The Target Operating Model: How to Bridge Strategy and Technology Without €4M Transformation Waste

Your board approved a €12M digital transformation strategy. Consultants delivered a beautiful 200-slide deck showing the future state. Six months later, engineering teams are confused, business units are frustrated, and the CIO can't explain why progress is so slow. The gap between vision and reality is widening daily.

Sound familiar? According to McKinsey research, 65% of digital transformations fail to deliver expected value, with the primary cause being disconnection between strategy and execution. The average wasted investment: €4.2M in misaligned technology, duplicated efforts, and organizational confusion.

The missing piece isn't strategy (most organizations have that) or technology (teams know how to build). It's the Target Operating Model (TOM)—the blueprint that translates strategic vision into executable organizational design, process architecture, and technology capabilities.

I've worked with organizations that spent 18 months "transforming" without a clear operating model. The result: Every team interpreted the strategy differently, built conflicting solutions, and delivered a fragmented mess. After defining a clear TOM, the same organization delivered their transformation in 9 months with 40% better adoption and €2.1M cost savings.

The gap between strategy and execution kills transformations. The TOM bridges that gap.

Most transformation failures follow a predictable pattern:

Phase 1: Strategy (Months 1-3)

• Board approves transformation vision
• Consultants create future-state architecture
• Leadership excited about possibilities
• Budget allocated, timeline set
• Output: PowerPoint deck, no executable plan

Phase 2: Confusion (Months 4-9)

• Engineering teams: "What should we build first?"
• Business units: "How does this affect my team?"
• IT leadership: "Who owns what?"
• Everyone interprets strategy differently
• Output: Conflicting initiatives, duplicated work

Phase 3: Fragmentation (Months 10-18)

• Team A builds solution X (interpreting strategy one way)
• Team B builds solution Y (different interpretation)
• Solutions don't integrate
• Business processes don't align
• Data models incompatible
• Output: Technical debt, organizational chaos

Phase 4: Reckoning (Month 18+)

• Leadership demands to see results
• Teams point fingers at each other
• CIO scrambles to create coherent story
• Board questions the investment
• Outcome: Transformation stalls, investment wasted

I've seen this pattern cost organizations millions. In one case, a healthcare organization had three teams building "patient portals" (their strategy said "improve digital patient experience"). Each team interpreted this differently:

• Team A: Mobile app for appointment scheduling
• Team B: Web portal for medical records access
• Team C: Telemedicine video platform

Cost: €4.7M spent on three separate solutions that didn't integrate. Worse: Patients had to use three different logins, creating the opposite of "improved experience."

The root cause: No Target Operating Model to translate strategy into aligned execution.

What a Target Operating Model Actually Is

A Target Operating Model is the connective tissue between strategy and implementation. It answers five critical questions:

Question 1: How Will We Be Organized?

Strategy Says: "Become customer-centric"
TOM Defines:

• Organization structure (product teams vs. functional teams)
• Reporting lines and decision rights
• Team topologies and interaction modes
• Roles, responsibilities, and accountability model

Without TOM:
Teams reorganize randomly, creating chaos without improving customer centricity.

With TOM:
Clear organizational design with product teams owning end-to-end customer journeys, supported by platform teams providing shared capabilities.

Question 2: How Will Work Flow?

Strategy Says: "Accelerate time-to-market"
TOM Defines:

• End-to-end process architecture
• Handoffs and decision points
• Approval authorities and governance
• Process ownership and KPIs

Without TOM:
Teams eliminate steps randomly, creating compliance gaps and quality issues.

With TOM:
Redesigned processes with eliminated non-value-add steps, automated approvals where appropriate, and clear quality gates at critical points.

Question 3: What Capabilities Do We Need?

Strategy Says: "Leverage data and AI"
TOM Defines:

• Business capabilities required (prioritized)
• Technology capabilities to enable them
• Skills and competencies needed
• Build vs. buy vs. partner decisions

Without TOM:
Teams build overlapping capabilities, creating duplication and integration nightmares.

