The Foundation of Every Azure Deployment
In this article, we'll explore what Resource Groups are and, more importantly, how to design them around ownership, lifecycle and operational responsibility.
Introduction
When you create an Azure resource, one of the first decisions you make is:
Which Resource Group should this resource belong to?
For beginners, a Resource Group is often described as a logical container for Azure resources. That's correct - but incomplete.
In real projects, a Resource Group becomes an operational boundary for ownership, lifecycle and operational responsibility.
A good Resource Group structure can simplify deployment, governance, cost management and day-to-day operations. A poor structure can create unnecessary coupling and make changes harder later.
Throughout this article, we'll use a Payment Integration Platform as our running example.
How Does Azure Resource Manager (ARM) Work?
One of the biggest gaps in many Azure tutorials is that they introduce Resource Groups before explaining Azure Resource Manager (ARM).
To understand why Resource Groups exist, we first need to understand ARM. Azure Resource Manager is the deployment and management layer for Azure. When you create, update or delete resources through the Portal, CLI, PowerShell, Bicep, Terraform or SDKs, those operations are handled through Azure's management plane.
ARM provides a consistent way to deploy, organize and govern Azure resources.
ARM Request Flow
What Exactly Is a Resource Group?
A Resource Group is a logical container that holds related Azure resources. A Resource Group can contain services such as Function Apps, Storage Accounts, Key Vaults, Service Bus, VNets, databases and monitoring resources.
The Resource Group itself does not provide compute, storage, or networking. Instead, it provides a management boundary for resources that belong together.
For example, an integration application might contain:
Grouping these resources together simplifies deployment, monitoring, access management, and operational ownership.
Are Resource Groups Just Folders?
It's common to compare a Resource Group to a folder, but the comparison only goes so far. A folder simply organizes files. A Resource Group actively participates in Azure management.
It serves as a scope for:
- RBAC
- Azure Policy
- Resource Locks
- Cost Management
- Monitoring
- Infrastructure as Code deployments
This is why Resource Groups are often described as the **management boundary **rather than just a logical container.
💡 Note
A Resource Group is not an architectural boundary by itself. It's an operational and management boundary. Many architects mistakenly design Resource Groups around technical layers instead of ownership and lifecycle.
What Makes Resource Groups Different?
Now that we understand what a Resource Group is and why Azure requires it, let's explore the characteristics that define how Resource Groups behave. Although Resource Groups appear simple, understanding these characteristics helps explain many Azure design decisions.
1. A Resource Group is a Logical Container
A Resource Group doesn't provide compute, networking or security. It is a logical management boundary.
Resources in the same Resource Group do not automatically communicate with each other. Connectivity depends on networking, identity, authorization, firewall rules and service configuration.
💡 Note
A common misconception is that placing resources in the same Resource Group automatically improves connectivity or performance. It doesn't. Resource Groups organize resources—they do not influence network routing, latency, or service communication.
2. Every Resource Group Has a Region
When creating a Resource Group, Azure asks you to specify a location. This often raises an important question:
Does a Resource Group's region determine the region of its resources?
No. The Resource Group has a location for its own metadata, while resources inside it may have their own regional requirements.
This distinction becomes useful when designing globally distributed solutions.
3. Every Resource Belongs to One Resource Group
A resource belongs to one Resource Group at a time. Some resources can be moved between Resource Groups, while others have restrictions. Even supported moves can involve dependencies and planning.
This is why Resource Group boundaries should be designed before production deployment rather than treated as something easy to reorganize later.
Lifecycle-Based Thinking
Consider this example.
These resources are deployed together.
They are monitored together.
When the platform is retired, all four resources can be removed together.
Now compare that with a shared API Management instance serving multiple business applications.
This API Management instance has a much longer lifecycle than any single backend application. If it were placed inside one application's Resource Group, deleting or redeploying that workload could accidentally impact multiple teams. For this reason, shared infrastructure is often separated into dedicated Resource Groups.
💡 Note
Group resources based on shared lifecycle and ownership, not because they communicate with each other. Communication patterns change over time, but ownership and operational responsibilities tend to remain much more stable.
Where Do Resource Groups Fit in the Azure Hierarchy?
Each level has a different responsibility:
Understanding this hierarchy makes it much easier to design scalable Azure environments.
How Should Resource Groups Be Designed in Real Projects?
In real environments, there is no single structure that works for every organization. A practical design usually considers four factors:
- Ownership
- Lifecycle
- Governance
- Operational simplicity
Let's apply these principles to our Payments platform.
Example Architecture
Returning to our Payment Integration Platform - For this workload, that's actually a good starting point.
