Explain landing zone components (networking, security, governance, identity)
Frame migration risk in terms of business continuity and rollback strategy
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
The interviewer asks: "How do you choose the right migration strategy (one of the 6Rs) for a given application?" Which answer best demonstrates technical depth?
Option B is the strongest: it starts with tooled discovery (AWS Migration Hub, Azure Migrate), defines each of the 6Rs with its selection criteria and typical portfolio percentage, explains the risk-effort-benefit spectrum across the Rs, names specific SaaS replacements for Repurchase, gives a concrete R-score methodology with five input dimensions, and links the score to wave sequencing. Options A and D describe the framework at a high level but give no decision methodology or tooling. Option C correctly identifies rehost as the velocity leader but doesn't apply the full framework. Structure: tooled discovery → define each R with criteria → risk-effort-benefit spectrum → R-score methodology → link to wave sequencing.
2 / 5
The interviewer asks: "Describe the migration factory approach and how you would set one up for a 200-application portfolio." Which answer best demonstrates technical depth?
Option B is the strongest: it defines each factory component (discovery, wave planning, runway, team structure, automation, hypercare) with specific details (10-20 apps per wave, runbook 60-70% effort reduction, 72-hour hypercare), names specific tools (AWS Migration Hub, Azure Migrate), specifies the team composition with a RACI for cutover, defines three success metrics with target values, and delivers the key factory insight. Options C and D describe the process at a high level without the component detail, metrics, or key insight. Structure: six components with specifics → team composition → automation approach → three success metrics with targets → key factory insight.
3 / 5
The interviewer asks: "What are the key components of a cloud landing zone, and how do you design one from scratch?" Which answer best demonstrates technical depth?
Option B is the strongest: it names six pillars with specific technical detail for each (Transit Gateway vs Virtual WAN, AWS IAM Identity Center, SCP examples with concrete rules, GuardDuty, Route 53 Resolver), names specific vendor products (Control Tower, Azure Landing Zone Accelerator, Okta, Azure AD), distinguishes preventive from detective controls, and closes with the design principle. Options A and C name the components without technical detail. Option D is concrete but misses identity federation, DNS, cost governance, and the design principle. Structure: six pillars each with technical specifics → tooling names → preventive vs detective controls distinction → design principle.
4 / 5
The interviewer asks: "How do you build the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis to justify a cloud migration business case?" Which answer best demonstrates technical depth?
Option B is the strongest: it enumerates five cost categories for both sides of the comparison, explicitly covers transition costs as a third category, names the often-missed savings (hardware refresh avoidance, lease renegotiation, BYOL), specifies the 3-5 year NPV model with three scenario sensitivity analysis, and — critically — names three common mistakes that distinguish an experienced practitioner. Options C and D describe the approach correctly but at a level of detail that doesn't demonstrate depth. Option A names the right tool (AWS Pricing Calculator, not AWS TCO Calculator which doesn't exist) but shows no modelling methodology. Structure: on-premises cost categories → cloud cost categories → transition costs → hidden savings → NPV + sensitivity analysis → three common mistakes.
5 / 5
The interviewer asks: "What is your approach to migration risk management, particularly for business-critical applications?" Which answer best demonstrates technical depth?
Option B is the strongest: it structures risk management across two categorisation dimensions, specifies tier-specific controls with concrete details (30-day parallel run, tested failback in staging, 2-week hypercare, executive gates), names universal controls with specific examples (CMDB vs actual network traffic, smoke test components), and closes with the key principle that transforms a generic "have a rollback plan" into a testable engineering standard. Options C and D mention the right elements (tiering, rollback, testing) but without the specifics that demonstrate experience. Structure: two-dimension risk categorisation → tier-specific controls with durations → universal controls → key principle about tested vs assumed rollback.