With TOM:
Capability map showing what exists, what's needed, ownership of each capability, and reuse patterns across organization.

Question 4: How Will Technology Enable This?

Strategy Says: "Modernize our technology stack"
TOM Defines:

• Target technology architecture
• Integration patterns and data flows
• Migration approach (big bang vs. incremental)
• Technology standards and principles

Without TOM:
Every team picks different technologies, creating operational complexity and skills gaps.

With TOM:
Coherent technology blueprint with clear standards, integration architecture, and migration roadmap aligned to business priorities.

Question 5: How Will We Measure Success?

Strategy Says: "Improve operational efficiency"
TOM Defines:

• Leading and lagging indicators
• Measurement frequency and ownership
• Targets and thresholds
• Feedback loops for continuous improvement

Without TOM:
Teams measure different things, making it impossible to assess overall progress.

With TOM:
Integrated performance framework with business outcomes, operational metrics, and technology health indicators all aligned.

The 5-Dimension TOM Framework

Based on work with organizations across healthcare, hospitality, and financial services, here's the framework that actually works:

Dimension 1: Organization & Governance

The Design Question:
How do we structure teams, decision rights, and accountability to execute the strategy?

Key Components:

A) Organizational Structure

Traditional Functional Model:

CEO
├── CIO (Technology)
├── COO (Operations)
├── CMO (Marketing)
└── CFO (Finance)

Pros: Functional expertise, efficient resource use
Cons: Slow cross-functional coordination, siloed decision-making

Product Operating Model:

CEO
├── Product Line 1 (E-commerce)
│   ├── Product Management
│   ├── Engineering
│   ├── UX/Design
│   └── Analytics
├── Product Line 2 (Mobile)
├── Platform Team (shared capabilities)
└── Corporate Functions (Finance, HR, Legal)

Pros: Fast decision-making, customer focus, end-to-end ownership
Cons: Potential duplication, coordination needed for shared capabilities

Decision Criteria:

• Customer-centricity priority → Product model
• Regulatory/compliance heavy → Functional model with strong cross-functional teams
• Scale and efficiency → Hybrid (product lines + shared services)

B) Decision Rights (RACI Model)

Map key decisions to roles:

C) Governance Structure

Strategic Governance:

• Technology Leadership Council (monthly)
• Members: CxOs + Business Unit heads
• Purpose: Portfolio prioritization, investment decisions

Tactical Governance:

• Architecture Review Board (weekly)
• Members: Lead architects + senior engineers
• Purpose: Design reviews, standards compliance

Operational Governance:

• Agile Release Trains (bi-weekly)
• Members: Product managers + engineering leads
• Purpose: Sprint planning, dependency management

Real-World Example:

Before TOM (Retail Company):

• Functional organization (IT, Marketing, Operations separate)
• Decision-making required 5-7 approvals (3-4 weeks minimum)
• Projects delayed by cross-functional coordination
• 47% of initiatives delivered late

After TOM:

• Product-aligned teams (E-commerce, Mobile, In-Store Experience)
• Decision rights delegated to product teams (< 1 week for most decisions)
• Governance streamlined (only strategic decisions escalated)
• 89% of initiatives delivered on time

Impact: Time-to-market improved 60%, customer satisfaction +22 points.

Dimension 2: Process Architecture

The Design Question:
What processes need to change, and how will they work in the future state?

