MANAGED IT SERVICES
Resolve today. Improve tomorrow.
Aevis takes ownership of IT operations, addressing root causes and reducing recurring incidents. We combine expert teams, proactive monitoring and intelligent automation to strengthen reliability and drive continuous improvement.
- One accountable owner for estate health
- Recurrence reported alongside response
- Run-books that outlive the engineer
24×7
operational coverage where contracted
10
capability areas under one contract
100%
of backup policies restore-tested on a cycle
The challenge
What usually brings an operations conversation to us.
Rarely a catastrophe. Far more often the recognition that the internal team has become a coordination function for suppliers rather than a technology function.
Several vendors, no owner of the whole
Each supplier is accountable for their layer and none for the outcome, so an incident that spans two of them stalls in the gap while both report having met their service level.
The same incidents, indefinitely
Response times are excellent and the underlying causes are never removed, because the contract measures how quickly a ticket is answered rather than whether the reason for it went away.
A team absorbed by keeping the lights on
The people hired to move the technology estate forward spend their week on maintenance, escalation and vendor management, and the roadmap slips by a year every year.
Estate knowledge held in individuals
How the environment is actually put together lives in the memory of two or three long-serving people. Nothing is documented because nothing has ever forced it to be.
Backups that have never been restored
Jobs complete, reports are green, and nobody has attempted a restore of the systems that matter. The first genuine test of the backup will be the day it is needed.
Patching that stalled and stayed stalled
A maintenance window was missed, then another, and the estate is now far enough behind that catching up feels like a project rather than a cycle — so it keeps not happening.
Cloud spend that only goes one way
Consumption is reviewed at renewal rather than on a cycle, and nothing is ever switched off, because the person who would know whether it is still needed left in 2023.
Monitoring that watches hosts, not services
Alerts fire on thresholds nobody set deliberately and are routed to a queue people have learned to ignore. Users report outages before the monitoring does.
The service
Operational ownership of the estate.
Aevis takes day-to-day responsibility for the systems the business runs on: servers, storage and network, the cloud tenancies, the data and integration tier beneath the applications, and the business applications themselves. Monitoring, patching, backup with verified restores, capacity and cost review, incident response, and the unglamorous maintenance nobody notices until it stops happening.
The distinguishing commitment is ownership rather than assistance. Recurring incidents are removed at the cause and reported as removed, which means the service report has a section most managed-service reports do not: what generated the volume this period, and what was permanently closed. A supplier that only reports responsiveness is telling you how quickly it is absorbing a problem it has no incentive to end.
What gets built during an engagement stays with you. Run-books, architecture records and operating procedures are produced as work proceeds and belong to your organisation, so estate knowledge becomes documented process rather than something held by whoever has been there longest — including when that person works for us.
- Engagement type
- Fully managed, co-managed, or transition and enablement
- Coverage
- Infrastructure, cloud, data tier, applications
- Operating hours
- Business hours through 24×7, by agreement
- Governance
- Service reviews, SLA reporting and recurrence tracking
Capabilities
Core capabilities.
Ten capability areas, contracted together or individually. Each one is an operating responsibility with a named owner, not a monitoring dashboard with an invoice attached.
IT infrastructure managed services
Servers, storage, network and datacentre operations run against defined service levels, including the physical estate where one still exists.
- Server, hypervisor and storage operation with capacity headroom reported
- Network operation, configuration control and change execution
- Datacentre and colocation coordination, including hands-and-eyes
- Hardware lifecycle, warranty position and refresh forecasting
Cloud managed services
Day-two operations across public and hybrid cloud — the part after migration, where cost, drift and resilience are decided and most engagements stop paying attention.
- Tenancy, subscription and landing-zone operation against a defined standard
- Configuration drift detected and corrected rather than merely reported
- Resilience and failover tested rather than architected and assumed
- Consumption reviewed against the workload behind it, with actions taken
Application managed services
Support, release and enhancement of the business applications already in production — the ones the business depends on and nobody owns operationally.
