ROI Case File No.356 | 'CosmoTech's Cloud Migration Anxiety'

Chapter One: The Cloud Migration Decision—But No Selection Criteria

The day after resolving the Power Automate utilization case at TechNova, another consultation arrived regarding Microsoft 365 operation and maintenance. Volume 29, "The Pursuit of Reproducibility," Episode 356, tells the story of finding the optimal combination.

"Detective, our email server is aging and we're considering migration to Microsoft 365. However, we lack internal knowledge and have concerns about security and operational management. And we're looking for companies providing operation and maintenance support, but don't know what criteria to use for selection."

Misaki Tanaka, information systems manager from CosmoTech, born in Yokohama, visited 221B Baker Street with an expression mixing anxiety and expectation. In her hands were the current email server maintenance contract and, in stark contrast, a comparison sheet noting "Support companies: 5 candidates."

"We develop and sell measurement equipment for manufacturing. One hundred fifty employees. Annual revenue of 3.8 billion yen. The email server we currently use is an on-premise type implemented in 2010. It's been 15 years and is aging."

CosmoTech's Current State: - Established: 2003 (Measurement equipment manufacturer) - Employees: 150 - Annual revenue: 3.8 billion yen - Current email server: Implemented 2010, on-premise type - Problems: Server aging, knowledge shortage, security concerns, organizational change burden

Deep impatience permeated Tanaka's voice.

"The email server has three problems. First, hardware aging. Failure risk is increasing. Second, delayed security measures. Cannot respond to latest threats. Third, soaring maintenance costs. Costing 4.8 million yen annually.

So we're considering migration to Microsoft 365. We've heard that cloud migration eliminates hardware maintenance needs, improves security, and reduces costs."

Background for Considering Migration:

Issue 1: Hardware Aging - Implementation: 2010 - Years elapsed: 15 years - Manufacturer maintenance: Ends March 2026 (15 months remaining) - Failure risk: High (3 troubles in past year)

Issue 2: Delayed Security Measures - Current measures: Antivirus software only - Lacking measures: - Multi-factor authentication (MFA) - Data loss prevention (DLP) - Phishing countermeasures - Ransomware countermeasures

Issue 3: Soaring Maintenance Costs - Annual maintenance costs: 4.8 million yen - Breakdown: - Hardware maintenance: 1.8 million yen - Software licenses: 1.5 million yen - Operations management outsourcing: 1.5 million yen

Issue 4: Organizational Change Burden - Organizational changes: 4 times yearly (quarterly) - Work: Mailing list changes, access permission changes - Time required: 8 hours per time - Annual: 32 hours

Issue 5: Staff Member Knowledge Shortage - Information systems department: Tanaka alone - Microsoft 365 knowledge: Beginner level - Third-party review: None (settings by Tanaka's judgment alone)

Tanaka sighed deeply.

"I've listed 5 companies providing Microsoft 365 operation and maintenance support. However, I don't know what criteria to use for selection.

Company A: 280,000 yen monthly, full support Company B: 180,000 yen monthly, basic support only Company C: 350,000 yen monthly, 24/7/365 support Company D: 220,000 yen monthly, remote only Company E: 300,000 yen monthly, onsite support available

Which company is right for us?"

Chapter Two: The Cheapest Price Misunderstanding—Don't Select by Price Alone

"Ms. Tanaka, are you considering selecting Company B because it's cheapest?"

My question showed confusion on Tanaka's face.

"Yes... Since cost reduction is one of our objectives, I think cheaper is better. But is Company B really okay? Isn't the service content insufficient? I have concerns."

Current Understanding (Price-focused Type): - Expectation: Cheaper is better - Problem: Product, Place, Promotion not considered

I explained the importance of comprehensively evaluating four elements: product, price, distribution, and promotion.

"The problem is 'judging by price alone.' 4P—Product, Price, Place, Promotion. Product, price, distribution, promotion. Comprehensively evaluate these four elements. Optimizing the marketing mix creates the best choice."

⬜️ ChatGPT | Catalyst of Conception

"Don't look at price alone. Look at four elements. Find optimal combination with 4P."