Key Components:

A) Process Mapping Methodology

Level 1: Value Streams (5-10 per organization)
Example: "Order to Cash" value stream

• Encompasses: Order placement → Fulfillment → Delivery → Payment → Support

Level 2: Core Processes (3-7 per value stream)
Example within "Order to Cash":

• Order Management Process
• Inventory Management Process
• Fulfillment Process
• Payment Processing
• Customer Support Process

Level 3: Sub-Processes (10-20 per core process)
Example within "Order Management":

• Order capture
• Credit check
• Order validation
• Inventory reservation
• Order confirmation

B) Process Redesign Principles

Principle 1: Eliminate Non-Value-Add Steps

Example (Loan Approval Process):

Before:

Application → Manual Data Entry → Manager Review → Credit Check → 
Risk Assessment → Committee Approval → Document Generation → 
Customer Notification
Duration: 14 days, 47 manual steps

After (TOM-Driven Redesign):

Application (digital) → Automated Credit Check → AI Risk Scoring → 
Auto-Approve (if within parameters) OR Escalate to Human Review → 
Automated Document Generation → Instant Customer Notification
Duration: 2 hours, 8 automated steps

Improvement: 84x faster, 80% fewer manual steps, 95% automation rate

Principle 2: Parallel Processing Where Possible

Sequential (Old):

Step 1 (2 days) → Step 2 (3 days) → Step 3 (2 days) → Step 4 (1 day)
Total: 8 days

Parallel (New):

Step 1 (2 days) ──┐
                   ├→ Step 4 (1 day)
Step 2 (3 days) ──┤
                   │
Step 3 (2 days) ──┘
Total: 4 days (Step 2 longest path)

Improvement: 50% faster

Principle 3: Automate Routine Decisions

Decision Automation Rules:

• High volume + rule-based → Automate (e.g., standard credit approvals)
• Low volume + judgment required → Human (e.g., large corporate loans)
• High stakes + complex → Human with AI assist (e.g., fraud detection)

C) Process Ownership Model

Process Owner Responsibilities:

• Define process standards and KPIs
• Monitor process performance
• Drive continuous improvement
• Resolve cross-functional issues
• Report to governance

Example Assignment:

• Order Management Process → VP of Sales Operations
• Fulfillment Process → VP of Supply Chain
• Payment Processing → VP of Finance
• Customer Support Process → VP of Customer Experience

Each owner has:

• Budget for process improvement
• Authority to change process within boundaries
• Accountability for process KPIs
• Cross-functional team to support improvements

Dimension 3: Capability Model

The Design Question:
What business and technology capabilities are required to execute the strategy?

Key Components:

A) Business Capability Map

Hierarchical view of what the organization must be able to do:

Level 1: Core Capabilities (10-15)
Example (E-commerce):

• Product Management
• Order Management
• Customer Management
• Inventory Management
• Fulfillment
• Payment Processing
• Customer Service
• Marketing & Promotions

Level 2: Sub-Capabilities (3-7 per core capability)
Example (Order Management):

• Order Capture
• Order Validation
• Order Orchestration
• Order Tracking
• Returns Management

Level 3: Enabling Capabilities (supporting Level 1 & 2)

• Data & Analytics
• Integration & APIs
• Security & Compliance
• Identity & Access Management

B) Capability Maturity Assessment

Score each capability:

Level 1 - Ad Hoc:

• Manual processes
• No standardization
• Tribal knowledge
• No metrics

Level 2 - Repeatable:

• Some documentation
• Basic tools
• Inconsistent execution
• Limited metrics

Level 3 - Defined:

• Documented processes
• Standard tools
• Training programs
• Key metrics tracked

Level 4 - Managed:

• Process optimization
• Integrated tooling
• Data-driven decisions
• Comprehensive metrics

Level 5 - Optimizing:

• Continuous improvement
• AI/ML enhancement
• Industry-leading
• Predictive analytics

Capability Heat Map Example:

Prioritization: Focus on "Critical" gaps first (Inventory Management, Data Analytics)

C) Build vs. Buy vs. Partner Decisions

Decision Framework:

Build When:

• Capability is core differentiator
• Unique requirements not met by market
• IP protection critical
• Long-term cost advantage

Buy When:

• Commodity capability (CRM, email, etc.)
• Mature market solutions available
• Speed to market critical
• Ongoing maintenance burden high

Partner When:

• Specialized expertise required
• Temporary need (project-based)
• Regulatory/compliance complexity
• Emerging technology (reduce risk)

Example Decisions (Fintech Company):

Build:

• Risk scoring algorithm (core differentiator)
• Loan origination workflow (unique process)

Buy:

• CRM (Salesforce)
• Customer support (Zendesk)
• Email marketing (Mailchimp)

Partner:

• ID verification (Onfido)
• Payment processing (Stripe)
• Fraud detection (Sift)

Investment Split: 60% build, 25% buy, 15% partner

Dimension 4: Technology Architecture

The Design Question:
What technology architecture will enable the target operating model?

