Illustrative Audit Report Preview · Based on a representative Microsoft Fabric environment · Actual findings vary by environment
Fabric Cost and Performance Audit
Confidential Audit Report
Sample Client Organisation Ltd
Audit Summary
This report presents the findings of a Fabric Cost and Performance Audit. The audit covered Fabric capacities, workspaces, data pipelines, and semantic models across production and development environments.
Seven findings were identified, of which two are rated Critical and two are rated High. The combined estimated annual cost saving from addressing all identified issues is in the range of £92,000 to £118,000, representing a return of more than 30 times the cost of this audit.
The most significant issues are an oversized production capacity, a development capacity running continuously without business justification, and pipelines performing full data refreshes where incremental loading is appropriate.
Maturity Scorecard
The Fabric Cost and Performance Maturity Scorecard rates the environment across five operational domains on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents significant risk and 5 represents an optimised and well-governed environment.
2
Capacity Management
Needs Attention
2
Workload Optimisation
Needs Attention
3
Storage and Data Architecture
Developing
3
Semantic Layer Efficiency
Developing
2
Operational Governance
Needs Attention
Overall maturity score
Needs Attention
2.4 / 5
Estimated Savings by Finding
| Ref | Finding | Domain | Risk | Min saving | Max saving |
|---|
| F-01 | Production capacity oversized | Capacity Mgmt | CRITICAL | ~£56,000 | ~£70,000 |
| F-02 | Development capacity running 24/7 | Capacity Mgmt | CRITICAL | ~£18,000 | ~£22,000 |
| F-03 | 14 pipelines performing full refresh | Workload Opt. | HIGH | ~£8,000 | ~£12,000 |
| F-04 | Pipeline scheduling conflicts | Workload Opt. | HIGH | ~£4,000 | ~£6,000 |
| F-05 | Delta table compaction not performed | Storage | MEDIUM | Performance improvement |
| F-06 | Two models using DirectQuery | Semantic Layer | MEDIUM | ~£6,000 | ~£8,000 |
| F-07 | No capacity monitoring or alerting | Governance | MEDIUM | Risk reduction |
| Total estimated saving | ~£92,000 | ~£118,000 |
Remediation Roadmap
Phase 1 — Immediate actions (Weeks 1 to 2)
| P | Ref | Action | Effort | Est. saving | Owner |
|---|
| 1 | F-02 | Implement development capacity scheduling. Pause at 19:00 weekdays. Resume at 07:30. | Low, 1 to 2 days | ~£18k to £22k /yr | Platform engineer |
| 2 | F-04 | Stagger pipeline schedules across 3-hour window from 03:00. | Low, 1 day | ~£4k to £6k /yr | Data engineer |
| 3 | F-07 | Configure capacity alerts at 70% and 90%. Assign capacity owner. | Low, 2 to 3 days | Risk reduction | Platform owner |
Phase 2 — Short-term actions (Weeks 3 to 8)
| P | Ref | Action | Effort | Est. saving | Owner |
|---|
| 4 | F-06 | Convert semantic models from DirectQuery to Import. Implement scheduled refresh. | Medium, 2 to 3 days | ~£6k to £8k /yr | BI developer |
| 5 | F-03 | Implement incremental loading starting with highest-consumption pipelines. | High, 3 to 4 weeks | ~£8k to £12k /yr | Data engineer |
Phase 3 — Strategic actions (Weeks 8 to 12)
| P | Ref | Action | Effort | Est. saving | Owner |
|---|
| 6 | F-01 | Downsize production capacity. Implement Fabric Capacity Reservation for unit cost reduction. | Low, 1 day (after Phase 2) | ~£56k to £70k /yr | Platform owner |
Hidden Risks Identified
The following risks are not reflected in capacity metrics or cost data. They are structural and operational risks that become visible when examining the platform holistically rather than through a purely technical lens.
| Risk | Observation | Potential impact | Priority |
|---|
| Single engineer dependency | No documented ownership for key pipelines and semantic models. Knowledge concentrated in one or two individuals. | Increased support risk during holidays or departures. Incident resolution delayed when key person unavailable. | High |
| Capacity ownership gap | No designated capacity owner within the organisation. Capacity decisions not formally assigned to any role. | Delayed response to incidents. No accountability for ongoing cost management as the platform evolves. | High |
| Monitoring maturity gap | No proactive monitoring or alerting in place. Issues go undetected until end users report them. | Business-impacting incidents going undetected. Cost overruns not identified until significant overspend has occurred. | Medium |
| Governance not keeping pace with growth | New workspaces and pipelines added without a documented review process. | Compounding technical debt. Increasing cost and complexity as ungoverned assets accumulate. | High |
These risks require a consultative lens applied to the platform holistically — examining ownership, process maturity, governance, and operational culture alongside the technical environment.