🟧 Claude | Story Alchemist

"Service value is always determined by 'combination.' Evaluate from four perspectives."

🟦 Gemini | Compass of Reason

"4P is marketing fundamentals. Comprehensively evaluate Product, Price, Place, Promotion."

The three members began their analysis. Gemini displayed the "4P Framework" on the whiteboard.

4P's 4 Elements: 1. Product: Service content and features 2. Price: Pricing structure and cost 3. Place: Support delivery method and coverage 4. Promotion: Reliability and track record

"Ms. Tanaka, let's evaluate the 5 companies with 4P."

Chapter Three: Discovery Through Evaluation—4P Matrix Shows Optimal Solution

Phase 1: Product Evaluation (2 weeks)

Evaluation Criteria: 1. Migration support scope 2. Security configuration comprehensiveness 3. Operations management scope 4. User support availability

5 Company Comparison:

Company A (280,000 yen monthly): - Migration support: Email, groupware, file sharing - Security: MFA, DLP, phishing countermeasures, ransomware countermeasures (all covered) - Operations management: Organizational change support, access permission management, monthly reports - User support: Available (inquiry desk)

Company B (180,000 yen monthly): - Migration support: Email only - Security: MFA only - Operations management: Basic settings only, no organizational change support - User support: None

Company C (350,000 yen monthly): - Migration support: Email, groupware, file sharing, Teams configuration - Security: All covered + regular diagnostics - Operations management: All covered + 24/7/365 monitoring - User support: Available (24/7/365)

Company D (220,000 yen monthly): - Migration support: Email, groupware - Security: MFA, DLP - Operations management: Basic support, remote only - User support: Available (weekdays 9-18)

Company E (300,000 yen monthly): - Migration support: Email, groupware, file sharing - Security: All covered - Operations management: All covered, onsite visits available (once monthly) - User support: Available (weekdays 9-18)

Product Evaluation (5-point scale): - Company A: 4.5 points (comprehensive service content) - Company B: 2 points (basics only) - Company C: 5 points (most comprehensive) - Company D: 3.5 points (standard) - Company E: 4 points (onsite support attractive)

Phase 2: Price Evaluation (1 week)

Evaluation Criteria: 1. Initial costs 2. Monthly costs 3. Comparison with current costs 4. Additional cost presence

5 Company Comparison:

Company A: - Initial cost: 1.8 million yen (migration work) - Monthly cost: 280,000 yen - Annual cost: 1.8M + 280K × 12 = 5.16 million yen - Additional costs: Organizational change support free

Company B: - Initial cost: 800,000 yen (email migration only) - Monthly cost: 180,000 yen - Annual cost: 800K + 180K × 12 = 2.96 million yen - Additional costs: Organizational change support separate quote (50,000 yen per time)

Company C: - Initial cost: 2.5 million yen (full migration + diagnostics) - Monthly cost: 350,000 yen - Annual cost: 2.5M + 350K × 12 = 6.7 million yen - Additional costs: None

Company D: - Initial cost: 1.2 million yen - Monthly cost: 220,000 yen - Annual cost: 1.2M + 220K × 12 = 3.84 million yen - Additional costs: Onsite support separate (80,000 yen per time)

Company E: - Initial cost: 2 million yen - Monthly cost: 300,000 yen - Annual cost: 2M + 300K × 12 = 5.6 million yen - Additional costs: None

Comparison with Current Costs: - Current: 4.8 million yen annually - Company A: 5.16M (+360K) - Company B: 2.96M (-1.84M) - Company C: 6.7M (+1.9M) - Company D: 3.84M (-960K) - Company E: 5.6M (+800K)

Price Evaluation (5-point scale, cost reduction degree): - Company A: 3 points (higher than current but comprehensive service) - Company B: 5 points (cheapest) - Company C: 1 point (most expensive) - Company D: 4 points (moderate reduction) - Company E: 2.5 points (somewhat expensive)

Phase 3: Place Evaluation (1 week)

Evaluation Criteria: 1. Support delivery method (remote/onsite) 2. Support hours 3. Emergency response speed 4. Location proximity