Key Components:

A) Application Architecture

Layered Architecture View:

Layer 1: Experience Layer

• Customer-facing applications (web, mobile, kiosk)
• Employee-facing applications (internal tools, admin)
• Partner-facing applications (B2B portals, APIs)

Layer 2: Process & Integration Layer

• Business process management
• API gateway and management
• Integration middleware
• Event streaming platform

Layer 3: Core Services Layer

• Business capability services (microservices or modules)
• Shared services (authentication, notifications, reporting)
• Master data management

Layer 4: Data Layer

• Operational databases
• Data warehouse / data lake
• Analytics and BI
• AI/ML platforms

Layer 5: Infrastructure Layer

• Cloud platform (AWS, Azure, GCP)
• Container orchestration (Kubernetes)
• Observability and monitoring
• Security and compliance

B) Integration Architecture

Integration Patterns by Use Case:

Real-Time Synchronous (API):

• Use case: User-initiated actions requiring immediate response
• Example: Check product availability during checkout
• Pattern: REST API with < 100ms response time
• Technology: API Gateway + microservices

Real-Time Asynchronous (Events):

• Use case: System-to-system notification, decoupled processing
• Example: Order placed → trigger fulfillment workflow
• Pattern: Event-driven architecture
• Technology: Kafka, RabbitMQ, AWS EventBridge

Batch Integration:

• Use case: High-volume data sync, reporting, analytics
• Example: Daily inventory sync from warehouses
• Pattern: ETL/ELT pipelines
• Technology: Airflow, dbt, AWS Glue

C) Data Architecture

Data Domain Ownership:

Domain 1: Customer Data

• Owner: VP of Customer Experience
• Systems: CRM, Customer Data Platform, Support System
• Gold copy: Customer Data Platform
• Sync pattern: Real-time to CDP, nightly to warehouse

Domain 2: Product Data

• Owner: VP of Product Management
• Systems: PIM (Product Information Management), CMS
• Gold copy: PIM
• Sync pattern: Real-time to PIM, real-time to ecommerce

Domain 3: Order Data

• Owner: VP of Operations
• Systems: Order Management, Fulfillment, Warehouse
• Gold copy: Order Management System
• Sync pattern: Event-driven + nightly aggregation

Data Governance:

• Master Data Management (MDM) for customer, product, location
• Data catalog for discoverability
• Data quality rules and monitoring
• Data access controls and audit

Dimension 5: Performance Management

The Design Question:
How will we measure whether the TOM is delivering the strategy?

Key Components:

A) Balanced Scorecard Approach

Business Outcomes (Strategy-Level):

• Revenue growth
• Customer satisfaction (NPS, CSAT)
• Market share
• Profitability

Operational Metrics (Process-Level):

• Process cycle time
• Process quality (error rates)
• Resource efficiency
• Compliance adherence

Technology Metrics (Enablement-Level):

• System availability
• API performance
• Deployment frequency
• Mean time to recovery

People Metrics (Capability-Level):

• Employee satisfaction
• Skills development
• Retention rates
• Productivity

B) Metrics Hierarchy Example

Strategic Goal: Improve customer experience

Business Outcome Metric:

• Net Promoter Score (NPS): Baseline 32 → Target 50 (within 18 months)

Operational Metrics:

• Order-to-delivery time: Baseline 5 days → Target 2 days
• First-contact resolution rate: Baseline 68% → Target 85%
• Returns rate: Baseline 12% → Target 7%

