Tag Archives: operating model transformation

What Have We Learned About Digital Transformation?

What Have We Learned About Digital Transformation?

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

We are well into our first decade of digital transformation, with both the successes and the scars to show for it, and we can see there is a long way to go. Realistically, there is probably never a finish line, so I think it is time for us to pause and take stock of what we have learned, and how best we can proceed from here. Here are three lessons to take to heart.

Lesson 1: There are three distinct levels of transformation, and operating model transformation is the one that deserves the most attention.

Geoffrey Moore Three Models

The least disruptive transformation is to the infrastructure model. This should be managed within the Productivity Zone, where to be fair, the disruption will be considerable, but it should not require much in the way of behavior change from the rest of the enterprise. Moving from data centers to cloud computing is a good example, as are enabling mobile applications and remote work centers. The goal here is to make employees more efficient while lowering total cost of IT ownership. These transformations are well underway, and there is little confusion about what next steps to take.

By contrast, the most disruptive transformation is to the business model. Here a company may be monetizing information derived from its operating model, as the SABRE system did for American Airlines, or overlaying a digital service on top of its core offering, as the automotive makers are seeking to do with in-car entertainment. The challenge here is that the economics of the new model have little in common with the core model, which creates repercussions both with internal systems and external ecosystem relationships. Few of these transformations to date can be said to be truly successful, and my view is they are more the exception than the rule.

The place where digital transformation is having its biggest impact is on the operating model. Virtually every sector of the economy is re-engineering its customer-facing processes to take advantage of ubiquitous mobile devices interacting with applications hosted in the cloud. These are making material changes to everyday interactions with customers and partners in the Performance Zone, where the priority is to improve effectiveness first, efficiency second. The challenge is to secure rapid, consistent, widespread adoption of the new systems from every employee who touches them. More than any other factor, this is the one that separates the winners from the losers in the digital transformation game.

Lesson 2: Re-engineer operating models from the outside in, not the inside out.

A major challenge that digital transformation at the operating model level must overcome is the inertial resistance of the existing operating model, especially where it is embedded in human behaviors. Simply put, people don’t like change. (Well, actually, they all want other people to change, just not themselves.) When we take the approach of internal improvement, things go way too slowly and eventually lose momentum altogether.

The winning approach is to focus on an external forcing function. For competition cultures, the battle cry should be, this new operating model poses an existential threat to our future. Our competitors are eating our lunch. We need to change, and we need to do it now! For collaboration cultures, the call to action should be, we are letting our customers down because we are too hard to do business with. They love our offers, but if we don’t modernize our operating model, they are going to take their business elsewhere. Besides, with this new digital model, we can make our offers even more effective. Let’s get going!

This is where design thinking comes in. Forget the sticky notes and lose the digital whiteboards. This is not about process. It is about walking a mile in the other person’s shoes, be that an end user, a technical buyer, a project sponsor, or an implementation partner, spending time seeing what hoops they have to go through to implement or use your products or simply to do business with you. No matter how good you were in the pre-digital era, there will be a ton of room for improvement, but it has to be focused on their friction issues, not yours. Work backward from their needs and problems, in other words, not forward from your intentions or desires.

Lesson 3: Digital transformations cannot be pushed. They must be pulled.

This is the hardest lesson to learn. Most executive teams have assumed that if they got the right digital transformation leader, gave them the title of Chief Transformation Officer, funded them properly, and insured that the project was on time, on spec, and on budget, that would do the trick. It makes total sense. It just doesn’t work.

The problem is one endemic to all business process re-engineering. The people whose behavior needs to change—and change radically—are the ones least comfortable with the program. When some outsider shows up with a new system, they can find any number of things wrong with it and use these objections to slow down deployment, redirect it into more familiar ways, and in general, diminish its impact. Mandating adoption can lead to reluctant engagement or even malicious compliance, and the larger the population of people involved, the more likely this is to occur.

So what does work? Transformations that are driven by the organization that has to transform. These start with the executive in charge who must galvanize the team to take up the challenge, to demand the digital transformation, and to insert it into every phase of its deployment. In other words, the transformation has to be pulled, not pushed.

Now, don’t get me wrong. There is still plenty of work on the push side involved, and that will require a strong leader. But at the end of the day, success will depend more on the leader of the consuming organization than that of the delivery team.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

Image Credit: Pexels, Geoffrey Moore

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

3 Flavors of Product-Service Shift

Which One is Yours?

