info@meradia.com
.svg.png){kind=small}
For those who know me outside of work, you know I’m a runner and always training for the next race. In distance running, elite athletes don’t start with race day strategy. They start with an honest assessment of current capability. Pace, endurance, recovery, and risk are measured before the plan is set. Organizations rarely apply that same discipline to Target Operating Model (TOM) transformations. Instead, they rush towards future-state designs without first establishing a clear, shared understanding of how the business operates today. The result is a model optimized for ambition, not execution.
As with endurance performance, transformation succeeds only when the baseline is understood before the destination is defined.
Organizations love designing the future. Future‑state workflows, org charts, new platforms, and bold operating concepts create momentum and excitement. But in many Target Operating Model initiatives, one critical step gets rushed or treated as a box to check: understanding the current state.
Too often, TOM efforts jump straight to impact assessment or future-state design before building a shared, fact-based view of how the organization operates today. In doing so, the model may look right on paper, but struggle once execution begins. The truth is simple: a Target Operating Model is only as strong as the current‑state foundation it’s built on.
Current state should not be treated as documentation alone; it is a diagnostic tool. Too often, organizations document processes and systems simply to move into design, then abandon that analysis once future-state conversations begin. A well-defined current state is a diagnostic of operational maturity, risk, and readiness for change. It reveals how decisions are truly made, where handoffs break down, how controls function in practice, and where informal workarounds exist to compensate for structural gaps. Without that analysis, future-state designs become aspirational rather than executable.
Most Operating Model failures aren’t design failures. They are impact analysis failures. Governance decisions surface late. Organizational impacts emerge mid-transition. Work assumed to be “out‑of‑scope” reappears during implementation. The root cause is almost always the same: the current state was never fully understood, so impact was never truly assessed. New technology and automation simply accelerate whatever operating model exists. If roles, processes, and ownership are unclear, standardization creates friction and automation exposes inconsistency. Sustainable operating models start with clarity, not speed.
Why Meradia?
Like race day, the hardest part of a transformation is not setting the goal, it’s executing mile after mile. In running, success depends on pacing, navigating the course, fueling correctly, and adjusting before fatigue sets in. You must understand your baseline, train with discipline, and execute a plan that holds up over the distance.
Meradia approaches Target Operating Model transformation the same way. Beyond establishing a fact-based baseline, we focus on the steps that determine whether transformation can hold under execution. These include impact analysis, global leading practice benchmarking, sequencing, governance, and change capacity. These are often the factors that determine whether a model performs under pressure as the business evolves.
By grounding TOM design in how work truly gets done today, Meradia helps leaders anticipate impacts early, make informed governance decisions, and transition with confidence. Like a well‑run race, success isn’t defined by how fast you start, but by whether your operating model can endure the full distance with strength and confidence. When the baseline is clear and the plan is built for execution, organizations don’t just reach the finish line – they finish strong.
Download Thought Leadership Article Program and Project Management, Strategy and Roadmap All Meradia Asset Managers, Asset Owner, Pension Patrick Durant