5 Company Comparison:

Company A: - Delivery method: Remote-centered, emergency onsite possible - Support hours: Weekdays 9-18 - Emergency response: Within 4 hours - Location: Tokyo (1 hour from CosmoTech Yokohama headquarters)

Company B: - Delivery method: Remote only - Support hours: Weekdays 9-17 - Emergency response: Next business day - Location: Osaka (distant)

Company C: - Delivery method: Remote + onsite - Support hours: 24/7/365 - Emergency response: Within 2 hours - Location: Tokyo (1 hour)

Company D: - Delivery method: Remote only - Support hours: Weekdays 9-18 - Emergency response: Within 6 hours - Location: Tokyo (1 hour)

Company E: - Delivery method: Remote + regular onsite (once monthly) - Support hours: Weekdays 9-18 - Emergency response: Within 4 hours - Location: Yokohama (same city as CosmoTech headquarters)

Place Evaluation (5-point scale): - Company A: 4 points (flexible support) - Company B: 2 points (remote only, distant) - Company C: 5 points (24-hour support) - Company D: 3 points (standard) - Company E: 4.5 points (geographically close)

Phase 4: Promotion Evaluation (1 week)

Evaluation Criteria: 1. Track record (number of implementing companies) 2. Industry specialization 3. Customer satisfaction 4. Information provision quality

5 Company Comparison:

Company A: - Implementing companies: 280 - Industry: Manufacturing 50%, other 50% - Customer satisfaction: NPS 68 - Information provision: Monthly reports, annual diagnostics

Company B: - Implementing companies: 120 - Industry: No specialization - Customer satisfaction: NPS 52 - Information provision: Basic reports only

Company C: - Implementing companies: 500 - Industry: Large enterprises centered (60% listed companies) - Customer satisfaction: NPS 72 - Information provision: Detailed reports, best practice sharing

Company D: - Implementing companies: 180 - Industry: Small/medium enterprises centered - Customer satisfaction: NPS 58 - Information provision: Basic reports

Company E: - Implementing companies: 220 - Industry: Manufacturing 80% (industry specialized) - Customer satisfaction: NPS 74 - Information provision: Manufacturing-specialized best practices

Promotion Evaluation (5-point scale): - Company A: 4 points (sufficient track record) - Company B: 2.5 points (somewhat limited track record) - Company C: 4.5 points (rich large company track record) - Company D: 3 points (small/medium enterprise oriented) - Company E: 5 points (manufacturing specialized, high satisfaction)

Phase 5: 4P Comprehensive Evaluation (1 week)

4P Score Summary (5-point scale each, 20-point total):

Highest Score: Company E (16 points)

Reasons Company E is Optimal: 1. Product: Comprehensive service content (4 points) 2. Price: Somewhat expensive but acceptable range (2.5 points) 3. Place: Geographically close, regular onsite support (4.5 points) 4. Promotion: Manufacturing specialized, highest customer satisfaction (5 points)

Selection Result: Company E

Chapter Four: Implementation as Results—Changes After 9 Months

Phase 6: Migration Project (Months 1-3)

Migration Schedule: - Month 1: Current status survey, migration planning - Month 2: Test environment construction, data migration - Month 3: Production environment migration, user training

Migration Targets: - Email: 150 accounts, past 5 years data - Groupware: Schedule, bulletin board - File sharing: SharePoint migration (500GB)

Migration Completion After 3 Months: - Migration success rate: 100% (no data loss) - User training: All 150 people attended - Troubles: 2 minor issues (immediately resolved)

Phase 7: Operations Start (Months 4-9)

Company E's Monthly Support Content:

Regular Onsite Visits (once monthly): - Meeting with Tanaka (1 hour) - System configuration review - Issue hearing and solution proposals

Organizational Change Support (4 times yearly): - Before: Tanaka handled in 8 hours - After: Company E proxies, Tanaka only confirms (1 hour) - Reduction: 7 hours/time × 4 times = 28 hours/year

Security Configuration: - MFA implementation: All 150 users - DLP configuration: Auto-block confidential information external transmission - Phishing countermeasures: Auto-quarantine suspicious emails - Ransomware countermeasures: OneDrive version management