All resources:
- belong to the same application,
- are deployed together,
- are monitored together,
- are owned by the same team,
- and will likely be retired together.
This satisfies one of the most important principles in Azure architecture.
Resources that share the same lifecycle usually belong in the same Resource Group.
Why Should Resource Groups Follow Lifecycle?
One of the biggest mistakes engineers make is organizing Resource Groups based only on technical categories.
For example:
In reality, it introduces unnecessary operational complexity.
Imagine deploying a new version of the Payments platform.
This increases deployment, rollback, RBAC and cost-allocation complexity.
Rather than grouping by resource type, experienced teams usually group by workload and lifecycle.
Why Should Resource Groups Be Workload-Based?
With workload-based Resource Groups, each team can deploy, secure, monitor and report on its workload independently, reducing operational coupling between teams.
For example:
Why This Matters
Imagine the Payments team wants to deploy a new version of their Function App. With workload-based Resource Groups:
- only their deployment pipeline runs,
- only their resources are updated,
- only their monitoring dashboards change,
- only their costs are affected.
Nothing impacts the Notifications or Ordering teams. This separation becomes increasingly valuable as organizations grow.
What Happens When Infrastructure Is Shared?
Not every Azure resource belongs inside an application's Resource Group. Some services exist to support multiple workloads.
For example:
This API Management instance fronts multiple backend services. If it were placed inside:
rg-payments-prod
then deleting or rebuilding the Payments workload could accidentally impact every application using the shared gateway. The same thinking applies to:
- Shared API Management
- Shared Hub Virtual Networks
- Shared DNS
- Shared ExpressRoute
- Shared Azure Firewall
- Shared Monitoring Platforms
These resources have a different lifecycle and should therefore have their own Resource Groups.
How Do You Decide Where a Resource Belongs?
Whenever you're unsure where a resource belongs, ask yourself these questions:
1. Who owns this resource?
If different teams own it, consider separating it.
2. Will it be deployed independently?
If yes, consider its own Resource Group.
3. Can it be safely deleted with the application?
If not, it probably belongs elsewhere.
4. Does it support multiple workloads?
If yes, treat it as shared infrastructure.
5. Does it have a different security or compliance requirement?
If yes, isolate it appropriately.
If you can answer these five questions, most Resource Group design decisions become straightforward.
What Resource Group Mistakes Should You Avoid?
Anti-Pattern 1: One Resource Group for Everything
It works for proof of concept. It becomes extremely difficult to manage in production.
Anti-Pattern 2: One Resource Group Per Resource Type
rg-storage
rg-keyvault
rg-functions
rg-servicebus
This introduces unnecessary deployment complexity.
What Changes When You Reach Production?
One of the most valuable lessons I've learned is this:
Changing Resource Group boundaries after a solution reaches production is much harder than designing them correctly at the beginning.
Moving resources isn't always supported.
Dependencies become more complex.
Automation pipelines require updates.
RBAC assignments must be reviewed.
Monitoring and alerting configurations may need to be recreated.
For these reasons, invest time in designing your Resource Group strategy before deploying production workloads.
Summary
A good Resource Group boundary usually brings together resources that share:
Ownership + Lifecycle + Operational Responsibility
Don't start with:
"Where should I put this resource?"
Start with:
"Which resources should be managed, deployed and retired together?"
That's the central idea of this article.
From My Experience
Early in one project, we grouped multiple applications into a single Resource Group because it appeared simpler.
Six months later, RBAC became difficult. Cost reporting became less meaningful. Deployment pipelines became increasingly complex, and it was no longer obvious who owned which resources.
That experience changed the way I think about Resource Groups.
Since then, I start with three questions: Who owns the workload? What is its lifecycle? And what operational responsibility belongs together?
Once those answers are clear, the Resource Group structure usually becomes much easier to design.
How Should You Think About Your Own Resource Groups?
Open Azure Portal.
Look at every Resource Group in your subscription.
Then ask yourself:
Why does this Resource Group exist?
Who owns it?
Can it be deployed or deleted independently?
Does it represent one workload or a shared platform capability?
Would another engineer understand its purpose just by looking at its name?
If you can answer these questions confidently, you're no longer thinking of Resource Groups as simple containers.
You're beginning to design Azure environments rather than simply deploying Azure resources.
Further Reading
Microsoft Learn — Manage Azure resources with Resource Manager: https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/azure-resource-manager/management/overview
Cloud Adoption Framework — Resource naming and tagging decision guide: https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/cloud-adoption-framework/ready/azure-best-practices/resource-naming-and-tagging-decision-guide
Azure Well-Architected Framework: https://learn.microsoft.com/azure/well-architected/