- Application support against defined severity and restoration targets
- Release execution with rollback rehearsed rather than documented
- Vendor escalation managed on your behalf rather than routed to you
- Interface and batch monitoring, because that is where these actually fail
DevOps and automation
Pipelines, infrastructure as code and the automation that removes manual release steps — applied to operations, not only to delivery.
- Infrastructure defined as code with drift reconciled against it
- Pipeline operation, and release steps automated in order of manual cost
- Runbook automation for the responses that have become mechanical
- Environment provisioning made repeatable rather than remembered
Database and middleware operations
The data and integration tier beneath the applications — availability, performance, patching and upgrade, which is where most application incidents actually originate.
- Database availability, backup, replication and performance operation
- Middleware, message queue and integration-runtime operation
- Version currency and upgrade planning against vendor support dates
- Query and job performance reviewed before it becomes an incident
Monitoring and observability
Instrumentation, alerting and dashboards designed around service impact rather than host count, so an alert means something is wrong for somebody.
- Monitoring designed from the service down, not from the inventory up
- Alert thresholds set deliberately and tuned against what actually fires
- Correlation and de-duplication before an incident is raised
- Dashboards built for the decision they inform, then reviewed for use
Backup, resilience and continuity
Backup operation with verified restores, and continuity plans that have actually been exercised — the two things most estates report on and few can demonstrate.
- Backup operation with a restore test cycle and its results reported
- Recovery objectives stated per service and tested against them
- Continuity and failover exercises run rather than documented
- Immutability and retention configured against the threat, not the default
Patch and vulnerability remediation
A scheduled cycle with change control, so remediation is routine rather than reactive — including the systems that cannot take a corporate cycle.
- Published maintenance windows and rings with an agreed exception path
- Remediation of findings raised by security operations, tracked to closure
- Legacy and constrained systems handled by compensating control, documented
- Patch position reported against the known estate rather than the reachable one
Capacity and cost optimisation
Consumption and capacity reviewed on a cycle against the workload behind it, with somebody empowered to act on what the review finds.
- Capacity forecast from measured trend rather than from procurement cycles
- Idle, oversized and orphaned resource identified and actioned, not just listed
- Commitment and reservation position reviewed against actual usage
- Cost attributed to services so the conversation can be held with their owners
Service governance and reporting
Service reviews, SLA reporting, change control and a maintained evidence record — including the recurrence reporting that makes ownership checkable.
- Service review on a fixed cycle with a named service manager
- Performance against agreed measures, with recurrence reported beside volume
- Change control and its evidence maintained as work happens
- Improvement backlog owned, prioritised and visible to you
AIOps and intelligent operations
Correlation before escalation.
Managed operations already produce more signal than a team can read. AI is applied to the correlation, the probable cause and the routine remediation — inside the same change control the rest of the contract runs under.
Event correlation
Group related alerts across monitoring, infrastructure and application layers so one incident arrives once rather than forty times.
Probable-cause insight
Rank the likely cause from recent change, dependency and telemetry context, with the evidence attached.
Predictive capacity
Identify where capacity, saturation or licence headroom will be reached before it is.
Cost anomaly detection
Surface unexpected cloud and licensing movement against the agreed baseline.
Runbook recommendations
Suggest the approved runbook that fits the signal, and say why it was suggested.
Governed remediation
Execute approved low-risk remediation automatically, and raise everything else for a human decision.
What stays human
Risk acceptance, major-incident command, change approval above the agreed threshold and any action outside an approved runbook remain human decisions. Automated remediation is bounded by policy and is fully logged and reversible.
How value is measured
- Alert-to-incident compression rate
- Probable-cause accuracy and acceptance
- Mean time to assess
- Automated remediation success and rollback frequency
- Human intervention rate
- Cost per handled event
Entitlement
Capability depends on the client’s existing monitoring, data quality and licensing. Aevis does not introduce a separate AI layer where the tooling already in place can do the work.
Outcomes
What changes for the business.
Operational changes rather than promises. Each one is visible in a service review, and each is stated as something that can be checked.
One accountable owner for estate health
A single named service manager holds the estate, the history and the escalation path, which removes the supplier-coordination job from your team rather than moving it.
Recurring incidents removed and reported as removed
The service report names what generated volume this period and what was permanently closed. Improvement becomes checkable rather than asserted.
