An enterprise is starting a large Azure migration and wants a single source of guidance for sequencing the whole cloud journey, including how security governance is established as the estate grows. A separate body of guidance is needed to assess whether each individual workload is designed soundly against security, reliability and cost. Which framing correctly assigns the Microsoft Cloud Adoption Framework for Azure and the Azure Well-Architected Framework to these two needs?
- AThe Cloud Adoption Framework guides the end-to-end adoption journey including security governance as the estate scales, while the Well-Architected Framework assesses an individual workload against pillars such as security and reliability. Correct
- BThe Cloud Adoption Framework evaluates an individual workload against the security and reliability pillars, while the Well-Architected Framework sequences the overall organisational adoption journey and governance.
- CBoth frameworks assess an individual workload against design pillars, so the architect should pick whichever one the chosen Azure landing zone accelerator happens to reference first.
- DBoth frameworks describe the same adoption journey, so the architect should follow only the Well-Architected Framework and treat the Cloud Adoption Framework as an optional summary of it.
Why A is correct: This is the correct division of responsibility because the Cloud Adoption Framework sequences strategy, governance and platform readiness across the organisation, whereas the Well-Architected Framework reviews a specific workload against its security and reliability pillars.
Why B is wrong: This reverses the two frameworks and is tempting because both mention security, but the Cloud Adoption Framework drives the organisation-wide journey and the Well-Architected Framework assesses individual workloads, so the assignment is inverted.
Why C is wrong: Treating both as workload assessments is appealing because they share pillar vocabulary, but only the Well-Architected Framework reviews a single workload while the Cloud Adoption Framework governs the broader journey, so this conflates two distinct purposes.
Why D is wrong: Collapsing the two into one journey is tempting for simplicity, but the frameworks operate at different altitudes and the Cloud Adoption Framework is not a summary of the Well-Architected Framework, so discarding it loses the organisation-wide governance guidance.