Microsoft sizes MACC proposals from optimistic growth forecasts and rewards bigger commitments with better discounts. We size yours from verified burn with the waste stripped out, so the discount is real and the shortfall risk is not.
This engagement is bought by organizations facing a MACC decision: a first commitment Microsoft has sized generously, a renewal where the account team proposes growth the workloads do not support, or a current commitment tracking toward shortfall with the term end approaching.
It equally serves FinOps and cloud cost teams who can see the waste in the consumption data but need it converted into commitment leverage, and finance leaders who want the shortfall exposure quantified before it becomes a write off or a panic purchase.
Consumption commitments fail in predictable ways, and every failure was avoidable at sizing time:
The fix is sequencing: optimize first, size from the optimized run rate, structure the commitment for flexibility, and only then negotiate the discount. Microsoft prefers the reverse order for a reason.
The engagement follows the four workstreams of our Azure FinOps and MACC statement of work. Consumption is analyzed against the current commitment, waste is quantified into an optimized run rate, the next commitment is sized and structured from that number, and the negotiation runs to signature with the shortfall used as leverage.
| Deliverable | What it contains |
|---|---|
| Consumption baseline and burn report | The verified run rate, term end projection, shortfall or overrun quantification, and the contractual commitment position. |
| Optimization target report | A prioritized waste register with quantified savings per item and the optimized run rate the commitment should be sized against. |
| MACC sizing and structure paper | The target commitment, required structural terms, benchmark verdict, target discount, and the shortfall resolution strategy. |
| Negotiation playbook | Sequencing, fiscal timing, and the framing of your position with anticipated Microsoft tactics. |
| Proposal and document reviews | Written assessments of each Microsoft proposal and recommended amendments to eligible spend and flexibility terms before signature. |
Every party in a MACC conversation benefits from a bigger number except you: Microsoft books the commitment, the account team retires quota, and the discount tiers make oversizing look like prudence. We are the one party in the room paid only to get the number right.
Sizing from optimized burn rather than raw burn routinely moves the commitment 20 to 30 percent, because raw consumption data includes the idle resources, oversized workloads, and missed reservation coverage that should be fixed, not funded for another term.
Shortfall is leverage, not shame. Rolled into a restructured commitment, traded for concessions, or resolved through term extension, a projected shortfall handled early becomes negotiating currency; handled late it becomes a payment.
One fixed, all inclusive fee covers all four workstreams, up to four advisory calls, and email support through the term. The practice behind it spans 200+ Microsoft engagements, so the MACC lands coherently alongside your EA, M365, and Copilot positions rather than being negotiated in isolation.
Azure and Microsoft commitment outcomes on the record.
A SaaS company cut its Azure run rate through systematic waste elimination ahead of its commitment decision.
✓ Published case studyA San Francisco financial institution gained strategic flexibility and cut projected Azure OpenAI spend.
✓ Published case studyA Brazilian bank saved 25 percent on its Microsoft EA with commitments negotiated as one position.
✓ Published case studyA French professional services firm's MCA strategy delivered 18 percent savings with greater flexibility.
A Microsoft Azure Consumption Commitment is a contractual promise to consume a set amount of Azure over a term, in exchange for discounts. Oversize it and you face shortfall payments or panic consumption; undersize it and you leave discount on the table. The number has to come from verified burn.
From your optimized run rate plus validated workload plans and a defensible growth assumption, never from Microsoft's projections. Waste is stripped first, because committing to fund idle resources for another term is the most expensive mistake in cloud procurement.
Handled early, shortfall is negotiating currency: it can roll into a restructured commitment, trade for concessions, or resolve through term changes. The engagement includes the shortfall play as a designed strategy rather than a term end scramble.
Whatever the eligible spend definitions say, which is why they are negotiated terms. Marketplace and third party spend eligibility can materially change your burn down rate, and we review the definitions before signature.
Idle and orphaned resources, oversized virtual machines and databases, unattached storage, non production workloads at production scale, under coverage on reservations and savings plans, and unused Azure Hybrid Benefit.
By benchmark against comparable MACC agreements at similar commitment levels, not against Microsoft's opening offer. The sizing paper includes the benchmark verdict and the target discount for the negotiation.
We advise and prepare while your team keeps the chair. Every proposal gets a written assessment, draft commitment documents get recommended amendments, and key meetings get preparation with anticipated tactics.
The consumption baseline lands within 10 business days of complete data, the optimization targets and sizing paper follow, and negotiation support runs to your renewal calendar under one fixed, all inclusive fee.
Waste stripped, the commitment sized from evidence, the shortfall played as leverage, and the discount benchmarked before you sign.
One letter a month. Negotiation moves, audit signals, and price book shifts.