Estate knowledge held as documented process
Run-books and architecture records are produced as work proceeds and belong to you, so a departure — ours or yours — is a handover rather than a loss.
Backups proven by restore, not by report
Restore tests run on a cycle and their results appear in the service review, so recovery capability is demonstrated before it is needed rather than during.
Capacity and cost reviewed on a cycle
Consumption is examined against the workload behind it at a known interval with somebody empowered to act, rather than discovered at renewal.
Your team returned to the roadmap
Maintenance, escalation and vendor management move to the contract, which is the only way the internal team gets back the capacity to move the estate forward.
Delivery
How an engagement runs.
The same eight stages every Aevis engagement uses. Transition is the stage that decides whether the rest works — an operations handover taken on a contract date rather than an acceptance point is the most reliable way to inherit somebody else’s outage.
Discovery
What is actually in the estate, what monitors it, who currently does what, which suppliers hold which layer, and where the documentation stops matching reality.
OutputEstate baseline and a supplier responsibility map
Assessment
Patch and version currency, backup and restore position, resilience against stated objectives, monitoring coverage measured rather than assumed, and the recurring incident causes nobody has closed.
OutputGap assessment with recurrence and restore position quantified
Design
Service levels and coverage window, maintenance and change model, monitoring designed from the service down, escalation paths, and the responsibility split against EUC, Cybersecurity and your own team written down.
OutputTarget service design and a signed responsibility split
Implementation
Monitoring and alerting rebuilt to the design, tooling and access established, run-books authored from discovery rather than inherited, and backup and restore testing put on a cycle.
OutputInstrumented estate with authored run-books
Transition
Parallel running with the incumbent, escalation tested end to end under real conditions, knowledge transfer completed against a checklist, and an agreed acceptance point rather than a start date.
OutputSigned transition acceptance
Operations
The estate is monitored and maintained, incidents are responded to and investigated to cause, maintenance runs on published windows, and restores are tested on schedule rather than on request.
OutputService running against published targets
Governance
Service review on a fixed cycle covering performance, recurrence and what was permanently closed, capacity and cost position, restore-test results, risk and the improvement backlog.
OutputPeriodic service review and a maintained evidence record
Continuous improvement
Recurring causes removed at source, automation applied to whatever response has become mechanical, capacity and cost actions taken rather than tabled, and the run-books revised as the estate changes.
OutputTracked improvement backlog and a recurrence trend
Engagement models
The same sequence, contracted three ways. The split of responsibility is written down before the service starts.
Fully managed
Aevis operates the estate against agreed service levels with a named service manager holding accountability. Suited to organisations whose internal capacity is better spent on the roadmap than on operations.
Co-managed
Your team retains ownership and decision rights; Aevis provides an agreed portion — typically out-of-hours coverage, a specific technology layer, or surge capacity — against a documented split of responsibility.
Transition and enablement
A bounded engagement to stabilise the estate, author the documentation that does not exist and establish the operating model, handed to your team with no ongoing operational commitment.
Platforms
Platforms and technologies.
We operate the stack you already own wherever it is fit for purpose. These are the categories and representative products we work across.
Cloud platforms
- Microsoft Azure
- Amazon Web Services
- Google Cloud
- Oracle Cloud
Compute and virtualisation
- VMware vSphere
- Hyper-V
- Nutanix
- Proxmox
Network and connectivity
- Cisco
- Fortinet
- Palo Alto Networks
- Meraki
Monitoring and observability
- Datadog
- Dynatrace
- Zabbix
- Prometheus and Grafana
Database and middleware
- Microsoft SQL Server
- PostgreSQL
- Oracle Database
- MongoDB
Backup and recovery
- Veeam
- Commvault
- Rubrik
- Azure Backup
Automation and infrastructure as code
- Terraform
- Ansible
- Azure DevOps
- GitHub Actions
Directory and identity
- Microsoft Entra ID
- Active Directory
- Okta
- Keycloak
Why Aevis
Why Aevis for managed services.
Service-specific differentiation. These are the reasons this practice is structured the way it is, not general company claims.
