a large shortfall exposure for a discount the structure captured safely.

Migrations are leverage as well as risk. A large migration is exactly the moment a provider wants your commitment, which means it is exactly the moment you have the most negotiating power. Use it on terms, not just price. For the full framework see the cloud commitment structuring guide, and to size a commitment around a live migration, a commitment structuring and sizing service will model the certain floor against the migration curve before you sign.