Target Operating Model

flowchart TB
  subgraph l1["Capabilities delivered"]
    direction LR
    c1["Product<br/>engineering"] --- c2["Data &<br/>analytics"] --- c3["Platform &<br/>infrastructure"] --- c4["Security &<br/>risk"]
  end
  subgraph l2["Organisation"]
    direction LR
    o1["Stream-aligned teams<br/><i>×9 · own build and run</i>"] --- o2["Platform team<br/><i>×1 · paved road</i>"] --- o3["Enabling team<br/><i>×1 · coaching</i>"] --- o4["Architecture chapter<br/><i>federated</i>"]
  end
  subgraph l3["Ways of working"]
    direction LR
    p1["Product-funded<br/><i>not project</i>"] --- p2["You build it<br/>you run it"] --- p3["Continuous<br/>delivery"] --- p4["Design authority<br/><i>advisory + gates</i>"]
  end
  subgraph l4["Governance"]
    direction LR
    g1["ARB<br/><i>off-radar only</i>"] --- g2["Tech radar<br/><i>quarterly</i>"] --- g3["Automated<br/>compliance"] --- g4["Exception<br/>register"]
  end
  subgraph l5["People"]
    direction LR
    s1["Skills gaps<br/><i>SRE ×6 · data eng ×4</i>"] --- s2["Sourcing<br/><i>hire 6 · reskill 4</i>"] --- s3["Career paths<br/><i>IC track added</i>"]
  end
  l1 --> l2 --> l3 --> l4 --> l5

What it is

The organisation, not the system. It answers who does what, how they are funded, how decisions are made and what skills are missing — because a target architecture that no existing team is shaped to run does not arrive.

The People band is the one most often left off and most often decisive. A design requiring six SREs when the organisation has none and no way to hire them is not a design, it is a wish.

When you produce it

Alongside the target architecture, never after it. Also at merger integration, where two operating models must become one and the systems question is downstream of that.

Who reads it

Executives, who fund and approve the reshaping. HR and resourcing, who act on the People band. Team leads, who see their team's future shape.

What good looks like

• Team topologies are named with counts and what each owns.
• The funding model is stated. Project funding and continuous delivery are in direct tension, and a TOM that ignores it will not survive contact.
• Run responsibility is explicit: "you build it, you run it" changes hiring, rotas and pay.
• Skills gaps are quantified with a sourcing plan and a date.
• Governance says what is not reviewed, which is what makes the review capacity credible.

Common mistakes

• Systems only. Then no team changes and the architecture is delivered into the old structure, which reverts it.
• No funding model change, so continuous delivery is attempted with annual project budgets.
• Skills gaps noted but unquantified, so the plan has no lead time.
• Copying another company's model without their constraints.