Technology Spend Review
A fixed-fee independent review of your software, SaaS, cloud, hosting, licensing, vendors, and recurring technology costs — identifying what to keep, optimize, replace, retire, or invest in.
The fee does not depend on the savings we find. No success fee, no implementation obligation, and no incentive to manufacture cuts that do not make economic sense.
Where spend drifts
Most waste is individually defensible. A tool solved a real problem, a server was sized for an older plan, or a specialist supplier once reduced risk. The review tests whether those decisions still make sense together today.
Teams add chat, storage, automation, AI, reporting, or workflow products while existing platforms quietly gain overlapping features.
Cloud platforms, server estates, managed services, or proprietary stacks remain sized for growth, scale, or complexity that never materialized.
Recurring contracts can preserve historical packaging, interfaces, and supplier dependency even when the underlying capability has become cheaper or more portable.
A lower license or hosting bill can be a bad decision once migration effort, supportability, downtime risk, security, and internal ownership are priced in.
What we examine
We follow material technology spend far enough to understand what capability it buys, how it is used, what it depends on, and whether a better economic structure exists.
We look for duplication, unused capacity, inappropriate tiers, fragmented tooling, and cases where a lightweight internal solution may have better economics.
We assess whether cloud services, servers, managed platforms, storage, backup, and delivery infrastructure are proportionate to the actual scale and resilience needs.
Operating-system and database licenses, MSP arrangements, maintenance, specialist suppliers, support contracts, and recurring technical services are considered in context.
We test whether consolidation, a different platform, a simpler architecture, or a small internal tool could create a better total-cost position without introducing disproportionate risk.
Decision principle
Each material opportunity is weighed against one-time migration cost, operational disruption, supportability, security, vendor risk, internal ownership, and future flexibility. Keeping the current solution can be the correct recommendation.
The goal is not the lowest bill. It is the strongest technology position for the money.
Relevant proof
A previous Neoground engagement began with recurring software and reliability problems. Reconstructing the wider technology estate exposed an oversized, vendor-dependent operating model across infrastructure, licensing, media delivery, livestreaming, external tools, and suppliers.
Infrastructure, software, licenses, media delivery, livestreaming, external tools, supplier contracts, platform ownership, and recurring costs were reconstructed as one system.
Spending had become detached from the company's actual scale and capability needs; several expensive dependencies survived mainly because they had accumulated historically.
More than €300,000 in annual technology cost was removed while reliability, performance, media capability, and control over the platform improved.
What you receive
The review turns invoices, contracts, exports, and technical context into an executive artifact that finance, leadership, and technology teams can use without another consulting layer.
The output is designed to stand on its own. You do not need another engagement with Neoground to understand or act on the recommendations.
The full analysis, principal findings, economic reasoning, risks, recommendations, and prioritized next actions in a polished executive document.
A normalized view of the recurring technology estate by category, capability, vendor, and material cost concentration.
Material items classified as keep, optimize, consolidate, replace, retire, investigate, or invest, with the reasoning behind each decision.
Where a change is credible, we estimate replacement economics, one-time effort, migration uncertainty, expected payback, and relevant second-order effects.
A concise management version of the findings for internal circulation, budget discussions, or leadership review.
A focused recorded walkthrough of the conclusions, plus an optional discussion of up to 60 minutes and one consolidated asynchronous clarification after delivery.
Changed decision condition
The result is not a promise to cut a percentage from the budget. It is a defensible view of where money is working, where it is not, and where a small increase in spend may reduce larger operational or security exposure.
Low-friction by design
This is deliberately not a workshop program. You provide the evidence that already exists; Neoground turns it into a coherent economic and technical picture and only asks targeted questions where something materially changes the conclusion.
Send invoices, recurring payment exports, contracts, vendor lists, cloud or hosting bills, license summaries, and whatever internal notes or spreadsheets already exist. Do not create polished documentation for us.
Vendors, billing periods, capabilities, dependencies, and obvious anomalies are reconstructed into one working model before deeper analysis begins.
Questions are handled by email or your preferred business chat wherever possible. Your main contact can route them internally; calls are only used when they genuinely save time or remove ambiguity.
The final PDF, slide deck, and recorded briefing are delivered together, followed by the optional Q&A and one consolidated clarification round.
Messy evidence is fine. Reconstructing the picture is part of the work you are paying us to do.
Fixed investment
The Technology Spend Review costs 3.900 € net. The fee is fixed for the standard engagement and does not change with the amount of savings identified.
A normal mid-market environment across recurring software, SaaS, cloud, hosting, infrastructure, licensing, and external technology services.
Cross-domain economic and technical judgment without vendor commissions, success fees, or an implementation target to hit.
Review PDF, spend map, findings register, economics and payback analysis, management slide deck, and recorded briefing.
Targeted asynchronous clarification during the review, optional Q&A up to 60 minutes, and one consolidated asynchronous follow-up after delivery.
The standard review assumes one organization and a reasonably gatherable evidence set. If the environment is obviously outside that shape, we will say so before booking and define a suitable engagement rather than dilute the analysis or surprise you later.
The product is independent judgment and economic clarity — not a guaranteed savings number.
Practical questions
The engagement is designed to extract useful judgment from evidence that already exists, without creating another internal project for your team.
Useful material includes recurring technology invoices, accounting or card exports, vendor and subscription lists, cloud or hosting bills, license summaries, material contracts, known renewal dates, and any existing system overview. Send what already exists; perfect documentation is not required.
That is normal and often informative. We can work from mixed PDFs, spreadsheets, exports, contracts, and partial lists. The review includes reconstructing a coherent spend picture from the available evidence.
Usually a few hours to assemble the initial package, plus occasional asynchronous answers. We do not require a kickoff workshop or a standard interview schedule.
Normally not. Most recommendations can be developed from financial evidence, configuration or usage exports, architecture context, and targeted answers from the people who know the environment. If deeper access would materially change a conclusion, we discuss it first.
That is a valid outcome. The fixed fee buys an independent assessment of whether the technology estate is economically sound. Confirmation that current spending is proportionate can be as valuable as identifying cuts.
No. Material risks or obvious areas of underinvestment encountered during the review are flagged where relevant, but the engagement is not a penetration test, compliance audit, or comprehensive security assessment.
If useful, yes, but implementation is not part of this offer and is never required. Recommendations use realistic market implementation costs and are designed to stand independently regardless of who executes them.
Materials are used only for the agreed engagement and handled as confidential business information. A mutual NDA can be signed before detailed cost, contract, or technical documentation is shared, and access should be limited to what is necessary for the review.
Make the spend explicit
Send the recurring technology picture you already have. Neoground will reconstruct the economics, challenge the structure behind the costs, and return a clear set of decisions within one working week.
