Building the Foundations for a Product Operating Model
There is a quiet assumption that sits underneath almost every product operating model (POM).
If we design the right structure, define the right processes, and put the right people in place, then the organisation will start to produce better outcomes.
It sounds reasonable. It feels logical. It is also why so many product transformations stall.
Because what we are trying to build is not just a system of work. We are trying to build a system that can hold a different way of working. And most organisations never change the conditions required to make that possible.
So they redesign the surface and leave the underlying reality untouched.
This is where things begin to drift.
The Problem No One Starts With
Most organisations do not fail at building product operating models.
They create structures. They define roles. They introduce new rituals. They implement tooling. They establish governance. From the outside, it looks like progress.
And yet something does not shift.
Decisions still take too long. Teams still escalate. Customer value still moves more slowly than expected. The organisation feels busy but not effective. Over time, energy drops and the narrative quietly changes from transformation to optimisation.
No one calls it failure. But everyone feels the gap between what was promised and what is actually happening.
The instinct at this point is to adjust the model. Change the structure again. Refine the processes. Bring in different capability.
But the issue is not in those layers.
It sits beneath them.
The Field the Organisation Is Operating In
Every organisation operates inside a field. Not in an abstract or theoretical sense, but in a very real, lived way. The field is created by two things:
The level or state of consciousness of the organisation, specifically the leadership, is what is being felt. The pressures people feel, the behaviours that are rewarded, the risks that are avoided, the truths that can or cannot be spoken.
And the narrative of the organisation, which is what is said to be happening. The strategy, the values, the story the organisation tells about itself.
These two are always present. They are always interacting.
The field is what people experience when those two meet.
When the state and the narrative are aligned, the field becomes coherent. What is said matches what is felt. People trust what they hear because it reflects their reality. Decisions become clearer. Work flows with less resistance. The organisation can see itself and respond.
When they are not aligned, the field becomes incoherent. The narrative says one thing and the state tells another story entirely. People stop relying on what is said and start navigating based on what they feel. Work becomes political, not because people want it to be, but because it is the only way to operate inside a system that cannot tell the truth about itself.
Most organisations are operating inside this second condition.
Why Product Models Struggle to Land
A product operating model assumes certain things are possible.
It assumes that teams can take ownership. It assumes that decisions can be made close to the work. It assumes that learning loops will function and that customer value will guide prioritisation.
These are not structural assumptions. They are conditions. And those conditions only exist when the field can support them. In an incoherent field, those assumptions break down immediately.
Teams are told they are empowered, but decisions are still escalated because the risk of getting it wrong is too high. Metrics are introduced, but they do not change behaviour because the real drivers of decision-making sit elsewhere. Customer insight is gathered, but it is filtered through existing narratives before it can influence anything meaningful.
The model itself is not the problem. It is being placed into an environment that cannot sustain it.
So the organisation compensates. It adds more governance. It increases oversight. It tightens control. The model becomes heavier as it tries to force outcomes that the field does not allow.
Over time, the gap widens.
The Foundation That Is Usually Missed
If we accept that the field determines what is possible, then the starting point for any meaningful change shifts. It is no longer structure. It is not process. It is not capability.
It is field coherence.
Before building a product operating model, the organisation must be able to operate in a field where what is said and what is true are not in conflict.
This is where most efforts fail before they begin.
Not because leaders are deliberately misrepresenting reality, but because the narrative has drifted away from the state. It becomes aspirational. It becomes protective. It becomes something that sounds right rather than something that is true.
The result is a system that cannot see itself clearly.
And a system that cannot see itself cannot change in any meaningful way.
Where the Work Actually Starts
The first move is not to design anything new. It is to make the field coherent.
This means bringing the narrative back into alignment with the state. Not by lowering ambition, but by removing distortion. By saying what is actually happening without performance language or protection. It is a simple shift, but not an easy one.
Because it requires leaders to step out of the role of maintaining the story and into the role of revealing the reality. When that happens, something important changes.
People begin to trust what they hear again. Conversations become more direct. Decisions become grounded in what is real rather than what is acceptable. The organisation starts to see itself more clearly.
Only at that point can the state be understood properly.
And only when the state is understood can it begin to shift.
What This Makes Possible
Once the field becomes coherent, the rest of the system behaves differently.
Structure becomes meaningful because it reflects reality rather than trying to override it. Behaviour starts to align because the underlying conditions support it. Capability becomes useful because people can apply it without navigating hidden constraints.
The product operating model no longer needs to fight the organisation.
It becomes an expression of it. This is the point where real change starts to hold.
Not because the model is perfect, but because the organisation has become capable of running it.
Building From the Right Place
There is nothing wrong with product operating models. In many ways, they represent the direction most organisations need to move towards. I fully support this.
But they are not a starting point.
They are something that emerges when the foundations are in place.
If the field is incoherent, everything built on top of it will eventually drift, no matter how well designed it is.
If the field is coherent, even imperfect structures can produce meaningful progress.
So the question is not how to design a better model. It is whether the organisation is capable of holding one.
And that capability does not begin with structure.
It begins with the ability to tell the truth about what is actually happening.
Comments