Technology Metrics:

• Website page load time: Baseline 3.2s → Target 1.5s
• Mobile app crash rate: Baseline 2.1% → Target 0.5%
• API availability: Baseline 99.5% → Target 99.95%

People Metrics:

• Customer service training completion: Baseline 45% → Target 95%
• Employee satisfaction (customer-facing): Baseline 6.8 → Target 8.5

Causality Logic:
Better tech performance → Faster processes → Happier customers → Higher NPS

C) Performance Dashboards

Executive Dashboard (Monthly Review):

• Strategic KPIs with trend
• Major initiatives status (RAG status)
• Budget vs. actuals
• Risk register

Operational Dashboard (Weekly Review):

• Process performance metrics
• SLA adherence
• Incident trends
• Capacity utilization

Technology Dashboard (Real-Time):

• System health and availability
• Performance metrics (response times)
• Error rates and alerts
• Deployment pipeline status

Developing Your Target Operating Model: The Process

Phase 1: Current State Assessment (Weeks 1-4)

Step 1: Document As-Is State

Organization:

• Current org chart with reporting lines
• Decision-making patterns (formal and informal)
• Pain points (where does work get stuck?)

Process:

• Map top 5-10 value streams
• Identify bottlenecks and waste
• Measure current process performance

Capabilities:

• Inventory existing capabilities
• Assess maturity of each
• Identify gaps

Technology:

• Application portfolio (what systems exist)
• Integration landscape (how systems connect)
• Technology debt and constraints

Performance:

• Current baseline for key metrics
• Data quality and availability

Deliverable: Current State Assessment Report (30-50 pages)

Phase 2: Future State Design (Weeks 5-10)

Step 2: Define Target Operating Model

Organization Design:

• Future org structure (functional vs. product vs. hybrid)
• Decision rights and governance
• Sizing and roles

Process Architecture:

• Redesigned processes (eliminate, automate, improve)
• Process ownership model
• Integration points

Capability Blueprint:

• Target capability maturity
• Build/buy/partner decisions
• Capability roadmap

Technology Architecture:

• Target application architecture
• Integration patterns
• Data architecture

Performance Framework:

• Target metrics and KPIs
• Measurement approach
• Dashboard design

Deliverable: Target Operating Model Blueprint (80-120 pages)

Validation Activities:

• Workshops with leadership (alignment)
• Validation with teams (feasibility)
• Cost estimation (affordability)
• Risk assessment (viability)

Phase 3: Gap Analysis & Roadmap (Weeks 11-14)

Step 3: Identify Transformation Initiatives

Gap Analysis:

Step 4: Create Transformation Roadmap

Wave 1 (Months 1-6): Foundation

• Pilot product team structure (1-2 teams)
• Implement core API platform
• Build analytics capability (data warehouse + BI)
• Define performance framework
• Investment: €2.1M
• Expected Value: €0.8M (quick wins)

Wave 2 (Months 7-12): Scale

• Roll out product operating model to all teams
• Automate top 5 processes
• Implement customer data platform
• Launch performance dashboards
• Investment: €3.2M
• Expected Value: €4.5M (process efficiency + revenue)

Wave 3 (Months 13-18): Optimize

• Advanced analytics and AI/ML
• Full process automation
• Technology debt reduction
• Continuous improvement culture
• Investment: €1.8M
• Expected Value: €6.2M (competitive advantage)

Total Investment: €7.1M
Total Value (3 years): €11.5M
Net Value: €4.4M
ROI: 62%

Phase 4: Implementation & Change Management (Months 1-18)

Step 5: Execute Transformation with TOM as North Star

Governance Model:

• Steering Committee (monthly): Track progress, resolve escalations
• Transformation Office (weekly): Coordinate initiatives, manage dependencies
• Working Teams (daily): Execute specific initiatives

Communication Cadence:

• All-hands (quarterly): Big picture, celebrate wins
• Town halls (monthly): Progress updates, Q&A
• Team updates (weekly): Tactical coordination

Change Management:

• Leadership alignment (CxO workshops)
• Manager enablement (cascade training)
• Employee engagement (change champions network)
• Measurement and feedback (pulse surveys)

Step 6: Monitor and Adapt

Quarterly Reviews:

• TOM vs. reality assessment (are we following the blueprint?)
• Performance metrics review (are we achieving targets?)
• Adjustment decisions (do we need to adapt the TOM?)

