Migration Was Not the Finish Line
For the better part of a decade, enterprise IT strategy viewed migration as a destination. The objective was binary: move from legacy on-premises infrastructure to the cloud. Success was measured by decommissioning old servers, reducing data centre footprints, and ensuring that files were technically accessible in Microsoft 365. Once the cutover was complete, the project was closed, the budget was reconciled, and the team was disbanded.
This perspective was fundamentally flawed. Migration was never a business outcome; it was a technical milestone. By treating the movement of data as the conclusion of the effort, organisations inadvertently created a vast, silent debt.
The arrival of generative AI and intelligent agents has brutally exposed this misconception. Organisations that successfully "finished" their migrations are now finding themselves unable to deploy Copilot effectively, struggling with search relevance that degrades daily, and managing governance risks that are invisible to traditional tools. The real economy of information does not begin when data is moved; it begins when that data is used.
The Emergence of the Post-Migration Economy
We have entered the Post-Migration Economy. In this phase, the value of an organisation's information is no longer defined by its storage location, but by its structure, context, and machine-readability. Knowledge now has compounding value—but only if it is accessible to the intelligence layer.
In this economy, content quality directly impacts operational cost. Poorly structured data is not just "hard to find" for humans; it actively misleads AI models, creating hallucinations and grounding errors that erode trust. Conversely, well-structured data acts as high-fidelity fuel for the Microsoft Graph, enabling automated reasoning and genuine productivity gains.
"AI amplifies structural weaknesses. If your migration moved chaos from a file server to the cloud, you have simply scaled your confusion."
Why Data-in-Flight Defined Winners and Losers
The disparity between organizations thriving in this new economy and those struggling can usually be traced back to a single decision point: how they treated data-in-flight.
The Winners: Organisations that viewed migration as a transformation event used the movement of data to inject intelligence. They enriched metadata, established lineage, and discarded ROT (Redundant, Obsolete, Trivial) content before it landed in the target environment. Their content arrived in Microsoft 365 with context that the Semantic Index could immediately digest.
The Others: Organisations that opted for "lift and shift" approaches moved content "as is." While technically present in the cloud, this content remains economically inert. The Microsoft Graph learned what it was given—unstructured, ambiguous, and often contradictory signals—rather than what was intended.
The Hidden Cost of Ignoring Post-Migration Intelligence
The costs of this inertia are rarely line items on a balance sheet, but they are structural drags on performance. These are not failures of the Microsoft platform, but predictable outcomes of feeding low-fidelity data into high-fidelity systems.
- Copilot Distrust: When AI assistants return answers based on draft documents from 2019 rather than final policies from 2024, users stop trusting the tool. The investment in licenses yields zero return because adoption stalls at the trust barrier.
- Search Degradation: As volume grows without structure, relevance declines. Knowledge workers spend increasing hours verifying that they have the "correct" version of the truth.
- Governance Drift: Without metadata to enforce retention or sensitivity labels automatically, governance relies on human compliance—a strategy that fails at scale.
When Migration Is Already Complete: The Recovery Problem
The most pressing question facing CIOs today is not how to migrate, but what to do when migration is already finished—and finished poorly. Most enterprises are currently in this state. The migration budgets are long spent. The project teams have moved on. Yet, the intelligence debt is now visible, blocking the rollout of strategic AI initiatives.
The organisation finds itself stuck in a dangerous middle ground: paralysed by the sunk cost of the previous migration, yet unable to proceed with future innovation due to data quality risks. This is the Recovery Phase.
Post-Migration Recovery is not about fixing a technical error. It is an inevitable economic phase for any organisation that migrated content without intelligence.
Recovery acknowledges that the current state of the data estate is untrusted and unfit for the era of AI. It requires a shift in mindset from "maintenance" to "structural reset."
Why Retrospective Fixes Fail
When faced with this intelligence gap, the natural instinct is to attempt retrospective fixes—cleaning up the data in place. Leaders often ask: "Can't we just run a script to tag everything?" or "Can't we just tell Copilot which folders to ignore?"
These approaches almost invariably fail. They treat deep structural issues as surface-level hygiene tasks.
- Manual Metadata Updates: Expecting users to retroactively tag thousands of documents is a fantasy. It has never worked at enterprise scale and never will.
- Automation Overlays: Applying AI to "read and tag" content in place often triggers massive re-indexing storms in SharePoint, disrupting search for users while failing to fundamentally alter the file's lineage or trust score in the Graph.
- Prompt Tuning: Trying to fix data quality issues by writing better prompts ("Ignore files from 2019") places the cognitive load on the user. It is a fragile bandage, not a cure.
"You cannot retrain the Microsoft Graph in place once poor signals are learned.
The relationships, the activity signals, and the trust weights are already established.
A clean-up script does not reset the learning."
How to Effectively Recover a Sub-Optimal Migration
Take the Step