We report removal, not only response
The service review names what generated volume and what was permanently closed. A supplier reporting only responsiveness is describing how efficiently it absorbs a problem it has no reason to end.
Ownership rather than assistance
A ticket closes when the estate changed. That is a different contract from one that closes when a question was answered, and it is the distinction worth checking in any competing proposal.
Run-books belong to you
Documentation is produced as work proceeds and is yours. That is deliberate: it makes us replaceable, which is the only credible answer to the concern that outsourcing operations creates a dependency.
Restores tested on a cycle
Backup jobs completing is not a recovery capability. We test restores on a schedule and put the results in the service review, including the ones that did not go to plan.
Transition to an acceptance point
We run in parallel with the incumbent, test escalation under real conditions and complete knowledge transfer against a checklist before acceptance. A contract start date is not a transition.
The seams are inside the contract
A security finding that needs a change, a workplace fault that turns out to be network, a build that needs supporting — those handovers happen under one governance model rather than between suppliers.
Your existing tooling first
The usual assessment finding is monitoring and backup capability you already pay for and have not configured. We would rather operate that properly than migrate you onto ours.
The boundaries are written down
What belongs to End User Computing, to Cybersecurity, to Software Solutions and to your own team is agreed in the service design rather than discovered at the first incident that crosses one.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions.
Answers are written to the same discipline as the rest of the page: they describe what the service does and, where the honest answer is "no provider can", they say that instead.
Do we have to move onto your tooling?
Usually not. The most common assessment finding is monitoring, backup and automation capability you already licence and have only partially configured. Where a genuine gap exists we say so and scope it, but migrating a working platform onto ours is not our default recommendation and is worth being suspicious of when a supplier proposes it.
Does this make us dependent on you?
Documentation is the answer, and it is why run-books, architecture records and operating procedures are produced as work proceeds and belong to you rather than to us. A supplier whose value rests on being the only party who understands your estate has an incentive we would rather not have.
Can you work alongside our internal team?
Yes — that is the co-managed model, and it is the more common shape where a capable team exists but is absorbed by operations. Your team keeps ownership and decision rights, and we take an agreed portion: out-of-hours cover, a specific technology layer, or surge capacity. The split is documented before the service starts.
Does this include the service desk and end-user devices?
No. That scope is End User Computing, which is a separate Aevis practice with its own targets. The two are frequently contracted together and sit under one governance model when they are, but they are priced and reported separately because they are measured on genuinely different things.
Does this include security monitoring?
Patching, hardening and remediation of findings are included here. Monitoring the estate for threats, triaging what that produces and responding to a security incident is Cybersecurity. Managed services without security operations is a normal and complete engagement; we would simply rather you know which of the two you have bought.
Can you take over from an incumbent supplier?
Yes, and it is the majority of what we do. Transition includes discovery of the real configuration, run-books authored rather than inherited, parallel running, escalation tested end to end, and a defined acceptance point before the incumbent stands down. We do not treat a contract start date as a transition.
What service levels do you offer?
Response and restoration targets by severity, agreed against the coverage window you contract. What matters more in practice is what the targets are measured against and what happens when they are missed — both of which are written into the agreement rather than described in a brochure.
Do you take a margin on our cloud consumption?
No. Cloud consumption is contracted between you and the platform vendor. An operations partner with a margin in your consumption is being asked to recommend switching things off while holding a reason not to, which is a conflict worth checking for in any proposal.
We have systems that cannot be patched. Is that a problem?
It is normal, and pretending otherwise is the actual problem. Constrained systems are handled by compensating control with the exception documented, time-limited where possible and reported in the service review, so the risk is a known and owned position rather than an omission somebody discovers during an audit.
How is the service reported and governed?
On a fixed cycle with a named service manager: performance against agreed measures, incident volume with its causes and what was permanently closed, capacity and cost position with actions taken, restore-test results, risk and the improvement backlog. It is written to be read by an IT director and by a finance owner.
Managed services enquiry
Start with what keeps recurring.
The most useful first conversation is not about service levels. It is establishing which incidents keep coming back, and whether anybody is currently contracted to make them stop.
- Response
- One working day, Monday to Friday