Operating model design is not new. The large consulting firms have been delivering operating model engagements for decades, and much of that work has been valuable. The question is not whether conventional approaches are wrong, but whether they are complete, and whether a different starting point produces a better outcome.
The conventional approach
Most conventional operating model work follows a recognisable pattern. It begins with the organisation as it exists today: the structure, the processes, the technology, the people. The consulting team documents the current state, identifies gaps and inefficiencies, and designs a target state. The target state is typically expressed as a combination of organisation chart, process map, and technology architecture, sometimes with a governance overlay.
This approach has strengths. It is thorough, it is structured, and it produces detailed outputs that can be implemented. It is also resource-intensive, typically requiring large teams working over several months, and it tends to produce outputs that are anchored in the existing operating model rather than genuinely rethought from first principles.
The most significant limitation is where it starts. Beginning with the current state, the ‘as-is’, means that the target state, the ‘to-be’, is often a refinement rather than a redesign. The organisation chart may be restructured, but the underlying logic of how work is organised may not change. Processes may be streamlined, but the question of whether they are the right processes may not be asked. Technology may be upgraded, but whether it enables the capabilities that matter most may not be the primary criterion.
What the VOS does differently
The VOS starts from a different point. Instead of documenting what exists and improving it, it begins with what the organisation needs to be able to do, the capabilities, and designs outward from there. This is a fundamental difference in orientation, not merely a difference in methodology.
Capability-led design asks: given the strategy, what capabilities does this organisation need? How mature are those capabilities today? Where are the gaps? Which gaps matter most? Those questions produce a design that is shaped by strategic intent rather than current reality. The resulting operating model may look very different from what exists, or it may look similar, but the design choices are made for the right reasons rather than inherited.
The second difference is scope. Conventional operating model work often focuses on the ‘people, process, technology’ triangle, which is the delivery layer of the operating model. The VOS encompasses ten domains, including strategy and value, financial architecture, governance and decision rights, customer and market, and performance management. The delivery layer is important, but it is not the whole picture.
The third difference is efficiency. Because the VOS starts with capabilities and priorities, it naturally focuses effort on the areas that drive the most value. Conventional approaches, starting from the current state, tend to be comprehensive by design, which means significant effort is invested in documenting and redesigning areas of the operating model that may not be strategically important.
When each approach is appropriate
This is not an argument that conventional approaches are wrong. There are contexts where a detailed, comprehensive, current-state-to-future-state approach is exactly what is needed: large-scale transformations with long timelines, regulatory-driven redesigns where comprehensiveness is a requirement, or organisations that need detailed documentation for governance or compliance purposes.
The VOS approach is stronger in contexts where speed matters, where strategic alignment is the priority, or where the organisation needs to focus its limited capacity for change on the things that will make the most difference. PE-backed businesses, post-deal integrations, organisations under performance pressure, and situations where a new leadership team needs to understand and reshape the operating model quickly are all contexts where capability-led design tends to outperform the conventional approach.
The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. An initial capability-led assessment using the VOS can identify priorities, which are then addressed in detail using more conventional methods. The VOS provides the strategic architecture; conventional methods provide the implementation detail. Used together, they are more effective than either alone. For organisations evaluating advisory support on operating model work, the key question is not which methodology the advisor uses, but where they start. Starting with capabilities and strategic intent is more likely to produce an operating model that serves the business. Starting with the current state is more likely to produce a refined version of what already exists.