3 Flavors of Product-Service Shift

GUEST POST from Geoffrey A. Moore

The most profound change in enterprise computing in this century to date has been the shift in value delivery modality from product to service and the corresponding rise is XaaS or Everything-as-a-Service. The current bull market leaders in the tech sector take this for granted, and the prior generation of incumbents are still scrambling to get themselves onto the new model. For consumers this is an all-upside proposition; for enterprises, it is a balancing act of open fluidity versus secure compliance. But everyone seems to know their place in the new order—or do they?

As the product-service shift unfolds, it can manifest itself at three very different levels of value delivery, each of which has its own priorities. When you are looking to help your organization navigate the transition, it would be good to get clear as to which path you are on:

1. Infrastructure Model Transformation

This is the easiest to absorb, the impact for the most part contained on the vendor side within Finance and Legal and on the customer side within the IT organization itself. Basically, all you are doing is changing the contract from a license to a service level agreement, and staging a series of leasing payments out of op ex instead a one-time purchase out of cap ex. For clarity sake, think of this as a move to subscription, not yet to For most people in the organization, it is a non-event.

2. Operating Model Transformation

This move has the most impact on incumbent vendors and their installed base. As Todd Hewlin and J B Wood described in Consumption Economics, the shift is based on a change from the customer to the vendor as the one who must absorb goal attainment risk. In a product model, once the customer has bought and paid for it, the customer owns virtually all the risk. That can readily lead to a lot of drive-by selling, the sort of thing that built out empires of shelfware in the late 1990s. In a service model, by contrast, the vendor can never stop owning the success of the offering, not if they want to protect against their installed base churning out from underneath them. This is the true product-service shift, and even now it is sufficiently novel that both customers and vendors are still sorting out the implications for what staffing and expertise is needed on both sides of this relationship.

3. Business Model Transformation

This is the most impactful for venture-backed start-ups and the incumbent franchises they are looking to disrupt. Typically the former are re-architecting an established but aging value chain by substituting digital services for physical-world interactions. The biggest disruptions we have seen thus far are in retail, print media, financial services, transportation, hospitality, and communications, with lots more to come. They all represent daggers pointed at the heart of established enterprises because even when the latter can find ways to re-engineer their own offers to match the new paradigm, it is still painfully hard to bring the rest of their ecosystems up to speed to deliver the whole product. And to a lesser extent, the same goes for their customer bases. That is why disruption usually starts with targeting customers who have been disenfranchised by the old solution. It is only over time that the Innovator’s Dilemma bill comes to for the established vendors, but when it does, it hits with a wallop.

For most companies, the path you want to double-click on is the Operating Model Transformation, and in the next post, I want to dig in a lot deeper there.

That’s what I think. What do you think?

Image Credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.3

The Five Whys of Organizational Structure

Re-Designing the Operating Model

LAST UPDATED: November 12, 2025 at 12:36PM

The Five Whys of Organizational Structure

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

Leaders often embark on organizational restructuring with good intentions, aiming for agility or efficiency. Yet, most reorganizations fail not because the new chart is wrong, but because they confuse the structure (the boxes and lines on the chart) with the operating model (the mechanism by which value is created and flows through the organization). They end up playing musical chairs with reporting lines, only to find the same dysfunctions resurface within six months because, as the saying goes, structure always eats strategy for breakfast.

To implement true, sustainable change, we must apply a human-centered design approach to the organization itself. We must stop asking “What is the best structure?” and start asking “Why does our current structure fail to deliver customer value?” This requires the rigorous diagnostic tool of the Five Whys of Organizational Structure.

This process moves beyond superficial complaints and identifies the root cause of systemic friction, revealing whether the true problem is structure, process, metrics, or talent.

The Five Whys Diagnostic for Organizational Structure

The Five Whys approach, adapted from quality management, forces a deep dive into organizational friction points. Start with a symptom (e.g., “Product launches are slow”) and keep asking “Why?” until you reach the systemic cause.

Symptom: Product launches are slow.

  • Why 1: Why are product launches slow?Answer: Decisions on feature prioritization require sign-off from three different VP-level silos (Marketing, Engineering, Sales).
  • Why 2: Why do three VPs need to sign off?Answer: Because each VP controls a separate, competing budget and their compensation metrics are siloed (e.g., Sales gets paid on volume, Engineering on uptime, Marketing on lead generation). No one is measured on time-to-market.
  • Why 3: Why are their budgets and metrics siloed?Answer: Because the underlying financial reporting structure treats these functions as distinct cost centers, reinforcing the idea that they are running competing businesses rather than collaborative value streams.
  • Why 4: Why does the financial reporting structure reinforce competing cost centers?Answer: Because the entire Operating Model is designed for cost optimization and risk aversion, reflecting the stable, high-margin market we existed in 20 years ago, not the fast-paced, low-margin, high-innovation market of today.
  • Why 5: Why is the Operating Model still based on outdated assumptions?Answer: Because the executive team has never aligned on the **value streams** necessary to win today, and instead defers to the historical hierarchy to avoid conflict. The root cause is a failure of executive alignment and strategic imagination, not the org chart itself.

