The assignment review finds a switchable licence in roughly half of hybrid engagements, worth 15 to 25 percent of the Azure run rate
The entitlement is already bought and the workload already qualifies. The only missing step is an assignment, and in half the estates nobody has made it.
Prepared by Redress Compliance · August 17, 2026 · Microsoft advisory. Redress Compliance advisory engagement file, 2024 to 2025.
Executive summary
A switchable assignment turns up in roughly half of hybrid engagements. Not a missing entitlement and not an ineligible workload. An entitlement already owned, a workload already qualifying, and no assignment made.
The gap is typically 15 to 25 percent of the Azure run rate for workloads that should qualify. Recurring monthly, for as long as the assignment stays unmade, on compute you are already paying for twice.
The failure is administrative rather than commercial. Nothing is negotiated, nothing is bought, and nothing is migrated. A record is updated.
It survives because the two halves sit with different teams. The entitlement lives in licensing and the workload lives in cloud operations, and the saving requires both to be looked at together.
What has to line up
Three conditions have to be true at once, and in the estates reviewed two of them usually already were.
| Condition | Typical status | Who owns it |
|---|---|---|
| Windows Server or SQL Server licence held | Already owned | Licensing |
| Software Assurance active on it | Usually current | Licensing |
| Azure workload eligible | Frequently qualifying | Cloud operations |
| Assignment actually made | Missing in half the estates | Nobody, in practice |
The last row is where the money is, and note what is in the final column. Every other condition has a clear owner who monitors it. The assignment itself sits between two functions: licensing knows the entitlement exists but not which Azure workloads are running, and cloud operations knows the workloads but treats licence entitlements as somebody else's ledger. The saving is not hard, contested, or expensive to obtain. It requires one person to hold both halves at the same time, and in most organisations nobody is asked to.
An entitlement you already own, on a workload that already qualifies
We run the assignment review in every Microsoft hybrid engagement and find a switchable assignment in roughly fifty percent of cases. The gap is typically fifteen to twenty five percent of the Azure run rate for workloads that should qualify. What makes this unusual among licensing findings is that nothing is wrong with the purchase, the entitlement, or the architecture. Windows Server and SQL Server licences with Software Assurance are held, the Azure workloads are eligible, and the two have simply never been connected.
The failure is administrative rather than commercial, which is why it is both easy to fix and hard to notice. There is nothing to negotiate, nothing to buy, and nothing to migrate. A record is updated and the run rate falls. Findings that require a negotiation get attention because they have a counterparty and a date; findings that require an internal record change get none, because they generate no meeting and appear on nobody's objectives.
The structural reason it persists is that the two halves of the fact sit with different teams. Licensing knows which entitlements exist and what Software Assurance covers, but does not have a live view of which workloads are running in Azure. Cloud operations knows exactly what is running, and reasonably treats licence entitlements as a separate ledger owned elsewhere. Neither team is failing at its job. The saving lives in the join, and joins have no owner unless one is appointed.
The practical move is to run the review as a standing item rather than a project, because the estate changes continuously and each new eligible workload restarts the clock. Reconcile entitlements with Software Assurance status against the current Azure inventory, identify the workloads that qualify but are paying full rate, and make the assignments. It is worth doing before a renewal as well as inside one, since the reduced run rate changes the consumption picture that a commitment gets sized against. The commitment question sits in the MACC reshape brief, the wider Azure levers in cost optimisation, and the library in the Microsoft practice.
- Usage exports analysed: inactive accounts, plan right sizing, per user reassignment
- Your renewal quote benchmarked against real closed Microsoft deals
- Every risky clause flagged with the exact quote, the page, and the replacement language
The Microsoft EA renewal playbook
The renewal moves, the EA framework, the SKU framework, and the buyer side moves across the full Microsoft estate.
Get the brief →Running the assignment review
- Pull the entitlement list with Software Assurance status for Windows Server and SQL Server, which is the licensing half of the fact.
- Pull the current Azure workload inventory, which is the operations half, and put the two in one place.
- Identify every eligible workload paying full Azure rates, which is where the 15 to 25 percent of run rate sits.
- Make the assignments, since nothing needs to be negotiated, bought, or migrated to realise it.
- Appoint an owner for the join, because neither licensing nor cloud operations has both halves and neither is failing at its own job.
- Run it as a standing item, not a project, as each newly eligible workload restarts the clock on the same gap.
What the hybrid engagements show
From the Redress Compliance advisory engagement file, 2024 to 2025:
Roughly fifty percent of Microsoft hybrid engagements surface at least one switchable assignment during the assignment review.
The typical gap on workloads that should qualify, recurring for as long as the assignment stays unmade.
Nothing is wrong with the purchase, the entitlement, or the architecture. Windows Server and SQL Server licences with Software Assurance are held, the Azure workloads are eligible, and the two have never been connected.
The saving sits in the join between licensing and cloud operations, and joins have no owner unless one is appointed.
Watch the briefing · 5:46Five Mistakes Microsoft Sales MakesWhat goes unclaimed when licensing and cloud operations never compare notes.
Your first five moves
- Export Windows Server and SQL Server entitlements with Software Assurance status.
- Export the current Azure workload inventory and reconcile it against that list.
- Flag every eligible workload still paying full Azure rates, and size the run rate gap.
- Make the assignments, which requires no purchase, negotiation, or migration.
- Name an owner and make it recurring. The Microsoft practice runs the reconciliation with you.
Frequently asked questions
What does the assignment review find?
A switchable assignment in roughly half of Microsoft hybrid engagements: an entitlement already owned, a workload already eligible, and no assignment ever made between them.
How much is it worth?
Typically 15 to 25 percent of the Azure run rate for workloads that should qualify, recurring for as long as the assignment stays unmade.
What has to be true for it to apply?
A Windows Server or SQL Server licence held, Software Assurance active on it, and an eligible Azure workload. In the estates reviewed the first two were usually already in place.
Why is it missed so often?
Because the two halves sit with different teams. Licensing knows the entitlements but not the live Azure inventory; cloud operations knows the workloads and treats entitlements as another team ledger.
Is anyone at fault?
Neither team is failing at its job. The saving lives in the join between them, and joins have no owner unless somebody is explicitly appointed to hold both halves.
What does fixing it require?
A record update. Nothing is negotiated, nothing is bought, and nothing is migrated, which is exactly why it attracts no attention: it generates no meeting and appears on nobody objectives.
Should this run before a renewal?
Yes, and before rather than during. The reduced run rate changes the consumption picture a commitment gets sized against, so doing it first improves the commitment as well as the bill.
Is it a one off exercise?
No. Run it as a standing item, because the estate changes continuously and each newly eligible workload restarts the clock on the same gap.
What data does it need?
Two exports: entitlements with Software Assurance status, and the current Azure workload inventory. The finding is simply what appears when those two lists are put side by side.
Who should own it?
Somebody explicitly asked to hold both halves. That is the whole intervention, and it is why the finding recurs in estates that are otherwise well run.