Adaptation Principles:

• TOM is a blueprint, not a straitjacket
• Adjust based on learning, not politics
• Maintain coherence (don't fragment)
• Document changes and rationale

Real-World TOM Transformation

Case Study: Regional Hospital System

Context:

• 5 hospitals, 8,000 employees
• Fragmented IT systems (47 applications, minimal integration)
• Patient experience poor (NPS: 28)
• Clinical inefficiencies (doctors spend 40% time on documentation)

Strategic Vision:
"Become a digitally-enabled, patient-centered healthcare system"

The Problem:
Strategy approved, but no execution plan. Each hospital interpreted vision differently, building separate solutions.

TOM Development (4 months):

Organization:

• Created Patient Experience Office (cross-functional team)
• Established Clinical Informatics team (bridge clinical + IT)
• Defined decision rights (hospital autonomy within TOM standards)

Process:

• Redesigned patient journey (appointment → care → follow-up)
• Standardized clinical workflows across 5 hospitals
• Automated administrative tasks (eligibility, scheduling, billing)

Capabilities:

• Invested in: Patient portal, EHR optimization, data analytics
• Partnered for: Telemedicine platform, patient engagement tools
• Standardized: Master patient index, clinical data model

Technology:

• Consolidated to single EHR platform (from 3 legacy systems)
• Implemented integration hub (API gateway + event streaming)
• Built clinical data warehouse for analytics

Performance:

• Patient Experience: NPS target 50 (from 28)
• Clinical Efficiency: Reduce documentation time 25%
• Financial: €12M annual cost savings (consolidation + efficiency)

Transformation Roadmap (18 months):

Wave 1 (Months 1-6): Foundation

• EHR consolidation (3 → 1)
• Basic patient portal launch
• Integration platform implementation
• Investment: €8.2M

Wave 2 (Months 7-12): Enhancement

• Advanced patient portal features
• Clinical workflow optimization
• Analytics and reporting
• Investment: €4.8M

Wave 3 (Months 13-18): Innovation

• Telemedicine integration
• Predictive analytics
• AI-assisted documentation
• Investment: €3.1M

Results After 18 Months:

• Patient NPS: 28 → 52 (goal: 50) ✅
• Clinical documentation time: -32% (goal: -25%) ✅
• Annual cost savings: €14.2M (goal: €12M) ✅
• Employee satisfaction: +28 points
• Readmission rate: -18% (unexpected benefit)

Total Investment: €16.1M
3-Year Value: €42.6M (cost savings + revenue from better patient satisfaction)
Net Value: €26.5M
ROI: 165%

Key Success Factors:

1. TOM created before major technology investments
2. Clinical leadership involved in TOM design
3. Phased approach (didn't try to do everything at once)
4. Clear performance metrics with accountability
5. Strong change management (training, communication, support)

What Would Have Happened Without TOM:
Based on their initial trajectory:

• 5 separate patient portals (€6M wasted on duplication)
• Incompatible clinical workflows (ongoing inefficiency)
• Poor system integration (data silos)
• Fragmented patient experience (NPS wouldn't improve)
• Estimated waste: €12-15M over 3 years

TOM Value: Prevented €12M+ waste + delivered €26.5M value = €38M+ total impact

Action Plan: Creating Your Target Operating Model

Quick Wins (This Week):

Step 1: Assess TOM Maturity (2 hours)

