Part V: What Really Matters in IT Strategies Today
What follows from five parts—with a well-founded checklist for sustainable IT decisions.
The cloud is not a panacea. On-premise is not a legacy issue. And hybrid infrastructures are not a lazy compromise, but in many cases the most realistic answer to a complex set of requirements. What remains after five parts on economic efficiency, control, and digital sovereignty?
This article summarizes the most important findings – with concrete recommendations for IT managers, architects, and decision-makers who want to set the right course for 2025.
Review: What the Last Few Years Have Taught Us
The debate surrounding cloud vs. on-premises has long been characterized by ideological opposites: scalability vs. control, innovation vs. security, CAPEX vs. OPEX. But the reality in 2025 is different:
- Many companies have had their first experiences with the cloud – and have learned not only about its strengths, but also its weaknesses.
- The regulatory situation is becoming more stringent – from GDPR to the CLOUD Act to national data protection guidelines.
- The cost structure of hyperscalers is becoming less transparent – while performance requirements are growing (e.g., due to AI).
- At the same time, modern hardware platforms and software stacks enable on-premise solutions that are not only competitive but also superior in many scenarios.
The result: Companies are once again looking for technology-independent, economically viable, and strategically controllable solutions.
Three Key Insights for Sustainable IT Strategies
1. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions – only context
Every decision for or against certain infrastructures must be made based on specific needs:
- What is the load profile of the workloads?
- What compliance or data protection requirements exist?
- How quickly do systems need to be scalable – and in what direction?
Those who cannot answer these questions clearly are making decisions based on gut feeling or marketing – not on the basis of reliable parameters.
2. Cost-effectiveness is measurable – if you do it right
TCO considerations, load analyses, FinOps disciplines – none of these are ends in themselves, but rather the basis for economic planning.
Cloud costs are not cheaper per se. On-premises costs are not automatically easier to plan. What is crucial is transparency about resource consumption, its dynamics, and its impact on budgets, processes, and responsibilities.
3. Sovereignty is a strategic asset – not just a risk argument
In times of geopolitical uncertainty, growing regulation, and economic concentration on a few hyperscalers, digital sovereignty is becoming a question of future viability:
- Those who cannot control their data independently risk data protection violations.
- Those who cannot operate or change their infrastructure themselves risk vendor lock-ins.
- Those who blindly rely on external services risk business interruptions – without an exit strategy.
Checklist: Infrastructure Strategy 2025
| Category | Check question | Objective | Typical output |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Workload analysis | Which workloads are permanently active, and which are only sporadic? | Derivation of suitable operating models (cloud, hybrid, on-premises) | Workload categorization according to usage patterns |
| What are the requirements for performance, latency, and availability? | Decision on location, storage technology, network design | Mapping to SLAs and infrastructure requirements | |
| Which systems are system-critical or failure-sensitive? | Prioritization for redundancy, monitoring, and in-house operation | List of critical applications with operating models | |
| 2. Costs & profitability | What is the TCO over 3–5 years (cloud vs. on-prem)? | Transparency across all direct and indirect costs | TCO model including CAPEX, OPEX, support, personnel |
| Where do egress costs, license dependencies, or overprovisioning arise? | Uncover hidden cloud costs (cloud waste, lock-in) | FinOps analysis / cloud cost reporting | |
| How can peak loads be absorbed economically? | Decision on hybrid approaches (burst workloads) | Architecture proposal including peak scenarios | |
| 3. Data & Compliance | Which data is subject to regulatory requirements (GDPR, ISO, FINMA, etc.)? | Ensuring legally compliant processing | Data classification according to protection requirements |
| Which data may or must be stored locally? | Decision on operating location and storage structure | Mappings for data localization | |
| Who has technical and legal access to data? | Control over administrative paths and legal jurisdictions | Overview of jurisdiction, access paths, audit concept | |
| 4. Security & access | Is identity and authorization management consistent across all systems? | Protection against internal and external access gaps | Consolidated IAM concept (SSO, MFA, RBAC) |
| Is there client separation, key sovereignty, and traceability for access? | Securing critical access and processes | Zero trust implementation / audit policy | |
| Are security-related logs stored and evaluated centrally? | Audit compliance, faster response in emergencies | Central logging & alerting (SIEM) | |
| 5. Architecture & Technology | Which systems need to be operated in a hybrid or orchestrated manner? | Ensuring interoperability and avoiding silos | Integration plan for cloud, on-premises, edge |
| How modular is the current infrastructure in terms of expandability? | Being able to map future requirements without redesign | Scaling and expansion path | |
| Are there technical exit scenarios in the event of vendor dependencies or cost risks? | Risk management for cloud repatriation or migration | Exit plan with defined metrics and conditions | |
| 6. Strategy & operations | Is on-premise actively considered a strategic option—not just a legacy issue? | Objective evaluation of all operating models | Architecture decision with justification |
| How much technological responsibility is the company willing and able to take on? | Alignment of operating model with resources & expertise | Operating model matrix (internal, external, mixed) | |
| Is there a defined committee or process for infrastructure decisions? | Governance, responsibilities, and clarity of roles | Decision path with review intervals |
Conclusion: If You Want to Shape the Future, You Need to Create Clarity
The best time to rethink infrastructure is not "sometime" – it's now. Because the scope is there: technologically, economically, and strategically.
Those who ask the necessary questions, gain transparency about their own landscape, and realistically evaluate external promises can create IT infrastructures that are not only powerful and secure, but also permanently manageable.
And that is the real strength of sovereign architecture: Not doing everything yourself – but being able to decide everything yourself.