The Three Levers of Operating Model Design

Once the Five Whys reveal the systemic cause, the Human-Centered Change leader must pull the right lever. Re-designing the Operating Model means adjusting three interconnected elements—none of which is the org chart alone:

1. Value Stream Mapping (The Flow)

This replaces the traditional functional view with a flow view. Instead of organizing around departments (Marketing, IT, Operations), organization must happen around the customer’s journey and the **Value Stream** that delivers it (e.g., “Customer Acquisition,” “New Product Development,” “Service Resolution”). The structure is built around the work and the customer, not the people.

2. Metrics and Incentives (The Gravity)

As seen in the diagnostic, siloed metrics are the gravity that pulls teams apart. The new structure must be supported by shared, end-to-end metrics that measure the success of the Value Stream, not the individual function. If an IT team is measured on uptime, but the product team is measured on speed-to-market, the teams will always conflict. Aligning incentives is the force that pulls the organization together.

3. Decision Rights (The Speed)

The new model must explicitly define who has the authority to decide. Most friction comes from ambiguity, with decisions perpetually escalating upward. Adopting a decentralized model means pushing decision-making authority—and the associated accountability—down to the teams that have the most direct customer knowledge. This shifts the executive role from approver to architect of the system and monitor of guardrails, significantly boosting organizational speed.

Case Study 1: The Banking Giant and the Value Stream Shift

Challenge: Slow Digital Onboarding

A major international bank suffered from a glacial pace in launching new digital banking features. The Five Whys revealed that the root cause was the structural handoff: moving a new feature from Digital Banking (measured on UX) to IT (measured on stability) to Compliance (measured on risk avoidance). The customer suffered through slow, fragmented releases.

Operating Model Intervention:

The bank moved from a functional structure to a Value Stream Model. They created permanent, cross-functional “Customer Onboarding Pods,” each containing members from Digital Banking, IT, and Compliance. The pods were measured on one metric: time-to-launch for new features and reduction in customer abandonment rate. The executive leadership formally delegated the majority of compliance sign-offs to the senior Compliance member within the pod. This shift from sequential handoffs to parallel collaboration reduced the average time-to-market for simple features from eight weeks to two weeks, proving the power of aligning structure around the customer’s journey.

Case Study 2: The Manufacturing Firm and the Decentralized Decision Rights

Challenge: Centralized Command Crippling Local Innovation

A diversified global manufacturer experienced lagging innovation outside its headquarters. Every request for investment in local market-specific product modifications (e.g., smaller packaging for an emerging market) had to be approved by a centralized, U.S.-based committee. The Five Whys revealed that the central committee’s reluctance stemmed from a 20-year-old policy of standardizing inventory to reduce risk, even if it sacrificed growth opportunities.

Operating Model Intervention:

The firm did not eliminate the central committee, but they radically redefined its Decision Rights. The new model delegated 80% of all investment decisions under $500,000 to regional General Managers (GMs), provided the GMs adhered to three non-negotiable Guardrails (e.g., a minimum return on investment threshold, a maximum safety risk score, and a maximum working capital usage). The central committee’s role shifted from saying “yes” or “no” to designing and monitoring the guardrails. This empowered local GMs, leading to a 30% increase in locally-relevant product launches within the first year by pushing accountability and speed to the edge of the organization.

Conclusion: Structure is a Change Enabler

The Five Whys teaches us that the org chart is usually just a symptom of a deeper, systemic failure within the operating model. True organizational change starts with strategic integrity—a clear, executive-aligned decision on how value will be created, measured, and protected.

The process of re-designing the operating model is not a simple HR exercise; it is the ultimate act of Human-Centered Change. It forces us to remove the structural friction that frustrates employees and delays customer value, ultimately turning resistance into momentum.

“If your structure is slowing down your strategy, your structure is the wrong strategy. Reorganizing without redesigning your metrics and decision rights is an act of self-deception.”

Your first step to diagnosing your organization: Gather five key employees from different functional silos and collectively apply the Five Whys to the most painful, friction-filled process in your business.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Unsplash

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.