Monthly Reports: - Usage status (active user count, storage usage) - Security events (MFA failures, DLP alerts) - Recommendations

Results After 9 Months:

Cost Reduction: - Current: 4.8 million yen annually - Company E: 5.6 million yen annually (first year, including migration costs) - Difference: +800,000 yen (increase in first year)

However, from Year 2 onward: - Company E: 3.6 million yen annually (300K monthly × 12 months) - Reduction: 4.8M - 3.6M = 1.2 million yen/year

Security Improvement: - Before: Antivirus only - After: MFA, DLP, phishing countermeasures, ransomware countermeasures - Security Score (Microsoft Secure Score): Before 35% → After 82%

Organizational Change Burden Reduction: - Before: Tanaka handled 32 hours annually - After: Tanaka only 4 hours annually (confirmation work) - Reduction: 28 hours/year - Personnel cost reduction: 28 hours × 4,500 yen = 126,000 yen/year

Trouble Response Improvement: - Before: Email server failure, 8 hours to recovery - After: No failures due to cloud, zero downtime

User Satisfaction: - Before: NPS 48 (old email system) - After: NPS 68 (Microsoft 365) - Improvement: +20 points

Reasons Company E Was the Right Choice:

Reason 1: Manufacturing-Specialized Know-how - 80% of Company E's customers are manufacturing - Track record responding to manufacturing-specific issues (blueprint sharing, confidential information exchange with business partners) - Provides best practices from other cases (manufacturing)

Reason 2: Geographic Proximity - Company E has location in Yokohama (same city as CosmoTech) - Easy onsite visits - Quick emergency response

Reason 3: High Customer Satisfaction - NPS 74 (highest among 5 companies) - Emphasizes long-term relationship building

If Company B (Cheapest) Had Been Selected:

Expected Problems: - Email migration only, groupware/file sharing not covered - Security settings MFA only (no DLP, phishing countermeasures) - Organizational change support separate costs (4 times × 50K = 200K yearly) - Remote only, emergency response delays

Additional Cost Estimate: - Basic costs: 2.96 million yen annually - Organizational change support: 200,000 yen annually - Groupware separate contract: 800,000 yen annually - Additional security: 600,000 yen annually - Total: 4.56 million yen annually

Company B's Real Cost: 4.56 million yen annually Company E's Cost: 3.6 million yen annually

Conclusion: Company E is cheaper (960,000 yen annual difference)

Organizational Transformation:

User A's Voice: "The old email system could only send attachments up to 10MB. But with Microsoft 365, sharing via OneDrive allows large files. Teams chat is also convenient. Operational efficiency improved."

Tanaka's Reflection:

"Until evaluating 4P, I was thinking 'let's select cheapest Company B.' However, by comprehensively evaluating the four elements—Product, Price, Place, Promotion—I understood Company E was optimal.

Product: Comprehensive service content. Price: 1.2 million yen annual reduction from year 2. Place: Geographically close, onsite support. Promotion: Manufacturing specialized, NPS 74.

As a result, security score improved from 35% to 82%, organizational change burden reduced by 28 hours/year. And if we'd selected Company B, additional costs would total 4.56 million yen annually. Company E is 960,000 yen cheaper annually.

Comprehensive 4P evaluation led to the best choice."

Chapter Five: The Detective's Diagnosis—Optimal Solution Determined by Combination

That evening, I contemplated the essence of 4P thinking.

CosmoTech was about to make a price-focused judgment: "let's select cheapest Company B." However, they weren't considering Product, Place, and Promotion.

Comprehensive evaluation with 4P revealed Company E as optimal. Product (comprehensive), Price (reduction from year 2), Place (geographically close), Promotion (manufacturing specialized). This combination created 960,000 yen real cost reduction annually and security improvement.

"Don't look at price alone. Look at four elements. Comprehensively evaluate Product, Price, Place, Promotion. Optimal solution is determined by combination."

The next case will surely depict another moment of optimizing the marketing mix.

"Product, Price, Place, Promotion. Comprehensively evaluate the four elements of product, price, distribution, and promotion. Don't select by price alone. Optimal combination creates true value."—From the Detective's Notes

Related Files