• Do we have documented future-state organization design?
• Are processes mapped and redesigned for target state?
• Is capability model defined with maturity targets?
• Is target technology architecture documented?
• Are performance metrics aligned to strategy?
• Score: 0-2 yes answers = Low maturity, 3-4 = Medium, 5 = High

Step 2: Identify Strategy-Execution Gaps (1 hour)

• List current strategic initiatives
• For each: Is it clear HOW to execute? (org, process, tech)
• Identify where teams are confused or conflicting
• Quantify cost of misalignment (duplicated work, delays)

Step 3: Stakeholder Alignment (2 hours)

• Present gaps to leadership
• Get agreement: Need for TOM before more execution
• Secure resources (team, budget, time)
• Set timeline for TOM development

Near-Term (Next 30-60 Days):

Step 4: Assemble TOM Development Team (Week 1)

• Core team: Enterprise Architect, Process Lead, Org Design Lead
• Extended team: Representatives from key business units + IT
• Executive sponsor (CxO level)
• Project plan and governance

Step 5: Current State Assessment (Weeks 2-5)

• Document as-is organization, processes, capabilities, technology
• Conduct interviews with key stakeholders (30-50 people)
• Map pain points and inefficiencies
• Measure baseline performance
• Deliverable: Current State Assessment Report

Step 6: Future State Design (Weeks 6-11)

• Facilitate workshops with leadership (define target state)
• Design future organization, processes, capabilities, technology
• Define performance framework
• Validate with stakeholders (feasibility, alignment)
• Deliverable: Target Operating Model Blueprint

Strategic (3-6 Months):

Step 7: Gap Analysis & Roadmap (Weeks 12-15)

• Compare current state vs. target state (dimension by dimension)
• Identify transformation initiatives required
• Prioritize based on value and feasibility
• Create phased roadmap (waves with investment and value)
• Deliverable: Transformation Roadmap

Step 8: Socialize and Refine (Weeks 16-18)

• Present TOM to all stakeholders
• Gather feedback and adjust
• Get formal approval from leadership
• Communicate TOM to entire organization
• Deliverable: Approved TOM + Communication Plan

Step 9: Execute with TOM as Guide (Months 5-18)

• Use TOM to align all transformation initiatives
• Establish governance to ensure TOM adherence
• Measure progress against TOM metrics
• Adapt TOM based on learning (quarterly reviews)
• Outcome: Successful transformation with aligned execution

The Foundation for Transformation Success

The Target Operating Model isn't optional—it's the difference between aligned execution and expensive chaos. Organizations with clear TOMs deliver transformations:

• 60% faster (no rework from misalignment)
• 40% cheaper (no duplication or conflicting initiatives)
• 3x more likely to succeed (everyone working toward same blueprint)

Most importantly, a TOM gives your teams clarity. Instead of guessing what the strategy means, they know exactly how to organize, what processes to follow, what capabilities to build, and what technology to use.

If you're embarking on a digital transformation or struggling with strategy-execution disconnect, you're not alone. The TOM framework provides the structure to bridge that gap.

I help organizations develop Target Operating Models that translate strategy into executable blueprints. The typical engagement involves:

• TOM Discovery Workshop (2 days): Assess current state, define target state vision, and identify key design decisions with your leadership team
• TOM Development (8-12 weeks): Facilitate design across 5 dimensions, validate with stakeholders, and create transformation roadmap
• Implementation Support (ongoing): Quarterly reviews to ensure TOM adherence, measure progress, and adapt based on learning

→ Book a 30-minute TOM consultation to discuss your transformation strategy and whether a Target Operating Model can provide the clarity you need.

Download the TOM Framework Template (PowerPoint + Excel) to start documenting your operating model: [Contact for the framework]

Further Reading:

• "Operating Model Canvas" by Andrew Campbell and Mikel Gutierrez
• "Designed for Digital" by Jeanne Ross, Cynthia Beath, Martin Mocker
• "Enterprise Architecture As Strategy" by Jeanne Ross, Peter Weill, David Robertson